Science fiction dream to come true by 2025?

Anonymous · Dec 8, 2006

The space administration of Nasa unveiled plans to build a permanent base on the moon within 20 years and informed that humans will be able to live there. The base will be used as a launching site for missions to Mars, as well as for analysis of the Earth from space!! For the details : http://search.nasa.gov/search/search?q=NASA+to+build+base+on+moon&output=xml_no_dtd&sort=dateADALAd1&site=nasa_collection&ie=UTF-8&client=nasa_production&oe=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=nasa_production http://quest.nasa.gov/lunar/outpostchallenge/final/nishant.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <img id="a9529085-d63d-481e-9277-832ea5d58917" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/9/2/a9529085-d63d-481e-9277-832ea5d58917.Large.gif" alt="blog post photo" /> Oops! this is my alien friend.╬→Ť╠╣є ’ M€ ’ ╬→ Ðôŵņ2Ëãřŧĥ ๑ ╬→ ЙДm€ :Varsha </div>

lacuna · Dec 8, 2006

They're getting there, but I don't think havng a high school student design it is wise =P Although the kid did think it through pretty well. Two forms of electricity, solar and hybrid. That's interesting.

radarredux · Dec 8, 2006

> The space administration of Nasa unveiled plans to build a permanent base on the moon within 20 years/i> I think this is being misrepresented in the media. Having read the slides and transcripts, NASA is only planning a small outpost capable of supporting 180 day missions and only until about 2025. The key problems are (1) NASA doesn't have enough money to do much more, and (2) NASA wants to go to Mars after 2025. If NASA goes to Mars, and no one else shows up with more money, the Lunar program will essentially be shutdown and the funds directed towards Mars. The positive part of NASA's plan is that it is a relatively open and flexible architecture, and if someone else shows up with more money (US Congress, other countries' governments, or the private sector (e.g., to mine PGMs)), then the outpost can be expanded and extended into something greater than the outpost.

lampblack · Dec 8, 2006

Might wanna get some advice on how to shorten up those url's. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> I find this whole business of moon bases by 2025 to be somewhat annoying. I'll turn 66 in November of that year -- assuming I'm still around. Yet, folks were already walking on the moon when I was just 10. Assuming it actually happens (which is a huge assumption), there is no way it should have taken that long. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Just tell the truth and let the chips fall... </div>

rocketman5000 · Dec 8, 2006

I agree with you whole heartedy, but from the 70's-early 90's were hard times in US. history. Espically in terms of Space development. We lost several launch vehicles with all crew, had numerous failed attempts at replacing a machine that never lived up to the economy it had to promise to get funded at all. Luckly the 90's came; the personal computer matured and created a number of wealthy billionaire dot-comers who are funding a new private industry American Space Age. Perhaps by 2025 NASA will be out of the manned LEO launch business; concentrating strictly on the It has already partially left the LEO business. At one point NASA launched many commercial satelittes. Today you won't find the shuttle being used for such a "menial" task. Today commercial launches are almost the entire domain of the private industry. By February perhaps "new space" will have launched its first satelitte. Forgive my over optomisim.

halman · Dec 8, 2006

Cherry2, Welcome to SDC Uplink! Perhaps the most interesting aspect to me about your link is that the winner of the lunar design challenge was from India. This indicates an avid interest in off planet exploration and development among young people in a nation which has yet to launch its own manned space craft. Did any American entries place in this competition? Where there any American entries? This country needs to encourage involvement in the sciences among its young people, or it will become a has-been. Having a lunar base will do more for that goal than any other project we could get involved in, because the Moon is the most visible off planet destination. Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't think that NASA is planning on launching missions to Mars from the Moon. It is planning on learning more about living off planet from experience on the Moon, and these lessons will be applied to the projected Mars mission. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

