NASA says it will get astronauts to the Moon by 2024

Discussion in 'science, nature and environment' started by editor, Mar 28, 2019.

  1. editor

    editor hiraethified

    Ambitious but bring it on!

    NASA Chief Vows Quick Action to Return Astronauts to the Moon by 2024

    Are We Really in a New Space Race with China and Russia?
     
  2. Limejuice

    Limejuice Well-Known Member

    Excellent! Bring it on!

    [​IMG]
     
    moochedit, Mation, Wookey and 5 others like this.
  3. Yossarian

    Yossarian free shrugs

    The accelerated timeline sounds like a recipe for the kind of disaster that will set NASA back by years - the previous timeline was to get American astronauts back to the moon by 2028. Trump has now ordered them to speed things up "by any means necessary" to make sure a return to the moon happens by the end of his hypothetical second term. One problem: He's also cutting NASA's budget.

    The Trump Administration Wants Astronauts on Moon by 2024. But What’s the Plan?

    Consent Form | Popular Science
     
    NoXion and a_chap like this.
  4. Bahnhof Strasse

    Bahnhof Strasse In the AreA

    NASA says it will get astronauts to the Moon by 2024

    Hate to break it to you all, but it's already been done.
     
    moochedit, tim, SpookyFrank and 5 others like this.
  5. Supine

    Supine Rough Like Badger

    Is Trump building an apartment block up there?
     
  6. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus one of Maxwell's demons

    Whitey's (back) on the Moon.
     
    Michael Mosley, A380 and marty21 like this.
  7. NoXion

    NoXion Keep an eye out for diamonds

    How are they going to land on the Moon? Because as far as I know, NASA don't have any crew-rated landers.
     
  8. HAL9000

    HAL9000 Lasting Damage

  9. Yossarian

    Yossarian free shrugs

    "Let's tell Boeing to get this done as fast as possible by any means necessary, what's the worst that could happen?"
     
  10. T & P

    T & P |-o-| (-o-) |-o-|

    That's what they'd have you believe ;)
     
  11. ferrelhadley

    ferrelhadley These violent delights have violent ends.

    The SLS launch system is in a lot of political trouble. But it can likely make a CIS Lunar flight by 2022 as the capsule has been partially tested and rocket is close to completion, even if it has slipped again.
    A lander is another kettle of fish but in theory is a very simple piece of equipment compared to anything that has to deal with the atmosphere.
     
    Michael Mosley likes this.
  12. ferrelhadley

    ferrelhadley These violent delights have violent ends.

    Very Urban 75
     
  13. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus one of Maxwell's demons

    What, quoting Gil Scott Heron? Guess it is.
     
  14. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus one of Maxwell's demons

    Article in this week's New Scientist makes me even less enthusiastic about this dubious project. NASA funding is currently at around 0.5 per cent of the federal US budget. By comparison, during the height of the Apollo programme, it was up around 5 per cent. There is no suggestion of an increase in overall funding for this project (in fact, it has been specifically ruled out), and plenty of work to do to develop and build a launch rocket and landing craft. Meanwhile other projects, such as sending a mission to Europa, will necessarily suffer.

    So I stand by my 'Whitey's (back) on the Moon' comment. This is a politician-inspired space project, much as Apollo was. I'm all for space exploration, and I don't think a half of one per cent of a budget is money badly spent - it's not either/or wrt space exploration and social justice here on Earth; it's quite possible to have both. But I have yet to see a coherent case made for doing this now rather than other potentially much more exciting things. That Trump and Pence want this is almost enough on its own for me not to - it will provide them with the politician's spectacle that, say, a mission to Europa would not provide, but advances in science and understanding? I've not seen much of a case for that.
     
    nogojones, UnderAnOpenSky and Mation like this.
  15. 8ball

    8ball Bar Bore Silver Medallist

    Pfft! They'll never be able to put a man on the moon.
     
    moochedit likes this.
  16. Crispy

    Crispy The following psytrance is baṉned: All

    NASA is not capable of the sort of agile moves neccesary to achieve this goal. It is knee deep in bureacracy and tied down to dozens of commitments in dozens of congressional districts, many of whose congresspeople/senators hold the agency's purse strings.

    SpaceX's Starship will fly before NASA returns to the moon IMO, and at that point they may as well give up, having ceded every kind of advantage in human spaceflight. The power of pork is strong, but there will be a reckoning at some point.
     
    NoXion likes this.
  17. pug

    pug Well-Known Member

    I can understand the prestige of sending people back to the moon but I think they'd be better off investing the money in robotics and sending the robots at the moment, humans are all soft and weak and need protection, food, water, air etc then they have to rest, robots with nuclear batteries and ai can just get on with what needs to be done whilst being controlled from earth, they could be operational for years and don't need to be brought back to earth when they fail, we could even send robot repair robots to keep the ones at the coalface going.
     
    Michael Mosley likes this.
  18. Crispy

    Crispy The following psytrance is baṉned: All

    Thing is, a human can do in days what a robot would take a month. The Mars rovers move at a crawl and every geological investigation has to be meticulously planned and carried out one step at a time. A human with a geologist's hammer is orders of magnitude faster and more capable. (All of which assumes that science is the only motivation for space exploration!)
     
  19. 19sixtysix

    19sixtysix Life as viewed from a Gay Gorbals Garret

    Not in trumplandia. They think the Saturn Vs went to Saturn :)
     
    a_chap and Bahnhof Strasse like this.
  20. pug

    pug Well-Known Member

    Thats why I think they should invest all the money in robots, to advance the technology so it can work better and faster, with the moon being much closer than mars the comms will be quicker, they can send bigger more complex machines with better ai features and have more confidence that they'll actually make it there intact, they could send two or more robots to work together on their missions. With the increased development of the technology the ones they send to mars and elsewhere in the future would be better and as we've seen with the mars rovers they have the potential to operate for many years. Bearing in mind that they're planning to send these people there five years from now to spend days doing stuff when they could have robots there in a couple of years if they wanted, the robots would in that case surely produce the results sooner.
    Still it would be cool to see humans on the moon in my lifetime.
     
    sptme likes this.
  21. Yossarian

    Yossarian free shrugs

    Trump is basically just a really shitty boss.

    "You guys need to get to the moon by 2024, I don't care how you do it, just do it."

    "We might be able to make it happen, but we're going to need more people and a lot more money."

    "I'm not giving you any more money, just make it happen, you bums. Work harder! If you can't do it, I'll find somebody who can."
     
    moochedit, Almor, A380 and 4 others like this.
  22. Yossarian

    Yossarian free shrugs

    4 years later: "Sir, we have the plans ready for the moon mission, you need to sign off on them."

    "Oh yeah, the moon thing - put it on my desk, I'll take a look at it later. Wait, let's make it Mars - let's send this thing to Mars next year. No, I don't know how much you'd have to change to send it to Mars, I thought that was your fucking job."
     
    moochedit, Almor, A380 and 2 others like this.
  23. ferrelhadley

    ferrelhadley These violent delights have violent ends.

    The US GDP has grown that means that 0.5% is a silly comparison, the cost of space flight has changed dramatically since then as well as has technology.

    .
    The rocket has already been built and is due to fly next year unmanned, fly round the moon in 2022 and has a mission for a 30 day human fly by of the moon slotted for 2024 that the NASA chief, Jim Bridenstine was suggesting could be repurposed. All that is missing is, as I said, "A lander is another kettle of fish but in theory is a very simple piece of equipment compared to anything that has to deal with the atmosphere." The risks are slippages in the existing hardware that has been developed that can carry out this mission and his launch dates.

    Space Launch System - Wikipedia

    and

    Exploration Mission-3 - Wikipedia
    Yet you seem oblivious to the fact most of the infrastructure for this exists and the missions are being finalised.
     
  24. ferrelhadley

    ferrelhadley These violent delights have violent ends.

    Since the drive for more autonomous machines is driven by huge commercial, military and existing science foundation money, how exactly w ould diverting funding from human space flight accelerate this in a way that is quicker than building a small landing vehicle and attaching it to a mission that is already budgeted to fly in 2024.
     
  25. ferrelhadley

    ferrelhadley These violent delights have violent ends.

    A human can get deeper into the Lunar soil than any machine has in an hour. There is no comparison.
     
  26. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus one of Maxwell's demons

    This touches on an important point Crispy made - namely that part of NASA's remit is to provide jobs in the US. So, according to New Scientist, the SLS has had 6 billion dollars spent on it already. Cost per flight - between 500 million and 1 billion per flight (just a little less than Saturn V). The most powerful version of the SLS - the one needed to carry people - isn't in the current budget. And I was wrong about NASA's budget being unchanged - Trump is planning to cut it.

    SpaceX may well get in there first with its much cheaper systems. Or it may find itself up against limits that it struggles to overcome within its relatively restricted budget. Jury on that is necessarily still out. Either way, if NASA presses on with this priority in mind, other projects will either be cancelled or delayed. Me, I'd far rather be setting sights on Europa given an either/or choice between those two missions.
     
  27. ferrelhadley

    ferrelhadley These violent delights have violent ends.

    Wrong the existing budget has funding for the Block 1B version.
    The proposed budget for next fiscal year has cut it. But there is a lot of political momentum behind human exploration and a maze of political machinations to get through before that budget proposal is a set in stone actual budget.
    And as the Exploration Mission 2 is set for an SLS Block 1 launcher and is sending humans to orbit the Moon I am baffle by where you are getting your info from. Block 1B is an improved cryogenic upper stage. It will see the translunar injection go from 26 tonnes to 37 tonnes.
     
  28. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus one of Maxwell's demons

    Most recent issue of New Scientist. I have it here in front of me. I quote:

     
  29. ferrelhadley

    ferrelhadley These violent delights have violent ends.

    So exactly what I said.
    Block 1 is sending people round the Moon
    Block 1B is in the current budget, it is not in the budget proposed for next financial year, (just like it was not in the one proposed for this year) There is a great deal of horse trading to come.
     
  30. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus one of Maxwell's demons

    And that horse trading will necessarily involve the cancellation/shelving of other projects. Is putting someone on the Moon again the best use of NASA's increasingly limited resources? That was, and is, my question. It's a mission that appeals to Trump because he can see the live coverage already. He can see the presentations in the White House to the returning astronauts. I'm very suspicious of it for the exact same reason.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice