NASA to return to the Moon

[MarkG]

"We will return to the Moon no later than 2020 and extend human presence across the Solar System and beyond," Dr Griffin said on Monday.

we're going to Alpha Centauri!!

[DanS]

Originally posted by reds4ever
I've been trying to dig them up, and going off at very intesting tangets whilst failing to find them.

Well, here's a start. For at least one reference design, I'm partly right (leaving aside the fact that these are only the costs to NASA doing it the NASA way, not to a rational organization trying to be economical). This is a slide from June of this year...

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/06.04.05.esas.budget.lrg.jpg

The Rosetta Stone...

You get the $104 billion by adding up "Total ESMD Avail Budget" through Fiscal Year 2018. The particular reference design that they are plotting in this slide is unknown and totals $158 billion through Fiscal Year 2018. The question is begged of what happened between this reference design was plotted in June and Monday's announcement to get the total costs down to what's available through FY 2018, $104 billion.

The rocketry portion of the architecture is under "CLV" (I assume the Crew Launch Vehicle for the Crew Exploration Vehicle) and "CaLV" (the follow-on super-heavy launch vehicle), or about 40% of the costs for the program to get to Mars. Lots of miscellaneous stuff is probably put in here that's not strictly rocketry-related.

[reds4ever]

A "score draw" then Dan, as we say in soccer!!

[DanS]

That's a little unsatisfying, I admit.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Joseph
Carter wanted peace in the world.

I always knew he was a pervert. I'll bet he used to secretly dress up like a Miss America contestant in his bedroom.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by DanS
That's a little unsatisfying, I admit.

Hey, it passed a couple of hours and we both got out honours even.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by DanS


What would the benefit be of that? It takes a lot more energy to get from the Moon to Mars than from Earth Orbit to Mars.

Yes, about the same energy as from geosynchronous transfer Orbit to Mars, according toi the diagram (if the spaceship is parked in Lunar Orbit that is).

So maybe you could park the spaceship in Earth Orbit instead and use the lunar base to process oxygen and fuel components which you then send back to earth orbit via an automated cargo spaceship.
This also takes much less fuel than sending these supplies from the surface of earth and has the additional benefit that you don´t contaminate earth atmosphere (something which is normally not reflected in the costs to get a payload into orbit )

[RGBVideo]

Sounds like a massive waste of taxpayers' money to me... is there really any reason to return there? What are they going to do once they're there, play football with large-massed rocks?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Let's see:

January 2004
- Bush approval rating hits lowest point since 9/11
- Bush announces goal of manned mission to Mars

September 2005
- Bush approval rating hits all-time low
- NASA announces we're going back to the moom

There's got to be some sort of pattern here; if only I could figure out what it was!

Personally, I can't wait til his approval rating dives lower than Jimmy Carter's lowest, and he announces his plans to go to war with the Klingon Empire.

[Az]

No blood for dilithium crystals!

[Sandman]

You're ignoring a clear pattern here, Rufus.

At some point, he's going to proudly announce his intent to take America back into orbit. Or sub-orbit.

So maybe you could park the spaceship in Earth Orbit instead and use the lunar base to process oxygen and fuel components which you then send back to earth orbit via an automated cargo spaceship.

Why? It'd be cheaper to send up fuel and oxygen from Earth than build a moonbase. Less environmentally damaging as well.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Sandman
You're ignoring a clear pattern here, Rufus.

At some point, he's going to proudly announce his intent to take American back into orbit. Or sub-orbit.

A lot of people have said that the key to Bush's success is that he lowers people's expectations, then meets those lowered expectations.

August, 2007:
- Bush approval rating hits single digits
- Bush announces plan for "sustained powered flights in a heavier-than-air machine" by 2015

[Az]

@ Sandman.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Sandman

Why? It'd be cheaper to send up fuel and oxygen from Earth than build a moonbase. Less environmentally damaging as well.

Only on the short term (considering that there will be only one mission to mars).
But on the long term (considering there will be multiple missions which can be refueled [with spaceships that can be used multiple times]) a moon base would be the less environmentally damaging, especially if you can get the base to sustain itself to a large degree (with food grown on the base and a large portion of the oxygen being regenerated) so that you don´t need constant supply runs for the base (and with a high level of automation, so that you need only a small crew there).
And of course, this base wouldn´t just be a refueling base, but would also be used for Astronomy (ideal for large telescopes which don´t have the limitations they have on earth because of its atmosphere) and to make scientific experiments in low G (something which also could be used to make money, by selling lab time on the moon base to private corporations ).

[Mr. Harley]

Better yet - capture a small comet or asteroid and put it into earth orbit. I would prefer the small comet myself. Use a robotic mission with a nuclear engine using the material of the comet itself for reaction mass.