NASA to land humans on the moon by 2024

[UM-Bot]

Vice President Mike Pence has announced that US astronauts will walk on the lunar surface within 5 years.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/326528/nasa-to-land-humans-on-the-moon-by-2024

[Jon the frog]

We will see if they can do it with NASA rocket...

[AllPossible]

Why would it take long to go there? Over 50 years ago we did it. Now we have more technology and we still don't have humans living there yet? We have rovers on a planet millions of miles away, makes no sense to me

[Buzz_Light_Year]

Moon dust is hazardous to humans for one reason.

https://www.livescience.com/62590-moon-dust-bad-lungs-brain.html

[+OverSword]

27 minutes ago, AllPossible said:

Why would it take long to go there? Over 50 years ago we did it. Now we have more technology and we still don't have humans living there yet? We have rovers on a planet millions of miles away, makes no sense to me

 We have rovers on mars and not men on the moon because keeping people alive on the moon for extended periods would be difficult and expensive and Mars is much more interesting than the moon. 

Edited March 27, 2019 by OverSword

[AllPossible]

7 minutes ago, OverSword said:

 We have rovers on mars and not men on the moon because keeping people alive on the moon for extended periods would be difficult and expensive and Mars is much more interesting than the moon. 

I guess so but how can we talk about venturing out and inhabiting, colonizing other planets if we can't even do it on the closest celestial object to earth?

[+OverSword]

53 minutes ago, AllPossible said:

I guess so but how can we talk about venturing out and inhabiting, colonizing other planets if we can't even do it on the closest celestial object to earth?

Because regardless of the hype we are really far from doing that imo.  The thing that keeps us alive here on earth is the planets magnetic field created by the spinning of our molten core.  Mars does not have a magnetic field so if you were on the surface of mars and there was a large solar flare you would probably be killed by the radiation.  The only way people could survive on mars is by living underground.  another problem with moving to mars (or the moon) is the lesser gravity.  Humans have evolved to survive and be healthy at a specific level of gravity.  Much more or less than the optimal is terrible for your internal organs, your musculature, your bones.  Move there and live a short and unhealthy life.  Even moving there for a few years and then coming back will probably shave years off.  Who would really want to do it?  Not me. 

[AllPossible]

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Because regardless of the hype we are really far from doing that imo.  The thing that keeps us alive here on earth is the planets magnetic field created by the spinning of our molten core.  Mars does not have a magnetic field so if you were on the surface of mars and there was a large solar flare you would probably be killed by the radiation.  The only way people could survive on mars is by living underground.  another problem with moving to mars (or the moon) is the lesser gravity.  Humans have evolved to survive and be healthy at a specific level of gravity.  Much more or less than the optimal is terrible for your internal organs, your musculature, your bones.  Move there and live a short and unhealthy life.  Even moving there for a few years and then coming back will probably shave years off.  Who would really want to do it?  Not me. 

I agree I'm sure it would be uncomfortable. Life would be dull. I'm just saying for like earth ending disasters. I'm sure plenty of billionaires would rather be alive on a boring planet/moon then be dead on uninhabitable world, hopefully that doesn't happen anytime soon lol also a question for you because you seem knowledgeable, I understand why your bones would get weaker but why your organs??

Edited March 27, 2019 by AllPossible

[+OverSword]

@AllPossible True, but you got to die some time, right?

[Derek Willis]

I didn't hear the speech. Did Mike Pence say Americans would "go to the Moon" or "land on the Moon"? Sending a craft into lunar orbit might be achievable in the time frame, but I doubt landing people on the Moon would be.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

On 3/28/2019 at 1:46 PM, Derek Willis said:

I didn't hear the speech. Did Mike Pence say Americans would "go to the Moon" or "land on the Moon"?

Here is Pence's full statement.

He initially says this:

Quote

Just as the United States was the first nation to reach the Moon in the 20th Century, so too will be — we’d be the first nation to return astronauts to the Moon in the 21st century.

And I’m here, on the President’s behalf, to tell the men and women of the Marshall Space Flight Center and the American people that, at the direction of the President of the United States, it is the stated policy of this administration and the United States of America to return American astronauts to the Moon within the next five years.

 

Later he is more specific, stating that the plan is to land astronauts on the Moon within five years:

Quote

Now, the conventional wisdom says that we’ll need more time to do what President Trump has challenged us to do: landing American astronauts on the Moon within the next five years.  Some will say it’s too hard, it’s too risky, it’s too expensive.  But the same was said back in 1962 when President Kennedy boldly declared that we, in his words, “choose to go to the Moon in this decade.

