2024 Moon Base

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Invalid

Guest
Is NASA still going for a 2024 moon base or has it been canceled/delayed?

I heard of the budget proposals and stuff but I haven't seen any updates as to what happened.

If the moon base is still going for 2024 do you think it will be done or just canceled?

What are other countries plans for a moon base?
 
G

Gravity_Ray

Guest
The Moon base is probably a no go based on The Human Space Flight Plans Committee, appointed by President Barack Obama and headed by retired aerospace executive Norman Augustine.

What it boils down to is dollars. It depends on if the ISS is extended, because if it is then we wont have a heavy lift until around 2028. Even then you just have heavy lift with nothing to lift.

They are still chewing on things, but I think its scrapped, here is a current story:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/ ... 85467.html

However, the private sector may get into this soon. Lets see how Falcon 9 does. If it does well then they may join with Bigelow Space and do a space station before then. Check out the bigelow Space thread on these boards as well.

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=11776
 
M

menellom

Guest
The current rumor is that Obama is going to opt for a slight budget increase for NASA and to cancel the Ares I - instead most if not all LEO/ISS missions would rely on the Russian Soyuz, SpaceX's Falcon 9, and if they finish it sometime soon the ESA's Ariane 5. Canceling the Ares I and relying on our international and private partners to shoulder our LEO needs frees up a LOT of personnel and funding to focus on development of a heavy launch vehicle, as well as missions to near Earth objects, the Moon, and beyond.
 
W

Woggles

Guest
Hi Gravity_Ray

Just read the link, wow so disappointing if it comes true. Again no vision towards the future.

To bad Kennedy words don't seem ring any more

" If this capsule history of our progress teaches us anything, it is that man, in his quest for knowledge and progress, is determined and cannot be deterred. The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in the race for space.

Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolutions, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it--we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding.

Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading space-faring nation.

We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say the we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours.

There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation many never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

We choose to go to the moon. 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, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."

Here the link to the full speech. http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Re ... 121962.htm
 
M

marcel_leonard

Guest
Invalid":fsfxb6tc said:
Is NASA still going for a 2024 moon base or has it been canceled/delayed?

I heard of the budget proposals and stuff but I haven't seen any updates as to what happened.

If the moon base is still going for 2024 do you think it will be done or just canceled?

What are other countries plans for a moon base?


I still don't understand why it would take us 10 years to return to the Moon; when we clearly have more computing power and improved rocket science since the Apollo 11 mission some 40 years ago. It doesn't follow logic that something we accomplished forty years ago should be more difficult to accomplish now in 2010 then it was in1969? In a worst case scenario we should be able to retrofit the original design/build, and land two advance party astronauts with in 1 years time...


GW400H318



No wonder there are so many "fake lunar landing" conspiracy theories running rampant! :cool:
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Pay attention. No one is willing to pay for it to be done that fast!! :)
 
M

marcel_leonard

Guest
MeteorWayne":x1j6je5l said:
Which is merely a down payment on a moon base.

Excuse Brain but you forget or chose to not answer my original question.....(It's just what I expected from a mutated lab white lab rat w/ a brain twice the size of his body)....
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Actually, I answered it quite precisely, succinctly, and accurately.
 
M

menellom

Guest
As with almost everything, NASA's problems all come down to money (for the most part). For NASA to have the kind of speedy development, frequent launches, and the kind of general capability it had during the Apollo era, NASA's budget would have to be doubled, at least.

Now, I and probably a lot of other people would say something along the lines of, "So what? NASA rightly deserves to have its budget doubled if not more!" The problem is the majority of people would disagree, public interest in space and science in general has been on the decline in the US since the end of the Space Race, and huge hits to the American space program like the massive budget cuts under Johnson and Nixon, as well as the Challenger disaster stalled the progress of the space program and we've been stuck twiddling our thumbs in LEO ever since.

