Will man return to the moon??

[Drunkrobot]

Reducing the cost-per-kilogram of our launch capabilities is very inportant, but equally useful is the ability to leave that kilogram behind. Inside normal Lunar regolith is elements like Oxygen, Iron, Titanium, silicon: things you can create a lot of interesting things out of. In-Situ Resource Utillization (ISRU) is the method of taking "stuff" from the local environment, and turning it into consumables and equipment. Put a robotic rover with a scoop and a 3-D printer on the Moon, and a manned presence on the Moon makes a lot more economic sense.

[BlueSubstance]

Didn't NASA say they will place a base on moon?

[6677]

CHina are sending an unmanned probe to the moon by the end of this year to record data in anticipation of a manned mission

[Moon Goddess]

Why we sent astronauts to the moon before sending up stuff for them to assemble and build is beyond me. ( Tools, parts, habbitat foundations, etc ) We just collected rocks and waved a flag.. and played golf.

Do you not realize the value of collecting those rocks? It was such a valuable scientific experience that people studying the formation of the solar system were excited we sent Schmitt there. Schmitt being the only geologist to go to another world brought back better rocks, like Troctolite 76535 that showed that the moon cooled slowly and that the moon once had a magnetic field.

These rocks helped to show that the moon was once a part of the earth, leading TONS AND TONS of new information about how all the planets and moons came to be. Collecting Rocks was probably the biggest reason to go there, and sending a geologist was better than soviet luna sample return because he got better rocks.

So please don't ever say we "just collected rocks" We collected ROCKS! one of the most important events in human history was collecting those rocks!

[Van Disaster]

I wonder about ESA... they have a human rated launcher from the Russians, but no usable human rated spacecraft ( Soyuz isn't safe to launch over water ). I doubt ESA would pay for a new capsule at this point but they have everything else bar the human support facilities, which would leave room for someone else to neatly fill the holes in. India? developing their own human-rated systems, but I think I'd be considering it in their shoes.

[Jenteb07]

Fake a report of oil on the Moon. We'll be there by the end of next week.

Was thinking the same thing right before turning the page.

To bad there probably isn't any on the moon

[SargeRho]

Helium 3 will be the future version of Oil, as far as Energy production goes. And the moon is full of it.

[littlebattler]

for rich tourists who want to stay in a low gravity hotel. Because face it, tourism is an industry no one has mentioned and if we can get enough demands to drive the cost down we may actually have a reason to go there. In a very simplified sense, we can say that as long as people want to go there, we will go there, because the will to go there is by itself an economic incentive.

Of course, I'm not saying it will happen anytime soon. It's too expensive for all but the few richest people to afford, and those people probably don't want to blow a more significant than usual portion of their fortunes on silly 3 hour or so frolicking about in a moon crater.

Edited August 30, 2013 by littlebattler

[Kryten]

The highest estimates for abundance of He³ in the regolith are about fifty parts per billion; that's a very interesting definition of 'full'. It's also not anything like as useful as Zubrin et al like to say it is; the energy output is comparable to the D-T fusion most groups are working on now, you need much larger reactors for the same output (due to lower reaction rates) and it's much more difficult techologically.

[PakledHostage]

And to those above who think we send astronauts up to wave flags: We carry out space missions for science. Stop your cold war and space race mentalities.

Then maybe you can help those of us on this side of the cultural divide better understand China’s motivations?

I did a bit of searching around online and found a United States Defense Department briefing to the US Congress titled China’s Space Program: An Overview. In it, they quote a Chinese government “White Paperâ€Â, published in November 2000. The paper outlines the Chinese government’s goals and guiding principles for the space program. The first of these is:

Adhering to the principle of long-term, stable and sustainable development and making the development of space activities cater to and serve the state’s comprehensive development strategy. The Chinese government attaches great importance to the significant role of space activities in implementing the strategy of revitalizing the country with science and education and that of sustainable development, as well as in economic construction, national security, science and technology development and social progress. The development of space activities is encouraged and supported by the government as an integral part of the state’s comprehensive development strategy.

