Should NASA return to the Moon instead of doing ARM?

[PakledHostage]

In my defence the sentence seems to said that if we ignore the "period".

Then don't ignore the period. Punctuation is your friend.

[jwenting]

Both missions basically depend on the SLS, so I'd say there's no reason NASA couldn't do both.

There's an excellent reason, the only reason in fact that matters for NASA, and that's money. NASA doesn't have the funding to do both, and never will most likely (unless some super rich guy leaves them several hundreds of billions of dollars in his will and then dies).

In fact it's highly dubious whether NASA will have the money to do even one of the missions...

[FlyingPete]

I don't think there'd be anything substantial to be gained from doing a repeat Apollo program- it would just be the same as what was done in the last century with slightly different technology. If we're going to the Moon again, it should be to stay. The same with Mars- think of what we've learned over the years with unmanned probes/rovers, and how much more you could learn from a couple of geologists on the ground. Setting up a permanent human presence on another planet would be the next 'giant leap', particularly if it was a multinational team that was sent.

[crazyewok]

I don't think there'd be anything substantial to be gained from doing a repeat Apollo program- it would just be the same as what was done in the last century with slightly different technology. If we're going to the Moon again, it should be to stay. The same with Mars- think of what we've learned over the years with unmanned probes/rovers, and how much more you could learn from a couple of geologists on the ground. Setting up a permanent human presence on another planet would be the next 'giant leap', particularly if it was a multinational team that was sent.

Setting up a permanent human presence on another planet is not going to happen with current technology with current budget and economic priority's.

I might not be a pessimistic as some on here but I do try to be realistic.

For such a endeavor a few things would have to change either:

1) NASA gets a huge budget Increase.

2) NASA,ESA ect agree to work on the project together with a budget increase across the board.

3) New Tecnology needs to develop to substantially decrease earth to orbit cost

4) Some economic or political reason to set up a permanent base arises.

Now unlike the pessimists on here that will say it wont happen for hundreds of years and we should give up all hope, I will be slightly optimistic and say 3 MAY happen in our life times but only a MAY with reservations. We may get lucky with SKYLON, Lockheeds Fusion could work and open possibility's up, the EM drive may be real. Of course these are all maybes and hopes and even IF one works the technology will need time to mature IE SKYLON looks like it could very well work but not as SSTO for a while at least until certain safety issue can be sorted (which may or may not be possible).

Best we can hope for at the moment is a MAYBE a semi manned moon outpost. IF we are lucky. I wont hold my breath on it. Maybe a return Mars landing by 2040.

Until one of the above 4 factors change that is it.

Edited April 25, 2015 by crazyewok

[Rakaydos]

The biggest near future gamechanger for a manned lunar presence, in my opinion is if Liftport successfuly follows through with their plan to put a kevlar lunar-L1 lagrange elevator on the moon. While launching from earth is just as hard as ever, landing and launching from the moon is just electricity and a few days of boredom.

And once wh have the elevator + a base, we can start mining the moon and shipping the material up to orbit cheaply.

[Kibble]

If we're going to the Moon again, it should be to stay.

International Moon Laboratory!

The reason for doing piloted missions into space at all, isn't for profit, or even for science. American people are weary of economic problems, cynical for the future, and just generally sullen. Doing something amazing, whether its a fantastic work of art, or a piloted laboratory on the Moon, will inspire all the people of the world, and kids won't grow up with the one lesson constantly radiating from society: "money is everything".

Because money isn't everything. The thing that sets civilization, a human invention, apart from the rest of nature is that we stopped simply surviving - we started doing things totally unnecessary for our survival.

[Beduino]

Setting up a permanent human presence on another planet is not going to happen with current technology with current budget and economic priority's.

I might not be a pessimistic as some on here but I do try to be realistic.

For such a endeavor a few things would have to change either:

1) NASA gets a huge budget Increase.

2) NASA,ESA ect agree to work on the project together with a budget increase across the board.

