2024 Moon Base

[RandyL]

I doubt that the moon base will remain a priority with this administration - I think that if we are to get a permanent lunar (or even a long-term temporary) base, we will need to put our hopes in corporate America (or any large corporation) such as Bigelow Aerospace that has plans for not only a privately owned space station by 2015, but talks of putting another station at Lagrangian Point L1 between Earth and the moon and is beginning designs on a "portable" lunar base that can move itself to different locations or back into orbit as needed (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology ... 00120.html).
I think that either idea (space station or lunar base) would be a completely viable option for NASA, the ESA, the Japanese Space agency, or others to lease time out of. Corporate America can do it cheaper and faster than any government organization - it just takes money. I think that LEO flights will also go this way - there are too many interested parties for it not to catch on - Burt Raitan has proved that it can be done by a small company - even NASA doesn't send people up in the same craft with that short of a turn around... Granted, it wasn't to the orbital level of the ISS, but I would figure if they can get that high, they can also get to the ISS with some modifications. With fuel staged at the ISS, these types of crafts could get much higher into orbit with a "simple" dock and refuel. I truely believe that the time of governments being not just the only, but the primary entity, for getting man and materials into space is almost over.

 

[Windbourne]

Are we likely vs. will we?

At this time, it is impossible for America's Gov to put a moon base up there. The simple fact is, that it is EXPENSIVE, and we can no long afford it. Does that mean that America can not do it? Nope. There are 3 approaches to this.
1) Be part of an international group that goes there. That pretty much means the same ones as the ISS. USA, Russia, EU, Japan, and Canada. It would probably include UK, Brazil, and India. There will be many that will clamor to allow China, but USA will have to fight that do to the high theft that is constantly incurred with them. I suspect that EU and UK will also oppose that (though possibly not openly). This is very doable, though not the best of the situations.
2) Push America's private space. With this approach, it is possible to have another man on the moon by 2018. This would take the America to push several steps that would get private space to move forward. The first is to buy, launch, attach SEVERAL of the bigelow units to the ISS. The reason is that if we do this NOW, it will set up Bigelow's production line. With that in place, BEFORE SpaceX has a falcon 9 manned version or ULA with their Orion Lite, they can start their own private space station set-up. That means that once one of these companies have a system, THEN, there will be a SECOND space station for hotel, etc. From that, it leads to other space stations for national usage. By 2015, we would have a number of private space stations being leased.
So, how to get to the moon? You have to have a means of moving to there, and means of landing/launching. The feds can simply push for private tugs/fuel depot. Space has MANY needs for these. It simply requires a COTs approach. Ideally, it would NOT be the same companies who has the COTs LV contracts. We need multiple companies up there.
Finally, we need a vehicle for landing/launching. A COTs again will make that happen. Armadillo, Masten, and Blue Origin are the front runners for that. We could easily be shooting for the moon surface in 2017 by using mostly private money.
3) Combine one and two above. That is the best of all worlds. NASA takes the lead for equipment hook-up on the moon. We have the experience. Ideally, we need to do this NOW, before we lose ALL OF OUR ENGINEERS from that time.

In the end, what will really happen? I do not know. I suspect that America is about to push into private space. We really do not have a choice. We have 12 trillion dollars debt. Our GDP is 14 trillion. Obama/dems did put on one trillion of that debt, but it is the CUMULATIVE debt that matters. Nearly 6 of that came from the previous admin. I find it hard to see how this admin can possibly increase NASA to where we can go it alone. At this time, we need jobs in the west and private space will cause that to happen. Obama sees that. Ideally, he and congress will push 2 amendments (balanced budget and limited time for congress) AND get private space the hands up that it needs.

 

[Ruri]

Considering how poorly NASA is doing with their new vehicles and how bad the ESAS architecture is I would not bet on it.
The real issue with ESAS is it is too much like Apollo which means very expensive missions and low flight rates.
Ares simply cannot fly often enough to support a moon base.
They also ignore advances like solar electric propulsion,fuel depots, and reusable landers which could cut the cost of cargo landed on the moon by a factor of five.
Instead Constellation foolishly reuses the expensive Ares V and Altair lander for cargo.
This jack of all trades lander combined with an under performing CLV is why the CaLV has to be so massive.
The cargo capacity of Altair is as much as the fully loaded mass of the old Apollo LEM and they decided to put the entire LOI burn on this vehicle which makes the fuel tanks a lot larger then they normally would be.

