Back to the Moon, why NASA Will Not Make Progress

citizen_142002 · 2007-02-18 18:32:13

So the plan is to go back to the Moon by 2020. Of course the cost will be equal or greater to the mission back in 1969. The launch will be powered by rocket designs that are coming up on 4 or 5 decades old. Oh, and it will take twice as long to put this together as it did for the original mission.

Government space exploration as far as manned missions or ones which relate to establishing a human presence there, is stagnant. Frankly it's a waste of resources. NASA is a bureaucracy, and as such it is not under market pressure to produce results or cut the costs of its missions.

We are not much closer to putting men in deeper space than we were at the end of Apollo. If one year worth of NASA budget were given to private space firms, it would go a lot further towards making space exploration and habitation reality.

Martian Republic · 2007-02-18 20:11:01

I agree with you that NASA is using old technology to go back to the moon. That we won't be much closer to going to Mars even with the building of a small base on the Moon and it might put us twenty to thirty years behind the curve to get to Mars. We are using this old technology, because it the cheapest way to get back to the Moon. This is all true, but giving these resources to the private sector won't help either. They would also try and use old technology, because it the cheapest way to get there too. That technology is deficient for getting to Mars or keeping the people that go to Mars healthy and alive. It is also deficient for getting the resources to Mars to build a colony on Mars.

We need to state the mission right up front of developing nuclear fission and/or fusion rockets for going between the Earth and Moon. Put few hundred to a thousand people on the Moon. Develop a second generation shuttle base on scram jet technology and lunar shuttle. Then be willing to fund this project. Other than that, all we doing is going around in a circle and not really getting anything done at all.

Without a Nation Space Mission of this type. We basically are going nowhere.

Larry,

GCNRevenger · 2007-02-18 22:45:12

Ah another thread full of anti-NASA lies and science fiction arm waving

First of all, you say it will "cost more" to go to the Moon than in the 1960s/1970s, but thats a half-truth: NASA gets about the same money every year give or take regardless what they do, so does it "cost more?" That depends, but I think that its dishonest just to take the annual budget and multiply by the number of years it takes. A space program is an ongoing operation, much like a salary if you will, and doing the biased math about the total amount it "costs" is silly. NASA's budget, ~$16Bn, adjusted for inflation is a minor fraction of what they were paid back in the Apollo program, and that had little devoted to basic science, aeronautics, or robot probes. So, in fact, we are actually getting a pretty cheap deal for our money if NASA can pull it off.

And if you will recall, the Apollo program didn't really accomplish very much except what JFK told them to do, nor was it capable of doing much else without a radical redesign and new architecture of the Apollo system. Perhaps make a "Super LEM" and put that on Saturn-V with a "loiter" version of the third stage while the crew rides up Saturn-1B in an no-LOI version of the Apollo capsule? Hey, thats a lot like what NASA has in mind now. In any event, Saturn-V was not an affordable rocket, and would today cost approximately $3-4Bn each even if they did work. The Apollo system, as designed, was doomed to accomplish nothing lasting on the Moon.

But I digress, NASA is using "old technology" huh? The dirty secret of rocketry is that rockets stopped getting more efficient decades ago, and are little better than the Apollo days or a bit thereafter. It isn't for lack of desire or research, the problem is the fuels and bulk materials (esp. fuel tanks): chemical rocket fuels have a maximum theoretical limit of efficiency, and we are already near this limit using the best practical fuels available. Rockets are usually made from Aluminum then as now because its the only affordable material that has all the properties needed. And as long as we are not flying to space very often, expendable rockets are the best deal in town.

But I digress some more, what "old technology" is NASA using? They are going to so heavily modify the J-2 that its really a different engine, about the only thing from the Apollo days left will be the turbopumps and upgraded igniters. The RS-68 is a new engine, and the solid rocket boosters aren't that old, particularly with the upgrade to new fuel. The Orion capsule is totally different than Apollo in virtually all respects, different engine, different power source, different materials in all components. The only thing thats the same is the aerodynamics, and why would they change?

NASA is not using "old technology," thats a lie either made to make NASA look bad, or reassure people with fond memories of Apollo that don't know any better.

GCNRevenger · 2007-02-18 23:05:38

Now for "what we should be doing:"

First of all, the contractors that do much of the work for NASA are private companies, and they are large because building space ships is a difficult business. Small companies simply don't have the resources needed for such a big program, witness the trouble that Elon Musk is having with his dinky little Falcon-I rocket. If you want a big, difficult job done you are going to have to hire one of the big name companies, and they don't work cheap.

As far as the Moon as destination, I think its safe to argue that the Moon is worthwhile place to go just for the science sake, and it gives us a place to get back into the spaceflight business after the Shuttle/ISS debacle. Walk before you run (etc etc), plus it provides a political benefit because they will prove to Congress that they can do it. NASA's credibility, which is just as vital as money and is in fact a condition of its funding, has been tarnished too much to risk an all-or-nothing (nothing useful anyway) push for Mars.

The Moon also offers the first and only real economic benefit of space travel to Earth, which is PGM mining. It is not NASA's place to mine, but they can prospect for commercial space mining companies, and just as importantly secure a supply of Oxygen to make operating landers easier. And maybe even more important, is to test technology that companies can use to lower their development cost. Nuclear rockets for travel to/from the Moon aren't necessary, its a short 3-day hop by chemical rocket, which are affordable if we have cheap launch, which we will need to operate a mine anyway.

A lot of Lunar hardware is Mars hardware too, the Ares-V rocket will obviously be useful for Mars too, as will the Orion capsule command module to serve as reentry vehicle. The engines from the LSAM could be easily modified to power the Mars vehicles themselves, and the EDS stage modified to push them to Mars. Any Lunar base nuclear reactor could be adapted for Mars too I would imagine.

Where do commercial interests come in? They will run the Lunar base with RLVs, eventually adding mining and tourism to their operations. A hypothetical Mars colony would require a great deal of materials which would have to be launched by a high-efficiency space plane (maybe Scramjet powered), but that is a looong time down the road. However, we must resist the urge to push this date closer without caution, since missions to Mars that don't accomplish anything will do more harm than good.

cIclops · 2007-02-19 05:25:49

So the plan is to go back to the Moon by 2020. Of course the cost will be equal or greater to the mission back in 1969. The launch will be powered by rocket designs that are coming up on 4 or 5 decades old. Oh, and it will take twice as long to put this together as it did for the original mission.
Government space exploration as far as manned missions or ones which relate to establishing a human presence there, is stagnant. Frankly it's a waste of resources. NASA is a bureaucracy, and as such it is not under market pressure to produce results or cut the costs of its missions.
We are not much closer to putting men in deeper space than we were at the end of Apollo. If one year worth of NASA budget were given to private space firms, it would go a lot further towards making space exploration and habitation reality.

I disagree with every sentence of that.

Actually the hope is that the 7th landing can happen by 2015 , the 2020 date is the "no later than" date, it all depends on the funding. Recently there has been so much bad media coverage, mostly from the anti-NASA, anti-technology, "lets spend more more on anything except space exploration" crowd, the new plans are struggling.

No the cost won't be comparable with Apollo, it will be far less .. Griffin quoted $104 billion for the whole program through to 2020, that includes the development of a Shuttle replacement, a heavy launch system capable of Mars missions and several landings on the moon.

The rocket designs will be the best in the world, incorporating the latest technology, they will be safer, more capable and cheaper to operate than any other systems. Sure they are expendable - it's the only sensible technology right now.

Yes the timescale is a few years longer than Apollo, Apollo took 7 years, Return to the moon should take 9 nine years.

Ok, no more time for your other points.

cIclops · 2007-02-19 07:38:47

oK to continue ...

Without government space programs there would be NO human space flight at all. No orbiting observatories or deep space robotic exploration, certainly no Mars rovers or landers. There simply is no viable market for these things today or in the foresable future. They are orders of magnitude more expense than any private person can afford. There is no profit in manned space flight yet, perhaps in a few years some money will be made in suborbital fun flights. Turning the clock back to 1956 and delaying the space programme for decades while the market thought about it probably would mean today we'd be lucky to even have com sats.

Sure government is bureaucratic, so is a lot of industry btw, but it's better than nothing at all. Eventually government will get out of space exploration, but it will take a long time. Even today earth mapping, weather monitoring and GPS is all done by government sats, there's simply not enough private money for such projects.

time up again

cIclops · 2007-02-19 07:55:28

The Moon also offers the first and only real economic benefit of space travel to Earth, which is PGM mining. It is not NASA's place to mine, but they can prospect for commercial space mining companies, and just as importantly secure a supply of Oxygen to make operating landers easier.

The cost of putting stuff on the moon will be about $30,000 PER KG using Ares V technology. The infrastructure cost to mine and return PGM to earth will be astronomical. How many kg of PGM will be needed to repay that investment? There's probably not enough space here to write the zeros And then assume that someone is nutz enough to construct a mine on the Moon and starts to send back zillions of kgs of PGM, what's going to happen to the market price back on Earth? Right.

LO2 production might just work, only because it's in the right place and worth $30K a kg.

EuroLauncher · 2007-02-19 07:58:12

We are not much closer to putting men in deeper space than we were at the end of Apollo. If one year worth of NASA budget were given to private space firms, it would go a lot further towards making space exploration and habitation reality.

The Apollo program was one of the most brave and great achievements. However science in America and in the world has advanced much since than and Mankind knows a lot more about Mars today than it did in 1969

SpaceNut · 2007-02-19 22:15:52

It will not be just a Nasa doing when we go back and it is up to all that are participating to go forth and prosper.

Moon ventures could bring in good money; Experts explore commercial spinoffs from lunar exploration

The prospects for private enterprise on the moon — ranging from astronomical telescopes to gee-whiz television to medical isotopes and fusion fuel — were listed during a weekend session at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
How to build a moon base
Get a glimpse of present-day experiments and futuristic concepts that are laying the groundwork for a lunar outpost.

There is a slide show on the page...

cIclops · 2007-02-20 02:06:20

Lunar observatories would be useful, especially a farside radio one, but who will pay for them? Who in fact pays for all the space observatories, yes NASA. So much for bringing in "good money"

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-09-23 11:37:40

'How technical faults in NASA's SLS will cause downstream problems for Artemis'
https://wemartians.com/podcasts/128-time-travelling

Biden approves extension of US participation in ISS program to 2030
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/3186 … -extension

NASA To Develop New & Flexible Framework For Novel Space Activities: US VP Kamala Harris
https://www.republicworld.com/science/s … eshow.html

Chinese astronauts go on spacewalk from new station
https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/chinese … -1.6072680

SpaceNut · 2024-03-17 17:09:25

we here at the forum of Newmars knew that it was an uphill course set for the dream of getting back to mars if we were stopping at the moon first.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2007-02-18 18:32:13

Re: Back to the Moon, why NASA Will Not Make Progress

#2 2007-02-18 20:11:01

Re: Back to the Moon, why NASA Will Not Make Progress

#3 2007-02-18 22:45:12

Re: Back to the Moon, why NASA Will Not Make Progress

#4 2007-02-18 23:05:38

Re: Back to the Moon, why NASA Will Not Make Progress

#5 2007-02-19 05:25:49

Re: Back to the Moon, why NASA Will Not Make Progress

#6 2007-02-19 07:38:47

Re: Back to the Moon, why NASA Will Not Make Progress

#7 2007-02-19 07:55:28

Re: Back to the Moon, why NASA Will Not Make Progress

#8 2007-02-19 07:58:12

Re: Back to the Moon, why NASA Will Not Make Progress

#9 2007-02-19 22:15:52

Re: Back to the Moon, why NASA Will Not Make Progress

#10 2007-02-20 02:06:20

Re: Back to the Moon, why NASA Will Not Make Progress

#11 2022-09-23 11:37:40

Re: Back to the Moon, why NASA Will Not Make Progress

#12 2024-03-17 17:09:25

Re: Back to the Moon, why NASA Will Not Make Progress

Board footer