NASA unveils vision for return to Moon

[phatty]

Four astronauts will fly to the Moon in a new spacecraft in 2018, then land and walk on the surface, according a new plan revealed by NASA on Monday. The plan is very similar to the Apollo lunar programme of the 1960s and 1970s, but will incorporate elements of the shuttle programme . . .

Read more here ...

http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=dn8022

Credit: New Scientist Online

[iceman]

I heard that on the radio this morning, too! 13 years away.. a while to wait but they will still be doing low-cost robotic programmes in the meantime.

My kids will be 14-20 years old when man lands on the moon again - a good age to really appreciate it.

[cahullian]

At a cost os 130 Billion it will be an expensive weeks holiday. But if we want to survive as a species we need to get off this planet sooner or later. It sounds like money well spent to me.

[slice of heaven]

:doh: They've put it back again. Last month it was brought forward to 2015 for the walk on the moon and 2011 for the CEV launch.
Whether they like the term or not, it's still the Apollo mission reloaded.

[venus]

I think NASA should use the space shuttles as space stations around some of the planets or moons, makes sense and would save a lot of money......

[ballaratdragons]

I hope they start making the Adobe huts on the moon when they go there next trip.

There is a great Documentary they keep showing on Discovery Channel about Adobe Lunar huts and houses. It is a continuous plastic tube like sausage casing and they fill it with moon dust and coil it into buildings. Weighs practically nothing and they can transport miles of this stuff with little weight gain to missions.

The architect and NASA guys built a heap of different buildings in the desert to test the simplicity of construction and found it astoundingly easy! A few hours work built a hut the size of a single car garage.

[rumples riot]

Not really all that impressed to be honest, using rocket technology from 20 years ago and the whole system looks like apollo. Not much inventiveness in this idea. Did NASA take an IQ downer. Quite frankly I would have thought that some new ideas would have surfaced, like building a ship in space with artificial gravity and nuclear engines. The technology exists now and some of the newest notions would could be tried out. The apollo program vehicles nearly ended the lives of 3 astronauts on Apollo 13 and were not that safety orientated. The launch vehicle could be something like what is proposed although I think that the a controlled descent vehicle would be better.

Anyway I guess I should shut and say, wow that is great; glad to see it happen. Still......

[janoskiss]

:welcome: Phatty

Re Moon landings reenactment: Waste of money as far as I'm concerned. Like Paul already said, there are new technologies that are waiting to be developed. These would have much longer term applications but will miss out.

[slice of heaven]

Easy to say if you dont have a budget, harder to do on a strict budget.
NASA have stated ages ago the commercial enterprises will have to take care of advancing the technology for spaceflight. When it's available at a reasonable cost ,they'll use it. The lunar base is their first phase before progressing with manned missions to Mars and beyond. I'm all for it,I just wish they'd hurry up.

I saw the 'presentation' on a news clip around lunchtime today. Seemed like a promo stunt to justify the cost and try and gain public support. :shrug: Have they been threatened with budget cuts again ?

:welcome: Phatty
Sorry, I didn't notice it was your first post :ashamed:

[phatty]

Thanks for the welcome guys :D

Yeah - Since I'm only 24, I obviously wasn't around for the initial lunar program, so it will be a blast (excuse the pun) to actually see the next effort - not withstanding the fact that I'll be nearly 40.

I guess after all the problems of the shuttle program over the last 20 odd years, they want to rely on the proven Apollo technology, plus a bit of hindsight wouldn't hurt. The idea of having the lunar module on top of the solid rocket boosters makes sense safety wise in the facts that:

1) There is no chance of insulating foam falling onto the capsule (since it's at the top of the stack.

2) They astronauts have a fighting chance of a rocket ejection if something goes pear shaped with the boosters.

Either way, it will be exciting to watch - I can just imagine another crop of hoax theorists sharpening their knives and HTML code already ...

[janoskiss]

They could save a lot of time and money by outsourcing the whole program to the Russians.
:anaut:

[venus]

History repeating...........

[cometcatcher]

I hope it doesn't rely on support from the public, because if it does it will get axed half way through like last time. Could be wrong here but I really don't think the general public has the attention span to see it through. They couldn't even see a sci-fi show like Star Trek Enterprise through to the expected series end by axeing it.

Another silly thought I was thinking is what will the price of petrol be by the time they get to the Moon again in 2018? I probably won't be able to afford to put any petrol in the car by then, yet people are travelling to the moon? :shrug:

I now think men on Mars will never happen. By then the Earth will have run out of oil, and at the present rate of backward thinking agains't alternative sources of power it won't happen for hundreds of years, maybe never.

I think I just depressed myself. Someone tell me I'm all wrong. :ashamed:

[mickoking]

NASA probably wont be the first back to the Moon (In my humble opinion). America has too many problems, Is too conservitive to do anything more innovative than an Apollo re-hash, and the American tax payers are probably not that inspired to support such an expensive venture.


The next person on the moon may or may not be American but it will probably be a collabirative effort. I think it highly possible that the next to the moon will be a Russian/Chinese/Indian joint effort and in about 10-15 years.:D

[GrampianStars]

http://www.newscientistspace.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn8022/dn8022-3_650.jpg
At least NASA got the blast crater in the pictures now
not like the previous HOAX :rofl:

[acropolite]

IMHO the world has more pressing needs than landing a man on the moon. The planet is being destroyed at an ever increasing rate and nothing is being done, I say spend the money in our own backyard. That said, I remember vividly the day man set foot on the moon, I was at college and we watched the whole thing live on B&W TV and I would love to see history repeated.

[mickoking]

My view exactly.:thumbsup:

[josh]

Sounds like a good plan. Going to the moon and all that. I dont give much time to wild theories . But it does seem a tad strange that 30 years on we still need 12 or so years to get ourselves organised to do it again,very suspect. I had no idea we had lost so much of our capabilities. Those flying beings of the 1960,s and 70,s must have had all sorts of tech thats been lost. Sad.Very sad that space travel is going backwards.
I dont see any hope for humans speeding through space ever if this is the case.
Bummer!

[mickoking]

If we mange to make it back to the moon soon who ever achieves it. If all they do is collect soil samples and play golf many of us are going to be mighty bored. Industry in space, that is where the future is, it is the only way we are going to get the innovation for manned spaceflight.

[maxm]

Sorry, Phil, it isn't meant as an attack but IMHO I think it's a pretty sad reflection on the current state of affairs when us science types start to say these things. There's ALWAYS some more pressing need which demands our attention, so why do any research?

Because research (and fundamental scientific research in particular) is a lottery where we don't know what the returns will be until well after the research is done. Remember that the original Apollo program helped kick start some technologies that have underpinned current technology. The benefits have flowed through to so many things that they'd probably be impossible to quantify.

Who knows what the payoff would be down the track if we engage in it all again? Maybe a solution to the so-called planetary destruction? You never know you're luck in the big city!

But I'll leave my wilder opinions to another time... :D
(here endeth the rant)