Instead I feel it'll be private groups like Bigelow and Spacex likely partly funded by COTS like government grants that will end up being the first to build a moon base.

 

[gravityman]

the question is: what hold the mankind on the surface of the planet earth and make very expensive the space travel

the answer it's simple: escape of the GRAVITY

then,what kind of investment a country in the world and/or private company that want explore the natural resources and colonize the moon, solar system bodies,and beyond, in what kind of tecnology they need invest?

the answer it's here: PROPULSION

propusion it's the key word for most problems of space colonization

unfortunately US governament worry too much about rocket tecnolology to reach moon and other place, they give to

much priority for the rocket engines,and forget that to solve the problem to escape of the gravity of earth we

need invest money in PHYSCIS Scientist

the physcis found the answers for propulsion. A least in ESA (european space agency) Advanced Concepts Team

http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/index.htm they invest some money in news ideias it's already a good start.

we need back to the table and start study new methods of propulsion to scape for earth gravity

example: Laser propulsion see at: http://www.space.com/businesstechnology ... craft.html

this new laser propulsion system could send 1 kg to space for 250 dollars! in today rockets, the price is 10000 dollars...

invest money in Advanced ideias of physics it's the answer for cheap price moon bases and space exploration.

 

[garyegray]

Unfortunately, the priorities of our political leadership in the USA are:

1) Massive bailouts to corrupt financial institutions in the trillions of dollars.

2) Healthcare legislation that really does little to help anyone truly in need (we already have medicaid for the poor and medicare for 65 and over and disabled) Anyone not covered by medicaid or medicare would be forced to purchase health insurance. Is that really help? Or a mandate?

3) Cap and Trade legislation that would result in huge tax increases and a massive redistribution of wealth from middle class America to lawyers, banks and third world countries.

4) Continuing to export our manufacturing base oversees.

For a fraction of the dollars spent to bailout our corrupt financial institutions, we could have instead:

1) Funded the ISS through 2020
2) Funded a moonbase.
3) Funded a human expedition to Mars.
4) Funded huge windfarm development all over the USA to help get us off imported oil and lower our carbon emissions.
5) Rebuilt our energy grid into the new "smart grid" technology - again - helping us to lower our carbon emissions.

Development of windfarms and other carbon free energy production is the ONLY way to truly get our carbon emissions down. Cap and Trade will never result in getting us off carbon based fuels, all it does is tax it. The Europeans pay over twice what we pay for fuel and their cars and trucks still run on gasoline and diesel for the vast majority of vehicles on their roads.

What we need in the United States is leadership with true vision. Unfortunately, what we have, is leadership that is purchased by the special interests, and thus, leadership that could care less about scientific and space exploration and moving us forward in a dynamic and meaningful way.

 

[maliaki]

Sad state of the Earth when there's ENDLESS money to kill people but no money to help people.

There will be a Moon base well before 2028, but it won't be Nasa's. Bigelow is planning on connecting 3 of it's modules together and soft landing them on the moon as a base that can lift off and relocate itself. Considering Bigelow is actually building the buildings and building the modules NOW it won't really take much to make these things and "the other things" a reality NOW! NASA already did it's part by developing the inflatable idea and then selling/licensing the patents to Bigelow (That's what they are SUPPOSED to be doing!).

 

[menellom]

A HLV before mid-decade and a Moon base by the middle of the next are both completely realistic if we work with other nations and pool our resources. There are DOZENS of national space agencies worldwide, it's just that only a few of them like Russia and the US have launch capability, or the kind of resources to really develop it.

But what if the major players give some of those countries an opportunity to be more involved with space exploration... in exchange, of course, for pitching in on major development projects. I imagine countries like India and Korea would jump at the chance to be involved in NASA/ESA/RSA experiments, missions, maybe even going on the ISS.