corydog · Dec 8, 2006

It's a hard sell, but when you look at the of the conditions that allowed the success of Apollo (our greatest space accomplishment), you can understand how it actually has harmed everything we have tried to do since. The Cold War justified the mobilization of a standing army of engineers, technicians, and all other jobs to support them and the quickest, dirtiest method they could up with to get us to the Moon: brute force. We went straight up and tossed off stages, modules, and vehicles like they were going out of style. NASA started out so massively that it was doomed to massive budget cuts. Yet it retained so much of it's workforce and far-reaching ambitions. And these ambitions don't mesh with the reality of congressional support in hard cash. That's why I think the last few decades were the big slums and why I fear that this lunar base (if supported by the current architecture) will go the way of Van Braun's Mars missions and 100-man space stations. But privateers are finally starting to figure out how to make money in space that doesn't come from the government and that's exciting. Hopefully NASA and these guys will find a way to work together to make the science fiction dream come true.

publiusr · Dec 8, 2006

The privateers are the worst thing that has happened to spaceflight. Just another weapon for NASA bashers to use--leaving us with big promises and tiny, useless toys.

corydog · Dec 8, 2006

I don't understand why you continually call them useless toys. SS1 (obvious example) is essentially prototype of a passenger carrier for the rich, sure. But it's going to pay it's own way and develop orbital joyrides for the rich to. And I think that when that day comes, their solution (which must pay for itself) will allow them to put a person in orbit for cheaper than NASA has been able to, and NASA will probably buy seats or technology. Mike Griffin has acknowledged publicly that he wants private sector infrastructure it going to play a big roll in the "vision" and to back it up, NASA issued the COTS challenge to have them develop systems that will be usable both for the ISS and for rich passengers. NASA bashers will take advantage of whatever they can, but so will NASA supporters. We need to be careful not to blindly buy into NASA every step of the way.

halman · Dec 9, 2006

CoryDog, Everyone seems to think that private space flight has only been around a few years. It got started back in the late 1970's, I believe, with Deke Slayton and some underwriters trying to come up with some workable hardware. Over the years, there have been several private ventures into spaceflight, but nothing has come of it, because it is a high technology field that allows no mistakes. That makes it expensive, no matter how you cut it. And the time from the initial outlay of capital until the money starts coming in is still beyond measure, because no one has ever made money off of space flight. This tend to discourage the mutual funds and other large investors from getting behind private space flight. So, we have a small cadre of dedicated people trying to build systems which require thousands of man hours to complete and check out. Then, when there is a failure, they have to start all over again, trying to figure out what went wrong. People are expecting big things from the private space companies, but the years drag on, and still nothing flies. Still, I am optimistic that significant progress is at hand, at least in the realm of sub-orbital flight. As far as Low Earth Orbit goes, that is another matter. I have not seen anything likely to put a manned vehicle in LEO in the next 20 years, even though there are some neat things on the drawing boards. Not enough money is being put into private spaceflight to allow rapid learning curves. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

qso1 · Dec 9, 2006

The same could have been said about NASA in the Mercury days. "Just another weapon for human spaceflight critics leaving us with big promises and tiny useless capsules". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being: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. </div>

corydog · Dec 9, 2006

halman Indeed, I am familiar with the past ventures and all the failures. No one has yet to make a profit off manned spaceflight in the private sector. But I think this newest generation of ambition might be the one that's for real. If you want to start an engineering LLC, you get a number of benefits because engineering is classified as a "perilous profession", in that you have to put in some money, put in some more, and more, and then you finally get your first piece of hardware and subsequently (usually) you're first hardware failure. And a number of those past private company failures I think can be attributed an atmosphere where investors allowed themselves to be swayed by impression that only big NASA contractors could accomplish anything, giving them cold feet after the first hard start or first needed design change. I think were past the days of Gary Hudson's doomed Roton and other such still-born attempts. NASA invested in SpaceX and RPK-ATK thinking the same thing. While having this government money may disqualify them as being pure "private companies", I think any achievement they make will still speak volumes because Lockmart or Boeing would never dare attempt to build a brand new manned orbital vehicle for such a relatively modest sum.

