What will we do on the Moon?

[gsuschrist]

What's needed for any Moon mission isn't speeches about the Louisiana Purchase or other speeches saving Mankind from itslelf.<br /> NASA has to produce credibleis nitty-gritty facts. It will cost 'x' amount which is within NASA's budget and here's how we're going to do it. We need a Rocket to launch, a Capsule. Lander, etc. Here's why it can all be done within the limits of the existing 15 or so billion. If costs get out of hand, here's what we can cut back on....this could be unmanned probes, etc. There has to be a rational economic package put forward with some credible figures and the 'what ifs' addressed. <br /> One area needing absolute clarity is what happens when there's another loss of life? It's incredulous that it's as if this question is never addressed before a tragedy, as with the two Shuttle disasters. Some contigency has to be made to keep flying at reasonable risk. If this can't be added to the psychology of any Moon mission then we should forget it. There's a decent chance a craft will be lost and we don't need a 30 billion dollar program ground to a half half way through because we are paralyzed with fear of failure. The high risks have to be decided on ahead of time and accepted by all involved.

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

Halman, thats another excellant post from you!<br />I agree entirely <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[arobie]

Why? He makes some good points.

 

[crix]

Yeah, thanks for the thoughtful reply, halman. I don't want to undermine the credibility of the posters here. I've asked a difficult question and so there's no simple answer. I rather like the analogies of the Lousiana Purchace actually. I think it's inspiring and sellign the program to the population as a real estate investment might really work. Everyone can identify with it. Wow... I feel like this could be fantastic. Is the time ripe? A new lifter inthe works, a destination, and now an obvious reason: Real-estate, infrastructure.. the future!<br /><br />edit: grammar adjustment

 

[quasar2]

(1) Old Equipment (2) L1 Gateway (3) The Ice (4) Farside Observatory (5) Tourism (6) Another Space station (7) Lunar launcher (8) H3 (9) Infirmary (10) Mars Testing (11) Solar Cells (12) Lunar Concrete (13) Lava tubes (14) Lunar aluminum (15) Lunar Oxygen (16)SpaceJunk Studies <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[crix]

Those, for the most part, are a means to an end. What is the end? If we can sell "the point" of this all, then we get to build all the goodies you mentioned to support the plan.

 

[spacester]

The point has to be economic expansion.<br /><br />In a word, "jobs".<br /><br />But do these jobs have to be government jobs?<br /><br />Must the coordinating agency be NASA?<br /><br />Is it impossible to break out of the pork-barrel mentality?<br /><br />Is it possible to expand our thinking such that the answers to those non-rhetorical questions is "no" to each?<br /><br />I can describe such an approach, but will anybody listen?<br /><br />I said it for the first time four years ago here, and I'll keep saying it . . . <br /><br />Just because<br /><br />NASA = Space<br /><br />does not mean that <br /><br />Space = NASA <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[halman]

gsuschrist,<br /><br />How can we put numbers on hardware that has not been designed because we don't know the requirements yet? The further we go from the present, the more speculation we create. How much will the Crew Expedition Vehicle cost? Will we decide how much we can afford, and compromise our way to meeting the budget? That is how everyone's beloved space shuttle came to be. Will we accept that the CEV will be launched by an existing rocket NO MATTER WHAT? Can you tell me exactly how much a 2012 Ford F-250 pickup will cost? Could Ford? Will gasoline fueled reciprocating engines still be in production then, or will a new technology take their place because gasoline is selling for $5.75 a gallon by then?<br /><br />Every person knowledgable about space flight will give you different numbers for what the 'bare minimum' investment will be to accomplish a mission. Usually, the engineers and technicians in Congress will decide that they know better, and cut that 'bare minimum' estimate by at least a 1/4, sometimes a 1/3. How often do we present a complete package of systems, with everything needed to accomplish the goal? All too often, it is a piece here, a piece there. Building a space station was not included in the budget for the space shuttle, because they are two different things. But what use is one without the other?<br /><br />Space exploration is a long term commitment with no fixed costs. If I wanted to be absolutely certain that we acheive the goal of a permanent, manned base on the Moon within 25 years, I would say it will take an investment of 50 billion a year for 20 years. I know that we can do it with less, but if we try to find out what the minimum that we can do it for is, we will discover it when we fail.<br /><br />And you can be certain that when mis-management is to blame for deaths in the space program, there will always be lengthy reviews of the hardware, to distract the public from the fact that people have died needlessly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[spacester]

halman,<br /><br />I sure wish I could get you to modify your thinking along the lines of my own. I've tried before and I'm going to try again.<br /><br />You cannot get through your posts, as eloquent as they are, without mentioning Government Programs.<br /><br />IMO, as long as all we have are Government Programs, we will at best move forward very slowly.<br /><br />To which you no doubt will ask "where is the profit? - If not the government, then you're talking about the private sector, and the private sector is not going to do anything without profits"<br /><br />To which I reply<br /><br />THERE IS A THIRD WAY.<br /><br />Can you not see it?<br /><br />Does our entire society consist of the Government and Huge Corporations? Isn't there anything else?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[crix]

Medium-sized corporations/companies? <br /><br />Who else has the money to 'do' space?

 

[gsuschrist]

Halman:<br /> Re your 2012 Ford F-250:<br /><br /> No, we don't know what it will cost but Ford probably already has some quality estimates. They can do an educated analysis to the nearest 25% unlike NASA which spends quadruple on the Shuttle with a 20th of the launches. Ford can be confident that it's estimate at the extreme outer limit will still be 80 times more accurate than NASA's estimate for the Shuttle. <br /><br /> 'Dreams' don't pay the costs. I'm not disagreeing with your wish list and the possible benefits but that doesn't pay the bill. <br /><br /> There is a senator in your state. He has a hundred people knocking on his door every day wanting more money for very legitimate causes such as better armored vehicles for our troops, safer Interstate Hwys, the better funding of national parks, etc...ad nauseum. The 1o1st knock on the door is from NASA saying that 15 billion is not enough. The pot is empty. Where does the money come from and who doesn't get the money if NASA gets it? Less for the environment, our troops, energy conservation, pregnant mothers, veteran's hospitals?<br /><br /> Most of us at Space.com are on the same page. We want more space exploration and we (at least you and I) think that those dollars will pay off many times in spin off benefits. For me the number one spin off is the reinforcemnet and growth of a technological infrastructure that is the engine of our economy. Thousands of braniacs dong their thing. It's not a chance-thing that the United sweeps up most of the Nobel Prizes year after year. Our physicists, mathematicians, chemists, etc. are the best in world largely because we have the vision to have a space program and other such research.<br /><br /> The cost-boondoggles of Shuttle and the ISS, however noble efforts, will force NASA to come up with more than 'we have a dream' type reason to squeeze out more money.

 

[halman]

spacester,<br /><br />I understand your point of view, and sympathize with it. 'Big government' usually means 'Big waste'. But I am a student of history, and I believe that there is truth to the saying that 'history never repeats itself, but historical situations do.'<br /><br />Christopher Columbus had an idea, which he was convinced was right. Proving himself was beyond his means, however, so he had to ask for help.<br /><br />There was a clearly defined, established need for a transcontinental railway in the American west, but the cost was staggering. Through guarenteed loans, and massive land grants, the government enabled the project to go forward. But the government never completely relinguished its involvement, sad to say.<br /><br />The Panama Canal was started several times, by governments and private concerns. The United States government saw that completing the canal would be to its advantage, so it threw its backing behind an effort, to the extent of altering the politics of several Centeral American nations.<br /><br />When airplanes could land in any hay field, no one thought of government intervetion. But the need for long, concrete runways, several feet thick, changed that, because those runways were expensive, and offered little promise of return on the investment. Again, government intervened, providing money through grants and long-term, low interest loans.<br /><br />Automobiles would still be fairly rare if the government had not subsidized road construction, purchased fleets of vehicles which were usually declared 'surplus' before they were even delivered, and encouraged oil companies to explore in foreign nations for cheap oil.<br /><br />The amount of investment required to establish an Earth-to-Moon infrastructure, a base on the Moon, and the technologies for surviving on the Moon is beyond even the largest corporations. However, once that investment has been made, and the infrastructure is in place, the costs of developing the Moon will come dow <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[arobie]

<font color="yellow">I can describe such an approach, but will anybody listen?</font><br /><br />I will listen.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">NASA = Space <br /><br />does not mean that <br /><br />Space = NASA</font><br /><br />I agree.

 

[arobie]

<font color="yellow">People hold up the example of SpaceShip One as private investment making access to space possible, but that is a fallacy, for SpaceShip One does not provide access to space, only a brief view of it. 20 million dollars went into making that few moments possible, and it will take an investment several orders of magnitude larger to gain access to space.</font><br /><br />Halman, I have to disagree with you here.<br /><br />SpaceShipOne did make access to space possible, although it did not provide space access.<br /><br />SpaceShipOne showed that space access is possible, and by doing that, it set off events that will and are leading to public access to space.<br /><br />SpaceShipTwo is now in the works because of SS1's success. It recieved the nessecary funding from Richard Branson because SpaceShipOne showed him that Space access is affordable. And of course you know that Richard Branson will will buy 5 SS2's and start space tourism which will provide space access.<br /><br />Now I know that this is only space tourism, but along with tourism comes cheap access to space. That in itself is a big step towards anything we want to do in space.

 

[scottb50]

Where thers a will theres a way.<br /><br />Government has already done what they needed to do. They have proven we can exist and work in Space, they have proved we can go to other bodies and operate there. You rail against the Democrats Social Security, but you want NASA to provide you with commercial access to Space. <br /><br />That isn't NASAs job, just like Lewis and Clark weren't financed to colonize the West, just explore it and report their findings. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[halman]

gsuschrist,<br /><br />This country has gotten into a bad habit of ignoring the future. On a personal level, we don't put money into savings anymore, we spend it faster than we make it. On a national level, we have consistantly avoided upgrading infrastructure, such as bridges, roads, dams, electric transmission lines, air traffic control systems, and on and on. When catastrophic failures occur, we have little choice but to pay through the nose for emergency repairs.<br /><br />We currently are spending about 400 billion dollars a year to protect our way of life. How much are we investing in new technologies, higher education, research and development, the things which will maintain our standard of living? Having the world's most powerful military will not protect us from the future, indeed, it is probably blinding us to the potential that the future holds. All our military might cannot force corporations to bring factories back to the U.S. In spite of our military strength, we are growing weaker.<br /><br />We can continue to invest in military technology, in weapon systems which make the cost of the International Space Station seem like pocket change, or we can redirect a portion of that spending into the space program. Without investment in aerospace technology outside of military applications, all our airplane manufacturers are going to fold up. LockheedMartin no longer makes any civilian aircraft, and depends almost entirely upon military contracts for its survival. Without investment in space technology by the government, their chances of survival are slim.<br /><br />We can laugh that off, and say "Well, they didn't compete very well," but the problem is more widespread than a single company. Without investment in leading edge, high risk technology by the government, which paves the way for private ventures to move into new markets, the private ventures put their money into safe, low risk projects. But those low-risk projects tend to be low-profit, too, w <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[halman]

Arobie,<br /><br />To my mind, access to space means the ability to reach orbit, and to return safely. Nothing else. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[the_ten]

What will we do on the moon? Good question. What's the point in going back there? See if the footprints are still intact? We could put a telescope on the moon to avoid atmospheric interferance in the images...<br /><br />Other than that I can't think of a good reason.. Except to waste more of my tax payers money.

 

[crix]

halman, the only problem I see with justifying moon exploration and colonization by historical analogy is the fundamentally different terrains involved. The Great West provided access to tons of resources. What the moon provides is less obvious.<br /><br />sorry, more later.

 

[spacester]

In reference to the post beginning<br /><font color="yellow">This country has gotten into a bad habit of ignoring the future.</font><br />I would like to heartily concur and humbly request the consideration of a plan which solves this problem by bypassing Congress in terms of it running the show. Bypass Congress, bypass NASA. Don't ignore them, just take them off the critical path. Whatever they contribute will be a bonus.<br /><br />The choice is indeed ours. But there is a choice besides gummint programs. Think about the rest of the private sector. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">To my mind, access to space means the ability to reach orbit, and to return safely. Nothing else. </font><br /><br />My goodness, what a limited perspective!<br /><br />Wow. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

halman, in response to the "student of history post":<br /><br />Just because I accept the proposition that "Those who do not learn from history" does not mean that I expect to be able to directly use history to guide me on how to get it done. It's just too different of a challenge - later, after it's all accomplished, you can go back and look for a specific analogy that fits well, but the problem at hand requires something so new, so out of the box, that no amount of historical prowess will divine the method.<br /><br />IOW I'm so over historical analogies, we've evoked them all over the years here, and they all have serious flaws as predictors. Having said that, I must say your post summarizes pretty much all the analogies we've heard over the years, almost a reference post, very nice.<br /><br />If you want to invoke a historical perspective, then talk about the fulfillment of an age-old dream. There's your historical perspective. It's not the wild west or the Antarctic, it's the MOON fer cryin' out loud! Like you've said, it's a place people can point to and say "There are people doing things up there right now, isn't it cool to be alive?"<br /><br />But what if . . . what if lots of people could point up there and say "I worked on a project that did a thing to contribute to the things that are being done up there" ? What if millions of American students could look up at the moon as a place to do things?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">Who else has the money to 'do' space? </font><br /><br />We do.<br /><br />We the people.<br /><br />You know: us. <br /><br />Republicans and Democrats and everybody else.<br /><br />Americans, then the rest of the world.<br /><br />Just as a mathematical exercize, how much would I get if I got $10 from every American? $100?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">That isn't NASAs job, just like Lewis and Clark weren't financed to colonize the West, just explore it and report their findings. </font><br /><br />Right. It's the people's job to do the pioneering, not the government's. Infrastructure by the people, of the people and for the people. "Peoplestructure", if you will.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Resources, yes. Let's talk about the resources on the moon.<br /><br />Wait a minute. Let's talk instead about the most valuable resource the moon has to offer. The one resource that stands above all the others.<br /><br />Well, let's see, by historical analogy, I'm looking for a physical substance, a valuable mineral ore, or arable land, or refuge. None of those ideas pan out when you look to the moon for a "kiler app" resource, an industry-forming opportunity that can't miss. <br /><br />So let's quit looking for a physical substance to base our lunar dreams on already!<br /><br />How about a concept instead of a thing?<br /><br />What is the greatest exploitable resource on the moon?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">The wonder of being there. </font><br /><br />It's not just a hippy-dippy idealistic dreamer's tag line. It's a design engineer's conclusion after pouring over the real-world possibilities. Having exhausted the ideas on the table, some out-of-the-box ideas were generated. There is a way to get this done. <br /><br />Exploiting this resource is not just "space tourism" as most seem to conceive it. I see "Private Space Flight" as not only having many unpredicted "tourism" niches in a broad based industry, but a much broader spectrum of activity in parallel. It's not just guys in Bermuda Shorts with a baseball cap and a camera, lol. While often maligned and looked-down-upon, I predict you will come to learn just how powerful an ally this economic juggernaut called tourism will end up being for all your other dreams in space. I suppose it'll take about seven more years to convince a solid majority of folks here, but we'll get there. The access to space - however limited, lol - provided by a space tourism industry will drive us inexorably toward CATS.<br />** <br />The wonder of being there can get us there. It's not exactly "build it and they will come"; it's more like "they will come to built it there". (Am I making any sense? Prob not, it's just that I can't hi <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>