The grim reality is NASA will never get all the funding it needs, let alone deserves, and will have to make due with what it has through clever solutions as well as private and international partnerships.

There is some reason to hope though. Although the shuttle is retiring this year (or perhaps early next) we could potentially have 2 or 3 replacements within the next couple years thanks to the continued operation of the Soyuz, and the development of new LEO rockets by SpaceX and the ESA. Also, Obama so far seems to be holding true to his promises to help close America's science gap. Just last month he expanded on his proposal to drastically overhaul STEM (science technology engineering and math) education in the US, and if his scientific green lights continue I have little doubt NASA will get the funding it needs to make an HLV possible within the decade.
 
V

vulture4

Guest
Woggles":49m5zsl9 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?
 
C

Crossover_Maniac

Guest
MeteorWayne":rr2biiku said:
Which is merely a down payment on a moon base.

It's a big down payment. Being able to lift 160 tons into LEO goes a long way to get sizable payloads to the moon.
 
I

Invalid

Guest
Gravity_Ray":2zlqhzu6 said:
The Moon base is probably a no go based on The Human Space Flight Plans Committee, appointed by President Barack Obama and headed by retired aerospace executive Norman Augustine.

What it boils down to is dollars. It depends on if the ISS is extended, because if it is then we wont have a heavy lift until around 2028. Even then you just have heavy lift with nothing to lift.

They are still chewing on things, but I think its scrapped, here is a current story:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/ ... 85467.html

However, the private sector may get into this soon. Lets see how Falcon 9 does. If it does well then they may join with Bigelow Space and do a space station before then. Check out the bigelow Space thread on these boards as well.

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=11776
Wow... That's sad... But also not surprising... How many stations and moon bases have been promised since the 70's that gave people hope, only to be canceled? It really is sad how we're not getting any where...

menellom":2zlqhzu6 said:
The current rumor is that Obama is going to opt for a slight budget increase for NASA and to cancel the Ares I - instead most if not all LEO/ISS missions would rely on the Russian Soyuz, SpaceX's Falcon 9, and if they finish it sometime soon the ESA's Ariane 5. Canceling the Ares I and relying on our international and private partners to shoulder our LEO needs frees up a LOT of personnel and funding to focus on development of a heavy launch vehicle, as well as missions to near Earth objects, the Moon, and beyond.
So if we stop all LEO trips for a few years it might be possible then to make it by 2024? What is the likeliness of this happening?

marcel_leonard":2zlqhzu6 said:
I still don't understand why it would take us 10 years to return to the Moon; when we clearly have more computing power and improved rocket science since the Apollo 11 mission some 40 years ago. It doesn't follow logic that something we accomplished forty years ago should be more difficult to accomplish now in 2010 then it was in1969? In a worst case scenario we should be able to retrofit the original design/build, and land two advance party astronauts with in 1 years time...
Because we had the Cold War before and now we got nothing.

It is also sad the the gov will only pay for wars. It didn't really care about going to the moon. Just getting there first. That was the only time NASA had a nice amount of money to do something with.

What we need is Cold War II to get America motivated enough to start making those bases they promised! Who's gonna do the prank calling to Russia?
 
B

bdewoody

Guest
I think a lot depends on what actions Japan and China take. It's been reported that Japan has technical plans for building substantial colonies on the moon. They have run out of real estate and I don't think they will risk trying to conquer any of their neighbors again any time soon. On the other hand they can go to the moon and take all the territory they want.

No that the presence of water on or near the surface of the moon has been verified and old rule will come into play. He who gets there first gets the prime real estate. So only if all the major powers agree that nobody will go to the moon with the idea of building permanent settlements will the moon missions be cancelled. Obama is supposed to be smart and I'm sure the NSC has explained the situation to him.

The only question that remains is how soon can the Japanese or Chinese get to the moon? The will be safety conscience but not to the degree that the USA has become, meaning they are more willing to take risks when the rewards are great enough.
 
