U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Space
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-28-2018, 02:03 PM
 
5,203 posts, read 8,207,066 times
Reputation: 3188

Advertisements

NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine announced a short while ago, "The US is returning to the surface of the moon, and we're doing it sooner than you think!"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techn...ink/ar-BBQaCdR

"Based on its timeline, NASA is aiming for the first astronauts to visit this lunar station — called the Gateway — as early as 2024, with human landings on the Moon happening sometime after 2026."
https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/28/1...e-station-2024

Admittedly, the Moon hasn't received a great deal of press about future manned lunar missions on the surface, I think primarily because of the strong public interest in various current robotic missions on Mars, especially of Curiosity rover, InSight lander, and the upcoming 2020 rover.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-28-2018, 02:50 PM
 
4,256 posts, read 8,013,612 times
Reputation: 6040
When there is competition, the US usually responds.

https://thehill.com/opinion/technolo...go-to-the-moon



Also, add a 3-5 years delay and triple the cost to any government estimate.


The James Webb telescope is just one example of how government agencies sell to the public.

Quote:
First envisioned in 1996, JWST was originally expected to cost between $1 billion and $3.5 billion, with a launch date scheduled for sometime between 2007 and 2011. But the cost of the project grew throughout the early 2000s, soaring above $4.5 billion, as the telescope’s launch was consistently postponed. Then in 2011, the JWST program went through an extensive replan: a new launch date was set for 2018, and Congress capped the cost of the telescope’s development at $8 billion. After that, NASA said JWST would ultimately cost $8.8 billion, with an extra $837 million needed to operate the telescope once it was in space.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/27/1...delay-may-2020
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2018, 04:06 PM
 
7,141 posts, read 3,904,178 times
Reputation: 6691
For any nut thinking we can see things on the moon through a telescope, to resolve the Apollo 16 flag (4 feet in length) you would need a telescope 650 feet in diameter. 20x larger than the largest optical mirror we have today.

Are there telescopes that can see the flag and lunar rover on the Moon? (Beginner) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer

Hubble can’t resolve anything smaller than 280 feet across.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2018, 05:29 PM
 
Location: PRC
3,236 posts, read 3,361,904 times
Reputation: 2950
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar View Post
NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine announced a short while ago, "The US is returning to the surface of the moon, and we're doing it sooner than you think!"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techn...ink/ar-BBQaCdR

"Based on its timeline, NASA is aiming for the first astronauts to visit this lunar station — called the Gateway — as early as 2024, with human landings on the Moon happening sometime after 2026."
https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/28/1...e-station-2024

Admittedly, the Moon hasn't received a great deal of press about future manned lunar missions on the surface, I think primarily because of the strong public interest in various current robotic missions on Mars, especially of Curiosity rover, InSight lander, and the upcoming 2020 rover.
As I understand it, Gateway seems to be the outpost in space NOT one on the surface.

They keep on talking about returning to the surface, so yes, I am sure they will visit and do small stuff there but to me, it does not look as if they are placing any importance on a surface base as such (which they were doing a few years ago). They seem to be pushing this idea of an outpost on the other side of the Moon in space which the reason is to use as a staging post for longer journeys.

A lunar base on the surface would offer more protection from space-bourne projectiles as it could be underground and some science could be done there much like Antarctica. We have heard how studying the Moon would tell us more about Earth and its creation but that seems also to be a low priority now.

People will no doubt say that priorities change and money is funneled where it will do the most perceived good but you have to admit, it is strange that after 50 years we still do not really want to return and build a base on the Moon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2018, 05:28 PM
 
5,825 posts, read 3,582,291 times
Reputation: 7123
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidt1 View Post
Also, add a 3-5 years delay and triple the cost to any government estimate.
Ain't that the truth!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2018, 03:10 AM
 
Location: PRC
3,236 posts, read 3,361,904 times
Reputation: 2950
It does not matter how much anything costs, it is all helping the economy and moving money around. The initial estimates are just to get it through the financial decision makers.

Different budgeting rules apply for normal people and governments. It is all about where the money is directed, which sector of the economy gets the benefit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2018, 10:40 PM
 
Location: Kirkland, WA (Metro Seattle)
4,256 posts, read 3,438,277 times
Reputation: 7794
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20 View Post
Why are NASA NOT going to build an outpost on the Moon, but want one in space on the other side?

I understood that the surface of the Moon was a good place to have a base and even maybe under the surface might be even better. Now things seem to have changed. Wonder why that is? Maybe the aliens...


Yahoo science link

My bolded text.
Guessing Lagrange Point. Look it up. Great jump-off for missions to the 'Belt. I was fascinated just now to learn we already have a probe at L2, for various reasons. I refer to L4 or L5.

That's where the future is (the asteroid belt), not Mars or the Moon, both of which are parched and metal-pour. Not so the 'Belt. We'll have a base on Ceres in 150 years if not sooner. Water floating around out there too, I hear, probably in billion-liter increments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2018, 09:39 PM
 
33,744 posts, read 17,290,860 times
Reputation: 18513
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20 View Post
Why are NASA NOT going to build an outpost on the Moon, but want one in space on the other side?

I understood that the surface of the Moon was a good place to have a base and even maybe under the surface might be even better. Now things seem to have changed. Wonder why that is? Maybe the aliens...


Yahoo science link

My bolded text.
Getting to the surface of the Moon takes fuel - no atmosphere for aerobraking. Getting off the surface of the Moon takes fuel. Fuel that you, ironically, had to spend fuel to land. The Lunar surface may or may not be a worthwhile destination, but it's useless as an intermediate stop.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2018, 04:55 PM
 
5,825 posts, read 3,582,291 times
Reputation: 7123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
Getting to the surface of the Moon takes fuel - no atmosphere for aerobraking. Getting off the surface of the Moon takes fuel. Fuel that you, ironically, had to spend fuel to land. The Lunar surface may or may not be a worthwhile destination, but it's useless as an intermediate stop.
That kind of reminds me of when I worked down on the ice in Antarctica. I never made it to South Pole Station, but I did make it to McMurdo, which has one huge tankership bring down fuel once a year in the summer.

But for South Pole, up until 8 or 9 years ago, when they started the South Pole Traverse where they drag huge double lined bladders full of fuel on sleds over two weeks from Mactown, up onto the Antarctic Plateau and the South Pole, they had to fly all the fuel in on LC-130's, the largest planes that can land at Pole because they have skis.

They still do it, but not as much, and call them sleigh rides and fly fuel from Mactown to Pole, no cargo and limited people on board. So they burn fuel to fly there and back to deliver whatever fuel is left over!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2018, 05:15 PM
 
Location: Ono Island, Orange Beach, AL
10,085 posts, read 9,597,439 times
Reputation: 5694
I imagine that the base (orbital or lunar) would be on the far side of the moon so as to avoid radio and other Earth transmissions from interfering with deep space communications. Makes sense to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Space
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:52 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top