That would seem to support what you’re saying, but further along in the briefing note, they state that:

The Shenzhou spacecraft design is patterned after Russia’s Soyuz spacecraft, although the Chinese insist that the spacecraft are made entirely in China.

and

Then [Russian] President Yeltsin signed a “joint understanding†in 1996 that included training two Chinese specialists at Russia’s cosmonaut training facility. The Chinese reportedly use Russian spacesuits, and Russia provided technical assistance to China in the development of the Shenzhou spacecraft. A Russian space agency official was quoted as saying the design is 100% Russian, but Chinese officials insist the spacecraft are built entirely in China, and some Western experts cite differences in specific features of Shenzhou versus Soyuz.

The optics are that, while China may have developed some manufacturing technology in order to achieve the goal of launching manned missions, they basically just purchased the technology from the Russians. Why would anyone bother to do that other than for the status of being among an elite club of nations who have done the same? After all, there are easier and cheaper ways of developing manufacturing technology.

[Kryten]

That document is badly out of date. What the Chinese have effectively done is used Russian technology as a stepping-off point to get to the more advanced stuff (i.e. the stuff less likely to be met with 'we did that 50 years ago!'); Shenzhou (excluding the OM) and both spacesuits are pretty clearly based on Russian tech transfer, but stuff after that report was published; such as the Tianlian satellites, Tiangong, BanXing et.c. are entirely new.

[m4v]

Unless there's a good reason to send people to the moon I would rather stick to probes. Is cheaper and safer.

[Mr Shifty]

The Chinese have been launching Long March rockets into space since 1970. Their crewed flights in the last decade have used the Shenzhou spacecraft, which is a Soyuz derived spacecraft. But the lunar exploration missions -- the last of which orbited the moon at 100km, then flew to the Earth-Sun L2 point, then did an asteroid flyby -- have used Chinese designs. Change'e 3 is set to launch in November or December and will soft-land on the moon for the first time since before I was born. China's space program is a fully legitimate technological achievement. And purchasing the most time-tested, reliable technology for crewed flight, then continuing development on it seems like a smart move to me.

[magnemoe]

This.

I'm an engineer by trade, but I'm quite happy to admit that most of the headline innovations engineers come up with are due to advances in materials science. Without metallurgists, chemists, etc, we'd still be trying to build stuff out of sticks and dung.

Folks are working on some of the technology required for a space elevator, there's still quite a few unanswered questions (eg: what's the best way to power the climber?), but until someone solves the materials problem of making a strong enough cable it's all a bit moot.

Add that space elevator materials are possible they will be developed anyway as they has multiple other uses.

Think the best way to power the climber would be lasers and solar panels, one laser on base who starts to work once it drop the extention cord. Once it reach LEO attitudes an laser on an mountain top during building, at GEO base then done.

[PakledHostage]

Shenzhou (excluding the OM) and both spacesuits are pretty clearly based on Russian tech transfer, but stuff after that report was published; such as the Tianlian satellites, Tiangong, BanXing et.c. are entirely new.

I was referring specifically to the manned portion of the Chinese space program, and I think Michael Kim was too. The more recent achievements are very impressive, and I am looking forward to following the Chang'e mission later this year. The optics of the manned program, however, is that they merely followed the path of least resistance to placing a person in orbit by purchasing Russian technology.

[Kryten]

The projects I mentioned are all part of the manned program. You're looking at it in the wrong way; yes, putting a person into orbit was done mostly with transferred technology, but that wasn't a goal in itself, but an intermediate step in the space station program, and then, well, the reason we're discussing this in this thread. The manned flight program itself is considered merely a sub-program of the space station project, project 921.

[PakledHostage]

I stand corrected. Mea culpa.

[Moar Boosters]

I think it'd be a major triumph for the chinese if they were able to put men on the moon for a cheaper price than the americans did (adjusting for inflation of course).

The viability of space flight is largely down to economics and that's one thing NASA isn't usually very good at.

It china could create a space mission using as much recycled equipment as possible, then it might keep the costs down. They're still going to have to develop their own command module / lander combo, which was easily the most technically complicated part. The lower sections can easily be constructed by using my username as advice.

[czokletmuss]

China probably will get to the Moon quicker than USA. Why? They have a motivation - to prove that China is the new superpower. What motivation does the NASA/USA have?

[Moar Boosters]

Well I guess NASA have the motivation as their reputation is in a pretty bad place after the space shuttle.

I don't think motivation is a big problem for company full of guys who want to build and fly spacecraft, it's just doubful they'll get funding when their government wants to spend all it's money on the military.

[czokletmuss]

Which is interesting in its own way - if space travel capability is a measure to check if some country is a world/regional power and USA have such big problems with it right now, than what does it tell us about USA? Besides, I think that "build rockets, not bombs!" isn't that catchy slogan Luckily, there are other players than NASA - personally I think the future space exploration is multinational effort, no more flagweaving (except fo China probably).

[Mr Shifty]

Which is interesting in its own way - if space travel capability is a measure to check if some country is a world/regional power and USA have such big problems with it right now, than what does it tell us about USA? Besides, I think that "build rockets, not bombs!" isn't that catchy slogan Luckily, there are other players than NASA - personally I think the future space exploration is multinational effort, no more flagweaving (except fo China probably).

Missions launched by NASA using American rockets in 2013:

Completed:

- Tracking and Data Relay System K satellite on January 30 on a ULA Atlas 5

- Landsat Data Continuity Mission satellite on February 11 on a ULA Atlas 5

- Commercial Resupply Services 2 Dragon cargo for the ISS on March 1 on a SpaceX Falcon 9

- First test flight of Antares rocket by Orbital Sciences on April 21

- Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph satellite on June 27 on an Orbital Sciences Pegasus XL

Planned:

- Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Experiment on September 6 on a USAF Minotaur 5

- Cygnus 1 resupply cargo to the ISS on September 17 on an Orbital Sciences Antares

- Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution probe on November 17 on a ULA Atlas 5

- Cygnus 2 resupply cargo to the ISS on December 8 on an Orbital Sciences Antares

Look, I agree, weaving more and more international partners into joint efforts, spurring competition among launch services providers, collaborating on science and exploration projects. That's the future of space, but it's silly to pretend that the U.S. is a has-been player in space. ULA does a brisk business in U.S. military launch services and Orbital Sciences does brisk business in small commercial launches. SpaceX, at the prices and capabilities they're offering, seems like they'll be a major player in the medium-to-heavy launch business.

[czokletmuss]

Okay, I wasn't precise enoguh - I wanted to say "manned space travel". And don't get me wrong, I would love to see NASA sending people to the Moon in the next years. However at this very moment USA don't have any man-rated vehicle and it's unlikely that even mission to the asteroid will happen. Add this to the decomissioning of the ISS in next 7 years and it doesn't look very good, even - or especially - considering lack of funding for the SLS as well as lack of any real goal for SLS/MPCV. So yeah, it's quite possible that in the manned space exploration China will become the number one in the near future, at least for some time.

Not that it really matters from my POV which country is going to send people up there. I perceive the space exploration as a challenge to all mankind. But the reality is that the space race was the proxy science and propaganda war between two superpowers; I won't be sad if the CNSA is really going to challenge NASA's position. It gives hope for bigger political concern - second Red Scare, anyone?

Edited August 30, 2013 by czokletmuss

[King Arthur]

As I said sometime ago on a topic similar to this, the problem with manned space exploration can be summed up in one word: Why?

Unmanned space exploration, which includes but are not limited to satelites, deep space probes, space telescopes, rovers, landers, impactors, surveyors, etc. can return almost all of the scientific data a manned mission might be capable of returning and then some at a substantially cheaper cost and higher safety. When unmanned space exploration is so utterly efficient and effective, why (in so far as space exploration) do we need to have a human presence in space? Besides the "flag waving" and the prestige/bragging rights associated with having a manned space program, there are unfortunately no practical reasons for having a manned space program at all.

[1D-1()T]

I think we will return to the Moon, and i think China will be the one to do it.

I am actually kind of expecting them to land at the Apollo 11 site.

And then when they get back they'll return the flag that was their to America.