trailrider · Dec 14, 2006

I have been suffering from a bad case of intestinal flu, and was just beginning to feel better... and then I read some of this nonsense, and got nauseus all over again! <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> Those of you who disparage private enterprise in the development of space need a thorough education in history, especially the history of the aircraft industry! The number of failed ventures in the aircraft industry between the Wright brothers' first flight in 1903 and the beginnings of true air transport beyond barnstorming and mail transport in surplus Jennies were legion and took over twenty years. And aircraft industry pioneers didn't have to struggle against the order of magnitude of the gravity well that space launch vehicles do. The Rev. Mr. Wright thought his sons had a screw loose. I could go on and on, but I won't waste the bandwidth. Suffice it to say, that if PRIVATE, COMMERCIAL space enterprise does NOT develop to the point where moneymaking industries (including tourism) lease the ISS or build their own, and then develop the lunar industries, you can bet your "six o'clock" there WILL BE NO SPACE EXPLORATION OUT AHEAD OF IT. And, yeah, I'm shouting! Once somebody figures out how to make money on the moon, NASA, OR WHOEVER HAS THE WILL AND THE MONEY to stick with EXPLORATION, can go ahead to the NEA's and Mars, and beyond. The thing that is both encouraging (as a homo sapiens extraplanetarialis) and (as an American) DIScouraging, is that that lunar base design didn't originate from the U.S.A.! Don't sell high school (or even grade schoolers) short in their design concepts! In 1953, I was in 4th grade and sent a wild and totally impracticable design for a nuclear explosion-powered rocket ship to the U.S. Navy. The officer that answer my letter was encouraging, and I never lost my passion for space travel. About nine years later, the old Project Orion was announced! Did I have anything to do w

christine16 · Dec 14, 2006

great news, I hope one day I can step on moon <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> or be in that base

Swampcat · Dec 19, 2006

"Those of you who disparage private enterprise in the development of space need a thorough education in history..." "... if PRIVATE, COMMERCIAL space enterprise does NOT develop to the point where moneymaking industries (including tourism) lease the ISS or build their own, and then develop the lunar industries, you can bet your "six o'clock" there WILL BE NO SPACE EXPLORATION OUT AHEAD OF IT." Well said. Neither NASA nor any other government space agency is going to be able to handle all the things us space cadets want to do. Private enterprise may be struggling to get its act together with regard to space related industries, but without it, any dreams we might have of humans routinely living and working in space simply won't happen. And like you, Trailrider, I'm getting too old to expect I'll ever see Earth from anywhere higher than what a commercial airplane flies, but I still believe humans should be striving to expand beyond Earth. A government organization has little if any incentive to support that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

alokmohan · Dec 21, 2006

Since 1970s Nasa is telling abot lunar base.Nasa has little credibility on this matter.

rocketman5000 · Dec 21, 2006

Boo...

radarredux · Dec 21, 2006

> Since 1970s Nasa is telling abot lunar base.Nasa has little credibility on this matter./i> Bury... oops, wrong site.

radarredux · Dec 21, 2006

> Neither NASA nor any other government space agency is going to be able to handle all the things us space cadets want to do./i> One thing that amazes me is how the press, much less us space cadets, read too much into NASA's plans. All the press talk about the "permanent base" on the Moon, and they show images of a large lunar outpost. But... if you read NASA's slides and transcripts, NASA itself is only building an outpost that can support missions of 180 days (side note: interestingly, this is about the time for a trip to Mars), and NASA is only providing a rudimentary capability for the outpost. The visions of a larger base and longer stays are contingent on other organizations stepping up with more money and development. So NASA is designing an architecture and plan that can scale up, but NASA's own plans are much more modest than what is portrayed in the media.

rocketman5000 · Dec 21, 2006

I know this is a little off topic, but what happens after the tour of missions to the moon? If Mars is still a priority at that point will we have a several year human spaceflight hiatus till the hardware for a Martian trip is developed?

