Four On The Moon By 2018

[FredM 0]

NASA estimated Monday it will cost $104 billion to return astronauts to the moon by 2018 in a new rocket that combines the space shuttle with the capsule of an earlier NASA era.

 

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, in unveiling the new lunar exploration plan announced by President Bush last year, said he is not seeking extra money and stressed that the space agency will live within its future budgets to achieve this goal.

 

He dismissed suggestions that reconstruction of the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina might derail the program first outlined by President Bush in 2004.

 

"We're talking about returning to the moon in 2018. There will be a lot more hurricanes and a lot more other natural disasters to befall the United States and the world in that time, I hope none worse than Katrina," Griffin said at a news conference.

 

"But the space program is a long-term investment in our future. We must deal with our short-term problems while not sacrificing our long- term investments in our future. When we have a hurricane, we don't cancel the Air Force. We don't cancel the Navy. And we're not going to cancel NASA."

 

The $104 billion price tag, spread over 13 years, represents 55 percent of what the Apollo moon-landing program cost measured in constant dollars, Griffin said. Apollo spanned eight years. The objective is to pay as you go and what you can afford, he noted.

 

The new space vehicle design uses shuttlelike rocket parts, an Apollo- style capsule and lander capable of carrying four people to the surface. The rockets _ there would be two, a small version for people and a bigger one for cargo _ would come close in height to the 363- foot Saturn 5 moon rocket. They would be built from shuttle booster rockets, fuel tanks and main engines, as well as moon rocket engines. The so-called crew exploration vehicle perched on top would look very much like an Apollo capsule, albeit larger.

 

"Think of it as Apollo on steroids," Griffin said.

 

The crew exploration vehicle would replace the space shuttle, due to be retired in 2010, but not before 2012 and possibly as late as 2014 depending on the money available, Griffin said. It could carry as many as six astronauts to the international space station.

 

If all goes well, the first crew would set off for the moon by 2018 _ or 2020 at the latest, the president's target year.

 

Unlike Apollo, the new lunar lander would carry double the number of people to the surface of the moon _ four _ and allow them to stay up to a week, or twice as long. It also would haul considerably more cargo, much of which would be left on the moon for future crews.

 

The Earth-returning capsule would be able to parachute down on either land or water, although land is preferable, most likely at Edwards Air Force Base in California.

 

Griffin said NASA did not set out to mimic Apollo with the new spacecraft and that many options were considered over the summer.

 

"It's a significant advancement over Apollo. Much of it looks the same, but that's because the physics of atmospheric entry haven't changed recently," he said. "...We really proved once again how much of it all the Apollo guys got right."

 

The space agency's ultimate goal is to continue on to Mars with the same type of craft, but Griffin said there is no current timetable for Mars expeditions.

 

NASA believes the crew exploration vehicle would be far safer than the space shuttle, largely because of an old-style escape tower that could jettison the capsule away from the rocket in the event of an explosion or fire.

 

Two shuttles and 14 astronauts have been lost over 114 flights, Challenger in 1986 and Columbia in 2003. Nonetheless, NASA puts the existing failure rate for the shuttles at 1-in-220. The failure rate for the crew exploration vehicle is put at 1-in-2,000.

 

Some reports are suggesting that many of the parts will come from the decommissioned shuttles themselves, especially their main engines. The theory is that a seperate launch will put materials into orbit (such as the modern LEM). The "people" will then launch on their own, meeting up with the cargo in orbit for the trip to the moon. These cargo launchs will supposedly be used to sustain the ISS after 2010.

 

So what are your thoughts? With word China is going to plan to try to get to the moon by 2025...is another space race on the horizon?

[Travis Kroells 0]

Heh, to boldly go where man has gone before, classic :(

 

I was reading my Popular Science magizine a few days back, and saw the plans for our New 'Old' Rockets. The idea is somewhat appealing, although I'll hold judgment till 2018 when Im fricken 30 :(

[WxMurray 0]

I am all for going back to space. I can't wait. :) I just wish I had my Popular Science. :P

[STSF NDak 0]

Actually,

 

I don't support the Moon Mission at the moment. While a lot of great things have came out of the space program, and I am sure would come out of this one, its more an Issue "can we pay for this" with out making some major sacrafices in other areas such as education.

 

This is mostly because we have two huge price tags coming up for Iraq and now Katrina, so can we really afford to invest the 104 Billion that NASA "estimates" it's going to cost, when at least for the next few years, we're going to be strapped for cash. So sending people to the moon really isn't something that we *need*.

