The President Is Sending NASA Back to the Moon

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
The President has formally told NASA to send US astronauts back to the moon. "The directive I'm signing today will refocus America's space program on human exploration and discovery," he said. No human has ventured out beyond low-Earth orbit since the Apollo 17 mission, 45 years ago.

John Logsdon, a space historian at The George Washington University, says Monday's announcement is not a surprise. "Now the question is whether the White House will propose, and the Congress appropriate the funds needed to turn the words into reality," Logsdon says. Indeed, actually getting the funding to achieve presidents' ambitious space goals is a perennial problem for NASA.
 
Permanent settlement. Rail gun to launch stuff either back to Earth or further out into the solar system. Mining for rare materials and harvesting lunar ice for habitation and fuel. Yea, there's still plenty to do on the moon.

PHEW that was a fast edit.
 
There ya go. Keep my initials out of it! Finally. :) I love a good, solid, preemptive strike.

I wish them luck getting it all funded. I sure would like to see our space program getting active again.
 
|-Goku-| said:
This is awesome. I've been disappointed in the advancement of space exploration. Let's do it!
Click to expand...

Kinda wish it was other frontiers and not the Moon (which we've already been to multiple times), but I'll take it. Moon bases, maybe?
 
Why?

Really, I understand it gets people interested, but money would be better put into more probes for our system, of which we really know very little about the other planets and moons. Most of the time for the costs of these manned missions we are looking at a number of probes that can have real data and science impact. So really, what is the REASON to go back to the moon?
 
Megalith said:
The President has formally told NASA to send US astronauts back to the moon. "The directive I'm signing today will refocus America's space program on human exploration and discovery," he said. No human has ventured out beyond low-Earth orbit since the Apollo 17 mission, 45 years ago.

John Logsdon, a space historian at The George Washington University, says Monday's announcement is not a surprise. "Now the question is whether the White House will propose, and the Congress appropriate the funds needed to turn the words into reality," Logsdon says. Indeed, actually getting the funding to achieve presidents' ambitious space goals is a perennial problem for NASA.
Click to expand...

Send me I will go for free and with a minimum of safety equipment.
 
Bush and Obama directed NASA to do the same thing. Where's the budget for the new launcher? The new Moon program is hardly further along than it was when Bush rolled out the Constellation program.

BlueFireIce said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Space is the new high ground from a military perspective as well as a resource game-changer. Asteroid redirection and mining are going to be major concerns in the coming decades. it makes good sense to invest on space exploration.

I doubt the Lewis and Clark expedition did much for the average American of 1806.
 
<snip>

This may get me banned, but it's true, and I think everyone already knows it now.

Kyle - At least we know your reading comprehension is up to snuff.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BlueFireIce said:
Why?

Really, I understand it gets people interested, but money would be better put into more probes for our system, of which we really know very little about the other planets and moons. Most of the time for the costs of these manned missions we are looking at a number of probes that can have real data and science impact. So really, what is the REASON to go back to the moon?
Click to expand...

Oil. There is oil on the moon.

Please start that rumor ;). Seriously though - space is the future. Jokes about oil aside - there actually ARE resources out there. Precious metals, water, etc. Things we can use to make fuel and other items right here on earth.
 
BlueFireIce said:
Why?

Really, I understand it gets people interested, but money would be better put into more probes for our system, of which we really know very little about the other planets and moons. Most of the time for the costs of these manned missions we are looking at a number of probes that can have real data and science impact. So really, what is the REASON to go back to the moon?
Click to expand...

Well, I suspect one reason would be to test the technology that will deliver us to more distant objectives.
 
Establishing a permanent base on the moon is in our Nation's interest. In my opinion JFK's push for a moon landing is the direct and indirect cause of most of our technology and wealth. HE3, abundant on the moon, is thought to be the perfect fuel for Fusion reaction. The money we spend could be thought of as an investment that will yield wealth many times over.
 
Yeah... I don't see this happening. Of course, beyond the oblivious.

But there's also that we never had any success with Earth Lab 2. The only thing we've learned is that it's really fucking complicated to replicate what the Earth does by itself.

We would need a real monetary reason to get to the moon. For funsies doesn't excite people.
 
The last 2 administrations pushed to go back to the moon. So a 3rd administration said the same thing. I am shocked I tell you shocked!
 
DeathFromBelow said:
Bush and Obama directed NASA to do the same thing. Where's the budget for the new launcher? The new Moon program is hardly further along than it was when Bush rolled out the Constellation program.



Space is the new high ground from a military perspective as well as a resource game-changer. Asteroid redirection and mining are going to be major concerns in the coming decades. it makes good sense to invest on space exploration.

I doubt the Lewis and Clark expedition did much for the average American of 1806.
Click to expand...

Military high ground will not be manned and has nothing to do with sending people back to the moon.

kju1 said:
Oil. There is oil on the moon.

Please start that rumor ;). Seriously though - space is the future. Jokes about oil aside - there actually ARE resources out there. Precious metals, water, etc. Things we can use to make fuel and other items right here on earth.
Click to expand...

We have lots here on earth, the cost to go to another planet and mine, then not just launch off the surface but transport back here to earth and then land will never be practical and we will more than likely moved well and beyond that sort of resource tech when we have the ability to bring it back for cheap.

bugleyman said:
Well, I suspect one reason would be to test the technology that will deliver us to more distant objectives.
Click to expand...

