Will man return to the moon??

[Nibb31]

If no one goes back.

The I fear that the Human race is probably never going to become a multiple planet species or even ever get off the earth after the ISS.

What is there to fear exactly? It isn't something that would have happened in our lifetimes anyway, so what difference does it make if it happens in 200 years or in 2000 years? There is no rush, and if expanding to other planets turns out to be utterly impractical, it's no big deal.

Also related, Google is hosting a new contest, promising 20 million USD to the first company to send a probe to the Moon, land it, and have it perform various functions. I believe the deadline is 2015, so that's certainly something to be excited about.

A private lunar probe mission would cost much more than that, so the Google Prize isn't much of an incentive. Actually, I think there are no serious contenders that will actually make the 2015 deadline.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Nibb31

[Jacob01]

I hope so, but if anyone is going to do it, it will probably be China. And good for them for trying! They obviously know the need for humanity to be in space, so we don't go extinct.

Obviously, there is the economy to think about, many nations don't have the money to put people on other worlds. As has already been posted, nations could do with working together, so we have more money to go to the moon and beyond with. Hopefully some leaders of the world will realise this, and make landings on other worlds possible.

[czokletmuss]

I hope so, but if anyone is going to do it, it will probably be China. And good for them for trying! They obviously know the need for humanity to be in space, so we don't go extinct.

Call me pesimist but I think CNSA when it comes to manned missions is more about this:

Flag-weaving, not saving the species. But hey, you can't blame them really - from the beginnig Space Race was mainly a political propaganda stunt and the point was not to do science but whose flag will be up there sooner. It wasn't accident that when the Old Glory was finally on the Moon, the political will to fund manned missions evaporated.

[Nibb31]

I hope so, but if anyone is going to do it, it will probably be China. And good for them for trying! They obviously know the need for humanity to be in space, so we don't go extinct.

Presence in space and survivability of our species are unrelated. We've already had this discussion...

[Diche Bach]

Presence in space and survivability of our species are unrelated. We've already had this discussion...

Carl Sagan was a lovely man; inspiring, brilliant and delightful. But like everyone, he had his silliness.

[Nibb31]

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.

The actual flags probably no longer exist. They were just standard nylon flags supplied from the US federal supplies catalog for $5.50. The UV radiation will have faded the die colors to white and made the flags so brittle they have probably crumbled to dust.

[Diche Bach]

The actual flags probably no longer exist. They were just standard nylon flags supplied from the US federal supplies catalog for $5.50. The UV radiation will have faded the die colors to white and made the flags so brittle they have probably crumbled to dust.

Flags crumbling to dust . . . that calls for a musical interlude . . .

[lajoswinkler]

No, the flags are still standing, casting a shadow. (except the first one, blown away by the Lunar ascent module)

No doubt they're bleached and very brittle, close to crumbling.

[NGTOne]

Well, the next person on the Moon might be Chinese... or they might be Canadian, it seems.

The Canadian Space Agency has laid out a roadmap that includes a manned Moon mission by about the mid-2020s.

More information here.

What do you guys think? Personally (being Canadian), I'd like Canada to reach the Moon before the Chinese

[Diche Bach]

Canada is a wonderful country; peaceful, democratic, just, well-educated, ethical. I'd be delighted if you guys managed to put some folks on the moon. A l'Unifolié would look quite fetching with that gray lunar backdrop.

But again, I still have to ask, why . . . although perhaps somewhat meekly . . .

[lajoswinkler]

I don't hold any grudge against anyone because of his nationality, but I do against countries. China is a terrible country with disgusting internal and external politics. I really wouldn't like to see it plant its flag on the Moon. The last thing the Chinese need is their awful government thumping its chest like a gorilla.

Canada is not perfect, but it's light years away from China in the terms of social justice and international affairs. It deserves that, although I honestly don't see it coming. Canadian budget is neatly distributed (awesome healthcare, unlike USA) and they really live in a quiet prosperity.

China's nationalism is huge and they will do a lot to come off as a force in space. Someone said they do it "because of science". Yeah, right. The main goal is to show off.

[Mekan1k]

In answer to title:

WE HAD BETTER.

[czokletmuss]

What do you guys think? Personally (being Canadian), I'd like Canada to reach the Moon before the Chinese

I think that the country which gave us Colin Mochrie and Jon Lajoie deserve this However, it's very unlikely that either China or USA will do this in the forseeable future.

Plus, they are talkin about 2020s (start of the program) and 2030s to get there. It's several elections from now. So, you know, it's like Constellation and "going to Mars in the next 20-30 years" - probably not going to happen.