G

Gravity_Ray

Guest
LOL Marcel Calling MW a "mutated lab white lab rat" is funny :lol: , but he did in point of fact answer your question. But please understand it isn't us that are calling the shots. We don’t make the rules we just talk about them here. The simple answer to you question: "I still don't understand why it would take us 10 years to return to the Moon?" is: MONEY.

But it’s really not surprising at all. When President George W. Bush gave the "Moon, Mars, and beyond" speech we were all happy, but there was nothing (not one thing) about how it was going to be paid for. Right from the get go I knew it wasn't going anywhere. No matter how much you want something unless somebody pays for it, its not going to happen.

It is sad, that the US government goes back and forth so often on space matters, but its simple math; they do these great 10-year plans with an administration that will last 4 years (maybe 8 years). Do you see the problem?

Anyway, I’ve been waiting for a Moon base since 1978, and gave up around the early 90's. Even with the government flush with extra money at that time nothing space based happened. Certainly in tough economical times nothing space based will happen either.

I am still hopeful that we will have heavy lift capability soon (I’m thinking mid 2020's time frame). If we can get about 60+ tones to lunar orbit we will be at least on our way, but we will still need; Suites, Robots, Landers, Rovers, Habitats, Power Sources, ISRU technology, and some much needed luck.

If you ask me for my totally amateur opinion; we will have a small lunar base around 2040’s to 2050's. Something akin to the McMurdo station in Antarctica, with some scientists making 6-month journeys. Maybe, if private industry gets into the game, a bit sooner. I certainly hope I’m still alive to see either.
 
I

Invalid

Guest
we will have a small lunar base around 2040’s to 2050's
Great we can have a small base at 2054. Just a 30 year setback... Until that plan gets canceled too... Oh and the base won't last that long. It will cost too much, maybe a year and then nuke it (because you can't deorbit a lunar base...).

Don't worry guys we might have a real permanent base on the moon by the end of the century. We'll get to Mars eventually damit!

The problem is that once we do get a real base setup on the moon, Russia, China and Japan (and maybe others) will join soon as well. What happens when countries get together? Wars... We will just blow each other up. The government will spend all of NASA's money developing space weapons "just in case" but not giving a damn about the colonies. Other countries won't like it. = War. The next set of colonies might be setup in the century after that...

We will never get any thing done like this.... :(
 
W

Woggles

Guest
Invalid":1rfsflon said:
The problem is that once we do get a real base setup on the moon, Russia, China and Japan (and maybe others) will join soon as well. What happens when countries get together? Wars... We will just blow each other up. The government will spend all of NASA's money developing space weapons "just in case" but not giving a damn about the colonies. Other countries won't like it. = War. The next set of colonies might be setup in the century after that...

We will never get any thing done like this.... :(

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.
 
D

DarkenedOne

Guest
Woggles":aio1bemi said:
Invalid":aio1bemi said:
The problem is that once we do get a real base setup on the moon, Russia, China and Japan (and maybe others) will join soon as well. What happens when countries get together? Wars... We will just blow each other up. The government will spend all of NASA's money developing space weapons "just in case" but not giving a damn about the colonies. Other countries won't like it. = War. The next set of colonies might be setup in the century after that...

We will never get any thing done like this.... :(

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.

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.
 
W

Woggles

Guest
DarkenedOne":2wv1bajq said:
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.


I totally agree with you. My comment about Antarctic was taken from the perspective of a many nations agreeing. Not something that happens very often.
 
I

Invalid

Guest
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.
Which is what will happen on the moon. Who has more land. Why should Japan get the biggest piece of the moon? Why should China keep the part of the moon with all of the water?

many nations agreeing. Not something that happens very often.
Not only not often but not very long lasting...

Although space is preserved for "peaceful" purposes it won't be long before there are wars. Hell if we do get to the moon by 2054 by 2060 we will already have a war. Unfortunately I will probably be alive to see it....

