US going back to the Moon?

cerebus · 06-12-2003 2:06am #1

Came across this (sorry about the fact it's from CNN - only place I've seen it so far). Looks like the US is thinking about establishing a permanent presence on the moon.

I guess the Chinese have the US worried

albertw · 06-12-2003 1:42pm

CNN are wierd...

Someone started a roumour that the US are going back to the moon.
The white house denies it.
CNN reports that the US are going back to the moon.

Investigative journalism at its best.

"You've got the Chinese saying they're interested -- we don't want them to beat us to the moon. We want to be there to develop the sweet spots," Republican Senator Sam Brownback says.

Eh... I know hes a republican but blotting out the whole Kennedy space program is quite impressive amnesia.

At the rate they are going at the moment it will a joint ESA/Chinese crew on the Moon next.

Cheers,
~Al

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0312/04spacepolicy/

Sparks · 11-12-2003 11:11am

Originally posted by albertw
Someone started a roumour that the US are going back to the moon.
The white house denies it.
CNN reports that the US are going back to the moon.
Investigative journalism at its best.

To be fair, this particular rumour has been going about for nearly eight months now - it's only in the last three days that it's hit the mainstream press, and initially the white house didn't deny it, just said that they were considering a "bold program".

At the rate they are going at the moment it will a joint ESA/Chinese crew on the Moon next.

Unlikely that the ESA would be involved - we have a total of 16 astronauts, whose total experience consists of going up in a Soyuz to Mir or the ISS, hanging about for a few days while cargo is shifted and then coming back down again. To be sure, that's orders of magnitude more time in space than the mercury program, but it's not more than the gemini program - hardly helpful enough to see the Chinese go to the EU looking for help with a matter of national pride...

Sparks · 18-12-2003 3:51am

So it's the 100th anniversary of manned spaceflight. Private companies and organisations all over the states marked today though some impressive acts, from building a perfect replica of the Wright flyer to building and flying one of the first private spacecraft - and the first manned craft built by a small private company to break the sound barrier.

What did Bush do?

Well, he was rumoured to be announcing a new program to go back to the moon. NASA had plans left, right and centre, the moment people heard about it, there was nation-wide acclaim for the idea, and even I was left going "bugger - that's a damn good thing".

Why would he do it? Well, it would revitalise aerospace industries, it would give a civilian drive that equalled that of war during the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs, it would put mankind a step further forward, it would add to our body of knowlege immensely and it would probably be one of the few good things he's ever done. It'd even appease the right-winger in the US because it'd mean them darn chinese wouldn't be the first back to the moon. Heck, even Bush Sr. made the announcement that they'd be going back when he was president, and if Bush Jr. is going to keep doing what daddy did...

And what did he do?

Squat.

Nothing.

Nada.

Hell, Travolta actually talked about returning to the moon when introducing him! And what does that alcoholic/deserter/drug addict/corporate thief/chickenhawk/religious fundamentalist gob****e do?
He makes some platitudes about how great strides have been made, he jokes that the anniversary would have happened on the 13th except that the Wrights were good christians (no, I'm not joking, that's what he said), and then he ends with a build-up to the moon announcement and walks away without announcing it.

You know, this does indicate the general tone of the world we're living in because of this gimp. Want to bomb another country or bring in illegal trade practises or let corporate bodies run amok? No worries. Human rights getting in your way? Let Georgey-boy fix that for you. Problems with them pesky voters not wanting to elect you? Get your brother to fix the election, or just redraw constituencies to ensure your future election. But actually want to mount a program that would provide all the technological advances that a war brings without the casualties? That would help put the US back as a beacon for the rest of the world to follow? That would advance all of mankind in the long run?
Naw, not interested.

:mad:

Impurity · 22-12-2003 12:46pm

lol @ Sparks

couldn't have said it better myself, "gimp" is just such the appropraite word for him!

GuanYin · 22-12-2003 12:51pm

While I agree with the description of the US leadership and the sentiments expressed, I'd rather ye kept on topic here and left the axe grinding to the appropriate forums.

Syke

Carbon Blob · 09-01-2004 3:54am

Seems like Bush may actually want to build a base on the moon, and send people to Mars while he's at it.

Better late than never eh, suppose we'll find out next week.

ixoy · 09-01-2004 4:07am

Originally posted by cerebus
Came across this (sorry about the fact it's from CNN - only place I've seen it so far). Looks like the US is thinking about establishing a permanent presence on the moon.