[Seret]

I really wouldn't like to see it plant its flag on the Moon.

a) You probably don't have a choice

Good things don't happen because the people involved deserve them. It would be nice if the world worked that way, but it doesn't.

You can't really ignore useful scientific advances because of the horrible political entities that sponsor them. The results of horrific Nazi experiments on prisoners served to advance our understanding of survival in cold water and altitude. That data had saved many lives and would have been used in the early space programme.

[lajoswinkler]

Of course I don't have a choice. LOL

Actually, those experiments were mostly not scientific and therefore are useless. I happened to studied (officially) about those attrocities. Most of that work was really lousy from a scientific standpoint.

Americans and Soviets therefore had to do everything from the scratch, using animals for testing. There was a story that the original data was not used because it was not ethical, but I'm sure that would not be an obstacle if it was the only one. We all know how the world works, unfortunatelly.

[Kerbart]

Why go to the moon? Because we can. Since we've already proven it, what's the point of going again? At one point it might be valuable for Americans to show that they *still* can go to the mün. But the limitations are more budget and economics related than technology, so it's more a question of "are we willing to pay for it" than "are we able to do so," and then it simply becomes a matter of "can we do it within the budget we're willing to spend on it?" From a PR perspective there's great value in it to show off your technical prowess though, and that's a good motivation.

What is the value of going to the moon? As Moon Goddess pointed out, there was plenty of scientific value is sending men (especially a geologist) to the moon. Were those rocks worth the $25 billion we spent on it? That is open for discussion. On the other hand, scientific research is... research. "If we knew what it was what we are looking for, we wouldn't be calling it research" (A. Einstein).

But there's also value in the journey of going to the moon. Not the actual space travel, but all the research and development included. A large part of the $25B spent on Apollo went back into society: people were paid for jobs, contractors were paid for delivering products, etc. The amount of money "extracted" from society to go to the moon was a lot less than that $25B.

And then there's spinoff products. NASA lists an interesting list with innovations resulting from the Apollo project, and that list is far from complete. When I was studying mechanical engineering at college I was told about this example. The moon rover obviously needs motors. With electrical motors, size and weight go down (assuming constant power output) if you increase the speed of the motor (thus lowering torque). Of course by the time the power is transferred to the wheel you need lots of torque and far less RPM, and a gear box would defeat the purpose of using that little high speed electric motor in the first place. The Harmonic Drive does just that; it offers a super light-weight, reliable (little moving parts) transmission with super high transmission ratios (the rover used a 80:1 ratio on the wheels), and from what my teacher told me modern harmonic drives wouldn't be where they are today if not for the research required for the rover drives.

The innovation required (to do it at manageable cost) alone will be worth it going back, even if a robot could do it a lot easier.

[Moar Boosters]

Of course I don't have a choice. LOL

Actually, those experiments were mostly not scientific and therefore are useless. I happened to studied (officially) about those attrocities. Most of that work was really lousy from a scientific standpoint.

Americans and Soviets therefore had to do everything from the scratch, using animals for testing. There was a story that the original data was not used because it was not ethical, but I'm sure that would not be an obstacle if it was the only one. We all know how the world works, unfortunatelly.

A lot of the work the Nazi's did was unscientific, however the after WW2 the Americans offered immunity to Japanese biological warfare scientists in exchange for their research notes, ultimately gaining from the atrocities committed on Chinese civilians and POWs.

[Diche Bach]

@ Kerbart: I dont' think any of us who have asked "why?" are saying that there either (a) was no value to the Apollo missions, nor that ( there would be no value in future Moon landings by humans.

For me at least, it is really just a matter of priorities, and no I don't mean "take NASA money away and give it to charity else military or something else." I tend to agree that more expenditure in space program(s) is a good thing. I don't imagine that transferring the current U.S. military budget (or even half or one-quarter of it) would necessarily pay a proportional return on investment; although that is an interesting question in and of itself: what is the maximum efficient monetary investment in space travel. Actually I expressed some thoughts on this in the "What if you were the Head of NASA thread"

With that said, I think that the single most important thing for NASA to be doing is as follows:

1. Synthesize expectations of the challenges and opportunities humanity will face in the next 100 years

2. Outline the role that space exploration and space travel can play in overcoming those challenges and taking advantage of those opportunities. (a) define how NASA fits into that larger sphere of "space work," ( define what essential features NASA offers which cannot be replicated in any other way at present.

3. Define a 10, 20, 50 and 100 year plan(s) (all of which should offer "cheap," "moderate" and "expensive" variants) with detailed information on costs, feasibility, significance, opportunity. Attempt to realistically and objectively show how greater investment does or does not lead to more impactful mid- and short-term value re: #2 above.

4. Develop a Youtube channel (or similar means for mass distribution) that methodically presents all the above to the public. Invite congress to watch too. Use the best of modern web design to link said Youtube channel as broadly as possible, and in particular with a focus on potential corporate donors, state lobbyists and the like.

5. Sit back and wait for the calls from the President / Congress.

To me something like this list of five points (or at least the first four) are the key "why" questions that I don't hear clear answers to.

Major institutions tend to have mission statements and even if they are cliché or hypocrisy at least they define the goals. I'm not aware of such things for any modern space programs, nor for how they define their role with respect to addressing current or impending future problems. It is almost just like they 'ad hoc' come up with what seems like an 'interesting thing to do' and then try to scrape together the money for it.

Sending people should have a set of very well defined (though perhaps rather open-ended) short-, mid- and long-term goals. It should clearly define success at those goals (and there could be lots of them but the entire raison d'etre for the thing should BE those reasons). The vague reason that, it promotes science and technology is IMO lame.

Solve a problem(s) achieve an important milestone toward a future goal (e.g., asteroid mining or a moon base or whatever).

[Exoscientist]

Opening ourselves up to alternative ways of doing things may allow us to return to the Moon:

Saturday, September 28, 2013

Free your mind, and the rest will follow.

http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/09/free-your-mind-and-rest-will-follow.html

Bob Clark

[Carter938]

Mainly, I view it as training for the day when we are forced to expand outwards into our galaxy and perhaps the universe beyond. We need to send people to other worlds for two reasons:

1. To test how human bodies react to long space voyages, lower gravity, and alien environments. It also tests out and trains humans to adapt to lifestyles on other planets. We will one day have to move to other planets, so we need to know how to survive on them.

2. For science. Manned missions allow for people who are experts in their fields to physically and personally examine other planets enivronments. ie.Geologists, Physicists, Astronomers, Biologists, etc.

[nuclearpower13]

I think man will step on the moon again very soon. Russia, China, India, and Europe want to put a man on the moon within 2025-2045 time scale. But I think for America it will be awhile before we send another man anywhere really. Bush wanted to send a man to the moon and then to mars using the Orion Rockets. But when Obama can into office he scraped Orion and then set a goal to put a man on an asteroid but then he later scraped that also. America has lost its will to explore. We are so engrossed in one hatred towards each others party's and that of Domestic problem that we have lost track of what really defines us as Americans and just Humans as a whole. It wont be our government that send man back to the moon it will be a commercial enterprise that wants to make a profit on the vast reserves of H3 that are in the Lunar regolith.

[Dispatcher]

The moon makes for a good place to build and launch interplanetary missions (from its surface or in its orbit). Its environment is in some respects similar to that of Mars (and in some respects more extreme). If we can establish a successful human presence on our relatively near moon, we should be able to achieve the same thing on Ceres (the Belt in general), Mars and outward.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Dispatcher
or orbiting

[asmi]

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

The irony is that 6 out of those 9 launches (two thirds) are powered by Russian engines.

[-Velocity-]

The irony is that 6 out of those 9 launches (two thirds) are powered by Russian engines.

I actually found out recently that the engine (NK-33) that the Soviets developed to power their failed moon rocket (the N1), is actually being considered for use as part of NASA's SLS.

Also, if I remember correctly, the F1 rocket engine developed for the first stage of the Saturn V is also under consideration as an upgrade for the SLS, the idea being replacing the SRBs with F1-powered liquid fueled boosters... as we know from KSP, liquid fueled rockets are more efficient than solid

Cool stuff. It really goes to illustrate, that apart from making materials advances in rocket engines (such as making 3D printable rocket engines), chemical rocket engines are a very mature technology. It's also comforting to know that some good came from the Soviet N1 project.

[Mr Shifty]

I actually found out recently that the engine (NK-33) that the Soviets developed to power their failed moon rocket (the N1), is actually being considered for use as part of NASA's SLS.

Also, if I remember correctly, the F1 rocket engine developed for the first stage of the Saturn V is also under consideration as an upgrade for the SLS, the idea being replacing the SRBs with F1-powered liquid fueled boosters... as we know from KSP, liquid fueled rockets are more efficient than solid

Cool stuff. It really goes to illustrate, that apart from making materials advances in rocket engines (such as making 3D printable rocket engines), chemical rocket engines are a very mature technology. It's also comforting to know that some good came from the Soviet N1 project.

OSC is already using refurbished NK-33s on their Antares rockets. I thought SLS was supposed to use R-25's (SSMEs).