2024 Moon Base

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

marcel_leonard

Guest
menellom":2fvwxwuf said:
I never said stop ALL LEO trips. Just the NASA ones. How would Russian trips cost us?
Last I heard NASA was going to charge us about $50 mil a seat. Although there were also rumors that they might be willing to just sell us a few Soyuz outright.
It would make it faster but would they be able to make it by 2024?
I believe so. $10 billion a year freed up for development, nothing but a few probes and ISS missions on their plate, using a more shuttle-derived design... I think NASA could get an HLV done by mid-decade if they started this year.
Why spend billions trying to reinvent HLV when we have the tried-and-true Saturn V design/build? Why not just expand on that idea? After all we don't have to reinvent the wheel...
 
M

menellom

Guest
Just because something worked great 40 years ago doesn't mean it's a good idea to just 'resurrect' it and use it now.

Trying to resurrect the Saturn V sounds good on paper, it was - as you put it - a tried and true design. But doing so would ultimately cost about as much (if not more) as designing a new rocket. Nevermind that you'd have to rebuild the entire Saturn V manufacturing infrastructure - you'd have to practically redesign the whole damn rocket from the electronics to the safety features to the materials used to meet current standards and be compatible with current NASA tech.
 
M

marcel_leonard

Guest
menellom":3cqcvot3 said:
Just because something worked great 40 years ago doesn't mean it's a good idea to just 'resurrect' it and use it now.

Trying to resurrect the Saturn V sounds good on paper, it was - as you put it - a tried and true design. But doing so would ultimately cost about as much (if not more) as designing a new rocket. Nevermind that you'd have to rebuild the entire Saturn V manufacturing infrastructure - you'd have to practically redesign the whole damn rocket from the electronics to the safety features to the materials used to meet current standards and be compatible with current NASA tech.

Your logic doesn't make any sense to me? According to your way of thinking if I owned a 68 Ford Mustang I couldn't put a fuel injection, or a hybrid electric/gas engine in it to get better mileage and increase the power train output!!!
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
The point is, there are no more 68 Mustangs to go into space, in fact there aren't even any engineering drawings on how to make them.
 
M

marcel_leonard

Guest
MeteorWayne":z1sfaskk said:
The point is, there are no more 68 Mustangs to go into space, in fact there aren't even any engineering drawings on how to make them.
Thats not true they not only have blueprints of the Saturn V, but they have a 2 fully functional Saturn Vs one at Cape Kennedy, and the other at Houston...
 
B

bdewoody

Guest
marcel_leonard":3676q8zz said:
menellom":3676q8zz said:
I never said stop ALL LEO trips. Just the NASA ones. How would Russian trips cost us?
Last I heard NASA was going to charge us about $50 mil a seat. Although there were also rumors that they might be willing to just sell us a few Soyuz outright.
It would make it faster but would they be able to make it by 2024?
I believe so. $10 billion a year freed up for development, nothing but a few probes and ISS missions on their plate, using a more shuttle-derived design... I think NASA could get an HLV done by mid-decade if they started this year.
Why spend billions trying to reinvent HLV when we have the tried-and-true Saturn V design/build? Why not just expand on that idea? After all we don't have to reinvent the wheel...
I doubt that the Saturn V could qualify for manned rating by today's standards. And the man is right it would cost as much to start manufacturing them today as it would a whole new design. There aren't any sitting around in storage waiting to be called on to go into service.
 
W

Woggles

Guest
marcel_leonardThats not true they not only have blueprints of the Saturn V said:
No I don't believe they have blue prints any longer. I believe most are missing or been destroyed. Most of the designers and talent employed at that time are sadly pasted. The Saturn V rocket at Kennedy was refurbished recently but not any where needed to be launch. They are museum pieces now.

A good place to go for information on this is Collect Space. I believe Robert Pearlman, did a very excellent report on the refurbishment with a ton of photos.