 

[tnjen]

Hi all;

Years ago Ben Bova wrote an interesting fictional book called "Space Folk". It was written during the Cold War, so it had strong cold war implications in regard to Bova's lunar settlers. Things have changed a lot in the 30 years since Bova's book was written. The USSR is a memory, Russians and Americans work side by side on the ISS, the private space sector is budding. I am in hopes that the drive to industrialize luna will mobilize multinational businesses to join forces to capitalize to potential resources the moon may have to offer. We already know the moon has abundant quantities of helium 3, and water, that may just be scratching the surface. There is profit in space and industry is realizing this exponentially. If NASA is going to remain bureaucratically impotent, then I am sure the private sector will be more than happy to step in for a profit. Who knows, maybe there will even become a Caledonia on the moon.

 

[rreilly656]

The moon and every other planet should be owned by one entity. If separate nations get it there will be wars. If just one gets it who is there to fight? But if a nation gets it its not fair to the rest. There should be company to take over the moon and mars. That way no fighting and no hold backs. Its perfect.

Get real. This is that well-meaning but utterly unrealistic conceit that crops up whenever it is suggested that the human race must be made to "behave." "One-Worldism" won't work out in space any better than it has, or will, work on Earth.

Creative chaos is what we humans are all about, but that doesn't mean that we're all about barbarism either. The best that can be expected is that there be enforceable agreements between nations and regions on the uses of space and celestial bodies within it.

 

[ralphwiggum]

I certainly hope not! Hopefully it more like Antarctica set up. Maybe it is beneficial to human kind if they co-operate. War only happens, imo, when someone has something the other doesn’t. And that would be because the countries have put boundaries on there real estate.[/quote]

Something like the Antarctica treaty would be the worst possible set up for the moon. It has succeeded in preserving sensitive wildlife, but it has prevented any meaningful colonization or use of natural resources. Under the treaty it is currently illegal to colonize or exploit Antarctica for any other purpose than purely scientific reasons.

Unless you want humanity to be stuck on earth for eternity never to expand and use space and its resources than you will be completely against what happened in Antarctica.

Competition is what drives humanity forward and to excel. Want proof of this than look at what happened to NASA and space exploration in general once the space race ended. The space race also proved that nations can compete without destroying each other.[/quote]
Maybe when the Chinese actually land on the moon, that well give the U.S. some incentive. :|

 

[lumpyinjasper]

T Woggles whoever you may be,
Remembering watching the Kennedy speech. All the Mercury. Gemini and Apollo missions as a child that kept me looking at the moon. I hope everyone reads your comments and begins to believe again that we will reach the stars, not in what's left of my lifetime but for the future generations to come. Per Ardua Ad Astra.

 

[TranquilityBase43]

The long and short of it all is that the reason we will not have a moon base anytime soon is simply that politicians run this country!! They are too busy wasting money fighting "wars" in Iraq and Afganistan and blowing money on being the world's police force instead of putting it towards important things like space exploration and healthcare!! People complained about Bush's administration and here we are1 year into Obama's administration and not one thing has changed!! We are still fighting in Iraq and Afganistan, Osama bin Laden is still shacked up in Pakistan (our friend), our national deficit is still skyrocketing upwards and unemployment is still climbing!! Until everyone learns to get along on this planet and they all learn to put their heads together for the good and to work together for the bettering of THIS planet we will never move forward to exploring other planets!!

 

[Admiral_Lagrange]

Moon Base by 2024 ??? What a laugh !!!!!!

I've been meeting and talking with people my age to try and make goals for 2010.
All I get is anger, anger, and more anger.

People my age watched man walk on the moon. We've waited 40 years to see it happen again while NASA spent over a trillion dollars on something destined for the ocean. If you search the NASA archives you'll see, it's one of NASA's prime objectives to make sure humans don't venture out into our solar system and contaminate it.

