USA Moon plans

[Davey-T]

Not going to live to see it at this rate 😂

Dave

https://www.space.com/house-bill-nasa-moon-landing-2028.html

[Guest]

I have to seriously ask if there will be any significant human space flight beyond earth orbit in our generation. There does not seem to be a real desire or great reason to go to the moon or Mars. Perhaps if there is some great breakthrough in propulsion technology to reduce journey times. 

Edited January 29, 2020 by Guest
Add text.

[Carbon Brush]

Maybe I'm talking rubbish, maybe I'm cynical but.....

The 60s rush to get there was basically to make sure they did it before the 'other lot'.
When you look at the technology available, they were lucky to get away with killing one crew in a stupid ground mistake, and a near miss in Apollo 13.

After achieving the goal with Apollo 13, the US public (and politicians) lost interest.
Launches were no longer live on TV. There was no need to defer re-runs of the Lucy show.

The 'other lot' didn't keep up the effort so they could follow a year later than Apollo 11.
The race had been lost. There was nothing of interest in the suitcases of rocks and there was no sign of ET..

Half a century on, the reasons to place boots on the ground are much less clear cut.
Instrument missions from orbit, or on the ground are much easier, productive and affordable.
Remember early Moon and Mars probes had very limited capability.
The first images from the far side of the moon were essentially film camera, developing tank, then later show the film to a camera tube and transmit to earth.
Just look at how long Spirit and Opportunity drove around Mars. Look how long Cassini kept orbiting and providing data.
Look how much data was gathered at Pluto to be sent back to earth over many months. These are just a few examples.

These low cost (compared to crewed) missions are just to satisfy the curiosity of scientists.
They are of little real use to politicians.
If you can't recover coal, oil, rare earth materials, or fire missiles at your enemies, it is wasted money.

When any instrument mission reports finding valuable minerals in a concentrated area, you may need something more than a probe/sampler.
That is when a crewed mission moves up the importance list.

The other time a crewed mission moves up the list is if a science mission conclusively reports primitive life in the outer solar system.
For the politicians, what an opportunity to develop biological weapons, or medicines, take your pick.

Alternatively, if a probe found evidence ET had visited Mars/Europa/Callisto/wherever....
The country who were the first to personally inspect the site, or establish communication, would be perceived by some as the most powerful or advanced on earth.

OK. Ready for the onslaught.

David.
 

[ScouseSpaceCadet]

2024 did feel a little ambitious. The SLS is virtually done. The technology, knowledge and skills to get the lunar gateway and lander built are in place. It's just willingness to spend the money and time they need now. 2028 seems doable.

Edited January 29, 2020 by ScouseSpaceCadet

[John]

I'd bet that the plans for human space flight would be given new impetus if really strong signs of life were to be picked up elsewhere in the solar system or, alternatively, if a significant and accessible valuable mineral or energy resource was discovered.

 

[maw lod qan]

I have to agree with everything said so far. I do think that even though the "space race" of the 60's was political, it had its benefits.

The weapons knowledge that was acquired by both sides to a certain extent has kept us, semi-safe, since then. The fear of mutual mass destruction has kept what conflicts, much smaller than they could have been.

I'm not certain if we will ever see as much determination to accomplish what we did during those years as long as there are no science focused minds in the political system.

We have and will continue to waste so much money that we could have already had men on both Mars and the Moon. Even with the technology we had.

But there is no cutting age science that will not have serious risks. I mourn the losses we have suffered, but if you think of all the airforce pilots that were lost taking us to the point we could get into space, the astronauts are a small number.

As much as I hate to admit it, we will lose more astronauts, unless we leave man on the ground.

And that would be just as sad.

[Paul M]

Unless there is something to conquer or exploit there is little human motivation to do anything.

I actually hope that if there is life out in the Solar System we don't find it. Because the end game would be to destroy it.

Perhaps there are aquatic animals in the subsurface oceans of Ganymede but they'll be safest left in my imagination...

[RAR_MI_USA]

On 29/01/2020 at 07:26, Carbon Brush said:

Maybe I'm talking rubbish, maybe I'm cynical but.....

The 60s rush to get there was basically to make sure they did it before the 'other lot'.
When you look at the technology available, they were lucky to get away with killing one crew in a stupid ground mistake, and a near miss in Apollo 13.

After achieving the goal with Apollo 13, the US public (and politicians) lost interest.
Launches were no longer live on TV. There was no need to defer re-runs of the Lucy show.

The 'other lot' didn't keep up the effort so they could follow a year later than Apollo 11.
The race had been lost. There was nothing of interest in the suitcases of rocks and there was no sign of ET..

Half a century on, the reasons to place boots on the ground are much less clear cut.
Instrument missions from orbit, or on the ground are much easier, productive and affordable.
Remember early Moon and Mars probes had very limited capability.
The first images from the far side of the moon were essentially film camera, developing tank, then later show the film to a camera tube and transmit to earth.
Just look at how long Spirit and Opportunity drove around Mars. Look how long Cassini kept orbiting and providing data.
Look how much data was gathered at Pluto to be sent back to earth over many months. These are just a few examples.

These low cost (compared to crewed) missions are just to satisfy the curiosity of scientists.
They are of little real use to politicians.
If you can't recover coal, oil, rare earth materials, or fire missiles at your enemies, it is wasted money.

When any instrument mission reports finding valuable minerals in a concentrated area, you may need something more than a probe/sampler.
That is when a crewed mission moves up the importance list.

The other time a crewed mission moves up the list is if a science mission conclusively reports primitive life in the outer solar system.
For the politicians, what an opportunity to develop biological weapons, or medicines, take your pick.

Alternatively, if a probe found evidence ET had visited Mars/Europa/Callisto/wherever....
The country who were the first to personally inspect the site, or establish communication, would be perceived by some as the most powerful or advanced on earth.

OK. Ready for the onslaught.

David.
 

No onslaught. I live in the US, and you are absolutely right! If big money isn't to be made by the über rich or politicians via lobbyists, you can forget about it. 

Edited February 26, 2020 by RAR_MI_USA

[Ags]

Elon Musk (All Hail Elon Musk) will do it.

SLS is a horrible money trap. Yesterday's technology with each launch costing a billion dollars.

https://spacenews.com/op-ed-nasa-need-another-space-assignment/

Edited February 24, 2020 by Ags

[Carbon Brush]

Thank you @Ags that is a very interesting article.

David.