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.
 
B

BenS1985

Guest
Invalid":1u8w8t5b said:
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.
Which is what will happen on the moon. Who has more land. Why should Japan get the biggest piece of the moon? Why should China keep the part of the moon with all of the water?

many nations agreeing. Not something that happens very often.
Not only not often but not very long lasting...

Although space is preserved for "peaceful" purposes it won't be long before there are wars. Hell if we do get to the moon by 2054 by 2060 we will already have a war. Unfortunately I will probably be alive to see it....

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.

And are you the man willing to enslave all nations and leaders to usher in that one world?

It won't happen. Not until there is a great war that forces everyone to band together into major blocs.

On topic, the reason is that NASA doesn't receive a large budget. Looking at the data in terms of NASA funding by year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budge ... _1958-2009

You see that at the peak of the space race, 5.5% of all federal funding went to NASA. Under Barak Obama, we're at 1/10th of the federal funding for NASA. Yes, getting to the moon is cheaper now than it was, but its not 1/10th the price of what NASA is getting funded with now. To get back to the moon, you would have to spend tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars. That is a cost that the government, nor NASA is willing to incur. I'd love to see us get back to the moon ASAP, but given the fiscal stupidity of the federal government, I don't see them ever being relevant for a space race.

Having said that, I do think Bigelow and SpaceX are the future of lunar colonization. It may take a long time, but when someone savy decides to exploit the moon for resources.....We'll see it developed pretty quickly.
 
M

menellom

Guest
Invalid":dm336qwb said:
menellom":dm336qwb said:
The current rumor is that Obama is going to opt for a slight budget increase for NASA and to cancel the Ares I - instead most if not all LEO/ISS missions would rely on the Russian Soyuz, SpaceX's Falcon 9, and if they finish it sometime soon the ESA's Ariane 5. Canceling the Ares I and relying on our international and private partners to shoulder our LEO needs frees up a LOT of personnel and funding to focus on development of a heavy launch vehicle, as well as missions to near Earth objects, the Moon, and beyond.
So if we stop all LEO trips for a few years it might be possible then to make it by 2024? What is the likeliness of this happening?

I wasn't suggesting stopping LEO trips at all. I'm suggesting we get the Russians, Europeans, and private companies to take over LEO missions while NASA focuses on developing a heavy launch vehicle. An HLV is our only way out of LEO and development on one won't start until one of two things happens. Either NASA continues with it's planned development, finishes Ares I by 2016... 2018 if we're being realistic, then starts development of the Ares V which would probably finish by the mid 2020's... or NASA scraps Ares I now, let's the RSA, ESA, and SpaceX take over the 'ISS-taxi service' leaving it free to focus on HLV development.

The money saved from not having to pay for three or four shuttle missions each year (about $2b), the money that would have been spent on Ares I development ($6-7b), plus whatever extra funding the Obama Administration grants ($1-2b)... that's $10-12 billion a year (minus whatever we end up paying to the RSA/ESA/SpaceX) still easily enough to put HLV development on the fast track.
 
I

Invalid

Guest
BenS1985":1qs0gqyx said:
And are you the man willing to enslave all nations and leaders to usher in that one world?
I wish.

menellom":1qs0gqyx said:
I wasn't suggesting stopping LEO trips at all. I'm suggesting we get the Russians, Europeans, and private companies to take over LEO missions while NASA focuses on developing a heavy launch vehicle... let's the RSA, ESA, and SpaceX take over the 'ISS-taxi service' leaving it free to focus on HLV development.
I never said stop ALL LEO trips. Just the NASA ones. How would Russian trips cost us?

menellom":1qs0gqyx said:
The money saved from not having to pay for three or four shuttle missions each year... that's $10-12 billion a year... enough to put HLV development on the fast track.
It would make it faster but would they be able to make it by 2024?
 
M

menellom

Guest
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts