Should NASA return to the Moon instead of doing ARM?

[FishInferno]

Title says it all, should NASA change its plans and preform a moon lading rather than the ARM mission? I personally think that a return to the moon is more important than the ARM for a number of reasons:

-Landing on the Moon would surely reignite public interest in space exploration.

-An Apollo-style landing could be achieved with a single SLS launch, rather than one SLS launch and one Atlas V launch as ARM proposes.

-There is still more science to be done on the Moon

-Landing on the Moon does a lot more to prepare us for Mars than ARM

EDIT: i also added a Mars flyby option to the poll

Edited April 22, 2015 by FishInferno

[AngelLestat]

ARM.. Learn to mine asteroids is more valueble.. At the same time you understand much more about its constitution in case we need to redirect one to survive.

What secrets hide the moon that can help us as civilization?

[Greenfire32]

What secrets hide the moon that can help us as civilization?

That would be the point of...doing science...on the moon...by landing on the moon....and doing science...

[Kryten]

Replacement with a SEP Phobos sample return (as recommended by the NASA advisory council) would have better scientific return than either of these missions, and Moon landing isn't feasible in the same timeframe as ARM in any case-landers aren't cheap.

[RainDreamer]

Unless we plan to build a moon base up there, I don't know what else we can do with it.

[HoloYolo]

Voted Other, for a Venus fly-by. Shorter travel time. We can see how space affects people long-term. We can test radiation from a place without a magnetic field. We can get data from Venus that probes couldn't. That is why.

[AngelLestat]

That would be the point of...doing science...on the moon...by landing on the moon....and doing science...

You are right.. but behind each mission there is one objective.. How do you design your spacecraft if you dont know the objective..

What instruments carry? What do you want to find and how this will help us?

[Greenfire32]

You are right.. but behind each mission there is one objective.. How do you design your spacecraft if you dont know the objective..

What instruments carry? What do you want to find and how this will help us?

Eh normally you'd be right on the money, but in a case such as this, wouldn't the mission itself be "to find out what we can do on the moon?" since really all we've done before hand is...just go there?

In a case such as this, you'd take everything. Measure everything. Report your findings back home and let them design another mission based off of first-hand reports. Robotics are great for trivial things like mineral composition and blah blah blah, but in order to find out what the long term effects of Lunar life has on the human body (such like you would find in an off-world mining operation) you need humans up there, not robots.

I think if mankind is going to walk amongst the stars, we need to take the moon more seriously as a baby step. Yes, we've been there. But we need to live there too.

[Kryten]

Can we please take the moonbase talk to a thread that's not supposed to be about actual, near-term missions?

[Greenfire32]

Can we please take the moonbase talk to a thread that's not supposed to be about actual, near-term missions?

Why? It's not off-topic.

I'm advocating that NASA should redirect their efforts towards the moon instead of going with the ARM and gave the moonbase concept as my reasoning.

The OP says:

Title says it all, should NASA change its plans and preform a moon lading rather than the ARM mission? I personally think that a return to the moon is more important than the ARM for a number of reasons

[michaelhester07]

I'd like to think that's what this thread is about: Should we do something other than the planned mission?

I vote for going back to the Moon but not just for going back's sake. We should establish a colony there. By establishing a colony we gain knowledge of what it would take to build a colony on Mars or beyond. We'll find out how to harvest resources from the Moon and refine methods that can be used on Mars from finding the resources to building a sustainable base.

The Moon is ultimately an easier place to launch from for missions like ARM. Figuring out how to launch a rocket from the Moon would be a tremendous boon to society as a whole in space exploration. The moon can support bigger payloads with lighter gravity. The need for fairings or aerodynamics goes away. Launches can go directly into the gravity turn with no air resistance to stop them.

I do like the idea of the asteroid recovery mission too. The idea is to figure out how to redirect an asteroid that could end up destroying life on earth. With a moon colony we have an extra blanket of security against that outcome as humanity would not be confined to a single spot. You don't have to launch an asteroid's resources once you recovered it. That's a big plus for building things in orbit. I place more value in the Moon base though as while we can recover an asteroid and mine it we can't really colonize it and expand our reach.

[Fel]

That would be the point of...doing science...on the moon...by landing on the moon....and doing science...

You are right.. but behind each mission there is one objective.. How do you design your spacecraft if you dont know the objective... What instruments carry? What do you want to find and how this will help us?

This gets painfully subjective very fast.

A hypothesis can simply be "something interesting will happen;" many scientific discoveries start off from accident, or even an unexpected byproduct of an experiment. Doing science isn't just about testing what you know, it's also about trying to find something that you don't; finding something new that you wouldn't think to test for.

Just a silly idea, but what about fusion? We've had all kinds of issues with creating isolation, containment... would doing a set of fusion experiments in space change anything? Would it lead to new technologies that could improve fusion here on earth?

[Greenfire32]

I'd like to think that's what this thread is about: Should we do something other than the planned mission?

I vote for going back to the Moon but not just for going back's sake. We should establish a colony there. By establishing a colony we gain knowledge of what it would take to build a colony on Mars or beyond. We'll find out how to harvest resources from the Moon and refine methods that can be used on Mars from finding the resources to building a sustainable base.

The Moon is ultimately an easier place to launch from for missions like ARM. Figuring out how to launch a rocket from the Moon would be a tremendous boon to society as a whole in space exploration. The moon can support bigger payloads with lighter gravity. The need for fairings or aerodynamics goes away. Launches can go directly into the gravity turn with no air resistance to stop them.

Pretty much all of this right here.

A hypothesis can simply be "something interesting will happen;" many scientific discoveries start off from accident, or even an unexpected byproduct of an experiment. Doing science isn't just about testing what you know, it's also about trying to find something that you don't; finding something new that you wouldn't think to test for.

All the more reason to go there

[xenomorph555]

I say do both, ARM is not a massively draining endeavour (compared to other stuff) and will yield valuable information, we have already put a lot of work into it to just cancel for other stuff.

As for the moon, yes yes and more yes. We need to return absolutely, however I don't want the days of Apollo (small scouting missions), no the moon program would have to be aimed at quickly building infrastructure and knowledge. To do this I recommend looking at the Shenzhou program, a small amount of missions but each has to be bigger and more progressive then the last so you don't waste money on what are effectively re-hashs of the same mission.

My point is we shouldn't decide whether to go between either, we should do both. Exceptions on that foolish HAVOC airship thing, that can get thrown in the garbage for all I care.

EDIT: I should also mention ARM takes place in lunar orbit. So it would be good to progress from that to the surface.

[Kryten]

Why? It's not off-topic.

I'm advocating that NASA should redirect their efforts towards the moon instead of going with the ARM and gave the moonbase concept as my reasoning.

Then you're advocating an economic impossibility. You complain about a single Atlas V: do you have any idea how much it would cost to resupply a permanent lunar base?

[xenomorph555]

Then you're advocating an economic impossibility. You complain about a single Atlas V: do you have any idea how much it would cost to resupply a permanent lunar base?

On an unrelated note this shows why the Chinese are smart for pursuing fully closed-cycle life support systems. NASA should follow suit.

[Fel]

Then you're advocating an economic impossibility. You complain about a single Atlas V: do you have any idea how much it would cost to resupply a permanent lunar base?

Less than it would cost to resupply a mars base? Or is there a practical, not political, reason we cannot develop sustainable resources on the moon.

[Greenfire32]

Then you're advocating an economic impossibility. You complain about a single Atlas V: do you have any idea how much it would cost to resupply a permanent lunar base?

Well, I'm not complaining about a single Atlas V, just stating that I think efforts would be better used elsewhere.

As for the cost of resupply to a permanent lunar base?

1) we don't know if there's valuable compounds on the moon that can be used as "fuels." That would be a good reason to go and find out, would it not?

2) we don't know how well a hydroponics lab would function on the lunar surface. That would be a good reason to go and find out, would it not?

3) once established and operational, a permanent lunar base could become self-sufficient. Become a colony even. But we won't know, until we go and find out.

You cannot say that something is not worth doing, unless you prove it. Tons of people thought the Americas (the "New World") wasn't worth colonizing because there was nothing here. It wasn't until people came here and proved it could be tamed, that major populations started cropping up.

Now, I'm not saying we should go willy nilly and "see what happens." There's definitely a right and wrong way to go about it. But saying we should ignore the moon simply "because" is a terrible excuse. No one is saying it won't be hard. No one is saying it won't be cheap. But that's no reason to just give up on what I consider to be the greatest resource within our relative grasp.

We could learn so much on the moon. We could also learn a lot from ARM. I just feel like the moon is far more rewarding at this stage in the game.

[Kryten]

Are you serious? Do you seriously think the only way we have to test the composition of the moon is to send a crewed mission and pick up some rocks?

[AngelLestat]

Can we please take the moonbase talk to a thread that's not supposed to be about actual, near-term missions?

The only way to discuss what has more science value is to look in the long term also. If we can not do that, then there is nothing to discuss.

I think if mankind is going to walk amongst the stars, we need to take the moon more seriously as a baby step. Yes, we've been there. But we need to live there too.

We already take that baby step, this will be like support the apollo moon conspiracy, is like said.. we was there.. but we forget how to accomplish that. I need to hear a good objective before support this.

in order to find out what the long term effects of Lunar life has on the human body (such like you would find in an off-world mining operation) you need humans up there, not robots.

We should establish a colony there. By establishing a colony we gain knowledge of what it would take to build a colony on Mars or beyond. We'll find out how to harvest resources from the Moon and refine methods that can be used on Mars from finding the resources to building a sustainable base.

mmm I dont know.. is a valid point, at least for mars as the next step. But why we can not sent a robot missions direct to mars and experiment the best way to do ISRU directly in mars conditions. Of course this does not provide manned or colony experience.. But the colony experience in the moon is similar than in the ISS, without the mining possibilities or the dust issue.

The Moon is ultimately an easier place to launch from for missions like ARM. Figuring out how to launch a rocket from the Moon would be a tremendous boon to society as a whole in space exploration. The moon can support bigger payloads with lighter gravity. The need for fairings or aerodynamics goes away. Launches can go directly into the gravity turn with no air resistance to stop them.

Why? we need to build the spacecraft, reach LEO, go to the moon and land (which require deltav), just to fill our tanks and gain a little extra deltav? Plus the time lost and the risk added?

We can capture a 50m asteroid (70% water), redirect that using the same water as propellent plus gravity assists. Locate it in LEO (which may take several years of propulsion), that is equal to 65000m3, 70% --> 45000 tons of water. We need to do 1000 falcon heavy launchs to carry that amount of fuel to LEO. Doing this we have our fuel station right in our doors.

This gets painfully subjective very fast.

A hypothesis can simply be "something interesting will happen;" many scientific discoveries start off from accident, or even an unexpected byproduct of an experiment. Doing science isn't just about testing what you know, it's also about trying to find something that you don't; finding something new that you wouldn't think to test for.

I know.. but we need to set priorities, the moon will not go anywhere.

[Kryten]

The only way to discuss what has more science value is to look in the long term also. If we can not do that, then there is nothing to discuss.

A permanent moonbase will not happen in the forseeable future. It certainly isn't a NASA objective, long-term or otherwise.

[Greenfire32]

Are you serious? Do you seriously think the only way we have to test the composition of the moon is to send a crewed mission and pick up some rocks?

....no. I don't really think you're reading what I'm writing here...

The only way we're going to learn how to live on another world is by, after all things considered, doing it.

But if you think we'll figure out how to live on another planet without first figuring out how to live on the moon, you're insane.

It's right there. Why shouldn't we reach for it? So far, all I'm seeing is "because it's hard and expensive."

Space is hard. And expensive. Period.

You cant say we shouldn't go to the moon because we don't know if it's valuable or not, and then turn around and say we should go to an asteroid instead despite the fact that we don't know if it's valuable or not.

The whole point of conducting these experiments is to find out that value. Sure, we can measure the effects of micro gravity here in low earth orbit, but what about the effects of lunar gravity on the human body? There's more gravity on the surface of the moon than there is in LEO and the only way we're going to learn that is by going there.

A permanent moonbase will not happen in the forseeable future. It certainly isn't a NASA objective, long-term or otherwise.

This is where we agree. However, I'll still say that I'd rather have a moonbase than a captured asteroid.

[AngelLestat]

A permanent moonbase will not happen in the forseeable future. It certainly isn't a NASA objective, long-term or otherwise.

But look how mars or venus missions are presented to us, all include in their objectives: "smooth the way for a future colony".

If your objective is: I want to go the moon just to see what can I find under that rock.. and I guess I would not find nothing interesting.

That is not the way to call people attention.. SpaceX has much more attention than any nasa mission right now because it has a practical purpose.

Another practical purpose can be "there is a chance to find life"

Greenfire: You read my answer?

Edited April 22, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Xannari Ferrows]

I say put resources into this HAVOC mission thing. It looks really interesting, and is a pretty clever idea.

[Kryten]

But look how mars or venus missions are presented to us, all include in their objectives: "smooth the way for a future colony".

Name one NASA Venus or Mars mission with anything like that as an official objective.