NASA to Establish Permanent Moon Base

[brellis]

Article in the NY Times. Fly us to the Moon, NASA! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[brellis]

Finally, a proposal that makes sense. Here are two things that make the project plausible and eminently achievable:<br /><br />1) Every space-ready country in the world would love to participate. No more Cold War politics.<br /><br />2) It fits in the existing NASA budget. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[brellis]

BBC Article <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[brellis]

This NYTimes Article reopens the arguments against keeping the Space Station aloft. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[qso1]

I'm pretty sure NASA had this plan all along but just had to figure out how to achive it technically and budget wise. Not only is it a good plan, it could lay the groundwork for getting a telescope on the moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[ldyaidan]

Excellent info! Thanks! I feel like we finally have a reasonable goal!<br /><br />Rae

 

[spacefire]

notice how the date for the first manend flight to the Moon keeps getting pushed back.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[webtaz99]

SHHHHHH! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> notice how the date for the first manend flight to the Moon keeps getting pushed back. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Yeah, not much mention of 2014... more talk of 2020 these days. <br /><br />2014 was the earliest possible date I think.

 

[oscar1]

I'm wondering. Seeing how much has been invested in the ISS, couldn't we push the thing into Mars' orbit after completion? I suppose it would be advantageous to have some sort of 'arrival platform' there.

 

[BReif]

2014 was suppossed to be the first flight of the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle to the ISS.<br />2018 was the first lunar flight for the Orion, and 2020 was always the target date (the "not later than" date) for the first lunar landing mission.<br /><br />On another note, do you honestly beleive, after ISS, that a permanent lunar base has any chance of being funded?

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Our third goal is to return to the moon by 2020, as the launching point for missions beyond. Beginning no later than 2008, we will send a series of robotic missions to the lunar surface to research and prepare for future human exploration. Using the Crew Exploration Vehicle, we will undertake extended human missions to the moon as early as 2015, with the goal of living and working there for increasingly extended periods.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />http://www.space.com/news/bush_transcript_040114.html

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>On another note, do you honestly beleive, after ISS, that a permanent lunar base has any chance of being funded? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The way things are going with private space industry / space tourism, a moonbase may not need ISS-levels of government funding beyond 2020!

 

[fernandogarciar]

Well , If we are going to build a house in the moon, do it under the moon surface, safe from meteorits, or we will not last too much. We will need to make a big hole, or find a cave or something like that.<br /><br />And the best location, in the sunny side, but not far away from the dark side.

 

[lampblack]

<font color="yellow">And the best location, in the sunny side, but not far away from the dark side.</font><br /><br />Except for the poles, every place on the moon experiences roughly two weeks of sunlight followed by two weeks of darkness.<br /><br />Folks get mixed up by the fact that the same side of the moon always faces the earth. But sometimes it's lit by the sun -- and sometimes it's not. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[pgchelsea]

Hi,<br /><br />Isn't a telescope in space better than a telescope on the moon?<br /><br />thx

 

[docm]

Watched the news conference today on NASA TV. Near the end they said private infrastructure was welcome, and that included <i><b>inflatables</b></i>.<br /><br />Bigelow must be smiling <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

I assume those budget numbers don't factor in post BW2 hyperinflation.

 

[BReif]

pgchelsea asked: "Isn't a telescope in space better than a telescope on the moon?"<br /><br />A telescope in space, like Hubble which is in Low Earth Orbit, is limited in the amount of time it has to observe a specific object, since, every 90 minutes it completes one revolution around the Earth. Any one object would be visible from Hubble's vantage point for only 45 minutes tops. On the Moon, there would be a two week window that a telescope could point at an object. Also, on the moon, there is sufficent room to build many large telescopes, and link them together to operate as one super-large telescope. The Moon also offers a very stable platform for radio astronomy, especially on the far side (the hemisphere that always faces away from Earth) since it would shield the radio telescope from Earth's radio background noise.<br /><br />

 

[j05h]

Far side radio astronomy makes a lot of sense. However, your assertions about space-based telescopes only apply to LEO vehicles (like Hubble) and not to the next=generation craft that have been discussed. Many of them would be in solar orbit or at a Lagrange point, so they would be able to observe single targets for almost unlimited exposure, especially for out-of-plane targets.<br /><br />There are operational issues (dust, thermal cycles, Lunar-Transient-Phenomenon) that might make lunar observatories extremely challenging.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"A telescope in space, like Hubble which is in Low Earth Orbit, is limited in the amount of time it has to observe a specific object, since, every 90 minutes it completes one revolution around the Earth."</font><br /><br />You're wrong on a couple of accounts. First -- 'a telescope in space' is not synonymous with 'a telescope in Earth orbit'. Hershel and the James Webb Space Telescope will both be placed into a solar orbit at L2. This eliminates the problem entirely.<br /><br />The second problem is that you're thinking two-dimensionally. A fairly significant portion of the universe is 'above' or 'below' the plane of Hubble's orbit such that Earth never occludes them. Hubble will have to make corrections as it circles around in its orbit, but it can do this, and make observations for hours, days, weeks, months. Mind you -- the line of scientists waiting to use Hubble is long enough that they'd likely form a posse and lynch any astronomer who tried to monopolize Hubble for a months-long continuous observation... but orbital mechanics doesn't preclude it.

 

[BReif]

Points well taken. Telescopes elsewhere than LEO do make sense, however, they may be beyond the range of being able to be serviced by a crew in the case of neccesity. Perhaps the Orion Vehicle will be caple of doing a servicing mission to one of these observatories, or perhaps any problems with them can be "engineered out" long before they are launched.

 

[ldyaidan]

I wonder how much companies like McDonald's will pay to be the first fast food place on the moon....Once we get enough people living there to make it worthwhile, we'll see a lot of companies wanting in on the new market. Companies are the ones with the big bucks, and once we can convince them to open up their wallets, we'll be able to do a lot more than what we can with government funding.<br /><br />Rae

 

[brellis]

In this AP Report on the AGU meeting, some pro-Mars comments:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- The chief scientist behind the twin Mars rovers said he supports a human presence on the moon, but hopes the journey will not dead-end there.<br /><br />Steve Squyres of Cornell University said that while it makes sense to start with the moon he fears that budget overruns will ground humans there and foil a manned mission to Mars.<br /><br />"The best way to explore Mars is with humans," Squyres said Wednesday during an American Geophysical Union meeting.<br /><br />NASA's decision to focus on lunar exploration is "ill-timed" given that the Mars missions have revealed a great deal about the planet's ancient history, said Kenneth Herkenhoff, a U.S. Geological Survey scientist who is on the team managing the new Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter.<br /><br />"The recent cuts in the sciences from NASA is not good," Herkenhoff said. "We're currently drowning in data and more is expected. We need more graduate students involved, not fewer."<br /><br />Ray Arvidson, deputy principal investigator for the rovers, said the emphasis on the moon could prevent future missions to collect a sample from Mars or land a super rover on the Martian surface to probe for further evidence of water.<br /><br />"It would just be unfortunate to lose momentum with all these very exciting Mars discoveries," he said.</font><br /><br />In the context of a budget crunch, what should we do? Turn the Moon into a giant billboard to help fund a Mars mission? What's the priority, finding life on Mars, or an earthlike planet orbiting another star? Can we minimize the human aspect of either mission with next-generation robots? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[brellis]

<font color="yellow">The Moon day light lasts about 2 weeks. There is no perminate "dark side".</font><br /><br />True, but the "dark side" is shielded from earthshine, better for the telescopes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>