Do you think NASA should send crew/colony to Moon for research/start colony?

[Galileo Kerbonaut]

Here's the NASA budget. Please don't tell me they couldn't afford to go back! And if there is no manned space craft capable of going higher, and no money to design one, exactly how did they go in the first place? If they did go to the moon, it would be cheaper the next time because the designs and research are already done. And yes, technology does make thing easier and cheaper... NASA would have had a wet dream back in the sixties even if they were using the computer that I'm using right now.

[Nibb31]

Yes, I know about NASA's budget. Notice how it used to be over 4% of the federal budget during Apollo, and now it is under 0.5%. $18 billion is chump change. You could probably go to the Moon with it, but you couldn't fund a permanent outpost and you would have to scrap the unmanned exploration programs, the aerospace research programs, the earth observation programs... And it would take 10 to 20 years to design and build the infrastructure.

According to Steve Garber,[citation needed] the NASA History website curator, the final cost of project Apollo was between $20 and $25.4 billion in 1969 Dollars (or approximately $136 billion in 2007 Dollars). The costs associated with the Apollo spacecraft and Saturn rockets amounted to about $83-billion in 2005 Dollars (Apollo spacecraft cost $28-billion (Command/Service Module $17-billion; Lunar Module $11-billion), Saturn I, Saturn IB, Saturn V costs about $ 46-billion 2005 dollars).

That is just for Apollo flags and footprints, not for a Moon colony or even a small semi-permanent outpost.

The designs and research for Apollo were done in the 60's. You couldn't rebuild a Saturn V in 2013 the same way you did in 1969, so you would need to redesign practically everything, which is pretty much what they are doing with SLS. Why didn't they do it before? Because their budget was tied up with the STS and the ISS.

As I said, technology might make things easier, but the progress was made mostly in the computer techology area. The laws of physics haven't changed, and now we have much heavier quality, environmental and safety standards and procedures, more economical pressure, more in-depth studies, approval boards, certification committees... Large engineering projects take longer now than they did in the 60's.

Edited May 11, 2013 by Nibb31

[Galileo Kerbonaut]

Yes, I know about NASA's budget. Notice how it used to be over 4% of the federal budget during Apollo, and now it is under 0.5%. $18 billion is chump change. You could probably go to the Moon with it, but you couldn't fund a permanent outpost and you would have to scrap the unmanned exploration programs, the aerospace research programs, the earth observation programs... And it would take 10 to 20 years to design and build the infrastructure.

I wasn't talking bases, I was talking about going back... nothing more. Why didn't they!?

The designs and research were done in the 60's. You couldn't rebuild a Saturn V in 2013 the same way you did in 1969, so you would need to redesign practically everything, which is actually what they are doing with SLS.

Might be true, but nowadays we have simulators and AUTO CAD software... makes thing a lot cheaper.

As I said, technology might make things easier, but the progress was made mostly on the computer side. The laws of physics haven't changed, and now we have much heavier quality and safety procedures, more economical pressure. Large engineering projects take longer now than they did in the 60's.

And you assume wrong about technology making things easier.

Which one is it? You can't have it both ways...

This topic should really be in the off topic or science sub forums.

[Nibb31]

I wasn't talking bases, I was talking about going back... nothing more. Why didn't they!?

Dammit, you don't read, do you?

Because there was no money and no interest. During the 70s, 80s and 90s, Apollo was "been there done that". 1974 was the first oil crisis and the end of the Glorious Thirty. Nixon cancelled Apollo and drastically cut NASA's budget, because Americans were no longer supportive of it.

The next big thing was providing cheap access to space and learning how to live routinely and build stuff in LEO, because that was seen as the key to unlocking affordable deep space capabilities. Plus, that's what the Russians were doing too, and the US couldn't afford to let them rule alone in LEO. Meanwhile, the STS ended up pumping up all the manned spaceflight budget, so there was no budget for anythin else. In the 80's, there wasn't even enough money to build Space Station Freedom until NASA got international partners involved.

Changing course by scrapping STS and the Space Station to return to the Moon, while the Soviets were making huge progress in LEO, would have been a silly thing to do at the time.

Might be true, but nowadays we have simulators and AUTO CAD software... makes thing a lot cheaper.

Did you even read my post?

Some technology advances have made some areas cheaper than they used to be. But that has been offset by the increased expense and complexity of modern engineering projects. The World is a different place. How do you explain that it took 2 years to develop Gemini and it has taken 15 years to develop Orion?

Edited May 11, 2013 by Nibb31

[PeteMcCartney]

Yes, for research and colony. It's the necessary first step on our inevitable path to survival by getting off this rock! (Inevitable if we realise what we should be doing, stop killing each other and actually work toward a common goal... Likely)

[Galileo Kerbonaut]

Dammit, you don't read, do you?

Because there was no money and no interest. During the 70s, 80s and 90s, Apollo was "been there done that". 1974 was the first oil crisis and the end of the Glorious Thirty. Nixon cancelled Apollo and drastically cut NASA's budget, because Americans were no longer supportive of it.

The next big thing was providing cheap access to space and learning how to live routinely and build stuff in LEO, because that was seen as the key to unlocking affordable deep space capabilities. Plus, that's what the Russians were doing too, and the US couldn't afford to let them rule alone in LEO. Meanwhile, the STS ended up pumping up all the manned spaceflight budget, so there was no budget for anythin else. In the 80's, there wasn't even enough money to build Space Station Freedom until NASA got international partners involved.

Changing course by scrapping STS and the Space Station to return to the Moon, while the Soviets were making huge progress in LEO, would have been a silly thing to do at the time.

Did you even read my post?

Some technology advances have made some areas cheaper than they used to be. But that has been offset by the increased expense and complexity of modern engineering projects. The World is a different place. How do you explain that it took 2 years to develop Gemini and it has taken 15 years to develop Orion?

I do read!

Because there was no money and no interest

I've shown you otherwise. Also... you said there was no money to make manned missions because they had to design a craft for that... My question was: how did they go in the first place? Why not use that very tech to expand your knowledge rather than to throw it all in the garbage bin. That is a waste of money!

As I said, technology might make things easier, but the progress was made mostly on the computer side.

And you assume wrong about technology making things easier.

Have you decided yet which one you prefer?

[twelveways]

I've always wondered why they didn't go back, seems like totally illogical human behaviour. They've got the tech, over the years they've had lots of budget and by landing on the Moon in the first place you would say they would have a HUGE advantage over their enemies / other attempting nations. It's almost like after Columbus people would say: Nice a new continent, now let's move on, nothing to see here. Really, think about it? What was the first thing you did in KSP when you knew how to reach the Mün? Think big, go back, build a base...

There must be something to it.

It's actually quite logical, there is nothing at the moon, even if there are minerals for us to extract, the cost of flying the equipment over there and then flying the resources back would definitely outweigh the profit. We would have to take enough water and air for the people to use, even if we only sent robots, they would need to be serviced regularly.

It is very different to the discovery of the Americas seeing as america was already growing food and had an abundance of water and air...

[Nibb31]

I do read!

Evidently you don't.

I've shown you otherwise. Also... you said there was no money to make manned missions because they had to design a craft for that... My question was: how did they go in the first place? Why not use that very tech to expand your knowledge rather than to throw it all in the garbage bin. That is a waste of money!

No you didn't. You demonstrated the opposite by linking to a page that shows that NASA's budget has been declining since the 60's and that listed the cost of the Apollo program in perspective. $136 billion dollars (equivalent 2007) compared to a current global budget (for all areas of NASA activity) of $16 billion dollars (equivalent 2007). This explains NASA difficulties with SLS/Orion.

They managed the Apollo program because there was an unlimited budget and a specific goal. After 1974, there was no longer an unlimited budget. Nobody threw anything in the garbage bin. Hardware production was stopped because it could not be sustained. That production could not be restarted because a lot of the tooling and infrastructure was converted for the STS program. A lot of knowledge gained during Apollo was reused in STS.

Expanding their knowledge is exactly what they did by refocusing on long duration flight, life and construction in LEO instead of rehashing Moon landings that had already been done.

Have you decided yet which one you prefer?

I clarified in my previous post, and asked you a question.

[TheWanderer]

i dont know about NASA doing it, but someone should.

Commercial enterprise needs to push more on getting into space for money and the moon would be a good starting point to reduce the cost

[Ford_Prefect]

Why didn't they go back? They did, during the Apollo-Missions. And then they discovered that the moon is a rather boring rock.

[Comrade Jenkens]

People havn't been back because todays culture is all about money. If there is no immediate gain to be had from the moon then companys or goverments won't fund another mission there. Back during the moon landings it was all about Russia and America trying to outdo one another and now the Cold War is over they don't see any point. I put yes for colony and research because I think humanity needs to start exploring and pushing the boundries again. A multi national moon base would be good for all countries involved and boost cooperation between them.

[lyndonguitar]

Research only, If you mean Colony by people on the moon living normally, having sex, using the internet, playing video games and under the US gov't. I want none of that.

A Research outpost on the moon doesn't mean no people will live there, they will, not for colonization, but for research. Kinda like the ISS is not a Colony in space, more of an orbital research space station.

Now mars is the best one suited for a colony

[Boffinbox]

research, + inspiration. looking at the current population of earth, over 50% weren't alive to see the moon landings. returning to the moon may get a whole lot more people interested.

[Nimaci]

I'm all for a research outpost with an emphasis on ISRU, but only after terrestrial ISRU research has made it feasible.

So, I guess I'd like NASA to increase its ISRU program well before we proceed with incredibly expensive manned missions to other planets/moons (or asteroids for that matter).

[Daze]

Absolutely yes, Moon is only the begin.

"The Earth is the cradle of humanity, but mankind cannot stay in the cradle forever."

[rkman]

Needs to be in science labs or Off-topic

Are the mods asleep, or have forum rules been changed?

[magnemoe]

It's actually quite logical, there is nothing at the moon, even if there are minerals for us to extract, the cost of flying the equipment over there and then flying the resources back would definitely outweigh the profit. We would have to take enough water and air for the people to use, even if we only sent robots, they would need to be serviced regularly.

It is very different to the discovery of the Americas seeing as america was already growing food and had an abundance of water and air...

True, this leaves science, however it has just been a few probes since Apollo.

One major game changer is water at the moons poles. Should be possible to extract it and bring it to LEO, far cheaper than lifting it from earth.

Same is true for other minerals but water is easy to extract and can be used as it it or cracked into oxygen and hydrogen later.

[NASAFanboy]

As I stated in my predictions thread, I do not think we should go back to the moon, and focus our efforts on unmanned trips to the outer planets and to manned trips to Mars instead. For now, I think we should hand the moon to our private companies.

Bigelow wants to build NASA a moonbase, Russia wants an international partner, as far as I heard. So, I envision Golden Spike landers carrying astronauts to an inflatable Bigelow moonbase/ an Russian moonbase, like STS and Mir.

Take the offers, and go to Mars.

@Nibb31. Yes, but getting stuck in LEO is plain ridiclous. I think we should have developed an permenant presence on the moon and sent expeditions to Mars, while developing good relations with the Soviets (I.E Apollo-Soyuz.), to possibly rent an spacestation.

Edited May 11, 2013 by NASAFanboy

[EndOfTheEarth]

Absolutely to colony and research. People didn't take an interest in the Americas either until they found about a business potential. Once there are mouths to feed up there, the money and tech will follow. Slowly, at first, but it will get there.

[Nibb31]

Don't compare the colonization of the Americas with the colonization of space. They are radically different things.

First of all, it was obvious from the start that there was wealth and trade opportunities. Secondly, you could actually survive there without supplies and live off the land. Third, people went there because there was a promise of a better life. None of these work with the Moon.

It would make way more sense to colonize Antarctica, the Sahara, or the Mariana Trench? These places are easier to get too and are actually less hostile than the Moon or Mars.

[NASAFanboy]

Don't compare the colonization of the Americas with the colonization of space. They are radically different things.

First of all, it was obvious from the start that there was wealth and trade opportunities. Secondly, you could actually survive there without supplies and live off the land. Third, people went there because there was a promise of a better life. None of these work with the Moon.

It would make way more sense to colonize Antarctica, the Sahara, or the Mariana Trench? These places are easier to get too and are actually less hostile than the Moon or Mars.

True that. The first colonists will not be civilians....more likely scientists and thrillseekers.

It simply does not capture ones imagination to colonize the Ocean/Antartica. To colonize, you need to capture the hearts and imaginations of the people. Space does that, Antartica and the Ocean does not. Nethier does it create an backup world for humanity.

[Crush]

Should NASA...

Why NASA?

Space exploration should be a cooperative global effort.

[Nibb31]

The backup for Humanity argument doesn't make sense. There is no single event that could totally wipe out 8 billions of individuals in one go. Even the most catastrophic event would likely leave at least a few million survivors. We could dig ourselves underground and live in caves for hundreds of years, it would still be easier and more pleasant than sending a thousands of people to live on a sterile planet where you can't survive without a space suit.

As for capturing the imagination, I'm afraid that is a bit weak as a business model for spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a space program when most people on Earth lack basic healthcare and education. It might be your own personal dream, but I don't think there is even a small minority of the 8 billion people on Earth who agree with it.

[NASAFanboy]

The backup for Humanity argument doesn't make sense. There is no single event that could totally wipe out 8 billions of individuals in one go. Even the most catastrophic event would likely leave at least a few million survivors. We could dig ourselves underground and live in caves for hundreds of years, it would still be easier and more pleasant than sending a thousands of people to live on a sterile planet where you can't survive without a space suit.

As for capturing the imagination, I'm afraid that is a bit weak as a business model for spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a space program when most people on Earth lack basic healthcare and education. It might be your own personal dream, but I don't think there is even a small minority of the 8 billion people on Earth who agree with it.

Heh, its worth it if it can get those "end-of-the-world" fools to shut up. I do not agree with the cave sense, as it would put us in another "Dark Ages" of science, which means we technically wasted our time, and would technicallogically set us back hundreds of years, which means I wasted my time and might as well put a revolver to my head and pull the trigger. Most catsatrophic.....your descendants will regret not spreading out and going interstellar when that neutron-pulsar thing 9,000LY away fires another drunken shot of its ion cannon.

Also, considering NASA actually earns money for the goverment via exporting new technology, commerical satellites, etc., we could use these money to help these poor people. Or, build solar farms to meet our energy demands. Or, find a way to enrich crops in harsh conidtions, which could be used by both Martian colonists and African farmers. If space fails to capture ones imagination, Antartica certainly will not.

Me and you. Polar opposites.....

[whatisthisidonteven]

There's little real reason to actually start a colony on the Moon and Mars. They would still be dependent on Earth for resources and stuff. It's going to be decades before we could feasibly run a self-sustaining colony on Mars/Moon.