I guess the Chinese have the US worried

You mean the US are going back to the film studio in the desert

albertw · 09-01-2004 11:53am

Originally posted by Carbon Blob
Better late than never eh, suppose we'll find out next week.

Or in about 10 years when they might get around to it. By then of course Bush wont be in the white house. Hes up to something I just amnt sure what yet...

From Nasa Watch (cheers Brian)
# 8 January 2004: UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions, By Frank Sietzen Jr. and Keith L. Cowing, United Press International

"American astronauts will return to the moon early in the next decade in preparation for sending crews to explore Mars and nearby asteroids, President Bush will propose next week as part of a sweeping reform of the U.S. space program.

To pay for the new effort -- which would require a new generation of spacecraft but use Europe's Ariane rockets and Russia's Soyuz capsules in the interim -- NASA's space shuttle fleet would be retired as soon as construction of the International Space Station is completed, senior administration sources told United Press International.

The visionary new space plan would be the most ambitious project entrusted to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration since the Apollo moon landings of three decades ago. It commits the United States to an aggressive and far-reaching mission that holds interplanetary space as the human race's new frontier."
# 8 January 2004: NASA plans return to moon, By Frank Sietzen Jr. and Keith L. Cowing, Washington Times

"According to senior administration sources, in the weeks following the Feb. 1 Columbia accident, President Bush met or conferred with NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe on an almost daily basis. What had been a persistent interest on the part of the President in space had now become much more focused.

Specifically, his interest has centered on NASA's recovery and its future. Mr. Bush was not interested, however, in just throwing money at this. Rather, he was looking to lay out a more definitive plan for NASA and America's civil space program. As such, these discussions evolved over the spring and into the summer to become a more focused and structured review of potential new space goals. The end result of that process is embodied in the policy Mr. Bush has now approved."

GuanYin · 09-01-2004 1:38pm

Yeah, more on it here 10 years is a long time, you never know what advancements can be made in that time.

09-01-2004 6:54pm

.. for starting another space race!

Calibos · 10-01-2004 11:33pm

Did Bush Snr not make a similar satement in 89 in which case given a provisional 10 year timescale we would have had the moonbase in 99 :rolleyes:

Pure publicity stunt in my opinion. His administration know its great publicity but they also know that congress wont sign off on the funds. Its like Clinton signing all these bills in the last few days of his presidency(sp) which gets him great publicity. "Isn't Clinton great creating all these new wildlife reserves and national parks, Isn't Clinton great for the new Environment bill" etc etc....but knowing full well that the incoming administration are under no obligation to ratify those bills etc......and didn't either!

Sparks · 14-01-2004 1:37am

Originally posted by Calibos
Did Bush Snr not make a similar satement in 89 in which case given a provisional 10 year timescale we would have had the moonbase in 99 :rolleyes:

Yes, and then refused to fund it, and never gave any specific details. Basicly, this is all publicity - but it holds the promise of starting something great.

Okay, it's a bit like the Beatle, in that it's a great thing started by an abomination of a man, but, like the Beatle, this would affect everyone in a positive fashion.

halenger · 14-01-2004 9:30pm

Bush Snr didn't know how much it was gonna cost...

They sat down and worked it out this time. The REAL reason they're doing it, and from how I've seen it put on television they WILL do it, is jobs.

Yes jobs. It would create a hell of a lot of jobs.

Now some of you might be asking "Well jobs. ok. Why?".

The answer is: it's an election year.

Would be interesting to see them go though.

albertw · 14-01-2004 9:47pm

Originally posted by halenger
Bush Snr didn't know how much it was gonna cost...

He set up Space Exploration Initiative to work it all out, with costings. One thing that came out of it for example was the ISS.

They sat down and worked it out this time.

As they did last time... http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codez/new/policy/nasa_rpts&studies.htm

Cheers,
~Al

Sparks · 14-01-2004 10:06pm

Okay, so the plan's been announced. From the White House fact sheet:

President Bush's Vision for U.S. Space Exploration

The President's plan for steady human and robotic space exploration is based on the following goals:
First, America will complete its work on the International Space Station by 2010, fulfilling our commitment to our 15 partner countries. The United States will launch a re-focused research effort on board the International Space Station to better understand and overcome the effects of human space flight on astronaut health, increasing the safety of future space missions.
To accomplish this goal, NASA will return the Space Shuttle to flight consistent with safety concerns and the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. The Shuttle's chief purpose over the next several years will be to help finish assembly of the Station, and the Shuttle will be retired by the end of this decade after nearly 30 years of service.
Second, the United States will begin developing a new manned exploration vehicle to explore beyond our orbit to other worlds -- the first of its kind since the Apollo Command Module. The new spacecraft, the Crew Exploration Vehicle, will be developed and tested by 2008 and will conduct its first manned mission no later than 2014. The Crew Exploration Vehicle will also be capable of transporting astronauts and scientists to the International Space Station after the Shuttle is retired.
Third, America will return to the Moon as early as 2015 and no later than 2020 and use it as a stepping stone for more ambitious missions. A series of robotic missions to the Moon, similar to the Spirit Rover that is sending remarkable images back to Earth from Mars, will explore the lunar surface beginning no later than 2008 to research and prepare for future human exploration. Using the Crew Exploration Vehicle, humans will conduct extended lunar missions as early as 2015, with the goal of living and working there for increasingly extended periods.
The extended human presence on the Moon will enable astronauts to develop new technologies and harness the Moon's abundant resources to allow manned exploration of more challenging environments. An extended human presence on the Moon could reduce the costs of further exploration, since lunar-based spacecraft could escape the Moon's lower gravity using less energy at less cost than Earth-based vehicles. The experience and knowledge gained on the Moon will serve as a foundation for human missions beyond the Moon, beginning with Mars.
NASA will increase the use of robotic exploration to maximize our understanding of the solar system and pave the way for more ambitious manned missions. Probes, landers, and similar unmanned vehicles will serve as trailblazers and send vast amounts of knowledge back to scientists on Earth.

Key Points on the President's FY 2005 Budget
The funding added for exploration will total $12 billion over the next five years. Most of this added funding for new exploration will come from reallocation of $11 billion that is currently within the five-year total NASA budget of $86 billion.
In the Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 budget, the President will request an additional $1 billion to NASA's existing five-year plan, or an average of $200 million per year.
From 1992 to 2000, NASA's budget decreased by a total of 5 percent. Since the year 2000, NASA's budget has increased by approximately 3 percent per year.
From the current 2004 level of $15.4 billion, the President's proposal will increase NASA's budget by an average of 5 percent per year over the next three years, and at approximately 1 percent or less per year for the two years after those.

BattleBoar · 30-01-2004 11:00pm

Let's hope this is one thing Bush sticks to (or we hopefully get a Democrat in there and they don't axe the whole thing).

I've gotta say though, Bush's record so far doesn't look good. I don't know if we've ever had a president spend more and have less to show for it. I saw somewhere that Bush's discretionary spending (the part of spending not related to automatic increases ie. inflation), has increased 3 times faster than Clinton's, and more than any other president in the last 50 years! That figure, by the way, doesn't even account for the increased military spending for the war. And we have feck all to show for it, I might add, unless you count a 500 billion dollar deficit for a Medicare expansion that will sap the life out of the barely recovering economy.

Anyway, I digress as this isn't the politics forum, but I really hope they stick to this one, because the technology has been there for more than a decade, just not the desire. Kinda makes me long for the days of the cold war...money was never an object when the good old Ruskies were right there pushing the space race.

I also think that it could be a great opportunity for collaboration, as well. Why not ask the ESA to do some things toward it? Hell even see if the Chinese will do stuff toward the project. What better way to build relationships than by cooperating on such a cool project. And just think of the rewards for this world if we are somehow able to efficiently mine the moon.

Besides just the minerals, here's a quote from a guy at UW-Madison that obviously know a lot more about nuclear engineering he does about the space shuttle, but it is pretty interesting nonetheless... "If we could land the space shuttle on the moon, fill the cargo with canisters of helium-3 mined from the surface and bring the shuttle back to Earth, that cargo would supply the entire electrical power needs of the United States for an entire year," he said."

I just hope I'm still around to see it when it happens, and since I'm still a student right now, hopefully I will be.

LFCFan · 11-02-2004 5:15pm

why does there have to be a space race? Why can't all the Space agencies in Russia, China, Europe and anyone else who wants to throw money at it, get together, pool resources and make one big effort to do something 'out of this world' in an effort to advance the space age?

Sparks · 11-02-2004 5:23pm

Originally posted by LFCFan
why does there have to be a space race?

Firstly, noone said it would be a race, and secondly NASA's record for inter-agency cooperation is dismal at best. Read Dragonfly for the best-known example, the Mir missions taken by US astronauts.

US going back to the Moon?

Comments