On Sunday, July 7, 2002, space policy analyst Mark Whittington published these thoughts:

http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/sil...ey/3619224.htm

"A return-to-the-moon effort would not necessarily be an Apollo-sized operation. Studies conducted at the Johnson Space Center and at the Lunar and Planetary Institute suggest that a five-year, $2.5 billion effort using off-the-shelf or soon-to-be-developed technology could be mounted. Even at double the estimated cost, the price of a return to the moon would be only a billion dollars a year -- half of what it takes to maintain the space station.

It's time to begin the American odyssey on the stone deserts of the moon and the rusty plains and valleys of Mars. The future requires that we dare no less."

http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/sil...ey/3619224.htm

I'd like to believe such stuff, but when you look at the current situation, spending 2 billion dollars a year for the return to the Moon would just be enough to pay the paper pushers...

Harald

Now now Harald, don't be cynical. After all, we are living in the paperless office age.

Which must be why the stuff keeps overflowing my desk ...

__________________
Garlic Bread?!?!

Okay, replace "paper pushers" by "mouse pushers".

Satisfied? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

What's the point of returning to the moon? You spend billions of dollars going there without any economic or political reason. So, what, are we going to spend billions of dollars on such a project in the name of science? I wouldn't. Then again, the ISS also just a waste of time and money. What is needed is a new project that requires the development of new technologies. That is exactly what Apollo was. The development of many technologies during the Apollo program was worth more than the amount spent on the project. If we go to the moon today, there would be few new technologies needed, meaning less economic oppurtunity.

I do and do not agree with you on this. If we just do another Apollo style mission then, you're probably right and not much new will be gained. On the other hand, if NASA does something like a permanent self supporting base, then there is a lot of new technologies that need to be developed.

For example, can plants grow in 1/6 gravity and produce seeds that can be used for planting and so on and so on?

But we could do it smarter and better. Imagine a LM made of carbon fibre and perspex (plexiglas). A reusable, larger CM, with the SM stuff incorporated would be cool. Plus, if we could design a LM that didn't stage, we could leave it in Lunar orbit when we left and just take fresh consumables each time we went and re-use the LM. The only big problem would be the current lack of booster technology, but a staged winged vehicle, like the ones origionally envisaged before the big Moon rush of the Sixties would do nicely. Total cost, 1 Gazillion Dollars.

Your idea has a lot of merit. Back in the late 80's and early 90's, NASA was developing Shuttle C, 110,000 lbs to Earth Orbit, but of course the space station took care of that. With the new lightweight tank and bigger solid motors, this could easily be 125,000 lbs. I feel with all the advances in materials, electronics, etc Shuttle C might be all that NASA would have needed to get back to the moon. Maybe we could do it with just two people.

At the risk of being tedious, I think the US is in another Moon Race, and we don't even seem to know it (officially). The Chinese have announced they're going to the moon within the next ten years or so and if they do, it won't be "for all mankind", I suspect. Gerard K. O'Neill taught us about solar power satellites and space colonies and how lunar resources could have a profound effect on human affairs. I think the Chinese may have taken him at his word.

I hate to think of us having to lease mining rights from the Chinese; but maybe they will just become the Saudi Arabia (in space) of the 21st century...mining the moon for aluminum, iron, silicon, oxygen and building solar power sats and colonies. I wonder if we'll have anything they'd want in trade?

<a name="20020715.3:07"> page 20020715.3:07 aka "cant Go"
My guess is this: No matter how many Go.Mints you getogather
you still can NOT go to the moon This decade or next:
thats the SCORE thats my guess: Now about what Go_Mints can do:
RIF.
the project i would like to see eartlinks
UNDERTAKE would be the design of a new system of
COMPUTATIONS [NOT CHIP BASED] but based upon
the delay line storage device [not the next line is a LINE
1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 | 3:13 A.M. PST