3) New Tecnology needs to develop to substantially decrease earth to orbit cost

4) Some economic or political reason to set up a permanent base arises.

Now unlike the pessimists on here that will say it wont happen for hundreds of years and we should give up all hope, I will be slightly optimistic and say 3 MAY happen in our life times but only a MAY with reservations. We may get lucky with SKYLON, Lockheeds Fusion could work and open possibility's up, the EM drive may be real. Of course these are all maybes and hopes and even IF one works the technology will need time to mature IE SKYLON looks like it could very well work but not as SSTO for a while at least until certain safety issue can be sorted (which may or may not be possible).

Best we can hope for at the moment is a MAYBE a semi manned moon outpost. IF we are lucky. I wont hold my breath on it. Maybe a return Mars landing by 2040.

Until one of the above 4 factors change that is it.

International Moon Laboratory!

The reason for doing piloted missions into space at all, isn't for profit, or even for science. American people are weary of economic problems, cynical for the future, and just generally sullen. Doing something amazing, whether its a fantastic work of art, or a piloted laboratory on the Moon, will inspire all the people of the world, and kids won't grow up with the one lesson constantly radiating from society: "money is everything".

Because money isn't everything. The thing that sets civilization, a human invention, apart from the rest of nature is that we stopped simply surviving - we started doing things totally unnecessary for our survival.

You both nailed. Two other things that would boost the space exploration in general would be competition from other countries and agencies

Also if we find aliens I mean alien spaceships, alien signals or alien planets.

[jwenting]

I don't think there'd be anything substantial to be gained from doing a repeat Apollo program- it would just be the same as what was done in the last century with slightly different technology. If we're going to the Moon again, it should be to stay. The same with Mars- think of what we've learned over the years with unmanned probes/rovers, and how much more you could learn from a couple of geologists on the ground. Setting up a permanent human presence on another planet would be the next 'giant leap', particularly if it was a multinational team that was sent.

yes, though a repeat of Apollo with new technology would be the first step, testing the tech, exploring potential sites for suitability, maybe stocking supplies.

[CakeEngine]

[...] Two other things that would boost the space exploration in general would be competition from other countries and agencies

This is both, nationalistic and neo-liberal nonsense. Our latest Achievements were only possible due to cooperation, not competition.

Take a look at the LHC for example, with its international science community. Or at the Curiosity Rover on Mars, which could have had parachutes made of dozens of different flags (ChemCams from France and USA, weather monitors from Spain and Finland, Laz0rs from Germany, water-sniffer from Russia, et cetera). Take a trip to Cadarache in France, where the EU, China, Russia, India, Japan, South Korea and the US are building worlds biggest Fusion Reactor ITER right now as we speak.

The only thing you would achieve by splitting the space community into countries/agencies again, is regression in funds and brains as well as taking a higher overall risk by rushing things for the sake of beeing "first!!!11lmao".

Don't get me wrong, though. The Apollo program was a legendary success, but the price it came with was too damn high. (And no, i'm not speaking of money.)

btw. alien spaceships? seriously?

Edited April 27, 2015 by CakeEngine

[Nibb31]

Yep, you can't have nationalistic space race and international cooperation at the same time. It's one or the other and no single space agency has the money to do much on its own.

[Grumman]

International Moon Laboratory!

The reason for doing piloted missions into space at all, isn't for profit, or even for science. American people are weary of economic problems, cynical for the future, and just generally sullen. Doing something amazing, whether its a fantastic work of art, or a piloted laboratory on the Moon, will inspire all the people of the world, and kids won't grow up with the one lesson constantly radiating from society: "money is everything".

Because money isn't everything. The thing that sets civilization, a human invention, apart from the rest of nature is that we stopped simply surviving - we started doing things totally unnecessary for our survival.

The government is not Kickstarter. It is not a way to get funding for your own pet projects, because every dollar the government receives and does not spend for the betterment of mankind is a theft from its people. You say your manned outpost in a desolate wasteland would inspire people? What if we are not inspired by such a boondoggle?

