New Apollo for 21st Century

QUOTE: Originally posted by TailspinTom Personaly, I feel that NASA is trying to keep up by using old/proven designs with modern improvements to save money. NASA is freaked out with designing a shuttle replacement that would not be overly technical that would end up being cost preventitive to implement and maintain. Also technology has yet to develope a type of material to use one shuttle type designs that doesn't have to be applied as tiles. The scientists and designers are rationalizing themselves into believing that NASA doesn't have to spend billions to develop new spacecraft to accomplish the proposed moon missions. It doesn't help with China making proposals for planning to go to the moon, and it does not appear that the world governments are ready for joint programs to accomplish further manned missions beyond earth orbit. The news networks said it best , on top og the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Katrina mess, where is the government going to get the money to support the new NASA proposals?

I have to agree- I live 2 hours away from Launch Pads 39 A/B and have never gotten over the awe and inspiration of manned spaceflight- shuttle or satellite heavy lift rocket...

Gene Cernan was asked at a Special Breakfast out at The Cape around this time last year how he felt about manned exploration of the moon and he said something interesting...  Understanding that it was only how he felt and what his expectations of the space program at its time:

He mentioned that "The Gen Xers" [those of us in our 35 to 45 range] were shown a peach and sold a prune.  We languish in Low Earth Orbit when we should already be sending people to a Lunar Disney or such...

I tend to agree with him on that notion- the privatization of space may help some of that, but to what degree [if at all] worries me.

As to what the equipment and tools will look like, my guess is that we'll see a more refined Apollo-esque lunar/launch vehicle with the possibility of heavier lift capabilities depending on whether we actually use the ISS as a platform or not...

I for one am very excited about the possibilities- but it's some-what want with dread at how it could get loused up...

We were sold a bad bill of goods with the shuttle.  We should have stuck to Von Braun's proposals, we could be alot further away from Earth than orbit.  the fact that Nasa's new spacecraft looks like an Apollo on steriods proves that we had the right concept 40+ years ago.  We had a damn space station that was only used three times and was allowed to re-enter the atmosphere.  I think we should stopp policing the rest of the damn planet and put the money into an investment in the future.

What happens when good old Mother Earth can no longer support the population (we have already passed that point)?  Mankind is going to have to either move underwater or somewhere else.  Moving underwater won't change things from Earths standpoint (we didn't do so well on the surface), so either mass extinctions of the human population are going to have to occur or we need to find some place else to go.

At the risk of sounding like a "commie-pinko-blankblank," our history of policing the world in the last century was due to economic interests.  Economic interests are what provides the budget that goes into our "first world advances" ie. medicine, space exploration, etc.

It's a fact, our involvement in the world has been what keeps us ahead of the game in all things.

DanCooper wrote:

Ok, I agree, we have lots of things that came out of the space programms, but we're not in 60's and 70's anymore, we have plastics, we have velcro we have thermal isolation. Somewhere between the lines I red that the new moon-project would cost 108 billion dollar ! Now, I'm not an American and I'm not personally involved neither am I in any pollitical movement, but how much would rebuilding New Orleans cost with better prevention against future disasters ? Wouldn't those billions be spent better on that and other projects to help people who need it ? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a hippy (although I have nothing against them) but (and I'm sure many of you won't like to hear this) have a look at the economy and the social security in your country. I'm all for space exploration, heck it's exiting, it's thrilling, but there are more important issues to deal with first.

DanCooper wrote:

.....we're not in 60's and 70's anymore, we have plastics, we have velcro we have thermal isolation.....Somewhere between the lines I red that the new moon-project would cost 108 billion dollar !.......how much would rebuilding New Orleans cost with better prevention against future disasters ?

Before we had plastics and velcro we didn't know that they were possible.  What is out there now that we don't know is possible?  Before Mankind started exploring the world, each culture thought that nothing really exsisted outside their realm.  No one really knew what was beyond the mountians, river, ocean, etc.  If we don't explore we will never know and learn.  I believe that it is important for us to go beyond our bounds and find all of those things that don't exsit.  Without the space program we would have very little warning of storms like hurricane Katrina.  I am sure that New Orleans will rebuild weather we go back to the Moon or not.  The more important question to ask is how much will it cost if we don't continue to explore.

Mac

Griz wrote:

What happens when good old Mother Earth can no longer support the population (we have already passed that point)?  Mankind is going to have to either move underwater or somewhere else.  Moving underwater won't change things from Earths standpoint (we didn't do so well on the surface), so either mass extinctions of the human population are going to have to occur or we need to find some place else to go.