I think it's about control. NASA can't allow private space exploration or human commercialization of space till it has the ability to control.
When Elon Musk first founded SpaceX his prime directive was to build a ship that could support a colony on Mars. He planned on flying the ships from outside the U S . Then along comes DARPA. We'll let you fly from with in the U S. We'll even buy the first ten Falcon 1s. To me it sounded a little too good to be true. Then I noticed Elon's prime directive was dropped from the website. The goverment was real supportive till the successful flight of the Falcon 1 . Now it flies no more. Darpa owns the first ten, so I guess they now own the Falcon 1 and if they don't want it to fly it doesn't.

 

[Admiral_Lagrange]

reply cont.
No problem say's NASA. We'll give you a token 250mil to fly the Falcon 9 for us. Of course you all know the Falcon 9 continues to sit on a launch pad eating up SpaceX's money with no confirmed launch date. With NASA taking priority and their ability to stall things, Bigelow Aerospace seems to no longer have a flight and is having a problem booking one till 2015, 3 years after the original scheduled flight. I guess that'll give our gov 3 more years to find a way to stop that one.

NASA was given stimulas money for the purpose of creating jobs and excelling Space ventures. Of course the new companies that have seen success haven't seen 1 penny of that money. Instead of creating and preserving jobs with that money, SpaceX and Bigelow Aerospace is now laying people off. not because the work isn't there, but because they can't fly. If NASA stalls long enough they'll squeeze SpaceX and Bigelow aerospace out of business. Either get on NASA's team or you're done.

If it takes five years to book a flight doesn't it make sense to build more rockets. lol

Oh and lets not leave out the bashing of SpaceX.

 

[Admiral_Lagrange]

Reply cont.
So I guess this years goal will be to back step six years and find a way to fly outside the U S again.

I wouldn't look for a moon base till 2044 when all from my generation are dead and gone. And with the path we're on, I'd expect it to be a new military order. Of course they'll call it "exploration". Exploring how fast a missle can get back to earth.

I waited all these years to see man travel in space again. Can you wait as long as I have ?

But don't worry, the Chinese will get NASA back to the moon.

 

[Delphinus100]

SOMEBODY will, but it may well not be NASA....

 

[Delphinus100]

The long and short of it all is that the reason we will not have a moon base anytime soon is simply that politicians run this country!! They are too busy wasting money fighting "wars" in Iraq and Afganistan and blowing money on being the world's police force instead of putting it towards important things like space exploration and healthcare!! People complained about Bush's administration and here we are1 year into Obama's administration and not one thing has changed!! We are still fighting in Iraq and Afganistan, Osama bin Laden is still shacked up in Pakistan (our friend), our national deficit is still skyrocketing upwards and unemployment is still climbing!! Until everyone learns to get along on this planet and they all learn to put their heads together for the good and to work together for the bettering of THIS planet we will never move forward to exploring other planets!!

Nonsense. This isn't about 'spending too much on war' (we as a species do, but it's a separate issue), or not giving NASA enough of a budget. It's how the current budget is spent, and why...

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20 ... imberg.pdf

http://thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1198
http://archive.thespaceshow.com/shows/1 ... -07-28.mp3 (51.7mb podcast)

http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1197
http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/ ... -07-27.mp3 (55mb podcast)

...We (meaning politicians, government institutions and major aerospace corporations) have become far too comfortable with the status quo. And those who are not as entrenched, don't have enough influence.

But stay tuned. The times are a-changin'...

 

[FrankT]

Unfortunately, NASA has not shown much of a track record of success in space transportation in the last thirty years. They do know how to spend money! Furious activity is not progress, folks. I knew the whole moon project was not going to happen when the announcement came early on that they were not going to support a fueling-in-orbit strategy, but orbit a fully fueled vehicle from the launch site. Instead of a 100k pound empty vehicle we have a 100k pound fully fueled vehicle. And, no on-orbit reuse. No extendability or re-use of the hardware for a Mars thrust later. I can't conceive of a Mars craft being launched fully fueled in a single shot. And. I thought the whole moon base thing was an exercise to build expertise for interplanetary missions.

 

[Admiral_Lagrange]

I think you're right on track Frank. Humans can't move out of LEO without refueling in Space. Private space adventure can't and won't just use a vehicle once and throw it away. Nasa has been great for using something and throwing it away.

The refueling problem is progressing though. It's been one the arguements over producing a standard docking ring. Fuel and other life support products like water and O2 will be transferred via the docking ring. Resolving the problem isn't a tech problem, it's a political problem. Everyone wants to do it their own way.

Some think I'm jumping the gun by talking about Lagrange City and Logistics now. I'm seeing my friends pass without seeing their dreams take shape and everything is slipping. I think now is the time to light that spark and stop that slippage.

I was counting on Bill helping me build a new website and he's gone. I need someone to help me so what is created can carry on without me.

 

[vulture4]

If we are to ever have a permanent moonbase or any otehr form of human spaceflight, it must produce value commensurate with its cost. This isn't the sixties, and the idea of a new "moon race" with China is a fantasy. The value of a moon base? Lunar geology is the only convincing science goal, but the moon is geologically inactive and most planetologists would rather have a robotic mission to a more active body, Tourism is also a possibility, but not at >$100M a seat.

But either requires a huge reduction in cost, or they just won't happen. Building on a precence in LEO and fully reusable manned transport to LEO is a possibilty. But a new Apollo with more and bigger rockets, costing $10 billion per year indefinitely, just because we think its cool, i.e. Constellation? Unlikely to ever happen; who can afford it? What practical benefits will it produce? Ask your neighbors how many of them would want their taxes raised by even $100 every year, forever, for to pay a moon base. Most of them probably want a tax cut.

 

[spazekaat]

DarkenedOne wrote:

"Something like the Antarctica treaty would be the worst possible set up for the moon. It has succeeded in preserving sensitive wildlife, but it has prevented any meaningful colonization or use of natural resources. Under the treaty it is currently illegal to colonize or exploit Antarctica for any other purpose than purely scientific reasons."


But some kind of modification of that treaty not be made for the Moon??? Non-national - OK, colonization - OK, use natural resources (such as there are) - OK........

First point is most important......that should be the "Prime Directive".

International cooperation is a MUST, as far as I am concerned...........MEOW!!!!

 

[moontigerh2036]

I think that Nasa can make a base on the moon with in 5 years from now if they really wont to. technology is getting smarter every 18 months.why not cut the red tape,that is hampering projects down and puss forward now.NASAs financial problems could be solved over night if they simply save there money for worth wild projects.They just do these worthless projects that go no where.Are system is weird when it comes around issues like this,They would rather spend there time worrying about a bearded man with his rag tag fugitive fleet in Afghanistan and making shear are troops are Safe,Nothing fantastically interesting to say the least.The point is if NASA would pick fore things that should be the top priority's for the next 5 to 10 years and for get the little things that cost to much.A lot of us in the long run would prays NASA FOR DOING THE RIGHT THING. NASA should reinvent its selve both financially and realistically worth doing.I would like Russia to be come part of this moon base ,but i don't think they should offer any assistants of the rocket technology and materials.They are way to behind in there 60s mind frame.There scientist would be perfect for a moon base project. I will make it short,if you don't tell NASA NOW not 14 years from now, then they will never do this project.

 

[MeteorWayne]

I think that Nasa can make a base on the moon with in 5 years from now if they really wont to.

That's just silly. First of all, any development time would be at least a decade, and second THEY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY!!!!!

Welcome to Space.com

 

[TranquilityBase43]

Folks, there is a reason NASA don't have the money coming their way and that is because the US's bank account is overdrawn by some $300 TRILLION dollars and that deficit is growing every day!! Washington is still writing checks on that account in order to fund these wars instead of paying for moon bases!!! Also let's not forget that we didn't go to the moon to explore space or anything scientific!! We went to the moon to beat the Russians there...it was all about politics and not science!! Why do u think we cut the program so soon after we got there? If it was for the science we could have easily kept going back!! At that point we didn't have such a mess financially and could have funded things a lot more easily back then but we stopped because we had accomplished our mission...to beat the Soviet Union to the moon...Hince the term "space RACE"!!

 

[menellom]

I think we're starting to get a little off topic guys.