 

Just my two cents.

[CaptainSDavies 0]

Actually,

 

I don't support the Moon Mission at the moment. While a lot of great things have came out of the space program, and I am sure would come out of this one, its more an Issue "can we pay for this" with out making some major sacrafices in other areas such as education.

 

This is mostly because we have two huge price tags coming up for Iraq and now Katrina, so can we really afford to invest the 104 Billion that NASA "estimates" it's going to cost, when at least for the next few years, we're going to be strapped for cash. So sending people to the moon really isn't something that we *need*.

 

Just my two cents.

:P I agree.

[Guest STSF Sketti]

"NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, in unveiling the new lunar exploration plan announced by President Bush last year, said he is not seeking extra money and stressed that the space agency will live within its future budgets to achieve this goal."

[Murdok Helios 0]

I bet if they find oil in the moon, we will see a vast leep forward in space travel tech. :P

 

No doubt halliburton will be leading the way.

[Dumbass 0]

We have the technology to build colonies on the moon now (albeit not very large ones). Until we find resources on the moon that are useable on Earth, however, it isn't economically fesible.

[Travis Kroells 0]

I think the very problem with NASA's future budget is the new space vehicle itself eh?

 

The first purpose of the Shuttles were to be a cheap reusable method of space flight. They served that purpose at least in my book.

 

Also, a rocket is a destination orientated vehicle. In a shuttle, you can go up, orbit, do a space walk whatever you feel like, and then land back down on Earth again. A rocket is very one sided. It has to go some where, and it can only go somewhere once. You have to have one mission to the ISS, one mission to the moon and so on. I just dont think it's cost effective. I would have supported a new redesigned form of the shuttle, safer and what not.

 

Also, I dont see how NASA can have any idea that they could plan a Mars mission with these things. Cramping four people into a rocket, send them on a 8 month (if I'm correct in my estimation) trip to Mars, have them explore, and...

 

OH NO!!!! All we have is this dinky lander to fly back to Earth in!? Son of a @#$%!!!

 

Yeah. Just my two cents. I'm half hoping that some civillian makes it to the moon before NASA this time around. It'd be a hoot :P

[LoAmi 0]

As far as I can tell, this project has no scientific value, and very little engineering/technological value. If they were developing new, reusable and consistently safe orbital technology and building it up to the space station and a return to the moon, I would be able to buy into it, even though it's expensive. But, as far as I can tell, after we send more men to the moon in 2018, we will have very little or nothing to show for it.

 

Then, there's the issue of the diversion of NASA's limited resources from projects that actually have scientific value (space telescopes, robotic missions) to this.

[Travis Kroells 0]

I think that was the point that I was trying to make, but I started rambling. Thanks for that Loami :P

 

I agree with him, in the fact that we're basically taking a step back technology wise. And on top of that, we're planing optimistically to take a step back :)

 

Now, I have the greatest respect for the Astronauts. They do things I could only dream of. But, at the same time, the very basis of their jobs are a calculated risk. The idea of straping yourself to a giant rocket and flinging yourself into the wild blue yonder is well, buck crazy ^_^

 

But at the same time, we're compromising the future of the program by going back to rockets. I understand a need for safety features. But at the same time, we cant just take a step back when something goes wrong. We should really work on redesigning and improving the shuttles, and making them more durable (Since I think that these shuttles are just basically breaking down from old age).

 

I think I'm basically asking NASA not to be afraid to shoot off into that wild blue yonder again...

[George_Pickett 0]

I have my smiple 2 cents worth. Moon been there, done that. In the true star-trek spirit, let's go for Mars. Who know's if we go interplanetary maybe there is a Vulcan or two out there for a first contact. Seriously, I would love to learn more about mars, and have to think there would be more valuable data to be found there than a return to the moon. Just my thought's :P Oh, and I'll go :)

[STSF Precip 0]

Sadly although I want to see us back on the Moon, I dont see it happening nor would it be in this nation's interests at this time. I am not certain where George Bush is coming from on this angle...clearly this will be an expensive project. NASA has a habit of going overbudget. He is not going to raise taxes, the only thing he could raise is the national debt in this case. As another poster said..it is not economically feasable to do.

 

So if most people see this is not feasible, How can the President, especially a fiscally conservative one?

 

 

Precip

[CaptainSDavies 0]

Well two things:

 

1. Bush has never been fiscally conservative, a primary complaint of most of his base (which includes me).

 

2. I don't remember reading that Nasa's budget was going to increase more than it normally does, just that it was diverting its funds towards this project.

[STSF Precip 0]

I'll bypass your first thought and hop to the more prudent second;

 

Since NASA's budget is not going to increase, A Moon program has to take funds from somewhere in NASA's allocated funding. Some projects on the drawing board are going to have to be scrapped for something like this. I think we can agree to that. Something from the original article caught my eye:

 

"The $104 billion price tag, spread over 13 years, represents 55 percent of what the Apollo moon-landing program cost measured in constant dollars, Griffin said. Apollo spanned eight years. The objective is to pay as you go and what you can afford, he noted." -NASA Administrator Griffin

 

Here, Griffin is giving a pricetag. Yet he "..and what you can afford" If I am to understand this correctly if unforseen snags occur in developing this new launch vehicle...and he doesn't have the money for a certain fiscal year inside program's budget to cover for such a snag..he's going to canabalize other NASA programs to keep this one going, rather than ask for a budget increase?

 

Believe me snags are going to occur in this program, due to unforseen circumstances, failures or technological barriers. This happens most of the time.. NASA.....will not finish this project at 104 billion in my opinion; and probably not in the timeline laid out.

 

-Precip

[Travis Kroells 0]

To adress George:

 

Sure, going to Mars would be fun and good, but in all honesty, what are we going to get out of it? Van Roy made the very important fact that until we get anything worthwhile out of the moon, whats the point in going?

 

Sure, it was fun to go once or twice, but the goverment is wasting money going somewhere that has already been traveled too, and we aren't even getting any worthwhile trinkets out of it.

 

Same goes for Mars. I'm probably the first person to jump at the mission, but what would we get out of it? The very vehicle seems in capable to getting astronauts there, and again, Mars cost certianly more then double the moon, and thats a very, very conseritive estimate. So now we're looking at over 200 billion dollars, sent to sending a couple of guys to the red planet, where more then likely they'll just be coming back with rusty rocks. Imagine if the Goverment took 200 Billion dollars and gave it to the education system?

 

::Puts in his 200 billion cents::

[Seiben 0]

Yeah, with the aftermath of Katrina and now Rita in the horizon, I'm surprised the American Government is thinking about Space travel and more budget for NASA. I'm all for space explroation and the Final Frontier and all that, but obviously you've got alot more important things to worry about right now. :P

[Cptn Moose 0]

Imagine if the Goverment took 200 Billion dollars and gave it to the education system?

If they had done that, then I probably wouldn't be able to tease you about your spelling and grammer mistakes. ;-)

 

But seriously, robots and telescopes are fine, but a manned mission to the moon is the first step towards going anywhere else. And it's a step we haven't taken in 30 years.

 

If they start now, we won't make it to the moon until Kroells is thirty. If we wait until Iraq and Katrina and possibly Rita are behind us, then we may loose another decade or two on top of that.

 

Who's to say that this isn't the start of something better. Wouldn't a mission to Mars be better off starting from a moon colony with full fuel tanks and food larders? What would a super-telescope mounted on the dark side of the moon be able to reveal? I'm not saying that Nasa is planning these kind of things now, but they'll never be possible if we don't lay the infrastructure, and that means making routine trips to the moon.

 

If NASA starts the project now, they'll be ready to go when someone comes up with a really good idea as to why we should be there.

 

Moose

[WxMurray 0]

Yeah, with the aftermath of Katrina and now Rita in the horizon, I'm surprised the American Government is thinking about Space travel and more budget for NASA. I'm all for space explroation and the Final Frontier and all that, but obviously you've got alot more important things to worry about right now. :P

Actually, NASA's budget is not changing. The 103 billion over 13 years is all from their budget, it's just how they are plaaning to use that money.

[Dumbass 0]

spelling and grammer mistakes.

grammar :P

[Cptn Corizon 0]

Ah yes, but NASA maybe one of the places we get money to pay for Iraq, Katrina, Rita and well anything else that just happens to pop up. Mostly because, well we're going to have to get the money from somewhere, unless you want to have a 12 trillion dollar defecit. It's not really a matter of whether or not we agree with going to the moon, it's more a matter of "oh well...I think I'd rather be able to pay for it first."

 

And just one snide politcal comment...I believe it was Ari Fleisher who said 'There's a new sherif in town of fiscal responsablity." That line always cracks me up :P

[eagle 0]

"HEY"..HOWS ABOUT A UNITED FEDERATION FOR INTERPLANETARY EXPLORATION ....independent of their home nations(control)....

sound familiar......HMMMMMMMMMMM.... :P :)