8 ms·
NASA May Unveil New Manned Moon Missions Soon
- alecdibble 14y agoThis is great news. I'm hoping SpaceX's recent success has put a fire under NASA.
- tocomment 14y agoBut the existing space station in LEO took 10 years to build and cost 150 billion. Wouldn't a similar station in deep space be an order of magnitude more expensive? Hmm, has anyone considered moving the ISS to earth-moon L2?
- cryptoz 14y ago> Hmm, has anyone considered moving the ISS to earth-moon L2? This idea comes up all the time on r/space. It can't be done. The ISS is not safe out there. It does not have enough radiation shielding nor is it sturdy enough, nor would you be able to accelerate it out there, etc. Making the modifications necessary to do so would cost much more than just building a new ship.
- stcredzero 14y agoL2 sounds like a big boondoggle to me. It's like the ISS part two. A base on the lunar surface would be able to use lunar soil for radiation shielding. Put a linear accelerator out there to launch things into orbit, and you dramatically reduce the travel costs to get there and back. (Since you won't have to haul as much fuel for return up there.) In addition, O2 can be extracted from lunar soil, which would reduce the return fuel payload to almost nothing.
- indiecore 14y agoYeah the sanest option I've heard is throwing some construction robots up (obviously not easy but far from impossible) to dig us a nice hole to live in when people get there, set up a reactor, start finding water, etc.
- stcredzero 14y agoConstruction "waldoes" are well within our capability for a year out. The Japanese have already been experimenting with on-orbit teleoperation with a synthesized lag of one full second. It sucks to work that way, but human beans are amazing, and I think there's many a talented gamer who would love to work in space from the comfort of planet Earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldo_(short_story) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldo_(short_story)
- mattstreet 14y agoMaybe that's why so many places in the US still have shitty internet - to teach the gamers to cope with lag better.
- stcredzero 14y agoOh the irony, if the US turned out to be the dominant power in space because of a head-start from hordes of lag tolerant gamers.
- zalzane 14y ago>human bean
- stcredzero 14y agoIt's a habit I have of bean cute.
- smoyer 14y agoBean there ... Done that
- stcredzero 14y agoShush, you're spilling the...
- debacle 14y agoThe convenience of being on a giant rock versus a sitting duck in space can't be understated, either. It makes a lot of things a lot less complicated, especially supplying the base. The deceleration and coupling that ships to the ISS have to go through would be completely negated on the moon - all you have to do is land something relatively close (within a few hundred yards, maybe?) to the base and you're set. It's like threading a needle versus hitting the broad side of a barn. Fuel costs would obviously be greater, but not all that much, and once there is a permanent mobile presence in near space, the fuel cost will really just be relegated to getting from the surface into orbit (which is most of the fuel cost anyway). The reality (sad, unfortunate, or otherwise) is that getting into space is expensive, but it's ridiculously cheap compared to some of the other things the US wastes money on.
- stcredzero 14y agoFuel costs would obviously be greater, but not all that much Fuel is just a small fraction of the cost anyhow. Also, you could build "cycler" craft using ion or plasma thrusters that could ferry crew modules from LEO to the moon and back. The convenience of being on a giant rock versus a sitting duck in space can't be understated, either. It makes a lot of things a lot less complicated, especially supplying the base. The deceleration and coupling that ships to the ISS have to go through would be completely negated on the moon - all you have to do is land something relatively close (within a few hundred yards, maybe?) to the base and you're set. It's like threading a needle versus hitting the broad side of a barn. There's a lot of valuable payloads you wouldn't have to actually land. You could ship frozen water up there in a projectile designed to keep it in a super-cold, super-hard state using liquid nitrogen as a boil-off coolant, and also clad it in armor and partially shield it from impact. Then a rover could go and retrieve the frozen water capsules. Even better, have a few shipments consist of frozen, dampened potting soil, which can be supplemented with lunar soil (made into a slurry with water and sloshed around to wear down the super-jagged edges) and start growing your own food up there with redirected sunlight. (There are a number of plants that are workably tolerant of 2 week sunlight cycles, like peas, provided you keep them cold between sunny periods.)
- lmm 14y ago>The convenience of being on a giant rock versus a sitting duck in space can't be understated, either. It makes a lot of things a lot less complicated, especially supplying the base. The deceleration and coupling that ships to the ISS have to go through would be completely negated on the moon - all you have to do is land something relatively close (within a few hundred yards, maybe?) to the base and you're set. It's like threading a needle versus hitting the broad side of a barn. Less complicated sure, but much more expensive. You need a whole lot more delta-V to go to the moon (and land something with a hope of staying intact) than to LEO. It actually takes less fuel to send supplies to mars (because they can use aerobraking/parachutes to slow down) than to the moon. >Fuel costs would obviously be greater, but not all that much, and once there is a permanent mobile presence in near space, the fuel cost will really just be relegated to getting from the surface into orbit (which is most of the fuel cost anyway). Wouldn't it be better to work on that "permanent mobile presence in near space" first? Low Earth orbit is a pretty good place to be; it's the easiest to get to from Earth, and it's on the way to just about anywhere.
- tocomment 14y agoOk, well accelerate it very slowly. Don't have people onboard during transit, and instead park it in Earth-Sun L2 where most of the solar radiation would be blocked. Problems solved?
- pdonis 14y agoEarth-Sun L2 where most of the solar radiation would be blocked. Only it wouldn't, because the Earth's shadow doesn't extend that far out. Earth-Sun L2 is a million miles from Earth; Earth's shadow tapers to a point well before that.
- jlgreco 14y agoYup. You would be in the antumbra: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Diagram_of_umbra,_penumbra_%26_antumbra.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Diagram_of_umbra,_penumbra... Better than nothing I guess? Probably not by much though.
- pdonis 14y agoProbably not by much though. Actually, I was somewhat pessimistic: Angle subtended by Earth at a million miles: (8 thousand)/(1 million) = 0.008 Angle subtended by Sun at 94 million miles: (864 thousand)/(94 million) = 0.0092 Area of Sun covered by Earth: (0.008 squared)/(0.0092 squared) = 0.76 So about 76 percent of the Sun's visible area would be covered by the Earth. The Sun would be about 1/4 as bright from L2 as it is at noon on Earth. That's still very, very bright, but there is some effect due to the Earth. Also, it's worth noting that the most dangerous radiation in interplanetary space (solar wind and cosmic rays) is not "shadowed" by the Earth in quite the same way visible light from the Sun is. The Earth's magnetosphere does have a "tail" that extends behind the Earth, but there is radiation inside it.
- jlgreco 14y agoHmm. Any idea how much protection being behind the earth like that would provide against solar flares?
- lylemckeany 14y agoI don't foresee this project playing out at all like the ISS did, at least not with the way it's being billed thus far. Sounds like this is a very NASA-centric project, so therefore wouldn't require cooperation from various countries around the world to make it happen. Also, my guess is that it would be physically smaller.
- cryptoz 14y agoA base at L2 is interesting. However, I have a fundamental problem with these plans: timeframe. JFK's moon speech was so memorable, and the policy it implemented so successful because it was aimed to be done while JFK was still in office (well, pretty close). Obama and NASA targeting a Mars landing by the time Obama is nearly dying of old age...well, it's not inspiring. It's also not likely to stay on track for so many decades. "By the decade is out" -> "When I'm 78 and elderly" I am also nervous about the continued approach of establishing bases to "learn more about supporting humans in deep space". The ISS did this for not-deep space, and it trapped us in. It was so expensive that it prevented further exploration. I would suggest that we should not establish small expensive bases to learn more. Unless the bases are intended to become permanent colonies, which I think would be an excellent move. I realize this starts to sound expensive, but start with a small but expandable design. Like scaling a web start up.
- debacle 14y agoCould you do a moonrace in today's America? Would it work? Would we win?
- keeperofdakeys 14y agoThere are plenty of zero-gravity experiments that have been held in the ISS. I think at least the first base is worth it, just to learn more about the conditions of space. We still face one fundamental problem with space travel though, cosmic radiation.
- stcredzero 14y agoOkay, WTF is up with Space.com's website? Takes forever to load on a new iPad, which is usually quite zippy, all the while the entire page appears as a columnar thumbnail sized in the left 1/4 of the screen and hangs out there, frozen, then the entire thing re-refreshes at least 3 times? What kind of amateur crap is this?
- DanielBMarkham 14y agoAs another commenter pointed out, it's become rather cliche for NASA to make grandiose plans for 15-30 years out, only to change direction a few years later. Solve cost-to-orbit, guys. Get it to $100/kilo and we can build a dozen manned stations for the amount of money the country spends on potato chips each year (around $10 Billion) But enough with the grandiose long-range plans that only serve to allow contractors to bill for a few years until the next grandiose long-range plan.
- mburns 14y agoThat's exactly what SpaceX is done. NASA shouldn't waste their time with those kinds of logistics anymore.
- jlgreco 14y agoAlthough (to the extent that SpaceX has accomplished it so far anyway), what SpaceX has done is what the Russians had done. Competition is good. (Though I do admit I see NASAs expertise more in the experimental/exploratory.)
