Is returning to the Moon worthwhile?

[Urwumpe]

Indeed. His exact quote (I found the transcript on the NASA website) was - "Now, I understand that some believe that we should attempt a return to the surface of the Moon first, as previously planned. But I just have to say pretty bluntly here: We’ve been there before. Buzz has been there. There’s a lot more of space to explore, and a lot more to learn when we do. So I believe it’s more important to ramp up our capabilities to reach -- and operate at -- a series of increasingly demanding targets, while advancing our technological capabilities with each step forward. And that’s what this strategy does. And that’s how we will ensure that our leadership in space is even stronger in this new century than it was in the last."

Yes. You should have left the "no point in doing it again" part away, because it isn't even a summary of what follows. The rest was really said (I remembered the "We've been there before, Buzz had been there" quote).

Is pretty much like the famous Berthold Brecht misquote about war in the German language. It sounds nice and perfectly pacifist if you quote only the first part, but it gets a complete opposite meaning if you do the full quote. The first part is actually a Carl Sandburg quote:

The little girl saw her first troop parade and asked,
"What are those?"
"Soldiers."
"What are soldiers?"
"They are for war. They fight and each tries to kill as many of the other side as he can."
The girl held still and studied.
"Do you know ... I know something?"
"Yes, what is it you know?"
"Sometime they'll give a war and nobody will come."

Brecht added "Then the war will come to you" to the last lime later.

 

[AirSimming]

Well, going to the Moon is no problem at all technologically, less than ever these days. It also can be done way less costly than with Constellation. The issue was the narrow-minded Constellation program and NASAs structure being a big political job-machine.

As for going back to the Moon: it would be interesting, exciting and inspiring for a lot of humans, including myself. But would it be necessary? No. I disagree. It wouldn't. Apollo has shown our capabilities already more than 40 years ago. But the Moon has nothing in common with Mars, beside that it's round. It's almost like those nonsense "Mars" experiments on earth, that have also nothing in common with Mars and not even with living and traveling in space. Being isolated in an experiment on Earth, which can be easily aborted at any time, is totally different than being underway in the solar system to reach Mars. It's just alibi-programs which, among other things, just prove ones more the needlessness of the majority of psychologists which think to be incredibly important for almost anything. Also, we don't need to live on the Moon to demonstrate something we already have perfectly demonstrated at a time where usual automobiles didn't even have power door locks and air conditions.

We already have a perfect platform for living and working in space. We don't need to do that on the surface of the Moon as well. The next step, after STS, and after the ISS, should be a serious international long term Mars program, not Moon or any near Earth nonsense inbetween, which won't happen beyond drawing boards and computer animations anyway. Constellation, and any such bloated national follow up, is nothing more than a political and fiscal job-creating/keeping-deadlock-machine.

 

[Urwumpe]

The issue was the narrow-minded Constellation program and NASAs structure being a big political job-machine.

Exactly. We can trick gravity but the paperwork is overwhelming.

 

[AirSimming]

I think returning to the moon permanently would be very good for the following reasons:

1) Learn how to permanently live in space

We already do so since Mir, and now doing it onboard the ISS. No lunar surface required.

2) Try to be self-sufficient in space

I don't think that the Moon has something really important to offer. It is one of the most beautiful deserts as Apollo astronauts call it. Yes, I know, Helium 3. It's at least a nice vision.

3) It's the closest stable rock to land on.

That's why we already did it more than 40 years ago.

4) If something goes wrong it's a 3 day trip rather than the 3 year trip to Mars.

Well, if something goes wrong onboard the ISS, the trip home even is a little shorter

5) The moon is still in orbit of the earth. So fuel for escape velocity from the earth is not needed. IE it's cheaper than going anywhere else.

Which leads to the conclusion that we actually shouldn't go to anywhere else?

6) The moon is a good place to test and learn so many things.

Space generally is a good place to test and learn so many things I think. But beside geological research that already was done on the lunar surface, I don't see what exactly could be learned that would be a real benefit for missions to Mars which are in some asepcts extremely different.

7) While it's expensive now the long term benefits outweigh the costs

I honestly doubt.

8) Much of the tech we take for granted now comes from pushing the envelope in the space program.

Yes. But not too much technology came from it (especially not teflon as one example, but yes GPS came from it...). I don't think a return to the Moon would change a lot once again.

My point is that one doesn't learn to swim on dry land beside the pool. We didn't learn how to fly to the Moon and work there by not doing it and testing it somewhere else for decades. We learned it by doing it. We decided to go, and we went. That's what I miss: a clear decision and program to do so. Anything else is a lot of talk and speculation and wishful thinking, but I doubt that this is the proper way. In my point of view, we won't learn how to fly to and live on Mars by not doing it because we're doing something else that has not a lot in common, like flying to the Moon once again, which we know we are perfectly able of. Even with technology that is almost 50 years old...

 

[ikrase]

I don't think anything is worth it until we develop better space lift, except an asteroid defense.

My current favorite idea is the Nuclear Thermal Shuttle, which is to be launched from ramjet or scramjet flyback booster/supersonic transport. Anything to get away from our current liquid hydrogen water balloons.

THe moon is not very important except as a science base, or for Helium 3. Both of those require very much cheaper space lift.

Mars is where I say the first destination should be. I also think that things should keep flexible. My current idea of the Nuclear Thermal Shuttle should be able ( assuming full tanks at start ) to land on any celestial body of interest except for the Earth and then take off. Flexibility is paramount.

 

[Ark]

Maybe if we went there with an actual purpose, such as supplying raw materials to orbiting factories or sifting Helium-3 out of the regolith. Constellation was just shaping up to be another brief round of footprints and flags, without a massive funding increase the Moonbase idea hawked by those endless CGI promo videos was never going to be more than a pipe dream.

 

[T.Neo]

the 3 year trip to Mars.

The travel time to or from Mars isn't anywhere near 3 years- it can be on the order of 8 months or so, though the exact time can differ.

The problem is that you need to wait for the right launch windows to use these trajectories. You can't launch whenever you want.

The moon is still in orbit of the earth. So fuel for escape velocity from the earth is not needed. IE it's cheaper than going anywhere else.

The Dv for getting to the Moon is actually quite close to the Dv required for escaping Earth entirely, and near the figure needed for a Hohmann to Mars. It isn't like propulsion is a limiting factor in this regard.

The major reason proposed for a lunar program as a "stepping stone" to Mars is that it will allow us to test and develop skills and tech for use on the Martian surface, but I personally don't buy it except for research into partial gravity on humans (something that we know virtually nothing about).

My current favorite idea is the Nuclear Thermal Shuttle, which is to be launched from ramjet or scramjet flyback booster/supersonic transport. Anything to get away from our current liquid hydrogen water balloons.

I don't see why it should be necessary to loft an NTR shuttle on some sort of ram/scramjet booster since with the performance of NTR you can do SSTO pretty easily compared to conventional propellants.

It also doesn't make sense to land a dedicated vehicle on many planets because you'll be lugging stuff like the TPS around, unless it can be removed.

The problem with anything nuclear- an NTR, a nuclear powerplant for a lunar base or nuclear powered VASIMR is that PR and politics usually get in the way.

 

[ddom2006]

The major reason proposed for a lunar program as a "stepping stone" to Mars is that it will allow us to test and develop skills and tech for use on the Martian surface, but I personally don't buy it except for research into partial gravity on humans (something that we know virtually nothing about).

We do know more about how humans react in long-term partial gravity now than we did back then though, the ISS has helped our knowledge of human biology in space enormously.

The problem with anything nuclear- an NTR, a nuclear powerplant for a lunar base or nuclear powered VASIMR is that PR and politics usually get in the way.

Agreed, Nuclear = Lots of red tape. Red tape is something we need to cut down on if we want to start leaving LEO again anytime soon, not build up on.

 

[T.Neo]

We do know more about how humans react in long-term partial gravity now than we did back then though, the ISS has helped our knowledge of human biology in space enormously.

ISS is microgravity. Mars is 0.38 of a gravity. Luna is 0.16.

ISS has undoubtedly made a difference in our understanding of adaptation to space, but there are things it has not (and won't) tell us. The cancelled [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuge_Accommodations_Module"]CAM[/ame] would have allowed partial gravity research. So would the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Gravity_Biosatellite"]Mars Gravity Biosatellite[/ame]. This is a very important unanswered question in spaceflight IMO, and one that has not been given enough attention...

Agreed, Nuclear = Lots of red tape. Red tape is something we need to cut down on if we want to start leaving LEO again anytime soon, not build up on.

The problem is that if you eliminate nuclear, you're making trouble for yourself. It could be considered essential for a lunar base not situated on or near a [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_of_eternal_light"]PEL[/ame], or a base pretty much anywhere on Mars (due to dust storms etc).

The key is to get people to grow up about nuclear in space, all the while trying to eliminate the real risks that it might pose in the event of a malfunction.

 

[Keatah]

I say we explore the moons of the gas giants or the asteroids. Do it robotically, as probes (hail probe) are more suited to the envronments.

 

[Moach]

i belive the next step should be about figuring out cheap ways of getting from earth to orbit, without leaving the most of your ship along the way, preferrably....

this would allow something like a wet-dock to be constructed and operated in orbit, from which large, mars-and-beyond-faring vessels could be built and deployed...


the SKYLON seems to be the only live project in these ways... now that STS is a museum piece, we really should get thinking of something better...


any progress on long interplanetary flights is gonna be a herculean effort, as long as getting from ground to orbit remains such a big deal


i dislike thinking that if there was a war going on up there, things would go much faster... why is it that we humans only do our best when others are doing their worse?

 

[T.Neo]

I'm skeptical about Skylon. Not only does it have a rather small payload (12 tons) but some of the claims made of it sound they should be taken with a pinch of salt (or more sensibly, thorough testing).

Even existing vehicles such as Ariane 5 (16-21 tons), Proton (20.7 tons), Delta IV Heavy (25.8 tons), Angara (18-24.5-28.5-36-40.5 tons, it gets a bit confusing) and Falcon 9 Heavy (32 tons) have higher payloads to LEO. Furthermore this launcher technology exists today.

While I think payload (and to an extent passenger launch) must be reevaluated, a payload could concievably be launched by any launcher able to accomodate the specific mass and dimensions. Currently we have no interplanetary or Mars landing capability. We need to bring unconventional designs and ingenuity to interplanetary travel.

I do think however that a larger payload capacity on a launch vehicle is advantageous if the economic situation allows. Perhaps a universal core vehicle that can be adapted to suit payloads of various masses would be able to facilitate a need for a payload mass increase.

 

[River Crab]

Yeah, I think Skylon is a plausible concept but impossible in terms of feasibility (read: funding). We're going to have to accept making some leaps if we're ever going to get further than ballistic capsules on top of chemical disposables.
Now, I live in Washington D.C. so it's hard to ignore what goes on here. With politics today the general attitude seems to be,
"Solve poverty and the economy before we try any tax-funded space exploration." and, to a lesser extent,
"Nuclear anything is bad."
Sadly, I think there is no way we can solve all of our earthly problems in this millennium, and if this attitude towards manned space exploration continues, we'll never make it anywhere past private-funded suborbital tourism.
I'm not saying I want to see nuclear SSTO Deltagliders headed for the moon, but we can't even start doing manned anything if there isn't a better reason to go to space than "just because." That's why Constellation fails, and I think I can say that this applies to the whole world, not just the US.

---------- Post added at 18:37 ---------- Previous post was at 18:24 ----------

Capsule? Pay a brazillion...

I think we should totally outsource to Brazil for our spacefaring needs. What says you, Moach? :lol:

Seriously though, I agree with Zachstar. NASA is a political machine. VSE was propaganda. It's hard NOT to rant about anything after the failure of Constellation. My ex-Shuttle MSP friend who works at Orbital Sciences (helped design the Orion-Ares I LES) is still hopeful that Orion will come back...

 

[Moach]

politics have yet to be the ruin of us all...

i reckon it appears to politicians that space exploration isn't something thats actually "needed"... for now that is...
but if we were to wait untill this earth is nigh-uninhabitable before trying to figure out a way outta here, it'll probably be too late :uhh:

i have in my highest hopes that non-government visionaries are able to develop viable, out-of-the-box solutions for space travel... 'cause if we wait untill the suits decide it's a good thing to invest in, we're as good as doomed :huh:

 

[River Crab]

Agreed, if governments won't pursue space programs then private corporations still can, but the problem is still funding. It would be unrealistic to build, say, the G42 Starliner with just the money out of Tony Stark's pocket, and interplanetary travel is probably even more far-fetched. No matter how cost-effective, spaceflight is EXPENSIVE.

Hopefully when a private corporation can prove that their approach has real potential and demonstrates a working prototype, they can convince whatever government to give them the funding they need. Like SpaceX and the COTS program, but the corporations will ask first, and on a much grander scale. I dunno though. In some ways the rocket science is easier than the politics.

 

[ddom2006]

The problem is that if you eliminate nuclear, you're making trouble for yourself. It could be considered essential for a lunar base not situated on or near a PEL, or a base pretty much anywhere on Mars (due to dust storms etc).

The key is to get people to grow up about nuclear in space, all the while trying to eliminate the real risks that it might pose in the event of a malfunction.

Agreed, Nuclear would be the only realistic way of giving a moon or martian base the kind of consistant energy supply it would need to hold humans long-term. Nuclear is alot more safe these days than it has been in any previous accidents/disasters, Ideally we'd see it welcomed, certainly into spaceflight. Nuclear would allow us to explore so much more, with only a marginal increase in safety margins of today.

Let's not forget that the Shuttle, beloved as it is to so many, sits on the back of an ET packed with fuel and two SRBs packing enough explosive power to destroy the shuttle hundreds of times over. We need to move forwards and to do this, we have to some extent embrace nuclear technology more.

 

[ikrase]

The point here with the nuclear thermal shuttle is that we should get away from the typical "launch vehicle, expendable everything, and then a splashdown" setup. Even the space shuttle uses this - It really is an orbit-only sattelite once it drops the LH2 water balloon. Then it lands.

The Nuclear Thermal Shuttle is something that I see as having a payload of 6 crew and 1000 kg of equipment/supplies. The second vehicle would basically just be atomic pile, nozzle, tank, and TPS, for launching big stuff, but not returning it. It would be used to launch orbit-to-orbit setups. This would allow us to go to the Moon and to Mars with only four types of vehicle, all re-usable. Incidentally, air-launching the Nuclear Thermal Shuttle on earth would save at least 1 and possibly 2 km/s of dV, and save the weight of wings and engines powerful enough for takeoff. (NTR's are a bit marginal as to thrust/weight ratio)

Anyway, to get back to the point, developing equipment solely for Moon landing is pointless, especially at today's dismal space-lift tech. There's not much resources, and a lot of other issues. A lot of things that could be done there can also be experimented with in Earth-Moon Lagrange points or in high orbit.

However, if we developed multi-purpose technology, a lunar science base would have big payoffs.

The most valuable place to go right now, in my opinion, is Mars. The second most valuable might be asteroids. The moon is useful, but not worth the cost now.

 

[T.Neo]

This would allow us to go to the Moon and to Mars with only four types of vehicle, all re-usable.

The problem is that you've now got a vehicle that can do everything badly, not one thing really well. You've got to lug extra mass to places where you don't need it.

Now if the lander utilised common technology and common components, it would be a different story, and one that would make plenty of sense IMO.

Incidentally, air-launching the Nuclear Thermal Shuttle on earth would save at least 1 and possibly 2 km/s of dV, and save the weight of wings and engines powerful enough for takeoff. (NTR's are a bit marginal as to thrust/weight ratio)

It also incurs the cost of the ram/scramjet vehicle.

It might be cheaper to loft an NTR vehicle on an expendable booster, at least in the beginning. And there is always something like LANTR if more thrust is desired...

Anyway, to get back to the point, developing equipment solely for Moon landing is pointless, especially at today's dismal space-lift tech.

I don't see why an adequately designed lunar vehicle couldn't be adapted to use for landing on say, the Saturanian moons- indeed, it might be somewhat overkill...