[quote]The study, performed by NexGen Space LLC and partly funded by NASA, concludes that the space agency could land humans on the Moon in the next five to seven years, build a permanent base 10 to 12 years after that, and do it all within the existing budget for human spaceflight. The way for NASA to do this is to adopt the same practice that it's using for resupplying the International Space Station (and will eventually use for crew transport) — public-private partnerships with companies like SpaceX, Orbital ATK, or the United Launch Alliance.
NASA can cut the cost of establishing a human presence on the Moon "by a factor of 10," according to Charles Miller, NexGen president and the study's principal investigator. Savings of that magnitude would allow NASA to expand its ambitions for lunar exploration without reaching beyond the almost $4 billion per year it receives for human spaceflight. [/quote]
[url]http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/20/9003419/nasa-moon-plan-permanent-base[/url]
basically, an optimistic study calculates that if properly managed to avoid overruns, and properly encourage commercial activity as well as liberal usage of ISRU NASA could do a moon base for ~$10 billion
this might just be a bit overly optimistic but still even if a fraction of this comes true it should still be an eye opener for congress, though if their track record is anything to go by, they'll insist that everything is contracted out to a million different companies in 50 states and several European countries which will create massive cost overruns
I'm not sure we're ready for a joint Government/Private venture to build a moonbase yet. Private spaceflight still hasn't developed enough to fly manned missions regularly.
I think Private should carry on making LEO their own, and let NASA trailblaze the new frontiers.
[QUOTE=subenji99;48257443]
I think Private should carry on making LEO their own, and let NASA trailblaze the new frontiers.[/QUOTE]
ya, but the problem is the SLS is terrible, its basically a space-shuttle stack rebuilt into a big rocket, which is too expensive to launch, too underpowered, and useless with NASA's current capabilities
I wonder what all it would take for one man to build a rocket just to orbit. I don't know.
[editline]21st July 2015[/editline]
I hear on a budget and I think of that movie, The Astronaut Farmer.
The biggest hurdle is getting into orbit, plain and simple. While the SLS or NASAs other launch systems haven't seen the rapid development like the Falcon series, NASA should be the ones to trailblaze the frontiers back to the moon and beyond.
Have SpaceX, etc be the ones to atleast get the cargo/crew into orbit as I see commercial spaceflight to be as routine as the necessity of launching anything into LEO.
[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;48257635]The biggest hurdle is getting into orbit, plain and simple. While the SLS or NASAs other launch systems haven't seen the rapid development like the Falcon series, NASA should be the ones to trailblaze the frontiers back to the moon and beyond.
Have SpaceX, etc be the ones to atleast get the cargo/crew into orbit as I see commercial spaceflight to be as routine as the necessity of launching anything into LEO.[/QUOTE]
Well, NASA's SLS will be able to get 70-130t to LEO at a cost of ~$500M per launch.
Whereas, the Falcon Heavy will be able to get 53t to LEO @$1000/lb for ~$117M
NASA will "trailblaze" with the SLS for sure (can't wait to see Orion in action), but SpaceX is going to be making this a lot more affordable.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;48257773]Well, NASA's SLS will be able to get 70-130t to LEO at a cost of ~$500M per launch.
Whereas, the Falcon Heavy will be able to get 53t to LEO @$1000/lb for ~$117M
NASA will "trailblaze" with the SLS for sure (can't wait to see Orion in action), but SpaceX is going to be making this a lot more affordable.[/QUOTE]
That's the bigger issue at hand, while the falcon heavy is being built regardless of a need for lunar transfer capable vehicles, will NASA be allowed to buy their rockets instead of the sls. In the 60s we launched one giant rocket because it made economical and logistical sense, but today we routinely launch craft to meet up in orbit, and simultaneously launching two falcon heavies is actually pretty possible, which gives you around the Saturn v's capability in LEO, assuming you could bring them along, the second stages for each booster could be used in sequence with a set of burns to transfer, and then use either Orion's engines or a dragons engine to brake when you get to lunar orbit.
I'd love to see in the next ten years though, a manned lunar fly by because maybe then it would catalyze going to the moon
Still i think it's pretty sad that we can [I]possibly[/I] repreat in the future the same thing that has already been done more that 50 years ago.
Now that we figured out how to afford it, let's get NASA to actually do it.
I feel as though, despite this article, there are going to be those opposed to the idea "because of wasteful spending" and such.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48259108]Now that we figured out how to afford it, let's get NASA to actually do it.
I feel as though, despite this article, there are going to be those opposed to the idea "because of wasteful spending" and such.[/QUOTE]
Survey says the amount of money that actually goes to the space program vs other larger expenditures. I hate to be the one to bring this up as people will say that there are other programs that needs more funding too (i.e. Veterans Affairs, other social programs). They're right if we can send men/women to war, we can take care of them when they come back.
Relevant video:
[video=youtube;CbIZU8cQWXc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbIZU8cQWXc[/video]
[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;48259395]Survey says the amount of money that actually goes to the space program vs other larger expenditures. I hate to be the one to bring this up as people will say that there are other programs that needs more funding too (i.e. Veterans Affairs, other social programs). They're right if we can send men/women to war, we can take care of them when they come back.
Relevant video:
[video=youtube;CbIZU8cQWXc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbIZU8cQWXc[/video][/QUOTE]
That's the point of the study, without a substantial increase in funding, if Congress let NASA have the autonomy they need and several technologies were developed, we could build a base, though it's probably not going to be this easy
[QUOTE=Lolkork;48259978]What are the benefits of having a moon base?[/QUOTE]
A base to possibly help a mission to Mars from what I've heard.
[QUOTE=Lolkork;48259978]What are the benefits of having a moon base?[/QUOTE]
Its easier to build large structures in space due to lower gravity, space visual/radio telescopes on the far side of the moon would benefit greatly due to no noise/light pollution/no atmo from earth, wealth of minerals for mining.
[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;48260034]Its easier to build large structures in space due to lower gravity[/QUOTE]
Not really an advantage unless there's a compelling reason to build structures in space in the first place, and the lack of resources is a problem.
[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;48260034]space visual/radio telescopes on the far side of the moon would benefit greatly due to no noise/light pollution/no atmo from earth[/QUOTE]
No different from low orbit, but far harder to get to.
[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;48260034]wealth of minerals for mining.[/QUOTE]
That's not true at all. Contemporary theory suggests that the Moon is broadly similar in composition to the Earth, but the lack of tectonic activity means Lunar minerals are less densely concentrated. The most valuable resources proposed are water and He3, but water is useful as a resource for further projects (which, again, need a justification in the first place), and He3 is useless until we figure out fusion power. Oh, and even then it is only present in Lunar regolith at 1-50ppm, which means churning through two thousand to a million tons of rock for one measly ton of He3.
Even the plan to put a base on the Moon as a jumping-off point for a Mars expedition is a stretch, since it still involves a gravity well- better to put a base at L4 or L5. The Moon has always been a political objective, not a practical settlement. If we want to get serious about a new space program, the logical first course of action is an asteroid or comet redirect into Earth orbit.
[QUOTE=catbarf;48260089]Not really an advantage unless there's a compelling reason to build structures in space in the first place, and the lack of resources is a problem.
No different from low orbit, but far harder to get to.
That's not true at all. Contemporary theory suggests that the Moon is broadly similar in composition to the Earth, but the lack of tectonic activity means Lunar minerals are less densely concentrated. The most valuable resources proposed are water and He3, but water is useful as a resource for further projects (which, again, need a justification in the first place), and He3 is useless until we figure out fusion power. Oh, and even then it is only present in Lunar regolith at 1-50ppm, which means churning through two thousand to a million tons of rock for one measly ton of He3.
Even the plan to put a base on the Moon as a jumping-off point for a Mars expedition is a stretch, since it still involves a gravity well- better to put a base at L4 or L5. The Moon has always been a political objective, not a practical settlement. If we want to get serious about a new space program, the logical first course of action is an asteroid or comet redirect into Earth orbit.[/QUOTE]
Then think of it as a testing ground for extra-terrestrial habitation.
The benefit of having a moon base is having a [I]fucking moon base.[/I]
[QUOTE=Lolkork;48259978]What are the benefits of having a moon base?[/QUOTE]
Gives a better view into space.
[QUOTE=Lolkork;48259978]What are the benefits of having a moon base?[/QUOTE]
A radio telescope on the far side. The moon would block radio noise from earth.
Helps develop multi-billion dollar space industries and ensures the US space industry is leading the world. For example, ISS and commercial crew/resupply, Bigelow Aerospace jumpstarting efforts with announcement of commercial crew due to guaranteed access for its proposed stations.
55 billions for 18 months mission on Mars with 4 (6) crew
or 10 billions for Moon ...
I vote lets make it 75 and do both plus Hubble replacement ;)
I don't care if it's the moon, mars, or a large asteroid- we really need to start attempts at manned exploration and colonization NOW, or else the next petty war that starts will put off all this another decade or two.
[QUOTE=catbarf;48260089]Not really an advantage unless there's a compelling reason to build structures in space in the first place, and the lack of resources is a problem.
No different from low orbit, but far harder to get to.
That's not true at all. Contemporary theory suggests that the Moon is broadly similar in composition to the Earth, but the lack of tectonic activity means Lunar minerals are less densely concentrated. The most valuable resources proposed are water and He3, but water is useful as a resource for further projects (which, again, need a justification in the first place), and He3 is useless until we figure out fusion power. Oh, and even then it is only present in Lunar regolith at 1-50ppm, which means churning through two thousand to a million tons of rock for one measly ton of He3.
Even the plan to put a base on the Moon as a jumping-off point for a Mars expedition is a stretch, since it still involves a gravity well- better to put a base at L4 or L5. The Moon has always been a political objective, not a practical settlement. If we want to get serious about a new space program, the logical first course of action is an asteroid or comet redirect into Earth orbit.[/QUOTE]
A moon base could help practice living on Mars, though, which probably does have a lot of rich resources to mine.
Not to mention the asteroid belt beyond that has megatons of iron and other metals just from [I]one[/I] floating rock out there.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48261799]A moon base could help practice living on Mars, though, which probably does have a lot of rich resources to mine.
Not to mention the asteroid belt beyond that has megatons of iron and other metals just from [I]one[/I] floating rock out there.[/QUOTE]
A Lunar base isn't useful for replicating conditions on Mars, considering Mars has an atmosphere and significant gravity- it's closer in conditions to certain places on Earth than anywhere on the Moon.
As for resources themselves, Mars's composition is less dense than Earth's, with fewer heavy metals, and certainly nothing in concentrations that justify hauling it back to Earth. We'll be exploiting Antarctica and the ocean floor long before we mine Mars for materials needed on Earth. Mars mining has a future as an industry to support a base on Mars- but without further purpose, it's circular.
Like I said, we need to stop with the political objectives. The Moon landing was, fundamentally, a political dick-waving exercise directed towards the Soviets. As far as strategic objectives go, an asteroid redirect into LEO would give us experience with redirecting asteroids (necessary if we should ever find another dinosaur-killer coming towards us), and allow us to test asteroid-mining technology- not only giving us the experience needed to go out into the Belt like you said, but also providing minerals for orbital refining and manufacturing, and water for supplies and reaction mass for further missions. That would make one hell of a jumping-off point for a Mars mission, without wasting the delta-V to fly to and land on the Moon.
Early proposals for Lunar bases in the 50s and 60s were based on its military utility, as a launch point for missiles and a slingshot for satellites into steep orbital inclinations and retrograde orbits without excessive delta-V expenditure. We're past needing a military base, so if a broader scientific understanding of the universe is the goal then there are better candidates for our funding.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
