Moon Plans Unveiled...a new Apollo?

trailrider · Sep 20, 2005

vt hokie- You probably WILL see a new generation of maneuverable lifting body aerospace craft in the next few years... No, I take that back... You may hear them, you may see exhaust trails, and if you drive to the wrong place and start taking pictures, you may find yourself up against a chain-link fence with an M-4 up your nose! I don't KNOW this to be a fact, but if history is any guide, you will probably find such vehicles come into being by the time we reach the Moon! Only, the folks flying them will (hopefully) be wearing blue uniforms! After all, we have to advance our own security right here on Earth. Most of the early development of aircraft came as the result of military R&D. You may not like it, but it is a fact! Take the high ground! Ad Luna! Ad Aries! Ad Astra! Trailrider

vt_hokie · Sep 20, 2005

You know, I'd love to learn what vehicles have been developed in secret and operated out of places like Groom Lake, but who knows when those programs will emerge from the "black world". Until they do, they won't really make our lives any better, and they certainly won't result in any significant civil applications of their breakthroughs. Things that I would like to see this country achieve include the development of a new supersonic airliner along the lines of the defunct "High Speed Civil Transport", or better yet a X-30/NASP type of vehicle to revolutionize both air and space travel. Those are the types of things that many people can actually benefit from, as opposed to an "Apollo on steroids" that will let a few people walk on the moon. I do think we should go back to the moon and beyond, but not before successfully opening up access to LEO and making it affordable.

brucegagnon · Sep 20, 2005

It's all just a cover for putting nuclear weapons in space. A reactor is a potential bomb. Bush wants to take over the World. The police have been searching my offices. We are turning into a nazist regime and nobody seems to be able to do anything about it. Do you all want a war? We have to ban all nuclear technology now. Not just 'bombs' but everything we make them from. No commercial reactors, no consequent waste, no mox being shipped across oceans awaiting terrorist ambush. Certainly no dirty plutonium in space rockets being launched into the sky. It's time to take a breather and step back from the brink. No more archaic nuclear power. Solar energy is the future.

darkenfast · Sep 20, 2005

Please tell me that last post was some kind of joke...

brucegagnon · Sep 20, 2005

I beg your pardon? I see nothing funny about the current trend in american expansionism. Space is just some higher ground to drop things from. Onto our heads. An integrated space defence screen is what Bush wants. Same as Reagan did. You don't seriously believe all that final frontier crap do you? Bush's old man sold that same Mars Snake Oil to us. Stop being spoon fed and wake up to smell the coffee. He's after global domination. Same as every other megalomaniac in charge of a country. We have to get out of that mentality.

rfoshaug · Sep 20, 2005

I guess it wasn't a joke then. Still funny, though.

<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----------------------------------My minds have many opinions </div>

mattblack · Sep 20, 2005

Oh dear... There's two angles to approach this "stuff" from: 1): A space reactor wouldn't use plutonium, as RTGs would not be suitable for manned missions. You need a reactor for Mars missions to make return propellant from the CO2 martian atmosphere, mixed with liquid hydrogen. A lunar mission doesn't necessarily need a reactor, but having a small one would an advantage for a base, though not a short manned mission. 2): Look -- If America wanted to rule the world from space with orbiting nuclear weapons and lasers etc, it could have done so in the early 1970s when it still had a space budget and bloody great heavy lift rockets. To believe anything else is hard-leftist, paranoid conspiracy theory nonsense that doesn't belong on a positive, forward-thinking forum like this one. This conspiracy theory excrement wasn't true 30 years ago and it is less so now. Please go away... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

darkenfast · Sep 20, 2005

As an Evil American Expansionist, I'm kind of curious as to why the police were searching his office.

brucegagnon · Sep 20, 2005

Thirty years ago we had the Russians as a counterweight to American oppression worldwide. I'm as shocked and angry as you are. Check out my website. I detail the entire police invasion of my premises. I have nothing to hide and won't be stopped from talking.

space_dreamer · Sep 20, 2005

The biggest problem the world faces is climate change and Bush has made the problem worse. However he will be gone in three years! “He's after global domination.” – No, he just trying to put the USA in good place to deal with an ever changing world (as he sees it rightly or wrongly). Nuclear power is the only way to make large amounts of power with out pumping millions of tons of CO2 in to the atmosphere. I’m all for solar and wind power (and they can help) but there never going to make an enough power and there power supply is not constant. Space is full of radiation! Saying “no dirty plutonium in space rockets being launched into the sky” is like saying don’t spill and cup of water in the sea, it might get wet!

mattblack · Sep 20, 2005

Look; the Russians were never really that big a threat, at least in space; that was all cold-war smoke and mirrors. I've have had my own run-ins with very bolshie environmentalists at the other end of the ideological scale. Coal: No, too dirty. Solar? No: You can't put ugly panels on that pristine desert land over there. Wind? Nope; you can't put those ugly windmills and propellers up there, you'll frighten the cows! And did we mention they're ugly? Tidal: Nah, you'll kill too many fish. Nuclear: Are you crazy?! What about all that waste? (never mind the fact that all the nuclear waste tonnage produced in history wouldn't equal ONE DAY'S Co2 output, tonnage wise). The way I see it, nuclear terrorism is a bigger threat than Chernobyl-like human error. And if you can't use nuclear power in space, then WHERE THE HELL ELSE CAN YOU USE IT?!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

brucegagnon · Sep 20, 2005

I'm glad you agree with me. We should just stay out of space and leave it alone. Make it a protected wilderness free of human interference. Why do we want to mess up all those other worlds anyway. Let's fix up this planet before starting to think about how we'll destroy others. That's all I'm saying.

rubicondsrv · Sep 20, 2005

It seems that SDC has aquired a new troll. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

rubicondsrv · Sep 20, 2005

He was not agreeing with you. Please stop dragging threads off topic. If you wish to continue this discussion please start a new thread. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

space_dreamer · Sep 20, 2005

Dude, you are wrong. I not going to waste my time talking to you.

CalliArcale · Sep 20, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />A lunar mission doesn't necessarily need a reactor, but having a small one would an advantage for a base, though not a short manned mission. <hr /></blockquote> I think a reactor would be a neccesity for a lunar base unless you can work out a sufficiently reliable (and sufficiently large) self-regenerating fuel cell. The main problem is the long lunar night. A base could easily be in full darkness for two whole weeks (or longer depending on the lie of the land), which means that solar cells will be useless half the time. You can get away with solar cells only if your batteries will last until you get sunlight again; ISS, for instance, stores unused power from its solar arrays in batteries, which discharge during orbital night. They're only in night for about 45 minutes, though. On Mars, the rovers also use batteries to get through the night, but have to be careful about power useage at night; the night is too long for the batteries to hold them at normal power output until sunrise. On the Moon, I would think this problem would be insurmountable with normal batteries. You'd need either a whopping big self-regenerating fuel cell (which is technologically plausible in the near future, although there isn't one on the market yet) or a nuclear reactor. Or I suppose you could ship reactants for a fuel cell up to the base, but that would cut severely into the upload capacity for other things (experiment packages, crew, other supplies, etc). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