- jobu 14y agoThis is not a solved problem. SpaceX is working on it, but they're currently around $6k per kilogram [1], with hopes to get to $1100 or less per kg [2]. Cost-to-orbit reduction is not a sexy or scientifically interesting problem to solve, but Nasa needs to put as a top priority. As the parent post stated $100 per kilo means all of their other plans go from being grandiose to realistic. [1] - http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/the-actual-cost-to-launch http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commen... [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX#Background http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX#Background
- stcredzero 14y agoGet it to $100/kilo and we can build a dozen manned stations for the amount of money the country spends on potato chips each year (around $10 Billion) How about "space chips?" Send up a batch of chips to be fried on-orbit inside a parabolic solar deep fryer. (It would have to have a means of centrifugally pumping out the oil once done.) Then distribute the chips amongst bags of other potato chips, such that there's a 1 in 6 chance of getting a bag containing a potato chip cooked IN SPACE! Then use the proceeds to fund unmanned missions to the asteroids. But enough with the grandiose long-range plans that only serve to allow contractors to bill for a few years until the next grandiose long-range plan. That's a brilliant and succinct way of putting it!
- schiffern 14y agoWith SpaceX and their heavy-lift plans in the back of my mind, watching the video made me cringe. When they constantly name-drop the manufacturer of various components it becomes all too obvious who the real audience is. And the message? 'Don't call your Senators, you're still on the gravy train.' >Work is underway on the flight-qualified booster, getting ready for its big test next year at ATK in Utah. [Formerly Morton Thiokol, the company that Orrin Hatch axed the single-segment SRB design to protect. This design decision, and the famed management decision at MT to ignore engineer Roger Boisjoly's warnings on launch day, doomed the crew of STS-51-L.] >The venerable RS-25 engine, built by Pratt-Whitney Rocketdyne… will power the SLS core stage. >In order to fuel these engines, NASA called on the expertise at the Boeing Company to build the SLS core stage… …and on and on. In this arena cost inefficiency is a feature, not a bug.
- sehugg 14y agoKennedy: Let's go to the Moon. We go to the Moon. Nixon: Apollo canceled. Shuttle born. Reagan: Space Station Freedom. The Ride Report proposes a lunar base by 2010. Bush Sr: Space Exploration Initiative, or $500 billion for a lunar base by 2010 or 2020. Rejected. Clinton: Space Station Freedom morphs into ISS. Bush Jr: Constellation program and humans on the Moon by 2020. Obama: Constellation canceled, SLS born. Moon by 2020. Or maybe an asteroid by 2025. Or maybe Mars (with friends). Or maybe somewhere else entirely... It seems much easier to get agreement on who does the studies and who builds the hardware than where to go and when.
- stcredzero 14y agoKennedy: Let's go to the Moon. We go to the Moon. Nixon: Apollo canceled. Shuttle born. Reagan: Space Station Freedom. The Ride Report proposes a lunar base by 2010. Bush Sr: Space Exploration Initiative, or $500 billion for a lunar base by 2010 or 2020. Rejected. Clinton: Space Station Freedom morphs into ISS. Bush Jr: Constellation program and humans on the Moon by 2020. Obama: Constellation canceled, SLS born. Moon by 2020. Or maybe an asteroid by 2025. Or maybe Mars (with friends). Or maybe somewhere else entirely...* Elon Musk: Going to Mars!
- brudgers 14y agoL2 point is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L2_point#L2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L2_point#L2
- antidoh 14y agoActually the image at that link shows the sun-earth L2. The article and mission is concerned with the earth-moon L2. Here's a nice diagram of all earth-moon lagranges: http://www.orbitalvector.com/Space%20Structures/Lagrange%20Structures/LAGRANGE%20POINT%20STRUCTURES.htm http://www.orbitalvector.com/Space%20Structures/Lagrange%20S... Here's a pdf describing missions related to earth-moon lagrangians: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/604657main_4-%20GER%20Stakeholders%20Workshop%20Earth-Moon%20L1_L2%20Bobskill.pdf http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/604657main_4-%20GER%20Stakeholders%2...
- Luyt 14y agoYou could operate a remote vehicle on the back of the Moon from Earth via relay stations in L2 and L4.
- jhspaybar 14y agoThis article kept going back to this being some secret agreement between Obama and NASA, kept a secret in case Romney won?! Uh, what, why? I understand administrations have different goals, but this felt almost like a campaign piece of "Obama good, Romney bad!" and I for the life of me can't figure out why it matters.
- anonymouz 14y agoI think the point was simply that they didn't want to announce it just before the election, in case Romney would become president and pull the plug on the whole thing. NASA would look rather bad if they had to call it off again in a month or so (despite the fact that it technically wouldn't be their fault).
