Nasa plans return to Moon by 2020

[frigidmagi]

BBC

The US space agency Nasa has announced plans to return to the Moon by 2020.
Nasa administrator Dr Michael Griffin said four astronauts would be sent in a new space vehicle, in a project that would cost $104bn.

"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.

Nasa sent several manned missions to the Moon between 1969 and 1972. A total of 12 men walked on the lunar surface.

Different modules could be launched separately into space then joined together for the journey to lunar orbit.

The new missions would use rocket technology already employed on the space shuttle to cut the costs of development.

'Apollo on steroids'

Dr Griffin said the new rocket would be "very Apollo-like, with updated technology. Think of it as Apollo on steroids."

The agency chief was keen to head off criticism that the proposals amounted to a re-tread of those missions: "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."

Missions to the Moon will use a lander craft
Nasa is charged with implementing the vision for space exploration, laid out in January 2004 by President George W Bush.

This vision aims to return humans to the Moon, and then to use it as a staging point for a manned mission to Mars.

"We believe this architecture... achieves those goals in the most cost-effective, efficient manner that we could do it," said Dr Griffin in a news briefing at Nasa headquarters in Washington DC.

The space shuttle is to be retired by 2010 in order to pay for its replacement, the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) - to be ready by 2012. This vehicle would be shaped like an Apollo command and service modules, but three times larger, and able to take four astronauts to the Moon at a time.

Fly me to the Moon

Nasa would begin the first lunar expedition by launching a lunar landing capsule and a propulsion stage atop a new heavy-lift rocket.

This will consist of a lengthened shuttle external tank and a pair of solid rocket boosters capable of putting up to 125 metric tonnes in orbit - about one and a half times the weight of a shuttle orbiter.


Mike Griffin said the missions would use existing money
The cargo it carries could wait for up to 30 days in orbit for the astronauts to launch aboard their CEV.

Carrying a crew of four, the CEV would blast off atop a single solid-rocket booster consisting of four segments - exactly like those flown with the shuttle.

Once in orbit, the manned orbiter would dock with the lunar lander and the propulsion stage and begin the journey to the Moon.

After a three-day journey, the four astronauts would climb into the lander craft, leaving the CEV to wait for them in orbit.

After landing and exploring the surface for seven days, the crew would then blast off in a portion of the lander, dock with the capsule and return to Earth, parachuting through the atmosphere to dry land.

Nasa says it will be able to recover the entry capsule, replace the heat shield and re-launch the craft up to 10 times.

Reconstruction costs

The Nasa chief also dismissed suggestions that reconstruction of the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina could derail the programme.


The capsule could be re-used up to 10 times
"We must deal with our short-term problems while not sacrificing our long-term investments in our future," said Dr Griffin.

"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."

But Representative Bart Gordon, a Tennessee Democrat on the US House Science Committee, said in a statement: "This plan is coming out at a time when the nation is facing significant budgetary challenges.

"Getting agreement to move forward on it is going to be heavy lifting in the current environment, and it's clear that strong presidential leadership will be needed."

Nasa also envisions the possibility of building a semi-permanent lunar base, where astronauts would make use of the Moon's natural resources for water and fuel.

Somedays I really think NASA is just dicking around. 15 years to get right back to where we started?

[Josh]

Assuming that they can even fucking find Luna at this point.

[Hotfoot]

I think that most of that time frame is going to be just building and testing the new equipment within the budget limitations the adminstration has shackled them with.

[Pcm979]

Assuming that they can even fucking find Luna at this point.

Oh, that's easy. Even the President can tell you that it, as well as the other bodies in the solar system, orbits Earth.

[Narsil]

...

The Ironic thing is that Luna does

[Pcm979]

Shush, you. I'm making a subtle political commentary about the way money is burned on useless ventures like the one the OP mentions, while the US education system goes to hell.

I mean, it shouldn't cost that much money! You just have to push the spaceship off the edge of the earth.

[Narsil]

Yep...

But we've still to reach the edge yet...

And we need to kick the arse of those who deem it "Round"

[Josh]

You'd best not be deeming lunar exploration in general to be 'useless', Pcm.

*sharpens knife*

[Pcm979]

In a word, no.

[Josh]

Good good, then.

Now, let's get a fucking moon base built already! Jesus fuck, people!

[Bratty]

Who the hell would like to live on the moon?

What ever happened to wanting to explore other galaxies for planets capable of supporting life?

We have a long way to go...

[Josh]

Who the hell would like to live on the moon?

I plan on having a summer home there.

What ever happened to wanting to explore other galaxies for planets capable of supporting life?

We have a long way to go...

A permanent lunar base would be a step toward that. One of our biggest impediments in space exploration is the fact that we have to work out of a gravity well that makes it prohibitively expensive to get off this rock. Lunar mining could provide a lot of the materials needed, and they could be put into space for construction of vehicles a hell of a lot more easily than by means of boosting them off of Terra.

Besides, we just need to get off this rock before the next supervolcano blows or the next dino-killer slams down.

Of course, until we figure out a way around this whole 'speed of light' issue, we're stuck in our solar system. (With our stupid yellow sun, until I figure out how to get rid of it.)

My personal preference is for asteroid colonies. Plenty of living space out there, no need to contend with the pain in the ass that is gravity.

[Stofsk]

Besides, we just need to get off this rock before the next supervolcano blows or the next dino-killer slams down.

The bigger risk in my opinion is a killer virus. Especially when you have irresponsible and inadequate responses to something like the Asian Bird 'flu, AIDS, and so on.

My personal preference is for asteroid colonies. Plenty of living space out there, no need to contend with the pain in the ass that is gravity.

At first, space habitats could be made out of spent rocket cylinders until asteroids could be made use of. O'Neil colonies in orbit over Earth could support millions of people, eventually. Agricultural habitats could make use of a constant supply of sunlight thanks to the ability to keep the 'sunny side up'.

...And revolutionaries can bombard Earth with maglev-pushed rocks. Hail Heinlein!

[Josh]

Hail Heinlein!

They're doing their part.

ARE YOU?

[Stofsk]

That's Verhoven, not Heinlein!

(I'm talking about the "Moon is a Harsh Mistress" btw, not "Starship Troopers")