NASA plans another trip to the Moon

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4261522.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4262168.stm

Aye, tis true and my dad is a real science freak and he is rather excited. I myself am not that fussed, I guess he was there when it first happened back in 1969 and then was fascinated. So what are your thoughts on this, could this be the next biggest step for mankind? Will the Moon become colonised before we turn to old to care? Maybe so, the possibilities are endless but its far too early yet. With the crisis of Katina as mentioned by a questioner to the NASA Adminstrator Michael Griffin said four astronauts its going to be quite tough to budjet. But they arent even beginning to think of construction yet, not by a long shot. So what are your thoughts on NASA's 2nd mission to the Moon?

This will be great.

Also, because the Moon's gravity is 7x less than that of Earth they are thinking of constructing a launch bad on the Moon to get to Mars more efficiently.

"A trip to the moon" is probably not the best term for it. The plan is to go to the moon, and not really stop going beyond LEO, which is all we've done since the Space Shuttle program began.

I, for one, think it is an excellent thing to do. (The fact that I'm majoring in aerospace engineering is beside the point entirely.) Mankind needs progress. What better way to stimulate progress than going into space, further than what has been done before? Not only does it allow for many possible scientific & engineering advances, but these advances can, and will, lead to more advances bringing down the price of going into space, thereby making commercial ventures into space far more plausable, and once companies start going into space without basically having their program run by government organizations, then the progress really starts, and human kind is in space, for all time.

well i didn't read the article, but unless they plan on building SOMETHING on the moon, i don't see the point. We already were there, so they had better build something. A launch bad be nice, a colony, not likely.

^I for one; think they should build a McDonalds on the moon. Ahh, I can see it now. The McMoon Burger!

The point of going to the Moon is to get the Extra-terrestrial exploration campaign kicked off. First the Moon, than Mars.

I actually dislike the idea. We've been to the Moon, we've studied it, there is very little reason to launch another manned mission there. To even attempted sending another manned flight back will take many, many years, all the technology will have to be built and tested from scratch, and as we don't really have a good way to get to the Moon another launch vehicle will have to be made. Finally, I don't understand the idea behind launching things from the Moon, that won't save on fuel at all, why not? Because you still need to rocket those supplies to the Moon, which takes fuel, in fact, it should end up taking 1/6th more fuel then normal to launch things from the Moon, hardly useful.

NASA doesn't have the budget to create redundant missions, they have to skimp on their missions to Mars now, and those will have to be cancelled to get enough funding for the Moon. It doesn't help that some of my friends feel that it would be an easy way for Congress to get rid of NASA, promise additional funding, then not give it for various reasons, NASA is now in big trouble and closes down. Far less bad publicity that way then just saying "Buh Buy" to NASA. I don't think much of the latter idea, but still, it's worth thinking about.

Well, personally, I am very excited about this development.

I lived in south-east Texas for quite a few years, and I essentially lived and breathed the space program in Houston.

And yes, it would come as a logical conclusion that going on a manned flight to the moon, with the intentions of furthering human colonization potential, in contrast to Mars. You need to learn how to run before you attempt a marathon.

True, but a return to the Moon to conduct further research (if that is what they intend to do) would be essential to there main mission to Mars indeed. After all they already know the exprience of a Moon mission and it was a great success. Its going to be a staging post for Mars, but not only that but they are going to look for fuel aswell. I think they have already discovered the Moon hosts quite an abundance of fuel. It could be then used for our own consumption (Mars usage). I hope the colonization idea is put into consideration cause that be great no doubt.

I don't really see the piont, i mean, our government in USA is 8.6 trillion dollars in dept, and guess who pays for it... the people OF the USA, through TAXES! I think it is bad enough through teh gas prices, and the last time we sent a shuttle in space, it was about billions of dollars, AND A PIECE OF FOAM FELL OFF!!

I find it pretty pointless... Just to go to the Moon again and get some high-res images of Earth on there Digital Camreas now? Seems a bit of a waste of time.

We either need to build a space station on the moon. Or go somewhere further like to Mars or something.

I am quite excited about this news. It's about time we went back. Space exploration is something that I would like to see money spent on instead of things like war. I think this new venture to the moon should be an international project with all the different countries involved chipping in towards the bill.

If they construct a launch pad on the moon, they can make fuel from the moon's resources and they would need less fuel because they won't need as much energy to get off the moon.

GDwarf, remember when we first went to the moon? From 1961 when JFK said that they were going to the moon to 1969 when they landed on the moon...that's only 8 years...this mission is set for 2018, 13 years away...so there's plenty of time to construct any new technologies they might need for this mission. But the technology just to get there already exists and would be quite easy to do...NASA has been to the moon six times before...

Let's make sure we keep the conversation at the level of discussion (otherwise, to General Chit Chat this goes).

-Rob

Soffocating in space is more like exploding, but yeah.

The point of a manned misson to the Moon, as has been stated (by me and others), is not for the sake of going to the moon. It is for the sake of preparation to go farther than ever before. The moon is simply a step along the way.

I don't think there will be any colony on the moon itself, unless someone comes up with artificial gravity. Living perminently in such low gravity would have some odd effects on people. There will be a launch facility of some sort on the moon eventually (a la IPL in the book Ender's Game), but people will not live there perminently. Stationed for a time to ensure things run properly, sure.

Orbiting stations complete with gravity are sensable, once the technology is worked out completely. As would be on Mars, probably... but again, the lower gravity would make for some odd physiological effects.

They should concentrate on other things... 100 Billions is alot of money.. and that would be wasting it. The world has other issues to deal with than going on the moon.

Hate to be a prude, but $100,000,000,000 is a pretty steep price if the primary motivating factor is a pat on the back and B12 shot to aerospace. We've been to the moon. It's been done. Heck, even the Soviets realized the moon wasn't cool anymore once it'd been done. And what is it motivating us toward? Spending a magnitude more money on yet another motivator?

The projected price for this mission is over three quarters of what the entire Apollo project cost, after adjusting for inflation. So this doesn't even look good from the proving-the-future-commercial-viability-of-spaceflight standpoint. For that same price we could hire some 120,000 more teachers at extremely reasonably pay for the entire 15 year period leading up to launch. Guess which one I think would have a better impact on science.

And yes, if I held this standpoint in all things nothing would ever get done. But honestly, it feels like space travel for the sake of space travel. Unless someone gives me reason to believe otherwise, it's not something I support.

I think it is a waste of money at our current technological stage. There are no clear benefits and only costs.

£58bn is relatively cheap. With that money we will develop new technology to go to the Moon; if it's sucessfull we will use almost the same technology to get to Mars.

The benefit of the whole mission is to get to Mars.

Quote: