Should NASA return to the Moon instead of doing ARM?

[The Yellow Dart]

I think the important question to answer is who do we want to be interested in space? The general public, or commercial interests?

The moon is, imo, a better way to reinvigorate public interest in human space exploration. This will do a better job of improving NASA's budget through public support but the downside here, to me, is that NASA is slow moving due to budget concerns and bureaucracy (through no fault of their own), and human space travel is even slower (for good reason).

ARM has a good chance of jumpstarting commercial space travel in a big way. Getting an asteroid back here to be fully analyzed will show entrepreneurs and investors how well they can do in deep space. A good sized asteroid could have more precious metals in it that can be mined in a dozen strip mines on earth. In the long run, I think this is more important and do more for humanity by normalizing both robotic and human space travel faster than a moon mission would. And I would fully support the idea of just getting a boulder from the surface of a larger asteroid, because it greatly simplifies the mission, meaning it could leave sooner, meaning I could get a condo on Mars sooner. The major downside of ARM is a severe lack of moonbases.

[tater]

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

The implicit meaning of the poll is MANNED, so science is not an issue, nothing on the moon (or even the asteroid notion) requires a human being to do science. Probes are better, period. Any mass you can land on the moon and return samples with could return at least the same mass of samples as a manned mission. Probes have only delivered less because they had budgets (in treasure and mass) that disallowed more.

ARM? Why manned? It means more mass for the same job, and far more risk.

Mars orbit would be more sensible, because they could land rovers, and remote control them with no real time delay. It would be longer than the proposed 501 day flyby, however. As a flyby, the Mars mission seems like more of a stunt.

I voted Moon, simply because it's relatively easy, and of the "stunts" I think it has the most appeal to the populace at large. Face it, these are STUNTS. Yes, new capabilities can come from such stunts (the Space Race was full of them), but remember that the Space Race ended when we landed on the Moon. Nothing after that was compelling (to regular people) and nothing will be until a Mars landing, frankly. A new Moon mission, with streaming HD video is far more interesting. Novel landing locations will be very interesting… I'd like to see a mission to rilles, for example. Yes, remote rovers could do the same thing, but if the goal is cool, manned missions before Mars, then the Moon.

[Sampa]

Personally, I think they should have BOTH ready! Moon as a primary with ARM as a standby in case of a wayward asteroid

[AngelLestat]

There's a difference between a mission that at least being proposed, and... that thing. It's not even a mission study, it's a concept study. You claim NASA missions are sent to support colonisation, I just want one objective for a mission (not some concept study that might as well be on the back of a napkin) that mentions colonisation. At all. Of anything.

Lol... this is just sad.. now like last resource to not give the reason, you stand that as the specific word "colony" is not mentioned (only "human exploration!!") then does not qualify...

really???

A good sized asteroid could have more precious metals in it that can be mined in a dozen strip mines on earth.

Our most valueable resource right now that we can extract from asteroids is water, which give us fuel (Hydrogen + oxygen), oxygen to breath and water to drink.

An asteroid in LEO will be our free ticket to the solar system.

I voted Moon, simply because it's relatively easy, and of the "stunts" I think it has the most appeal to the populace at large. Face it, these are STUNTS. Yes, new capabilities can come from such stunts (the Space Race was full of them), but remember that the Space Race ended when we landed on the Moon. Nothing after that was compelling (to regular people) and nothing will be until a Mars landing, frankly. A new Moon mission, with streaming HD video is far more interesting. Novel landing locations will be very interesting… I'd like to see a mission to rilles, for example. Yes, remote rovers could do the same thing, but if the goal is cool, manned missions before Mars, then the Moon.

Orion, costelation, the moon base.. all are excuses to not make the real step that we need to take 50!!! years after the moon.

In 8 years, starting in 1961!!, they acomplish ande develope the saturn 5, the biggest rocket even made, new electronics and all the technology needed.

That is equal to try right now with only 8 years of develoment a manned travel to europa with a submarine. But not.. we are talking about moon in 2025-2040. Thats it.. elon musk is our only savior.

[Fel]

All those are valid points, but if we take this route.. its mean that before go somewhere else.. we need to spent 10 or 20 years with a colony in moon, why we dont skip the boring tutorial and we jump into the adventure.

If that level of safety is needed to do anything from now.. then why ever bother to find qualify people to do the missions.. just choice me..

The edge will be always risky.. If we dont take risks we go nowhere.

Take as example the past.. There is already a lot of evidence than points that the Easter Island were originating colonize from some islands from the Polynesia. This without knowing how much your travel it will took before reach a place.. and using stars to navigate before colombus times.

Now NASA or other agencies needs 100% of sucess before move a finger.

How can you have a 100% chance of success if your testing is purely theoretical? Yes, the "take it one step at a time" procedures are boring; but they're also the only way to make certain we're not sending people to a death trap. If we take random risks, we will go nowhere; if Columbus tried sailing in the arctic rather than the warmer oceans, simply because it had the possibility of being shorter, he might not have made it, him not returning may have discouraged people from trying to sail around the world for a long time.

If we fail after this big push, if something comes up that a long term testing would have found; how long will we end up waiting before trying again? How many decades? Centuries?

Also if you want a permanent habitat in the moon, you will need extra gravity.. I dont need to know the results how harm is moon gravity for us.. 99% sure it will be also bad at long term.

I believe exercise works far better than complicated environments to stave off bone deterioration (well, in terms of engineering, likelihood of breaking down, and availability of replacement parts for repairs); other health problems are going to emerge regardless of which low gravity environment we're in;

[Nibb31]

I really wish we could drop the Columbus and New World analogies once and for all. Space is not the Americas. It was a totally different world back then, people had different motivations, different technology, different politics, different requirements. In the Americas, you could easily get off your ship, build a camp, and live off the land. In those days, Kings didn't care about public opinion or if they lost a ship. And the explorers of those days didn't even know where they were going. Colonisation was about building trade routes and bringing riches back to the home country. Immigrants had rational reasons to expect a better life by moving there. Colonisation also ended up by backfiring against all of the nations that practiced it.

None of the analogies with modern space exploration are applicable, so please let's finally stop using Columbus and the Far West as examples of how we should colonize space.

Mars orbit would be more sensible, because they could land rovers, and remote control them with no real time delay. It would be longer than the proposed 501 day flyby, however. As a flyby, the Mars mission seems like more of a stunt.

Mars is out of the question for now.

The OP is between the Moon and ARM, which are both within reach with current technology and SLS/Orion. Both simply require the development of a mission module (either a Lunar Lander or the ARM SEP spacecraft) which would be possible within 10 years from now.

Development of a Mars spacecraft is simply a much larger project which is at least 20 years away. So what do we do until then? Sit around and look at SLS sitting in a hangar?

- - - Updated - - -

Lol... this is just sad.. now like last resource to not give the reason, you stand that as the specific word "colony" is not mentioned (only "human exploration!!") then does not qualify...

Human exploration is not the same thing as a colony. It's not a technicality.

Colonies are science fiction at this point. They are not something that will happen in the next century at least, because there are no rational reasons for any organization to build a colony or for any individuals to sell their house to buy a ticket to emigrate. A colony would only be sustainable at a huge cost and there is zero return on investment in building a colony anywhere. There is no political will or public support or commercial motivation. It is not happening. Please, let's stop using that word.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Nibb31

[PakledHostage]

I really wish we could drop the Columbus and New World analogies once and for all. Space is not the Americas.

I can't agree more. A closer analog is Antarctica, and even that continent is far more habitable than Mars. It is warmer, wetter, you can breath the air and you can go outside without a having to wear a pressure suit. Yet even though Antarctica was discovered in 1820 (and we've had the means to get there since well before then), the only people living there reside in scientific research stations. There aren't any colonies.

To be fair, the continent's resources have been protected from being developed by the international Antarctic Treaty, but only since 1959. And this fact actually helps me make my point. Without resource extraction, there isn't any compelling reason to colonize Antarctica. The same will be true for anywhere else in the solar system. It will be a long time, if ever, before resource extraction from Mars makes financial sense. Asteroids are a better bet, but I find it hard to believe that even they will be mined for their resources in our lifetimes.

Edited April 23, 2015 by PakledHostage
Clarified a point

[Nibb31]

If and when asteroids are mined for resources, it will still be mainly robotic activity. There might be a need for some short manned EVA maintenance missions, but any commercial activity will want to avoid super-expensive manned presence whenever possible. There will be no space gold rush with space cowboys and space saloons.

[tater]

SLS is a porkbarrel pig of a project, as is Constellation/Orion. This is reality with a democracy doing space exploration. ALL government spending is by definition political. There is no chance of rational policy, because what is required is X votes in this district, Y votes in the next, and so forth. From the standpoint of science, manned flight to either of the 2 winning poll results is absurd. Unmanned could do it cheaper/faster.

The Space Race was a creature of the Cold War. Perhaps China could become a foil to drive the US to the moon faster as a new cold war, I dunno. Short of that, we need a private program, frankly, since a private entity can make choices that are rational, and long-term, and follow through. NASA is beholden to the next continuing resolution (or now for the first time in several years maybe an actual budget).

I agree on the Mars thing, which is why I voted "Moon." I meant that from a science standpoint a flyby is pointless. For the mass required to keep a few astronauts alive for 500+ days you could land some awesome rovers, or perhaps a small sample-return mission.

[Nibb31]

Short of that, we need a private program, frankly, since a private entity can make choices that are rational, and long-term, and follow through. NASA is beholden to the next continuing resolution (or now for the first time in several years maybe an actual budget).

The problem with a private program is that it needs a viable business plan to justify the investment, and there simply is no viable business plan for anything except for comsats and government contracts.

[Stone Blue]

It caused Spain to have huge inflation...

The only advantage was more territory and bringing more modern science to the New World.

Sorry...you seem to be totally missing my point...

[tater]

The problem with a private program is that it needs a viable business plan to justify the investment, and there simply is no viable business plan for anything except for comsats and government contracts.

True…. unless the private entity wants to do it "because."

[Bill Phil]

Sorry...you seem to be totally missing my point...

My point is that discovering the New World really didn't help all that much.

[Kryten]

The problem with a private program is that it needs a viable business plan to justify the investment, and there simply is no viable business plan for anything except for comsats and government contracts.

Commercial earth observations have now been viable for a while, but modern commercial EO sats are small enough that the effect on the actual launch market is pretty much negligible.

[Nibb31]

True…. unless the private entity wants to do it "because."

There aren't many non-profits that can throw billions away "because". And no, not even Musk.

[AngelLestat]

How can you have a 100% chance of success if your testing is purely theoretical?

of course not 100% but all the things that was done even for the apollo program was tested before.. So that is not an excuse.

And it work in 1969. Not everyone use their heads to understand the huge difference in technology from that time to now.

So.. please... Is the same than try to do the pyramids again and being afraid to fail.

If we fail after this big push, if something comes up that a long term testing would have found; how long will we end up waiting before trying again? How many decades? Centuries?

If you start this journey being honest, to accomplish something big, saying that is a huge step and it will require take many risks.

Then the courage team chosen will know the risk. The same as the rest of the world. But that is the way you get breakthroughs.

So the risk is that some people may die? people die all days by the most stupid causes.

I believe exercise works far better than complicated environments to stave off bone deterioration (well, in terms of engineering, likelihood of breaking down, and availability of replacement parts for repairs); other health problems are going to emerge regardless of which low gravity environment we're in

But there are already many articles estimating how severe low gravity can be over big periods of time. We can not be sure yet.. but I dont expect a very different result.

I really wish we could drop the Columbus and New World analogies once and for all. Space is not the Americas.

Ok.. Then lets mention the apollo program.. is that a bad analogy too? Why? because if not, it sinks your argument?

Human exploration is not the same thing as a colony. It's not a technicality.

You are lawyer now trying to find any loophole in semantics just to ignore the real context in where was used?

A colony may be a tool used for "human exploration", in fact we see Elon Musk talking all day of colonization.

Colonies are science fiction at this point.

sorry.. but everything you can not buy in the shopping close to your house is science fiction from your perspective.

I never see someone so closed to any new thing.

A colony would only be sustainable at a huge cost and there is zero return on investment in building a colony anywhere. There is no political will or public support or commercial motivation. It is not happening. Please, let's stop using that word.

That is a way of seeing things for those without vision.

[FishInferno]

That is a way of seeing things for those without vision.

this. this. this. and alot more of this

if you look at space exploration in purely monetary terms, you are not going anywhere.

[PakledHostage]

Not everyone use their heads to understand the huge difference in technology from that time to now. So.. please... Is the same than try to do the pyramids again and being afraid to fail.

That's a straw man argument... Either that or you greatly under appreciate the technological achievement of the Apollo program. There's a vast difference between building the pyramids using 2500 BC technology vs. today's technology and flying to the moon using 1960's technology vs today's technology.

That is a way of seeing things for those without vision.

No, that is a way of seeing things for those who are pragmatic. It isn't too much of a stretch of the imagination to believe that most of us here would love to see thriving colonies on Mars, Ceres, the clouds of Venus, etc. The real world isn't KSP, however. The real world runs on money. The Apollo program was only funded because of the cold war. It was a matter of prestige to succeed and thereby demonstrate the superiority of the capitalist system. Nobody has gone back since because there's no justification for spending the billions of dollars that it would cost. We can do as much as we currently need to do for less money by sending robotic probes.

And while there may well come a day when we step off this planet and become a true space faring civilization, it isn't going to happen in our lifetimes. Rome wasn't built in a day. All the wishful thinking in the world isn't going to change that.

[Nibb31]

Ok.. Then lets mention the apollo program.. is that a bad analogy too? Why? because if not, it sinks your argument?

Actually comparing the world of the 1960's with the world of today is pretty bad too. It was a different time, with a lot less bureaucracy, a lot less people in charge of design, and unlimited resources in order to beat the Soviets. Humanity was on the brink of self-destructing. Today is a very different world, where large projects typically take a lot longer, with more documentation, more committees, smaller budgets and higher cost, because everything is infinitely more complex.

You are lawyer now trying to find any loophole in semantics just to ignore the real context in where was used?

A colony may be a tool used for "human exploration", in fact we see Elon Musk talking all day of colonization.

No, if anything, exploration might be a tool used to prepare colonization, not the other way round, but you can also have one without the other. They are two different things. NASA has a goal of exploration and scientific research. It does not have a mandate for colonization. There is no political push or towards colonization. There is no social demand for colonization.

Elon Musk isn't God. He has accomplished a lot, but colonization is not a goal for a single man or even a company. It's a choice of society, and society doesn't give a *crap* about space colonies. Why would any organization want to spend massive amounts of money to establish colonies that would ultimately demand independence as soon as they become self-sustaining? And why would people want to emigrate to raise their children in hab modules or underground bunkers in a deadly environment that will kill them instantly if technical glitch occurs?

Forget colonization, it is not going to happen. Please do not use that word if you are trying to have a constructive discussion anchored in reality.

- - - Updated - - -

if you look at space exploration in purely monetary terms, you are not going anywhere.

Space is and always will be expensive. If you ignore the economical, social, and political factors, you're not going anywhere either. They are just as real as the engineering factors, and in some cases, more difficult to work around.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Nibb31

[tater]

There aren't many non-profits that can throw billions away "because". And no, not even Musk.

I agree entirely. I think that private firms have an interest in monetizing space, which is a plus, however. In addition, I think that they can drive costs down in a way that porkbarrel NASA "business as usual" actually discourages (I don't entirely blame NASA, they could want to buy off the shelf, and that doesn't stop them from being mandated to buy stuff they don't want because of plants in certain districts).

As you said above, Apollo happened because of the Cold War. No Cold War, no Apollo, plain and simple.

I also agree on bases/colonization. Comparing it to the conquest of the New World is absurd. There were viable reasons to come to the new world, both economic, and political (US colonization was partially related to the English Civil War, after all, not to mention the geopolitics of Britain/France/Spain). Without some driver like that, colonies are pipe dreams unless costs drop enough that NASA could easily set up and maintain bases within their current budget structure, I think. That or a new, economic driver.

[John FX]

My first thought is "No, asteroids are more interesting to the people who fund stuff as they could get a return of their investment thereby securing continued investment and longevity of the program"

I'll read the thread now.

EDIT : I have not changed my mind. The next few missions that NASA makes need to entice the big money investors who want a slice of the asteroid mining pie.

Once we get successful on Earth, then we can try in LEO, closer to home, and then the Moon.

This sums up my view on a moonbase. Once we can do it in a place where, if it fails the people can just walk out, then we do it in a place where if it fails the people have to rely on stock solutions, then we try it in a place where if it fails the people die. It seems some people are already doing this, just not NASA.

In the mean time we should be enticing the real money on the planet to be investing in stripping the system of it's resources, exactly like we did in the new world...

Why did people want to reach india the 'wrong way'?

For profit. This is the same reason space will become more occupied. Profit.

Edited April 23, 2015 by John FX

[mardlamock]

I think that we should all remember that what is profitable or valuable is just what people want, we dont need computers to survive, we dont need KSP to stay alive, yet we still have these things, even though they are pointless in it of themselves. Space is no different, what matters most is getting regular people to support the space industry, billons of dolars are donated every year to human rights organizations, charity funds, and churches,etc. space exploration could be no different.

For that matter, I strongly believe a Moon mission is better, it gets people interested in space and shows them what we can do with current technology. We should not work towards getting NASA a bigger fund through taxes, instead, we should get people to voluntarily fund space exploration, just as they do with hundreds of other things.

Of course that working within current demand for goods is important, the growth must not depend now on national space programs, it must be founded on solid economic ground; but getting the average joe to voluntarily give 100$ for space exploration is also extremely important.

Edited April 24, 2015 by mardlamock

[AngelLestat]

Good compilation.. but it seems that the things that Tyson said has not logic for some people..

And in fact.. space exploration is very profitable..

Intellectual commodity is the biggest assets that a country can have.. there are some places like sweden or nordics which has very few resources but with huge capital due this.

How to improve this asset? You can improve all the education system, but in some countries this is very hard to accomplish.

Another choice? Yes.. do things to inspire the world, this way many people get encourage to study, also intelligent people over all the world will feel tempted to work in that country.

So yes.. that is the best thing a country may do to win more money.

That's a straw man argument... Either that or you greatly under appreciate the technological achievement of the Apollo program. There's a vast difference between building the pyramids using 2500 BC technology vs. today's technology and flying to the moon using 1960's technology vs today's technology.

Technology increase exponential, there is not much difference between the technology from -1000 and 1000, But there is a huge difference between the technology from 1970 and now.

Just compare the apollo memory was only few kbytes and weight/cost a lot, vs some penies that a 128gb super light and small sd cost now.

-Right now countries manage much more money than back then

-The launch cost was much higher back then, and now may be reduce it by a lot in the next 10 years.

-We have a great advance in materials, thousands to choose for different applications.

-The ISS gave us a lot of experience in space living.

-the technology growth a lot in all its branches, we can do almost magic compared to back then.

-back then we dint have any software to help us with simulations/calculations or design.

Right now we can model aerodynamics, see heat flows and all kind of hard physsics calculation. In those times we had only the pencil and some paper.

Is like compare a disable man vs one completely heath, but it refuce to run or do anything.

The only thing that block us to solve problems right now is the end of dreams, where the people believe what politician told us altogether with the burocracy that agencies leaders promote. We forgot that we can do anything we want, we just need to stop to believe those lies.

The Apollo program was only funded because of the cold war. It was a matter of prestige to succeed and thereby demonstrate the superiority of the capitalist system. Nobody has gone back since because there's no justification for spending the billions of dollars that it would cost. We can do as much as we currently need to do for less money by sending robotic probes.

We dont have wars now.. so why some countries still spent so much in that?

No country in the world can invade other at least there is a huge excuse (which it will cost a lot extra money) and the rest of the world needs to allow it.

The ages of wars end.. now the wars are fight with economics. And all those weapons they made needs maintainence.

In the cold war time countries use army as way of pressure or to gain status.. Right now weapons is waste money.

You can not use nukes because everybody lose, neither the other weapons due public opinion. All countries makes business with other countries.

You think countries as Canada or sweden are in danger? Not, in any case the few countries who has guns are in danger.

So how do you gain status right now? the only way is with great accomplish. Also the space will be the next economic ground to win battles.

And while there may well come a day when we step off this planet and become a true space faring civilization, it isn't going to happen in our lifetimes. Rome wasn't built in a day. All the wishful thinking in the world isn't going to change that.

Never will happen if we keep that way of thinking.

Actually comparing the world of the 1960's with the world of today is pretty bad too. It was a different time, with a lot less bureaucracy, a lot less people in charge of design, and unlimited resources in order to beat the Soviets. Humanity was on the brink of self-destructing. Today is a very different world, where large projects typically take a lot longer, with more documentation, more committees, smaller budgets and higher cost, because everything is infinitely more complex.

Some things that you said are true.. but I already answer this to PakledHostage. If all those procedures brake us so much, then there is something wrong with them.

We need to encourage efficiency.. not other way around.

No, if anything, exploration might be a tool used to prepare colonization, not the other way round, but you can also have one without the other. They are two different things. NASA has a goal of exploration and scientific research. It does not have a mandate for colonization. There is no political push or towards colonization. There is no social demand for colonization.

Agree with nasa, nobody is saying that nasa needs to colonize.. But they are the explorers.. they open the world to others which will come after. Colombus was not a colonizer, he was an explorer. But he open the oportunity to colonization.

Travels at that time took as much as planetary travels now, with storms.

The whole history of human race is colonization, is in our ADN. After exploration, its the desicion of entrepreneurs to know if some business can be exploited or not.

Why would any organization want to spend massive amounts of money to establish colonies that would ultimately demand independence as soon as they become self-sustaining?

We discuss this in many other topics, I show tons of arguments, you did your part, not agreement there. So lets not waste time.

About independence.. that is not a problem.. But I will need a lot of time to explain that in details, which also sound like a waste of time.

Forget colonization, it is not going to happen. Please do not use that word if you are trying to have a constructive discussion anchored in reality.

Already happen many times, all in reality.

For profit. This is the same reason space will become more occupied. Profit.

Such simple true, and so hard to spread it.

Edited April 24, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Kryten]

Is this all you have? Analogies? Spaceflight is not done with electronics, Mars and the Moon most certainly are not the Americas, NASA is not Cristobal Colon, and engineering and policy are not done by analogy. If you're not willing to talk about the actual situation and the real world, you're just wasting the time of everybody here.

[tater]

Even if everything AngelLestat said was true, or even relevant, it would say nothing to the basic point of manned spaceflight. Space exploration is better done by robots, period. Most everything involved in possible resource utilization/exploitation would best be studied by… robots. The only thing humans can do better in space is to possibly at some point make more humans. That's not going to happen any time soon.

Note that there are at the present time certain places where humans could actually aid plain old "exploration." Mars, for example. Humans in ORBIT around Mars could run robots on the surface with effectively no time delay, but we'd still be better off with the robots on the ground, probably (less mass to land, less risk). That said, if you're going to keep people on orbit there until a return window, it would be hard not to want to put boots on the ground, just because.