Here a link that may work. www.collectspace.com/news/news-030104a.html
 
D

drwayne

Guest
Keep in mind that blueprints (and related documents) do not always capture all of the essentials for
buiding something - institutional human memory can be important in doing even simple things like -
well - changing of contract hands.

Also note that some components may no longer exist, and simply plugging and replacing with
modern equivalents can have unforseen consequences.

Finally, not all of the faluts of the Saturn design were full eliminated - POGO for example, while mitigated, was not
eliminated.
 
M

menellom

Guest
drwayne":17jgevps said:
Also note that some components may no longer exist, and simply plugging and replacing with
modern equivalents can have unforseen consequences.
That was one of the points I was trying to make. Even if we could somehow get a hold of Saturn V blueprints and find people who worked on the rocket that were still alive, the whole damn thing would have to be redesigned anyways to replace old obsolete or outdated parts and technology and to make it compatible with current NASA standards and technology. Completely redesigning the Saturn V would cost as much if not more than designing a new heavy launch vehicle.
 
B

Bones2

Guest
It will be cancelled.. of course. There will be NO moon base. We 'They' don't need one. :mrgreen:
 
R

RJEvans

Guest
No. In fact, I highly doubt NASA will return to the Moon by 2024. The plan is for a return by 2019, but given the budgetary constraints, technological issues, economic recession and lack of political will, I doubt the US will meet its return to the Moon date. Obama made it clear before the election he has no interest in going back to the Moon. I cross my fingers that he has changed his mind and will provide at least a small budget increase for NASA as well as a viable vision/mission for NASA.
 
M

menellom

Guest
RJEvans":3oh123mz said:
Obama made it clear before the election he has no interest in going back to the Moon. I cross my fingers that he has changed his mind and will provide at least a small budget increase for NASA as well as a viable vision/mission for NASA.
Hardly! There was some confusion on Obama's position on space exploration very early in the election based on one suggestion he made about delaying Constellation in order to divert funding to science education... but he cleared that rumor up way back in 2008 and he's been clear about backing the goals of the Constellation program since.

He's already promoting a massive proposed overhaul for STEM education (one which would divert funding from any program) and the current rumors regarding his decision on NASA is that he intends to support at least a partial increase in funding to help keep the space program and its goals on course.
 
F

fieryjaguarpaw

Guest
Invalid":1rbx5kmn said:
BenS1985":1rbx5kmn said:
And are you the man willing to enslave all nations and leaders to usher in that one world?
I wish.
Can we say DARTH VADER!? Seriously this is exactly what Anikin said to Padme in Episode 2.
 
H

High_Evolutionary

Guest
I believe private space can get us there by 2030. The Bigelow Ba330 expandable module design article on this website speaks volumes about how serious they are about leo to the moon itself in terms of bases. Lease a base anyone?
 
V

Valcan

Guest
menellom":sxj0tptq said:
RJEvans":sxj0tptq said:
Obama made it clear before the election he has no interest in going back to the Moon. I cross my fingers that he has changed his mind and will provide at least a small budget increase for NASA as well as a viable vision/mission for NASA.
Hardly! There was some confusion on Obama's position on space exploration very early in the election based on one suggestion he made about delaying Constellation in order to divert funding to science education... but he cleared that rumor up way back in 2008 and he's been clear about backing the goals of the Constellation program since.

He's already promoting a massive proposed overhaul for STEM education (one which would divert funding from any program) and the current rumors regarding his decision on NASA is that he intends to support at least a partial increase in funding to help keep the space program and its goals on course.
What Obama says and what he does are 2 different things. People start thinking. He is a politican from chicogo. He is more crocked than a lawyer, and a better lier than a...well politican.

No i dont think we will have a moon base by 2019 if things continue as they are. It will take a reinvestment into america's space industry to bring things around. Depending more on companies like spaceX and such. Bush accually invested far more into science and space research than clinton. Basicaly as i heard it once because "if there is one thing i know no republican wants to die poor". Ive never understood why people think industry is so evil.
 
P

Polishguy

Guest
From what I've seen of the Ares V flight plan, it really shouldn't be that difficult to build a lunar base. For example, the Earth Departure Stage is pretty large, larger than an S-IVB by my estimates of just looking at it. Why can't we outfit that as a Wet Workshop station on the lunar surface? In fact, how about we boost an Ares V core stage (the big external tank structure) and modify that into one? Like the Shuttle ET, it seems to approach orbital velocity, so let's but that giant hydrogen tank to good use!
 
E

elroy_jetson

Guest
It should have been built by 1974. 2024 is, sadly, only a whimsical hope. The fact that there is no Lunar settlement, much less a scientific or military base, is insurmountable proof that U.S. and world leaders suffer from "Rectal-Cranial Inversion" (which means their collective heads are in a place where the Sun never shines).
 
D

DatSpaceMan

Guest
vulture4":333a9drh said:
Woggles":333a9drh said:
We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard,
Here the link to the full speech. http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Re ... 121962.htm
OK Space Fans - what were the three "other things" John F. Kennedy named in his momentous speech as being as challenging as flying to the moon?

Here's a clue, he was speaking at Rice University.

Answers below:


1. Why climb the highest mountain?

2. Why, thirty-two years ago, fly across the Atlantic?

3. Why does Rice play Texas?
NOT BECAUSE IT WAS EASY BUT BECAUSE IT WAS MOTHER EFFIN' HARD!
 
G

gordon_flash

Guest
Why do they need to redesign a heavy launch vehicle? The existing space shuttle launch system can launch hundreds of thousands of pounds into low earth orbit, if modified without the shuttle itself. It could launch several tons into lunar trajectory, therefore. A 'simple' rendezvous and docking would be necessary, with a manned capsule launched by any number of existing boosters. Rendezvous and docking in lunar trajectory has been adequately demonstrated by the Apollo program.

If that's not enough mass, consider an upgraded version of the good old Saturn-V, with better engines (sure, it's rocket science, but the system is valid).
 
A

azuredraconis

Guest
You aren't going to have a moon base by 2024

Given the opportunity NASA would spend billions of dollars and years of research reinventing the wheel all while smugly proclaiming that we as common folk couldn't possibly understand "why" because it's just sooo complicated.

A wheel is an object that is round yet flat after all, a paragon of qualities, a true miracle of engineering.

On the other hand what ever administration is in office (Republican or Democrat) will repeatedly spin grand visions to spur the imagination but like so many relationships we all experience in life it's all a tease with nothing to back it up.

Our space program is broken, and has been for a long long time. From the lack of vision or direction from the government, to the bloated expense/ blatant profiteering of the contractors to some just plain bad, almost criminally bad, engineering.
 
B

Boris_Badenov

Guest
gordon_flash":1ldo1brc said:
Why do they need to redesign a heavy launch vehicle? The existing space shuttle launch system can launch hundreds of thousands of pounds into low earth orbit, if modified without the shuttle itself. It could launch several tons into lunar trajectory, therefore. A 'simple' rendezvous and docking would be necessary, with a manned capsule launched by any number of existing boosters. Rendezvous and docking in lunar trajectory has been adequately demonstrated by the Apollo program.

If that's not enough mass, consider an upgraded version of the good old Saturn-V, with better engines (sure, it's rocket science, but the system is valid).
Ares V is a shuttle derived system. If built, it will be able to carry over 150 metric tons (414,000 lb) to Low Earth orbit (LEO), and 60 metric tons (157,000 lb) to the Moon.
 
R

rtc61

Guest
It's certainly true that a moon base comes down to money. But it also comes down to will. In the 1960s, the United States was willing to spend what was than an incredible amount of money--with relatively little public dissent--to go to the moon because people were terrified of what the Soviets would do if they got there first. Some of that was pride as well. But one can just imagine the outcry that would erupt if the President and Congress authorized an expenditure of that magnitude for a moon mission today....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY