America to return to the moon?

[Hand of Evil]

I know of a few people who said we have never been there to begin with.

As long as they were to build something there I am all for it but I just think it is a stunt to funnel cash and distract the Americian people from other concerns.

 

[Carnifex]

When I saw the title of this thread I had two strange thoughts float through my head.

The first was "Ah, sending Americans back to their homeland in outer space!"

The second was a bizarre mental image of the entire United States being launched by hundreds of rocket boosters, the entire country flying up to the moon.

 

[the Jester]

Baraendur is right, lets behave and not get sucked into a political discussion about starvation and such.

What technological advantages would this moon/mars trip create? Isnt the technology to do this there allready? or are there plans for a completely new type of spacecraft?

So far the space program has more than paid for itself in improved weather prediction alone.

Technologies that the space program has had a huge hand in developing include a lot of medical stuff (EEGs and/or EKGs, that kind of stuff), all sorts of broadcast tech- everything from gps systems and satellite tv to spy satellites- the list goes on.

Furthermore, expanding into space will give us access to immense resources. The asteroid belt looks especially promising for lots of metal.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

The first was "Ah, sending Americans back to their homeland in outer space!"

AH HA! PROOF THAT THE BRITISH ARE ALIENS!!!!

 

[Angcuru]

I am of the belief that the human race is doomed to a fault, for a multitude of reasons, not just one. But if extending our ability to enhance our ability to explore space means eventually taking a few utopian alien civilizations down with us, I say go for it. We might as well go out with a bang.

On a technological side, though, I predict that soon we will develop no more than some new snack foods, sunglasses, mattress materials, a few military-grade polymers that will spend time both killing and protecting people before they end up showing up in the civilian world (toned down of course) as car fenders, and a few new drugs that have more side effects than actual healing factors. But then again, the joint US-Israel lazer-cannon development project could mean the development of an orbital anti-asteroid/comet system.

Of course this lazer-defense system will be mistaken by alien civilizations as a sign that we are automatically hostile, and launch a BIIIIIG destructo-thingy at us, wiping out our ancestors as they post on the ENWorld of the future.

Sleep well!

 

[Nifft]

I am of the belief that the human race is doomed to a fault, for a multitude of reasons, not just one.

In humanity's defense, you do live in New Jersey.

I think it's high time we went back to the moon. We should start to use her as our stepping stone into the cosmos, and from there, the galaxy.

-- N, high hopes for spreading the human stain

 

[William Ronald]

Humanity has long had some image of a frontier. It is only recently that there are no unexplored frontiers. I think humanity is by nature a curious species.

Perhaps space can also serve as a place for the nations of the world to cooperate. There solar system is large, and has tremendous resources. I would argue that the pure research from the space program has several practical applications on Earth. From weather satellites that can help warn people of impending storms, to medical and computer technology, space exploration has benefitted mankind.

Ultimately, if man is to last at least as long as the dinosaurs, we will have to move beyond Earth. If the resources of space can be used to help humanity here on earth, it might well be worth the investment.

Ad astrum per aspera.

 

[Maldur]

But dont we allready have the tech to visit the moon.

I know we might be able to refine those technologies, but do we need anything new?

What resources can be found on the moon itself? metals and such, or is it just a ball'o'rock?

 

[Hand of Evil]

But dont we allready have the tech to visit the moon.

I know we might be able to refine those technologies, but do we need anything new?

What resources can be found on the moon itself? metals and such, or is it just a ball'o'rock?

Well, those moon rocks from those first few trips have been known to bring in some big bucks.

 

[Jonny Nexus]

Plus, I don't see how a manned flight to Mars (which the article also talks up) would be feasible without a really strong presence either on the moon or on a more fully-equipped space station.

Actually, no. A bloke called Robert Zubrin came up with a very clever way of getting to Mars that could go straight there without space station or moonbase.

His home page is here.

http://www.nw.net/mars/

It also has details of his book (The Case For Mars) which I'd strongly recommend as a very interesting read.

Basically, his mission requires two boosters of about the power of a Saturn 5. This could be made by using shuttle hardware.

The thing that usually kills a Mars plan is that not only do you need enough fuel to send you there, you need enough fuel to send you back as well, and so you need enough "send" fuel to send not only you, but all the "return" fuel as well. (This usually means that you need *way* more fuel to get there and back than you would need merely to get there).

Zubrin's mission plan (remember that Mars is in the right position to go there around once every two years) is this:

1) Launch an unmanned rock carrying a Mars Return Vehicle (MRV). The booster sends the MRV straight to Mars. The MRV areobrakes in, and then lands - with its fuel tanks now practically empty.

2) Then (and this is the clever bit) it reacts a bit of stuff its carried with it, with the Martian atmosphere, to actually manufacture fuel in-situ.

3) Two years later (and only if the MRV both landed successfully and manufactured its fuel) a second booster launches a manned hab to Mars. The hab is capable of only one thing (flying to Mars and landing - although I think it can also do a "swing by" abort). It aerobrakes in and lands next to the MRV.

4) A couple of weeks later the MRV for the second mission is launched.

5) The astronauts spend about nine months exploring. Then they get in the MRV and its takes them home, leaving the hab behind.

SAFETY

This sounds dangerous (after all, you're taking off in a ship that can't get you home), but it's actually pretty safe.

1) The mission time is longer than other mission profiles. Yes, but they spend a lot of that on the surface, and less in space, so they actually get less radiation.

2) What if the MRV crashes, doesn't work? Then they don't set out.

3) What if their hab is destroyed on landing? As long as they survive, they can live in the MRV.

4) What if they don't land near the MRV? They have a rover with a range of 1000 km, so they can use that to travel to the MRV.

5) What if they land further than 1000 km from the MRV? Then the next MRV (for the next mission) can be diverted to land next to them. And if that can't happen they have a few years of supplies anyway.

There's actually a lot more survivability built in than with the Apollo missions.

Initially Zubrin envisages each mission being in a different place. But after a while, you could put them in the same place, so that the habs build up into a base.