"Apollo on steroids" - NASA

[Alberon]

NASA has started revealing the plan for its return to the Moon in 2018.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901574.html

The plan envisions development of two new rockets, one of them almost as tall and even heavier than the Saturn V that launched the Apollo astronauts, and a new spacecraft to put four people on the moon for up to six months before bringing them back to Earth in a parachute landing.

And while the rocket technology is "shuttle-derived," the new plan abandons the concept of a winged, reusable spacecraft that can fly back to Earth and land at an airport. Griffin said the new "crew exploration vehicle" can be reused perhaps 10 times, but most of the new program's apparatus, like Apollo's before it, will be jettisoned in space or burned up in Earth's atmosphere.

...

"We did not set out to make it like Apollo," Griffin said at a NASA headquarters news conference to release the agency's "Exploration Systems Architecture Study." "We looked at every vehicle, but people began to realize that the Apollo guys got it right."

Still, the new plan is "a significant advance over Apollo," he added, describing it as "Apollo on steroids." Among other differences, the new lander is larger, can put twice as many people on the moon, leave them there potentially for months instead of days, land them anywhere on the lunar surface instead of just at the equatorial region and leave the orbiting spacecraft without a crew onboard.

From NASA's website here are concept drawings of the spacecraft that might be used.



On the left is the larger cargo launcher, using two SRBs and five Shuttle main engines and on the right is the crew launcher, which is using a Solid Rocket Booster with a single shuttle main engine as a second stage. This should be much safer for crew launches as the crew are on top of the rocket rather than on the side as in shuttle missions.

I think the US will go back to the moon, if only because China is starting to push into space, though I doubt they'll stay on schedule and land in just thirteen years.

[zozman]

What a colossal waste of money - how many billions is this going to cost?  Probably enough to feed and educate everyone on the planet - and why?  To make a point to the Chinese.

Fair enough, if that's what they want to spend their money on, but still......

[mothman]

Well, finally. Not to dismiss this as nothing more than more Bush-posturing, but the concept of a larger Apollo-style reusable capsule has been mentioned many times by SF authors like Stephen Baxter. It has to make more sense than an ostensibly re-usable winged shuttle that in reality has to be virtually dismantled then reassembled after every flight.

[Deadman97]

Forgetting about the more pressing issues on this planet for a second, what practical use is there in putting men on the moon for six months? I'm struggling to come up with anything that could be achieved that'll be of any practical use.

[smoker]

Forgetting about the more pressing issues on this planet for a second, what practical use is there in putting men on the moon for six months? I'm struggling to come up with anything that could be achieved that'll be of any practical use.

dur, installing missiles? ;)

[Deadman97]

dur, installing missiles? ;)

That'd be funny if I couldn't actually see it happening!

[MonkeyDrummer]

Forgetting about the more pressing issues on this planet for a second, what practical use is there in putting men on the moon for six months? I'm struggling to come up with anything that could be achieved that'll be of any practical use.

dur, installing missiles? ;)

Or like, dur, constructing a massive Microsoft Logo.

[smoker]

dur, installing missiles? ;)

That'd be funny if I couldn't actually see it happening!

wish my eyesight was that good

[Blumf]

Forgetting about the more pressing issues on this planet for a second, what practical use is there in putting men on the moon for six months? I'm struggling to come up with anything that could be achieved that'll be of any practical use.

Easier to launch a manned mission to Mars from the Moon, otherwise nothing. That's why we haven't been back to the moon since 1972, there's bugger all there.

[weirdbeard]

2018??  I'll be dead by then.  It took them less time to get from putting the first satellite in space to putting Apollo 11 onto the Moon, how come this one will take so long.  OK, so it's going to be a bigger mission that the originals but surely half of the job is complete already?   Unless they've lost all of their "How to get to the Moon and back" paperwork.

[MojoJojo]

Wasn't more evidence for ice found on the moon recently (past 5 years or so)? If that  could be converted to hydrogen/oxygen, would greatly reduce the costs of any missions to more distant parts of the solar system. Each kilo of fuel in orbit costs something like $25,000.

[Gazeuse]

constructing a massive Microsoft Logo.

Didn't Arthur C. Clark write a short story where someone managed to shoot a giant Coca Cola logo into the night sky from a gas canister on the moon??? I've googled to no avail.

[mothman]

Rings a bell, but when I try and pin it down I keep ending up with Asimov's "Buy Jupiter."

[Alberon]

I personally think in the long term space development will help the planet. Moving power generation off the planet for example and exploiting resources on other planets and asteroids will remove some of the load on Earth. The main advantage to me of self-suficient colonies, is to give mankind a better chance of long-term survival.

One of the critics of this new program says that a moon base is not mandated by the plans and could easily be cut by a future president. This would turn the new missions into little more than Apollo 2.0. I consider Apollo to be largely a failure as they never took the next step after the few first landings were achieved. If the Russians N1 rocket had worked we might have had moonbases for the last decade or so.

As for expense, with the reusing of so much Shuttle technology for the initial lift into orbit the plan will cost $104 billion over thirteen years (not allowing for inflation). There will be over-runs of course, there always are. But the budget is just $8 billion a year on average for this program.

Well worth it, I think.

[Mediocre Rich]

Forgetting about the more pressing issues on this planet for a second, what practical use is there in putting men on the moon for six months? I'm struggling to come up with anything that could be achieved that'll be of any practical use.

Seeing how high a man can jump up?

[hencole]

They are living in a dream world. We are no where near the advanced enough to send people to other planets for anything other than posturing. What use is having a staging post to Mars when there is no possible chance of it ever supporting and sustaining human life. Robots is what you need, lots of robots.

The ISS was the biggest white elephant ever in the history of the world, this is going to trump it.

[MojoJojo]

One of the critics of this new program says that a moon base is not mandated by the plans and could easily be cut by a future president. This would turn the new missions into little more than Apollo 2.0. I consider Apollo to be largely a failure as they never took the next step after the few first landings were achieved. If the Russians N1 rocket had worked we might have had moonbases for the last decade or so.

It hasn't even got the support of this president yet. And with the Iraq war and Katrina, the chances of him signing that 100billion dollar bill is unlikely.
Or is it congress who need to sign it? American politics confuse me.

[Blumf]

The ISS is a better idea than a moon base, it's easier to get to for starters. The only problem is that it's been cut down to virtually nothing so that the crew have to spend all their time doing maintenance instead of science and work on further missions.

If the US had concentrated on space stations instead of moon shots in the 60s we'd probably be a lot further ahead in space travel by now.

[Santa's Boyfriend]

dur, installing missiles? ;)

That would be utterly pointless, other than for keeping others away from the moon, which can more easily be done on Earth.  Any missile launched from the moon would take days (or hours at the very least) to reach its target.  It would be cheaper and much easier to launch them from Earth.  I know you're joking about this, but it does come up from time to time!  During the cold war when they discussed the possibility of a nuclear testing ban, some of the more hawkish American generals believed that the Russians would test their nukes behind the moon in order to get around the test ban treaty without the US knowing.

Nutters.

As far as I can see, the greatest advantage of going to the moon again would be to set up a base for solar power generation, the energy for which could then be sent back to Earth in the form of microwaves or something.

[Morrisfan82]

Didn't Arthur C. Clark write a short story where someone managed to shoot a giant Coca Cola logo into the night sky from a gas canister on the moon??? I've googled to no avail.

Dunno about that, but there's a bit in the first Red Dwarf novel about a fleet of spacecraft strategically shooting thermonuclear devices into a series of suns to spell 'COKE ADDS LIFE!' across the sky for three months.

[Blumf]

As far as I can see, the greatest advantage of going to the moon again would be to set up a base for solar power generation, the energy for which could then be sent back to Earth in the form of microwaves or something.

Gigawatts+ of microwave power that can be aimed at any point on Earth facing the Moon, that'd be fun.

Why does energy generation always tie so closely with weapons?

[Frinky]

As far as I can see, the greatest advantage of going to the moon again would be to set up a base for solar power generation, the energy for which could then be sent back to Earth in the form of microwaves or something.

Untill we have our own equivalent of the Thunderbirds, you can fuck off with that idea :)

[Deadman97]

We are no where near the advanced enough to send people to other planets for anything other than posturing.

Good point. Even if the Moon does end up being used as a Mars platform, what then? It's still of no practical use. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent on national self-congratulation. How about simulating the Lunar and Martian environments on Earth to develop something worthwhile to do when we get there, rather than spending and spending just to get someone up there so that America can pat itself on the back in front of the rest of the planet?

[Mr. Analytical]

Space exploration could also be fruitful.

Asteroids the size of Whales made entirely of gold?

[Santa's Boyfriend]

Hundreds of billions of dollars spent on national self-congratulation.

I can think of worse things to spend it on...  ;-)

[Mediocre Rich]

Whatever happened to those bio-sphere things that people were living in in California?  Weren't they supposed to be self sufficient and on the moon by now so we could all go on holiday there?

Personally I think the future of the moon is as a galactic tax haven for the mega rich.

[Frinky]

When I reach the moon, I'm gonna piss on every one of you.

[terminallyrelaxed]

Bit chilly. Won't your little winky get even more shrivelled?

[Frinky]

It is powered by pure contempt for you earth-bound chimps.

[mothman]

Yes, let's recreate Brussels on the moon, complete with Mannikin Frink.