Spend the money to eradicate measles instead. Do that and you don't need to appeal to such nebulous benefits as "inspiration" - you just saved a hundred thousand lives a year, in perpetuity. Now that's something to be proud of.

[Pipcard]

But of course, we don't need to wait until "every problem on Earth is solved" before we can explore space; we can have a balance between the two.

[Beduino]

This is both, nationalistic and neo-liberal nonsense. Our latest Achievements were only possible due to cooperation, not competition.

Take a look at the LHC for example, with its international science community. Or at the Curiosity Rover on Mars, which could have had parachutes made of dozens of different flags (ChemCams from France and USA, weather monitors from Spain and Finland, Laz0rs from Germany, water-sniffer from Russia, et cetera). Take a trip to Cadarache in France, where the EU, China, Russia, India, Japan, South Korea and the US are building worlds biggest Fusion Reactor ITER right now as we speak.

The only thing you would achieve by splitting the space community into countries/agencies again, is regression in funds and brains as well as taking a higher overall risk by rushing things for the sake of beeing "first!!!11lmao".

Don't get me wrong, though. The Apollo program was a legendary success, but the price it came with was too damn high. (And no, i'm not speaking of money.)

btw. alien spaceships? seriously?

You can say whatever you want, but lets say that an individual country decides to boost its space program and lands on mars manned before USA, you are telling me it's not going to change anything in that country policy related to space program investment.

Right alien space ships.. why not, aren't we humans all aliens anyway. You are still thinking you live in the center of the universe or something.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep, you can't have nationalistic space race and international cooperation at the same time. It's one or the other and no single space agency has the money to do much on its own.

Sure you can have both. Money isn't relevant really, monetary value and cost is relative really. See India space program costs.

What matters is we humans doing the right things for the right reasons.

It's full of aliens out there man.

http://listverse.com/2013/03/10/10-insects-that-belong-in-an-alien-world/

Edited April 27, 2015 by Beduino

[Nibb31]

You can say whatever you want, but lets say that an individual country decides to boost its space program and lands on mars manned before USA, you are telling me it's not going to change anything in that country policy related to space program investment.

Not gonna happen.

Sure you can have both. Money isn't relevant really, monetary value and cost is relative really. See India space program costs.

What matters is we humans doing the right things for the right reasons.

Of course money is relevant. India doesn't have the budget to do much more than a few probes and maybe have a small manned capsule in a few years. They're not going to Mars. Neither is China.

If you want something spectacular, it's going to have to be through cooperation, which rules out purely nationalistic goals.

[Kibble]

Spend the money to eradicate measles instead. Do that and you don't need to appeal to such nebulous benefits as "inspiration" - you just saved a hundred thousand lives a year, in perpetuity. Now that's something to be proud of.

Sure! In fact let's cancel the production of any music, film, artwork, and frivolities like toys until we have cured every disease in the world.

[Beduino]

Not gonna happen.

Of course money is relevant. India doesn't have the budget to do much more than a few probes and maybe have a small manned capsule in a few years. They're not going to Mars. Neither is China.

If you want something spectacular, it's going to have to be through cooperation, which rules out purely nationalistic goals.

China is getting ready for manned moon mission really. That's their ultimate goal, maybe they can plan mars right after that.

You are contradicting yourself saying that money is relevant and things are only going to happen through cooperation between countries. As soon as we leave our planet there's no banks and no money and no 100% chance of getting back.

I'm going to say it again, USA is hyper inflated and cost is relative. Not many decades ago 5 dollars was big money you know!

Edited April 27, 2015 by Beduino

[Grumman]

Sure! In fact let's cancel the production of any music, film, artwork, and frivolities like toys until we have cured every disease in the world.

Did you deliberately remove the part of the post which explicitly stated I was talking about government and taxpayer funding? Music, film, artwork and toys should not be government funded, because it is not the government's place to decide what is "good" art that people should be forced to pay for (via taxes) and what is "bad" art that does not receive this privilege. You, as a private individual, can fund whatever the hell you like. If you can get a Kickstarter going for a manned mission to Mars and people are willing to throw away their own hard earned money on such a project, good for you. Just leave me out of it.

[Disposeable]

Personally, I want to go to the moon because I think I left my car keys up there.

Political will and money aside, our satellite IS the easiest thing to get to that isnt just a low orbit. The very same technology that may get us to other planets in our system or allow us to exist in other environments will always need testing. And true alot of it can be done here on earth, some of it can only be proven out there.

I always see the moon as sort of a proving ground, one we will need eventually, and one that isnt that hard to set up while proving you can do other things.

Its also a good destination for space tourism, and the next logical one after simply getting into space. I mean there's actual history sitting on the moon.

Who knows, maybe the PGA tour in 2055 will include the Fra Maura heights golf club.

[CakeEngine]

You are still thinking you live in the center of the universe or something.

Quite the contrary, my friend. It's just the mere gigantomatic Hugeness of the universe that makes an alien encounter "very" unlikely.

See, the universe is about 14 billion years old. In this frame, the whole existence of the Homo Sapiens is nothing more than a blink and if the Doomsday Argument is somewhat correct, we will probably go extinct in about 800 years.

Even with our radiation expanding at the speed of light, this timeframe is just too short for anybody outthere noticing us in time (even assuming they are pointing their ears in our direction and still have this ancient tech around to receive our "messages").

Please take note that I didn't say that we will not find alien life somewhere eventually. It depends on what you are looking for.

Bacteria? Yes, definitely!

Plants, algae? For sure.

Low lifeforms like small animals? Well, maybe.

But intelligent, civilised Beeings, who are neither way less nor far far far more advanced compared to us? I highly doubt that, sir. Think of it like Ants trying to communicate with humans... for us beeing the ants, of course.

Aliens who happen to be in the perfect state of development in order to communicate with us, flying around in spaceships, not only in the LaniakeaSupercluster, but in our local galaxy group, trough the milkyway, right into our solar neighborhood? -there you got me, rolling my eyes.

[Kibble]

because it is not the government's place to decide what is "good" art that people should be forced to pay for (via taxes)

You make it sound like our particular early-21st century economic and political system will persist forever.

[tater]

The best near term chance of men on the moon is likely China, frankly. Why? Nationalism, period. Manned space exploration is largely a stunt, and as such is more, not less likely as a nationalistic event. ISS is international largely because it is NOT ….* (*it edited out a short word for "physically alluring") ---most people walking around worldwide likely have no idea there are people in ISS all the time. Note that even ISS has political rationale. The heavy russian involvement was by design (hence its orbit), post Soviet. Keep ICBM people otherwise available on the open, global market busy with something else.

The same goes for internal politics that drives funding. If government money is on the table, how it is spent is NOT rational by definition. We'll get stuck with no small boosters, and 300 M$ launches with additional $300 M$ "fees" added to ULA "because pork." We'll have spacecraft no one actual wants (Orion) and missions to use it no one actually wants ("use that thing for SOMETHING to prove we didn't blow billions for nothing!").

That's why I'm more encouraged by private entities, frankly.

[John FX]

Governments don't have the same long term goals as private companies. Most governments are not in office 5-10 years down the road so they don't want to make plans that the next government can take credit for.

Just this cripples their ability to get humanity into space in a meaningful way.

Private companies can see the gap left by this policy which is an avenue for profit and they will take up the mantle. It's already started.

Just one decent sized asteroid has more rare earth metals than we would be able to mine on earth.

Think about that, if you could get a mining craft to one of those you could have more wealth than most countries in one swoop.

That is insanely attractive to larger companies.

That profit margin is not possible on the moon, there is too much gravity you would have to spend money to overcome and the rare elements have sunk into the crust which makes them harder (read that as more costly) to get to.