 

[+DanL]

On 3/27/2019 at 10:34 AM, AllPossible said:

Why would it take long to go there? Over 50 years ago we did it. Now we have more technology and we still don't have humans living there yet? We have rovers on a planet millions of miles away, makes no sense to me

We have to hitch a ride with the Russians to even get to the Space Station. We don't really have ANY manned space flight at this time. Designing and building a new system from scratch isn't something that you can do in a hurry. the last thing we want would be a failure and the old Saturn 5 rockets are not really the way to go. We need a new system that will make the return to the moon something more than just a publicity stunt.

Edited March 31, 2019 by DanL

[Waspie_Dwarf]

5 hours ago, DanL said:

We have to hitch a ride with the Russians to even get to the Space Station. We don't really have ANY manned space flight at this time. Designing and building a new system from scratch isn't something that you can do in a hurry. the last thing we want would be a failure and the old Saturn 5 rockets are not really the way to go. We need a new system that will make the return to the moon something more than just a publicity stunt.

You are a bit behind the times. NASA has already designed and is building a rocket called the Space Launch System (SLS). It is derived from shuttle technology and more powerful than the Saturn V. The spacecraft that will carry astronauts to the Moon and beyond has also been designed. It's called the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) and it made an unmanned test flight, called Exploration Flight Test-1 (EFT-1) as far back as 2014.

The SLS/Orion programme is behind schedule but the first, unmanned, test of the combined launcher/spacecraft system, known as Exploration Mission-1 is due to occur in mid-2020.

So NASA does not need to design from scratch. Apart from a lunar lander everything needed for a return to the Moon is already designed and being built.

As for access to the ISS, less than a month ago SpaceX carried out a successful first, unmanned, test of the Crew Dragon spacecraft. Demonstration Mission-1(DM-1) launched on 2nd March and docked with thè ISS the next day. It returned to Earth, and made a successful splash down on 8th March.

DM-2, which will carry 2 astronauts to the ISS is scheduled for 25th July. If that mission is a success then the Crew Dragon will be an operational spacecraft and astronauts will once again be launched from U.S. soil.

Further more the Boeing CST-100 Starliner spacecraft is due to make it's first unmanned flight to the ISS in November.

When Orion, Crew Dragon and Starliner are all operational the U.S. will become the first nation to have multiple crewed orbital  spacecraft in service at the same time.

[+joc]

4 hours ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

So NASA does not need to design from scratch. Apart from a lunar lander everything needed for a return to the Moon is already designed and being built.

Then there is the Israeli Beresheet...a Lunar Lander created by Israel that is scheduled to touch down on the moon April 11.   And other US based companies including Moon Express and Astrobotics...we are well on our way to the moon!

And with good reason...there is an international space race of sorts going on behind the scenes.  Russia wants to be on the moon by '31.  And, there is a deeper reason why there is all the chatter about getting to the moon...Helium 3.  Mining Helium 3 on the moon is a huge motivator for everyone.  So, we have the technology...lunar landers are being built and tested already by private companies, we have competition from other countries, and we have a motivating factor.  

We have already been to the moon...this time we are going for good, for permanence.  Mining Helium 3 is a big deal, establishing a moon base is a big deal.  Hence, why Space Force is a big deal.

[ChrLzs]

Should be pretty easy to do that in the time period - after all, Pence said they only have to land them there....

Unlike that crazy scheme from JFK, where not only did they promise to put them on the Moon, he also promised to bring them back........

[tmcom]

On 3/28/2019 at 2:34 AM, AllPossible said:

Why would it take long to go there? Over 50 years ago we did it. Now we have more technology and we still don't have humans living there yet? We have rovers on a planet millions of miles away, makes no sense to me

Because we are talking about the tens of billions rather than a billion to send a rover to mars. Not to mention the 100k to order a pizza.

On 3/28/2019 at 4:14 AM, OverSword said:

Because regardless of the hype we are really far from doing that imo.  The thing that keeps us alive here on earth is the planets magnetic field created by the spinning of our molten core.  Mars does not have a magnetic field so if you were on the surface of mars and there was a large solar flare you would probably be killed by the radiation.  The only way people could survive on mars is by living underground.  another problem with moving to mars (or the moon) is the lesser gravity.  Humans have evolved to survive and be healthy at a specific level of gravity.  Much more or less than the optimal is terrible for your internal organs, your musculature, your bones.  Move there and live a short and unhealthy life.  Even moving there for a few years and then coming back will probably shave years off.  Who would really want to do it?  Not me. 

Mars does have a magnetic field but it is erratic or not uniform like Earth...

https://www.zmescience.com/space/mars-magnetic-tail-0423/

Eventhough this is from NASA it does show that some areas could or are well protected, so stand in the right area and certain death wouldn't ensure if a flare,...ummm, flared.