Poll

Should NASA ditch asteroids and Mars to help lead the strong international interest for Lunar missions?

Stay with the current Mars plan
18 (17.5%)
Go to Mars but on a new plan
17 (16.5%)
Go to the Moon solo
21 (20.4%)
Join in an international Moon quest
47 (45.6%)

Total Members Voted: 102

Voting closed: 02/12/2016 08:01 pm


Author Topic: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?  (Read 129311 times)

Offline Rhyshaelkan

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 264
    • PERMANENT Forums
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #80 on: 11/29/2015 05:20 pm »
I dont care where they go, as long as they have a plan to industrialize space. No more flags and footprints, or even exploration. We can send robots to explore. We need to make space our own. Get off this rock and go.
I am not a professional. Just a rational amateur dreaming of mankind exploiting the universe.

Online TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #81 on: 02/11/2016 12:39 am »
No button for my choice.

NASA buys FH-R-Raptor US and Dragons from SpaceX and develops other components it needs for a moon program. NASA takes the lead and SpaceX assists.

NASA assists SpaceX through SAAs in a Mars program. SpaceX takes the lead and NASA assists.

Offline hydra9

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #82 on: 02/20/2016 05:54 pm »
NASA should focus on returning to the Moon-- solo-- in the 2020s. International efforts really don't save you any money. Plus you end up outsourcing American aerospace jobs instead of building your space architecture domestically.

But NASA should offer a couple of seats on the journey for six human crews to the astronauts of foreign agencies for about $150 million for each astronaut. You could even allow them to bring back up to 10 kilograms of lunar samples each for their foreign space agencies. This would save NASA $300 million per  crewed lunar mission.

For foreign space agencies, sending an astronaut to the Moon for just $150 million plus bringing back lunar samples would be an incredible bargain!


A simple regolith shielded lunar outpost should primarily be used for the manufacturing of polar water and propellant for export to the Earth-Moon Lagrange points for crewed voyages to Mars in the 2030s.

But the manufacturing of lunar propellant could also allow reusable lunar crew landers to be utilized as reusable lunar hoppers. Lunar hoppers could be launched every few months from the polar lunar outpost to practically every region on the lunar surface in less than an hour for a few hours or a few days of exploration. 

Marcel




Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #83 on: 02/21/2016 04:31 am »
International efforts really don't save you any money.
The reason why human spaceflight efforts get internationalized isn't to save money.
Quote
Plus you end up outsourcing American aerospace jobs instead of building your space architecture domestically.

But NASA should offer a couple of seats on the journey for six human crews to the astronauts of foreign agencies for about $150 million for each astronaut. [...] For foreign space agencies, sending an astronaut to the Moon for just $150 million plus bringing back lunar samples would be an incredible bargain!

They don't want to do it at bargain prices. They want to do it to insource aerospace DDT&E.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline hydra9

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #84 on: 02/21/2016 10:17 pm »
International efforts really don't save you any money.
The reason why human spaceflight efforts get internationalized isn't to save money.
Quote

You're certainly correct on that one. International cooperation doesn't save the American tax payer any money!

Plus you end up outsourcing American aerospace jobs instead of building your space architecture domestically.

But NASA should offer a couple of seats on the journey for six human crews to the astronauts of foreign agencies for about $150 million for each astronaut. [...] For foreign space agencies, sending an astronaut to the Moon for just $150 million plus bringing back lunar samples would be an incredible bargain!

They don't want to do it at bargain prices. They want to do it to insource aerospace DDT&E.

Exactly! So there's no logical reason for American's to want to outsource their aerospace industry.

But I disagree with you as far as no nation wanting to pay for a cheap  seat to the Moon, plus bring back lunar material that your country can study for their own space program. 10 kilograms of lunar regolith would be some very precious material for a country that would someday like to use its own technological resources to travel to the Moon.

Marcel

Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #85 on: 02/22/2016 12:12 am »
We're pretty much on the same wavelength, but I think there is a reason why the United States would want to lead an international high tech effort like a Moon mission, rather than going it alone, even if doing so were more costly and outsourced DDT&E. That's because leadership in this has both prestige benefits, and also diplomatic benefits.

Try looking at in in a context other than spaceflight. I recently suggested to a friend that a worthy successor to ISS would be an "International Heavy Icebreaker" project. (The polar regions of the globe really could use at least one more heavy icebreaker!) Some nation would contribute the hull; some other nation the massive engines; maybe a third the guidance, navigation and control electronics.

But for such an effort to work, one nation would need to step up and write the specification, or at least specify the requirements. How much ice really needs to be broken? If the United States does that specification-of-the-need part, it looks like its in the lead of the effort. That's maybe too easy for an icebreaker. But for a sustained lunar effort I suggest it would be not easy, but rather a difficult effort worthy of a great nation.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #86 on: 02/22/2016 12:32 am »
But I disagree with you as far as no nation wanting to pay for a cheap  seat to the Moon, plus bring back lunar material that your country can study for their own space program. 10 kilograms of lunar regolith would be some very precious material for a country that would someday like to use its own technological resources to travel to the Moon.

Of the material we brought back from the Moon, part of it was given away as gifts - essentially no real scientific value.

There is always a cost-benefit analysis of doing something, but I don't see where the country of Portugal would see a big need to pay for 10 kilograms of random Moon dust.  Or Saudi Arabia.  Or ??

And material from the Moon is only "precious" right now because of scarcity, not because it consists of material we can't find here on Earth.  The more material that is brought back will lower the perceived value of what is brought back, so at some point it doesn't make sense to spend so much money to get so little.  Based on that, other than geologic knowledge random material from the Moon is not really of any value.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #87 on: 03/18/2016 07:21 am »
I think other countries would be more likely to wish to contribute by supplying modules or delivering cargo with unmanned landers. It is more about pushing their own technological prowess. And paying your own scientists $100m is very different from paying america 100m since it flows straight back into your own economy.

Integration on the surface could avoid a lot of the unhealthy co-dependent relationship of the ISS. In some cases integration would just mean within rover distance. Rovers are another thing they could contribute.

Offline Jonathan_Blatter

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
  • Swizerland
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #88 on: 03/20/2016 06:08 pm »
NASA should get the technology Ready for Use. as quick as possible. ESA and Jaxa the same way. And let the privet take the Risk and the profit. when That will happen the comptesion will star and the price will fall.
and the Asteroid Moon and Mars will be discovered. by the right way and means.
I really hope to see more rockets with the names of companies like SpaceX, DSM, boing, Biglow, ... Starting from around the World.

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #89 on: 03/20/2016 09:43 pm »
But I disagree with you as far as no nation wanting to pay for a cheap  seat to the Moon, plus bring back lunar material that your country can study for their own space program. 10 kilograms of lunar regolith would be some very precious material for a country that would someday like to use its own technological resources to travel to the Moon.

Of the material we brought back from the Moon, part of it was given away as gifts - essentially no real scientific value.

There is always a cost-benefit analysis of doing something, but I don't see where the country of Portugal would see a big need to pay for 10 kilograms of random Moon dust.  Or Saudi Arabia.  Or ??

And material from the Moon is only "precious" right now because of scarcity, not because it consists of material we can't find here on Earth.  The more material that is brought back will lower the perceived value of what is brought back, so at some point it doesn't make sense to spend so much money to get so little.  Based on that, other than geologic knowledge random material from the Moon is not really of any value.

Material from the Moon is "precious" but it's actually over-priced due to scarcity.
It would be a good thing if material from the Moon was not over-priced due to scarcity, and were that to be the case, lunar material would be precious rather than "precious".

There is no reality in which Moon dirt becomes as cheap as Earth dirt and that is also that is bad situation for earthlings.
What would be good is that lunar dirt was a commodity and that commodity was at a low price. And a very low price of lunar dirt is about $10 per gram. What determines lunar dirt value is the ability of using money to get it in exchange for money- and at the moment the ability to get lunar dirt with money is limited- it's "precious" not precious.
One can't make lunar dirt, one can only make a poor copy of lunar dirt. This quite different than diamonds- as one can make "good copies" of diamonds.
A significant difference between diamonds and artificially made diamonds, is that natural diamonds are encoded with information- that you might want. Though if wanted information on how to make artificial diamonds, artificial diamonds could also encoded information. Natural diamonds encode how nature makes diamond, artificial diamonds could tell how humans make diamonds. So, a natural diamond might be a billion year old and an artificial might a year or two old.
The aspect that one can't make a good copy of lunar dirt is valuable- not a value which is realized, but rather a potential value which could be realized. Sprinkle paper money with moon dirt could be way to prevent forgery. And preventing forgery has value for more things than just money.

In order to develop value for lunar dirt one needs lunar dirt to be able to be bought with money, and we don't have this situation at the moment. And this is all about "making money" in sense that governments may be the ones that print money but governments don't "make money". To "make money" or create wealth from nothing, one needs markets.

The Moon is covered with stuff which could be worth $50 to $100 per gram, but like gold the more mined
the lower it's price becomes [which is good- if you want gold]. Lowering the price of gold to $5 to $10 would good for everyone except those hoarding gold. And it's not particularly important if people hoard gold or lunar dirt, or it's welcome news that China mine more gold than any other nation. Likewise it would be welcome news whenever some would mine lunar dirt- particular if such mining is selling to a free market.
« Last Edit: 03/20/2016 09:57 pm by gbaikie »

Offline Rhyshaelkan

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 264
    • PERMANENT Forums
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #90 on: 03/24/2016 06:49 pm »
Having watched a few programs by Zubrin again lately. My problem with Mars First, is the lack of focus on industry. We will never be space fairing until we make stuff in space for space.

If a gab breaks down, the answer cannot be "we can ship another one from Earth." Even if you had the resources to do so, it is a noose around your neck.

Why i want people, not necessarily NASA, to go Moon First is to get astro industry rolling sooner.
I am not a professional. Just a rational amateur dreaming of mankind exploiting the universe.

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #91 on: 03/27/2016 04:12 pm »
This and other related subjects are discussed in a new issue. You can download the articles for free:

http://online.liebertpub.com/toc/space/4/1
« Last Edit: 03/28/2016 10:00 pm by Blackstar »

Offline Rhyshaelkan

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 264
    • PERMANENT Forums
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #92 on: 03/27/2016 10:35 pm »
Great PDFs to read.

Luna for Transportation and Industry Hub of the solar system.
I am not a professional. Just a rational amateur dreaming of mankind exploiting the universe.

Offline Nibb31

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 311
  • France
  • Liked: 177
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #93 on: 03/28/2016 09:19 am »
Whether NASA likes it or not, the only think Orion/SLS is useful for (and was actually designed and scaled for) is cislunar exploration. Orion is useless for Mars and with infrastructure scaled for 1 launch/year, assembling an MTV that will require 3 or 4 SLS launches is pretty much impossible.

Orion was originally designed to go to the Moon, and although it has evolved a lot since Constellation, that's still pretty much all it can be used for. Although NASA is towing the party line with its silly  "Journey to Mars" PR, everybody knows that what they are building now is a cislunar infrastructure, not a Mars vehicle.

Offline Paul451

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3553
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2518
  • Likes Given: 2181
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #94 on: 03/28/2016 03:03 pm »
Whether NASA likes it or not, the only think Orion/SLS is useful for (and was actually designed and scaled for) is cislunar exploration. Orion is useless for Mars and with infrastructure scaled for 1 launch/year, assembling an MTV that will require 3 or 4 SLS launches is pretty much impossible.
Orion was originally designed to go to the Moon, and although it has evolved a lot since Constellation, that's still pretty much all it can be used for. Although NASA is towing the party line with its silly  "Journey to Mars" PR, everybody knows that what they are building now is a cislunar infrastructure, not a Mars vehicle.

However, the same maths applies to lunar missions as Mars, for both budget and timing. It will be around 2030 before funding is freed up (combination of killing ISS in 2028 and ending initial development of the SLS-130 in 2032) to start development on lunar infrastructure. In the meantime, the launcher and capsule development and operations consumes the entirety of the development budget.

And looking at the current rate & cost of development, and projected rate of launch, you are looking at 2040 before you would see the first humans on the moon. With a subsequent flight-rate of one mission every 2 years or so.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #95 on: 03/29/2016 12:20 pm »
<snip>
And looking at the current rate & cost of development, and projected rate of launch, you are looking at 2040 before you would see the first humans on the moon. With a subsequent flight-rate of one mission every 2 years or so.

Getting people on the Moon will not take decades. There are cheaper alternatives to both the SLS and Orion in the pipeline.

Offline Paul451

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3553
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2518
  • Likes Given: 2181
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #96 on: 03/30/2016 04:58 am »
Getting people on the Moon will not take decades. There are cheaper alternatives to both the SLS and Orion in the pipeline.

Nibb31's post was solely about SLS/Orion. His whole point was that their only purpose and capability is a lunar mission. My response was predicated on that, nothing else.

Offline robertinventor

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 212
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #97 on: 06/22/2016 07:21 pm »
I think an international effort would save money for all concerned. Examples, just straight off:
* Landing pad and beacon. Will simplify landing to have a flat surface of lunar glass, no dust, and beacon to land there
* Site. Especially at the lunar poles there may not be that many sites, just a few square kilometers total. In an international effort then all the habitats can be built at the most optimum site. Similarly there may be some caves that are optimal.
* Contamination. If some areas need to be preserved for scientific study, then putting all the habitats in one place reduces contamination
* Services. Especially for new arrivals, it may be a great benefit to be able to hook into the villages electricity and oxygen generation and fuel generation capabilities, and power storage until you develop your own.
* Able to develop a large space. This especially applies to the lunar caves. If the caves are large, as they may be, it might be possible to develop the entire interior of a cave like a Stanford Torus / O'Neil cylinder. If so, again it makes much more sense for everyone to be in the same cave rather than have a half dozen here trying to develop one cave, a dozen in another place and three astronauts in another place all trying to create their own habitats.
* 3D printing of the regolith shielding. If someone has already brought a 3D printer to the Moon able to make shielding for habitats by sintering the regolith or making it into some form of concrete using resin or whatever, then everyone else from then on can use the same machinery and don't need to bring their own printers with them. This is likely to be a large machine.
* Similarly for cranes, or for vehicles to travel over the surface
* Ability for neighbours in the village to help each other. Especially in case of an accident, but also simple things like you have short term trouble with your oxygen supply, or CO2 scrubbing, or even just, that  temporarily you run out of salt or whatever it is. Or your plants die and your neighbours can give you new seedlings.
* Also to help with advice and tips. Maybe the Americans have an expert in environmental control and spacesuits, and the Russians have a good doctor expert at heart conditions or an osteopathic surgeon, and the Europeans have an expert in the technology of the rovers, and the Japanese, an expert in telerobotics, or whatever, they can just call by, look at the situation, and give their advice in person.
* Refuges in an emergency. Any of the habitats can be an emergency shelter for all the others.

I think myself that for as long as the US have the policy that they are not permitted to co-operate with the Chinese that they should join the village, not lead it. Can lead in particular areas of course. But I think it's important that the Chinese can build their own base within the village, and are not forced to build it somewhere else on the Moon just because they can't be involved in a US / Chinese project. I think we need to avoid dividing up the Moon into sections that the Chinese control and sections that everyone else controls. They couldn't own it because of the OST, but I just think it is better for future co-operation and peace in space if they are in the same village. Which they want to do themselves. For the present, I think the ESA are best for leading it, though of course that could change as time goes on. This has nothing to do with issues of human rights, and everything to do with the way that astronauts in space find that they see no frontiers - especially on the Moon and that they are just people out there. Also that China joins in with other countries in the Olympic games, and there it surely helps with world piece to have this sort of friendly competition between athletes. So a similar approach in space with space exploration.

To late to vote but obviously, I'd vote the last, that the US should join in with an international effort. But I think not as leaders, but as partners.


Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #98 on: 06/22/2016 07:30 pm »
1) How much is the entire lunar thing going to cost through the point where hundreds of tons of lunar propellant are delivered to orbit?

2) How much does it cost to simply launch propellant to orbit from Earth?


If #1 includes people, it's not going to be cheaper than #2. Ergo, NASA shouldn't be "refocusing" on returning to the Moon if the purpose is to get to Mars.

NASA could offer to buy propellant from companies who might want to do it, but if NASA "refocuses" on the Moon, it'd be an ENORMOUS waste of money (if the end-goal is humans to Mars).
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #99 on: 06/22/2016 11:57 pm »
I think NASA should keep its focus on Mars, but throw the Moon a bone in the form of Lunar COTS and then ongoing lunar CRS as part of ESA's Moon Village. They could probably do this with ~10% of their HEOMD budget post-ISS.

"Focusing on the Moon" is almost a guaranteed way to attract those at NASA who care more about setting up destination-specific Program Offices and fiefdoms than on actual results. I'd rather see a small enough chunk thrown at the Moon to keep it as a lean public/private partnership, while NASA keeps its main focus on pretending like it's going to send people to Mars. I'll probably blog some more about it later.

Cynical? Qui moi?

~Jon

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1