MeteorWayne · Dec 21, 2006

Since it's all imaginary money at this point, I'd say we can't predict what will happen. Certainly, since current budgets do not support even the lunar proposal, any martian ones are even more ephemeral. Sorry to rain on the parade, but since the US, which funds NASA, is going more into debt by tens of millions a day, the future is murky at best. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

radarredux · Dec 21, 2006

> what happens after the tour of missions to the moon? If Mars is still a priority at that point will we have a several year human spaceflight hiatus till the hardware for a Martian trip is developed?/i> By 2025 NASA will have the following capabilities (taken from a NASA slide):<ul><li>Mature transportation system <li>Closed loop habitat <li>Long duration human missions beyond LEO <li>Surface EVA and mobility <li>Autonomous operations <li>Minimized reliance on Earth via In-Situ fabrication and resource utilization </li></li></li></li></li></li></ul>Because all this capability will exist, will be well understood, and will be well tested, repurposing it for Mars will not be that challenging. The shift from the Moon to Mars should not be nearly as difficult or time consuming as the shift from ISS to the Moon. Add to that the fact that the US alone will probably have launched another 9 robotic missions to Mars (and there are sure to be a number from other countries), and our knowledge of Mars before we go there will probably far exceed our current knowledge of the Moon. Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised to see some of those robotic Mars missions including ISRU prototypes. The final analysis: If NASA executes well on its Lunar program, and if the US still has a discretionary budget in 2025, then the transition to Mars should be relatively easy by comparison to other endeavors.

MeteorWayne · Dec 21, 2006

And that's a big IF, although I hope for the best. Again, IMHO, the money to fund this is mostly imaginary at this time. We will see how future budgets develop. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

Swampcat · Dec 21, 2006

"So NASA is designing an architecture and plan that can scale up, but NASA's own plans are much more modest than what is portrayed in the media." I agree. I think even NASA understands that it's not possible for them to develop all the things we (meaning those interested in human expansion into space) want. Somewhere along the line, private institutions are going to have to take over some things, like basic transport of people and goods, maintenance, etc., so that NASA can concentrate on the bleeding edge stuff, like technology development and research. We simply can't expect NASA to do it all. It just seems that some people like to belittle current private efforts. I would be the first to admit that what the private sector has accomplished to date is rather limited, but without that effort our dreams will never come to fruition. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

radarredux · Dec 21, 2006

> Somewhere along the line, private institutions are going to have to take over some things, like basic transport of people and goods, maintenance/i> Beyond offloading some of this work to other organizations, the costs of this work must be paid for by someone other than NASA. While privatization may result in more efficient operations, other revenue streams will need to be found. A couple of possibilities:<ul><li>Science research supported by NSF (e.g., a new telescope). <li>Radiation research funded by the Department of Energy. <li>Advertising pasted on the side of equipment (e.g., Habitat modules and rovers looking like a NASCAR car). <li>Mining for Platinum Group Metals (most mines on the Earth are on the borders of ancient impact craters -- the Moon seems to have a number of these <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />). <li>Mining for Helium-3 for clean/safe fusion reactors on Earth (if anyone can figure out how to make one). <li>In-Situ economies; for example, if someone could set up green houses, local food could be produced on the Moon/Mars and not shipped up from Earth's gravity well. <li>Tourism anyone? <li>Lunar outposts for other countries; Brazil could buy a habitat from Bigelow, pay NASA to ship it to the Moon, and pay various groups for transportation of people/supplies to/from the habitat. <li>Homesteading by rich individuals or groups (e.g., those groups that may be shunned on Earth -- a safe place for a non-Islamic polygamous society?). </li></li></li></li></li></li></li></li></li></ul>However the money is found, NEW money must be found.

Science fiction dream to come true by 2025?

Anonymous

Guest

lacuna

Guest

radarredux

Guest

lampblack

Guest

rocketman5000

Guest

halman

Guest

corydog

Guest

publiusr

Guest

corydog

Guest

halman

Guest

qso1

Guest

corydog

Guest

trailrider

Guest

christine16

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

rocketman5000

Guest

radarredux

Guest

radarredux

Guest

rocketman5000

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

radarredux

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

radarredux

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page