Griz, you and many others in our society have been sold a bill of goods when it comes to this view of population growth. There is no such crisis. See the entry on Thomas Malthus at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Malthus

GrandadJohn and Mopar Maniac--

Iagree wholeheartedly that we will reap huge tech benefits from returning to the moon. I know my brother's life was saved by space program spinoff technology after he was in a major car crash. For instance, CAT scans were developed to check spacecraft panels for cracks, and without a CAT, the doctors wouldn't have been able to treat his brain injury properly. 

If the moon shot is such a great idea, let's let the EU design and finance the project and we in the US can reap the benefits of the spin-off technologies.

The question is not whether going back to the moon will generate new technologies.  It will.  The question is whether we would be better off putting the money into the technology directly and foregoing the mission to the moon.  If that's a bit too extreme, let's design the mission, materials and all, then just transfer the technology and forget the mission.  If actually flying the mission is going to pay such high dividends, surely other countries will jump to do it.

As far as the moon having new minerals and riches just waiting to be discovered, all I can say is that there has been no real indication of it on the previous missions.

Hey, I am a professional science geek myself, but I feel a lot of scientific research is in an innovation black hole owing to the inefficient "old boy" network   I once saw a decent grant proposal from one of my coworkers rejected with a statement that essentially said, "We know everybody who is somebody in this field, and we don't know you, so you can't know what you are doing and therefore we won't fund your project."  I'd be highly surprised if NASA is much better.  In the old days they were looking for true innovation, but there are too many big hogs at the trough now.

Sorry this is wondering off topic, but I'd be willing to bet a crate of Atomic City Mercury capsules that we don't establish anything like a moon base anytime in this century.  I'll be surprised if the US ever goes back.  Personally, I'm ambivalent.  On the gut level, I love big, powerful things like Saturn Vs; on the intellectual level I am dubious that it will yield any technology not available from cheaper sources, and as an individual taxpayer, I suspect I may get more personal bang for my buck designing and shooting model rockets in the field across from my house.

DanCooper wrote:

Sure blame us for being ninja looters than, we may not put as much money in it, but we put our technology in, doesn't that count for something ?

cdclukey wrote:

Griz wrote: What happens when good old Mother Earth can no longer support the population (we have already passed that point)?  Mankind is going to have to either move underwater or somewhere else.  Moving underwater won't change things from Earths standpoint (we didn't do so well on the surface), so either mass extinctions of the human population are going to have to occur or we need to find some place else to go. Griz, you and many others in our society have been sold a bill of goods when it comes to this view of population growth. There is no such crisis. See the entry on Thomas Malthus at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Malthus

I wonder what the good Reverend would think today?  He's only been dead 172 years.  Not interested in getting on a soap box, just going back to the moon and beyond.

Nobody sold me anything, this is my opinion.  As long as we have war, tsunamis, drought, ethnic cleansing, and other lovely disasters both natural and man made, you're probably right.

The Apollo/Saturn launch system is of the old throw away technology, you have a launch vehicle that's 365 ft tall and only 13 ft of that comes back, and the Space Shuttle is of the mid-throw away technology the main vehicle and boosters can be reused but the External Tank is wasted a 30' x 100 some odd ft object that is burnt up on re-entry, what NASA needs to do is use the technology from the A/S system most likely the J-5, & F-5 engines and convert them to run on LOX/LOH instead of LOX/RP4 (JP-4 for those airplane mechanics out there) then the research for a 1.25 Mil PT engine is done, compaired to the Shuttles 3 at .75 Mil PT each and also use some of the technology from the LEM's for landing on the Moon and acenting back into space, but then we need to set up a long term base there so we could get to the weird types of materials that the Moon has to offer, as for the need for the funds is to get Congress off their worthless butts and quite pointing fingers who did who or who did what on the War on Terror, Yes we need to think about the folks over there fighting but we need to show them what they are fighting for, with a great step into technology and another step for mankind, and leave all those 4th century thinkers behind another pot hole on the road to humanity, The Americans have always lead the way for gaining technology since the mid 19th century, and we just need a little push from the people to kick start their congress person to get on the wagon and back NASA and push them to start cutting the edge of technology instead of riding it like the others

Chuck Fan wrote:

This new CEV thing is like Christopher Columbus, after having discovered America 20 years ago, saying "I bet we can discover America again if we use replicas of the same three ships we used last time".    The age of Apollo style CEV is over.   We don't have the will to go forward, and like to pretend we didn't back out by doing the same thing over and over.