CalliArcale · Sep 20, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I thought the new shuttle was going to be universal, with respect to the Space Station, the Moon, Mars, and the Earth; parachutes; wings, airbags, and vertical lift capabilities in the package you wouldn’t you think? I mean you are going to lobbing it into space anyway, so we might as well lob it to the Titan Moon.<hr /></blockquote> The capsule is intended to be universal, in that you could adapt it for multiple applications with a minimum of extra work. Soyuz actually also started out with a similar vision, although in the end only one of the intended uses of Soyuz ever bore fruit (as a vehicle for transporting crew to and from space stations). It's not a spaceplane, though, so it has no wings. It also has no vertical lift capabilities; it is dependent on a booster to get it into space. It will have parachutes; this is part of its Earth return capability and actually has nothing to do with landing on other worlds. The CEV will not be landing on the Moon. Its function is similar to the Apollo CSM; it gets the crew to cislunar space and returns them safely to the Earth. Getting from lunar orbit to the lunar surface will be the job of a separate vehicle, a lunar lander. The planned mission profile will combine the Earth-orbit rendezvous and lunar-orbit rendezvous models for a lunar mission. It's a good plan. It may not be as sexy or innovative as some might have hoped, but it will be effective, and in the end, that's a lot more important. I'm an engineer; I'll go for reliability any day. Whether or not it's the cool, sexy plan is really not relevant. All that matters is which one will work given the neccesary constraints of time, money, and so forth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

holmec · Sep 20, 2005

>I beg your pardon? I see nothing funny about the current trend in american expansionism. Space is just some higher ground to drop things from. Onto our heads. An integrated space defence screen is what Bush wants. Same as Reagan did. You don't seriously believe all that final frontier crap do you? Bush's old man sold that same Mars Snake Oil to us. Stop being spoon fed and wake up to smell the coffee. He's after global domination. Same as every other megalomaniac in charge of a country. We have to get out of that mentality.< Bruce, your back in the mid 20th Centry. Get over the Cold War will you (because it is from the Cold War where your arguement originated). The Final Frontier is alive and well even without the United States. Russia, Europe, Japan, China, and other countries are all on board. Space is way too vast to be looking to conquer the Earth. We have a Solar System to conquer. And one country cannot do it alone. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · Sep 20, 2005

>I'm glad you agree with me. We should just stay out of space and leave it alone. Make it a protected wilderness free of human interference. Why do we want to mess up all those other worlds anyway. Let's fix up this planet before starting to think about how we'll destroy others. That's all I'm saying.< Then what in the world are you doing on this forum????? Seems like you have a conflict of interest. And it is not about war. Its about living in PEACE. You are obviously indoctrinated by some enviromentalism that cares nothing about the actual environment. The Earth will be burned up by the Sun, and The Milky Way will collide with another galaxy. Space does not need protection from humans, we are but a drop in a bucket. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

BReif · Sep 20, 2005

My disappointment in the plan that has been unveiled is quickly evaporating. As I keep studying it, and looking at it more closely, I am finding that this plan has the potential to succeed, and to make humanity a multi-world species. My initial disappointment stemmed from a lunar base not being included in the plan, however, at closer examination, it is included in the plan on a pay as you go basis. From NASA's Website: "With a minimum of two lunar missions per year, momentum will build quickly toward a permanent outpost. Crews will stay longer and learn to exploit the moon's resources, while landers make one way trips to deliver cargo. Eventually, the new system could rotate crews to and from a lunar outpost every six months." Sounds like, provided it is funded in Congress and has bi-partisan support capable of surviving the changes in presidents and congresses, we have a future! Now, it it up to space supporters to write Congress, whether you are a Democrat, Republican, or an Independent), expressing support for this program. I beleive this program, and the potential it has for the nation far transcends political party affiliation and agenda. Lets all support it, for our kids, and their kids.

centsworth_II · Sep 20, 2005

"My disappointment in the plan that has been unveiled is quickly evaporating." Welcome to the world of optimistic realism. NASA has been given the job of making lemonade out of lemons (that's the extent of the budget) and it looks like they can do it! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

spayss · Sep 20, 2005

There's an interesting public relations angle to all this. NASA wants to return to the Moon. It gives them a reason to exist. Much of the mission so far appears Apolloesque but the word 'Apollo' is a mixed bag. On the positive side it implies success and a 'can-do' atttitude. On the other hand it solicits a 'why, didn't we already do that?' reaction. Watch NASA refer to Apollo but keep distancing themselves from comparisons to that mission. Everytime some aspect of the mission appears to be Apollo-like it'll be countered with some P.R. giberish. Some Congressmen and Senators are going to stand up when they can't get increased funding for education, veterans, etc. and lambast any mission that costs a hundred billion dollars so some lads can bounce on the Moon again.

centsworth_II · Sep 20, 2005

"...a hundred billion dollars so some lads can bounce on the Moon again." Don't forget the lasses. I can't wait to hear a female voice from the moon. As far as the reasons. Short term, the science. We have been ingnoring learning about the Moon. Right now we are learning much more about Mars through robotic missions than about our own moon! Heck, we're learning more about the moons of Saturn! I can't wait to see people and machines back on the Moon doing on site science. Long term, the moon is a necessary first step in humans becoming a space faring species. And, for congress, it should be important that the USA remains in the forefront of that journey. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

BReif · Sep 20, 2005

Like NASA Administrator Mike Griffin said in the announcement, and this is a paraphrase: 'If the United States does not want to get out of manned spaceflight altogether, then this is the vehicle we should be building, and I don't think the United States wants to get out of space when other countries are there.' Some other nations that are intested in the Moon, or manned spaceflight in general: Russia: They are teaming up with Space Adventures to offer lunar flyby tourist missions with the soyuz and Block N booster starting apporoximately 2008. They have stated their intention to build the Kliper spacecraft, and to get to the Moon by 2016. China: They are approaching thier second manned spaceflight. They have announced their intention to get to the Moon at some point (the date escapes me right now, perhaps 2030.) Japan: An island nation with limited natural resources would definitely have an interest in the metals and resources to be found on the Moon. I think that NASDA has made statements about going to the moon at some point in the past. Other nations to watch are probably Europe, India, and Mylasia, though they have not annouced plans for the Moon per se, may well get into the manned spaceflight business within the next decade or two. In the short term, science would be a driving factor, but in the long term, with natural resource supplies falling off, and demand for those resources driving up the costs, the economy, and the availability of resources for manufacturing that can be found on the Moon and elsewhere will become the driving force behind spaceflight...I believe that eventually, the private sector will take up where government space programs leave off. Government programs will become the trailblazers, followed by the private sector. In the long run, the economy will benefit in a huge way from what we start with this program to return to the Moon, and implementation of the Vision for Space

radarredux · Sep 20, 2005

> My initial disappointment stemmed from a lunar base not being included in the plan, however, at closer examination, it is included in the plan on a pay as you go basis./i> Yes, the plan up to about 2016 is basic infrastructure -- get humans safely into space and get a large mass into space relatively reliably, safely, and efficiently. Once these core capabilities are developed, then they can be used for various "exploration applications" These "exploration applications" can include: <ul type="square"><li>Manned mission to Near-Earth Objects such as asteroids<li>Manned Mars mission<li>Small scientific habitat (e.g., a Bigelow inflatable that can be put on the Moon in a single launch and populated on the next mission)<li>Large colony to support larger efforts such as mining<li>Mining of Palladium Metal Groups to support a Hydrogen economy on Earth<li>Mining of He-3 for clean and safe fusion energy production on Earth<li>Radio telescopes on the far side of the moon </li></li></li></li></li></li></li></ul> These "exploration applications" are enabled by the proposed space architecture. Which ones will be pursued can be decided down the road, but before any of them can happen, the basic launch capability presented on Tuesday must be developed.

Moon Plans Unveiled...a new Apollo?

trailrider

Guest

vt_hokie

Guest

brucegagnon

Guest

darkenfast

Guest

brucegagnon

Guest

rfoshaug

Guest

mattblack

Guest

darkenfast

Guest

brucegagnon

Guest

space_dreamer

Guest

mattblack

Guest

brucegagnon

Guest

rubicondsrv

Guest

rubicondsrv

Guest

space_dreamer

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

BReif

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

spayss

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

BReif

Guest

radarredux

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page