Myself I would love to see men on the moon again in the near future but it just won't happen.

You are a profit driven company, which would you choose?

A very costly PR stunt or grabbing a huge ball of profit that would make you essentially the ruling entity everywhere except earth?

The answer is very obvious.

[Beduino]

Quite the contrary, my friend. It's just the mere gigantomatic Hugeness of the universe that makes an alien encounter "very" unlikely.

See, the universe is about 14 billion years old. In this frame, the whole existence of the Homo Sapiens is nothing more than a blink and if the Doomsday Argument is somewhat correct, we will probably go extinct in about 800 years.

Even with our radiation expanding at the speed of light, this timeframe is just too short for anybody outthere noticing us in time (even assuming they are pointing their ears in our direction and still have this ancient tech around to receive our "messages").

Please take note that I didn't say that we will not find alien life somewhere eventually. It depends on what you are looking for.

Bacteria? Yes, definitely!

Plants, algae? For sure.

Low lifeforms like small animals? Well, maybe.

But intelligent, civilised Beeings, who are neither way less nor far far far more advanced compared to us? I highly doubt that, sir. Think of it like Ants trying to communicate with humans... for us beeing the ants, of course.

Aliens who happen to be in the perfect state of development in order to communicate with us, flying around in spaceships, not only in the LaniakeaSupercluster, but in our local galaxy group, trough the milkyway, right into our solar neighborhood? -there you got me, rolling my eyes.

We have no evidence for any of these ideas of course, but if life is somewhat a property of the universe and life as we know it is not as rare as we think. The universe could be teeming with life including planets around the near-most stars at this very moment.

[PakledHostage]

Just one decent sized asteroid has more rare earth metals than we would be able to mine on earth.

Think about that, if you could get a mining craft to one of those you could have more wealth than most countries in one swoop.

...

A very costly PR stunt or grabbing a huge ball of profit that would make you essentially the ruling entity everywhere except earth?

The answer is very obvious.

The answer may be obvious to you, but I suspect you're oversimplifying the problem. A pile of ore isn't worth much. You need to refine it to get the valuable stuff out. Then you need to get it to market where someone will buy it. Refining ore in space is far beyond our current technological capability (here's a link to a brief explanation on how rare earth metals are currently refined). There is currently no market for rare earth metals in space. Returning unrefined ore from orbit so it can be processed on the ground presents its own problems. Even returning refined rare earth metals and their oxides from orbit isn't easy, as you'd have to send up empty "re-entry hoppers" to bring it down.

Edited April 27, 2015 by PakledHostage

[mardlamock]

The answer may be obvious to you, but I suspect you're oversimplifying the problem. A pile of ore isn't worth much. You need to refine it to get the valuable stuff out. Then you need to get it to market where someone will buy it. Refining ore in space is far beyond our current technological capability (here's a link to a brief explanation on how rare earth metals are currently refined). There is currently no market for rare earth metals in space. Returning unrefined ore from orbit so it can be processed on the ground presents its own problems. Even returning refined rare earth metals and their oxides from orbit isn't easy, as you'd have to send up empty "re-entry hoppers" to bring it down.

Its not easy, but it can still be profitable. Even with the current prices, it only costs around 33K/kg to return cargo from orbit, the current price of gold is at 38k, of course you have to mine it and stuff, but you only need to launch once. If we assume that within the next decade or so the price per kg to launch into orbit gets cut in half, we re looking at a very profitable business (but you'd need a decent chunk of capital to get even remotely started). The price of gold could also go up a lot, as some people are predicting, which would also help boost the profitability. The most important part about the whole process is getting space ore processing and manufacturing working, there are many challenges to be overcome but its not unreasonable to think that within the next few decades it can be solved.

Even current gold mining operations are unprofitable for the first couple of years, and they also require millons of dollars to set up.

Edited April 27, 2015 by mardlamock