- greedo 14y agoJerry Pournelle has done a lot of writing on the value of offering prizes instead of having the government foot the bill. We've seen some of that with the funding SpaceX gets, but the scale needs to be increased. Offer $1 billion to orbit an unmanned (man rated) capsule around the Moon. Then another billion to land same capsule. $5 billion to land a crew of two, and return them to Earth. Since each is incremental, the risk for the companies trying to compete will be lower. EDIT: Yes I know the costs are far higher than the prizes I'm mentioning. It's the general concept I'm aiming at.
- cpeterso 14y agoGoogle is sponsoring an X Prize to visit the moon before 2016. The first team to land a robot and drive 500 meters will win $20M. The second team wins $5M. There is also a controversial "Apollo Heritage Bonus Prize" of $1M if a team's robot visits one of the Apollo landing sites. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Lunar_X_Prize https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Lunar_X_Prize
- greedo 14y agoI think the prize needs to be larger to mitigate the risks involved. $20m doesn't seem like enough for the costs involved in launching a droid to the moon.
- gavinlynch 14y agoHonest question: Why do we want to pay for this?
- grayrest 14y agoWhy would we not want to? It's cheap entertainment if nothing else. As a taxpayer, if you're making $100k gross, your annual contribution for NASA's entire budget is about $100/year. I have no issues with spending $10-15 a year (it's not going to be NASA's entire budget) to see a mars mission in my lifetime.
- gavinlynch 14y agoThat's a pretty terrible reason, especially when it is mandatory. Let me put it another way: Would you rather have that $100 going to Mars for "entertainment value" or, oh say, perhaps school supplies to inner city children? Maybe it could be used to pay off the deficit? Perhaps it could go towards cancer research? Sorry, but the idea of "well, wouldn't it be cool??" I know fascinates many geeks, but I think it's a horrible waste of our money. If you guys want to see another moon mission, I say pass the tip jar around. You can all contribute. I don't want my money going to this project, at this point in time for our country. I'm not always opposed to this type of endeavor, but this one, at this time? What a waste.
- grayrest 14y ago> Let me put it another way: Would you rather have that $100 going to Mars for "entertainment value" or, oh say, perhaps school supplies to inner city children? Maybe it could be used to pay off the deficit? Perhaps it could go towards cancer research? My answer would be the same. You might value those other things more highly but I do not. I believe that nationally challenging engineering projects pay dividends for years to come in ways that are not immediately apparent when the projects are being funded. I believe that our future as a country will depend on the number of scientists and engineers we ultimately produce. Manned space exploration is very capital inefficient in terms of science produced BUT it's deeply engaging. It's an entry point that many current STEM workers can cite even if they're not Aerospace Engineers or working in the field. I believe we should spend money on things that might not work simply because I think it's valuable to have a concrete national dream for the future. It shouldn't be the main thing we spend money on, it shouldn't be a top priority but the money is not a waste unless it goes entirely to contractors and produces no entertainment value.
- waterlesscloud 14y agoI guess I'm missing the Manned Moon Missions part. Something about an L2 base, the only thing about actual moon missions is something about "teleoperating rovers".
- iRobot 14y agoNASA has its uses in R&D and pure science but pleeeaaazzz, we need the money going to the SpaceX, Blue Origin and ReactionEngines of this world NOT the $10 million for a toilet contractors they currently have.
- anotherevan 14y agoThe world is running out of Helium-3!
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- martin1b 14y agoPlease help me understand why a nation with a fledgling economy that is trillions of dollars in debt spend billions of dollars on something that was done 50 years ago?
- shabble 14y agoThere are many reasons: * Inspiration - the space program was a huge morale booster and directly responsible for a lot of people going into the science/engineering professions. * Dual-use technologies - most of the problems you end up solving have other uses, from little things like velcro up to ICBM and other weapons tech. Or, you could think of it as giving an alternative to those who want to work on big explody things, but aren't comfortable with them being used to kill people. * Economic stimulus - those billions of dollars aren't just disappearing. A large amount of the space industry is US based, and that money goes to them and their employees and creates/maintains both skilled and unskilled jobs. * Scientific research - There are plenty of things we don't know that would benefit from modern sensing or analysis capabilities that weren't available in '72. * Human progress - At the rate humanity is expanding, eventually we're probably need to gather resources off-planet, whether it's orbiting solar power satellites or asteroid mining, that tech needs to be developed. The longer term goal of actually colonising some place else is also pretty important if we consider progress & survival on a long enough scale. All of these are I think good reasons why it should be done (again). That's not to say it should necessarily be done by the government, but it's certainly not money wasted in the way people often claim.
- lispm 14y agoMost of that are more like myths or are mostly irrelevant for current problems.
- peruksatis 14y agoPeruk, Postiş, Çıtçıt ve diğer saç aksesuarları konularında toptan ve parakende hizmet vermektedir
- oh_sigh 14y agoWhy put multiple cameras in it? Why not just make the center of gravity opposite the camera, so that the lens is always on the top?