We already have the tech, and sending probes actually to distant objects have taught us far more than the man missions to the moon. Sending probes to actually land on some of these planets or moons in our system would teach us far more.
 
The question I have is if there is going to be funding accompanying this directive. NASA's budget has been cut more than a couple times in recent history. Given that the shuttles are not in an operable state, and that going to the moon is expensive anyhow (it is way farther away than the low orbit flights we normally do to things like the ISS) to have any real hope of this happening and being successful, they'll need more money.

Much as wishing doesn't make it so, neither does signing a directive. There'll need to be funding to make it happen and I am doubtful that'll be forthcoming. That's the reason we stopped going to the moon: It costs a lot and the science being done wasn't enough for congress to want to pay for it.
 
RogueTadhg said:
Yeah... I don't see this happening. Of course, beyond the oblivious.
Click to expand...

Sadly this is probably true. Congress wont allocate money for it.

RogueTadhg said:
But there's also that we never had any success with Earth Lab 2. The only thing we've learned is that it's really fucking complicated to replicate what the Earth does by itself.
Click to expand...

We have good advances in tech and understanding since. Plus we dont need to fully replicate earth today. We just need to start offloading some of what we do.

RogueTadhg said:
We would need a real monetary reason to get to the moon. For funsies doesn't excite people.
Click to expand...

Resources...lots of them.
 
Edited because it sounded too political.
 
Last edited:
Space programs around the world: PR announcements without funding.

Of course in a day and age where just about every country in the world is neglecting infrastructure it's tough to fund dreams.
 
kju1 said:
We have good advances in tech and understanding since. Plus we dont need to fully replicate earth today. We just need to start offloading some of what we do.
Click to expand...

True. We've got a lot of advances everywhere. But I would rather have it proven on earth, first. Then try to replicate the tried and true success on the Moon instead of pulling an Apollo 13 and hope for the best. It'll be a lot easier to make modifications, repairs, replenish something on Earth, too.

The last time, that I can recall, they had issues where plant and wildlife died. Caloric deficiencies for all the crew which made it harder to work.
 
I don’t see the point in wasting money on going to the moon. Instead it should be focused on developing robots and other unmanned vehicles with advanced AI that can be sent to Mars and other places with the capacity to move around and explore on their own and then relay their findings back to us. I think AI is the future of space exploration, not manned missions.
 
BlueFireIce said:
We already have the tech, and sending probes actually to distant objects have taught us far more than the man missions to the moon. Sending probes to actually land on some of these planets or moons in our system would teach us far more.
Click to expand...

No offensive, but we're not going to Mars with 1960s technology.

Unless you're objecting to manned space travel in general? I was responding specifically to "why the moon?"
 
Lots of talk but no funding. It's a shame.

Having a permanent base on the moon would be a boon for reserach and development in multiple fields. There's water on the moon that could be mined remotely for resources. Solar power could be generated non stop at the poles (perfect place for an observatory as well). A space elevator could be put up to reduce launch fuel costs down to almost nothing (with existing materials unlike here on earth). It could really be our stepping stone to the rest of the solar system where spaceships could be manufactured on the moon as there's titanium in the lunar regolith.
 
About God-damned time! Now let's get Congress off their collective asses and fund it properly. Permanent moon bases as a launching off point to the rest of the solar system makes sense.
 
Old_Way said:
I've always thought a small moon base would be a better spot to launch deeper space missions from (Mars or bust!).
Click to expand...

A moon base is not a good 'staging area'. It requires large amount of fuel to get there, slow down, land, refuel, and take off again. The ideal staging area is earth orbit.
For anyone that's never played Kerbal Space Program I highly recommend it. It really is a great game and tool to better understand basic rocket design, fuel requirements, orbits, etc.
 
Brackle said:
We careful now! No political talking now. Kyle posted the 2nd post about it. Might want to edit!
Click to expand...

Technically, it's not a political statement, it's a statement about the media. But might as well avoid another ban.
 
BlueFireIce said:
Why?

Really, I understand it gets people interested, but money would be better put into more probes for our system, of which we really know very little about the other planets and moons. Most of the time for the costs of these manned missions we are looking at a number of probes that can have real data and science impact. So really, what is the REASON to go back to the moon?
Click to expand...


Two reasons I can think of, even though they would have to play out as really feasible so I am not making claims that they are, only that they would be worthwhile goals / reasons.

One, find a way to not only build bases on the moon, but do so profitably, this I would leave to industry and I would be careful of even subsidizing it.

Another would be as a launch pad for further exploration. Easier to launch from the Moon than the Earth.

But to fund such things, they need to be able to pay for themselves. And if there is no way to make them pay for themselves, than there is no point in doing it.

Now if the point is to find our way to another really great planet to live on, colonize, and take from some other poor bastards, then I'm all for it.

Now another civilization might have similar ideas about exploration, or they might have a longer and more patient view.

Maybe instead of spending all that time and effort to run around the universe looking for some nice planet to scoop on, they are patiently waiting for some green fuckers to show up on their stoop, so they can follow them home and take their shit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top