New space race?
Discussion
Donald Trump signs directive to send astronauts back to Moon
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42322236
Looks like Trump wants to keep ahead of the Chinese. Whether Congress will pay for it is another matter though.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42322236
Looks like Trump wants to keep ahead of the Chinese. Whether Congress will pay for it is another matter though.
Nice aspirations.
Nothing about funding.
It's probably just another empty Trump soundbite - sadly.
Two things need to happen -
increased funding to allow the SLS programme to pick up speed and get built and tested at a much faster pace than currently.
specification, tendering and funding made available to allow the design of a lunar lander
You can't land on the moon without some sort of lander. The cancelled Constellation programme had a lander called Altair. This needs to be revived.
Nothing about funding.
It's probably just another empty Trump soundbite - sadly.
Two things need to happen -
increased funding to allow the SLS programme to pick up speed and get built and tested at a much faster pace than currently.
specification, tendering and funding made available to allow the design of a lunar lander
You can't land on the moon without some sort of lander. The cancelled Constellation programme had a lander called Altair. This needs to be revived.
Eric Mc said:
Exactly. Anyone can sign a piece pf paper - something Trump is quite good at.
More would get done if people didn't keep overturning his decisions. That said, a term of office is 5 years; to get to anywhere useful will take much longer and the next President will cancel any plans because, well, because he's the opposite.Exactly. It seems to be the biggest flaw of democracy, as it breeds spin and short-termism.
I wonder if the circumstances that saw the period of Mercury/Gemini/Apollo and man's greatest achievement will ever be repeated? In other words, a balls out, 10+ year run of unlimited expenditure to achieve a target considered by many impossible?
I wonder if the circumstances that saw the period of Mercury/Gemini/Apollo and man's greatest achievement will ever be repeated? In other words, a balls out, 10+ year run of unlimited expenditure to achieve a target considered by many impossible?
I don't think we will ever get EXACTLY the same circumstances. Kennedy very nearly pulled the plug on Apollo in 1963. He was getting a lot of flak over its apparent open ended commitment regarding costs.
Then he went and got himself shot and Johnson took over the reins. He was more enthusiastic about space anyway and there was a kind of united national mood that Kennedy's legacy should be fulfilled. That's what got the programme through the three different Presidents - although Nixon did effectively pull the plug almost as soon as he took office.
Then he went and got himself shot and Johnson took over the reins. He was more enthusiastic about space anyway and there was a kind of united national mood that Kennedy's legacy should be fulfilled. That's what got the programme through the three different Presidents - although Nixon did effectively pull the plug almost as soon as he took office.
Eric Mc said:
I don't think we will ever get EXACTLY the same circumstances. Kennedy very nearly pulled the plug on Apollo in 1963. He was getting a lot of flak over its apparent open ended commitment regarding costs.
Then he went and got himself shot and Johnson took over the reins. He was more enthusiastic about space anyway and there was a kind of united national mood that Kennedy's legacy should be fulfilled. That's what got the programme through the three different Presidents - although Nixon did effectively pull the plug almost as soon as he took office.
A useful summary. Sad that it's all about politics isn't it.Then he went and got himself shot and Johnson took over the reins. He was more enthusiastic about space anyway and there was a kind of united national mood that Kennedy's legacy should be fulfilled. That's what got the programme through the three different Presidents - although Nixon did effectively pull the plug almost as soon as he took office.
So maybe the lead will be taken by private enterprise after all, where objectives and pitfalls are very different.
Eric Mc said:
It could happen. NASA co-operates with many different companies and agencies.
I guess that would depend on the payoff though. Commercial companies are developing and operating launch vehicles for paying customers, be that telecoms firms wanting satellite's launched, or NASA wanting supplies sent to the ISS. They're spending a lot of money on development, but hope to get it back in the relatively short termWould there be enough of a short term payoff for companies to put their own money in to a moon program?
ash73 said:
50 years ago if the president said they would do something they did it, not so much now.
Incredible to think we haven't been back since.
We've been back to the moon many, many times - but not with human carrying spacecraft.Incredible to think we haven't been back since.
It will happen in the next few decades - I'm pretty sure about that.
Eric Mc said:
We've been back to the moon many, many times - but not with human carrying spacecraft.
It will happen in the next few decades - I'm pretty sure about that.
Crashing a dustbin lid of electronic components into the moon (or planet) doesn't count as a win to me. We were doing that in the 1960s.It will happen in the next few decades - I'm pretty sure about that.
Scott, 1912: "I flew a drone to the south pole". Nope, doesn't count.
The new space race could be powered by private companies with all their short term objectives of making money. Don’t send human craft but all automated mining machines to bring back desperately needed minerals. The humans are redundant expensive additions. Just use automated vehicles and remote Taptic sensors. The humans back on earth could use VR goggles and VR suits to ‘be’ there. It would all be much cheaper.
It’s no different to the job market back here on earth where companies will automate where they can for profit so why would space be any different ? Other than a nostalgic outdated notion of human exploration.
It’s no different to the job market back here on earth where companies will automate where they can for profit so why would space be any different ? Other than a nostalgic outdated notion of human exploration.
Have they never offered a prize to private industry for a successful manned moon landing?
Basically deferring the government investment in developing the technology rather than paying upfront. Offer enough that the company will make money on the venture, but require designs to be shared with NASA or open source (after success), something along those lines.
The value is in the experience gained in the process of doing it, more than anything actually on the moon itself.
Basically deferring the government investment in developing the technology rather than paying upfront. Offer enough that the company will make money on the venture, but require designs to be shared with NASA or open source (after success), something along those lines.
The value is in the experience gained in the process of doing it, more than anything actually on the moon itself.
Venturist said:
Have they never offered a prize to private industry for a successful manned moon landing?
Basically deferring the government investment in developing the technology rather than paying upfront. Offer enough that the company will make money on the venture, but require designs to be shared with NASA or open source (after success), something along those lines.
The value is in the experience gained in the process of doing it, more than anything actually on the moon itself.
Lunar X prize running at the moment for a privately funded unmanned landing. I have no doubt we shall see a prize for a privately funded manned landing at some point.Basically deferring the government investment in developing the technology rather than paying upfront. Offer enough that the company will make money on the venture, but require designs to be shared with NASA or open source (after success), something along those lines.
The value is in the experience gained in the process of doing it, more than anything actually on the moon itself.
It depends really, a lot of the cost of a rocket etc is in the development and support infrastructure. You could certainly launch a ballistic projectile to the moon quite cheaply. £1M would get you a sizeable payload into low-ish earth orbit, and from there, without atmospheric drag etc it is relatively trivial to fire a cheap simple engine to push it out of the gravity well into lunar capture. If you wanted a small one then a nice efficient ion engine would get there eventually. SpaceX's Falcon 9 claims to be able to put up 1kg for <$5000, although they'd still need the payload to be fully qualified.
Of course if you wanted to make a landing where the whole thing wasn't obliterated might be a bit more difficult (but still do-able). Being able to get it back again adds a whole new level of complexity, even if the payload isn't a living thing.
How cheap can it be done? Well, free rides to space aren't unusual. Quite often test flights or big payloads will require ballast to balance the heavy primary payload or to create a simulated test mass. Quite a few of the many amateur radio satellites got a free trip this way. Of course a trip on a test rocket is more risky, and with ballast trips you are going to be limited with regards to the available shape and volume, and mostly the launch organisations can't be bothered with handling private payloads.
To go back to the original question though, I imagine that if you somehow had an off the shelf rocket design and already had the infrastructure, then £5M or so would do the job. Try Ebay for any 2nd hand Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles
Of course if you wanted to make a landing where the whole thing wasn't obliterated might be a bit more difficult (but still do-able). Being able to get it back again adds a whole new level of complexity, even if the payload isn't a living thing.
How cheap can it be done? Well, free rides to space aren't unusual. Quite often test flights or big payloads will require ballast to balance the heavy primary payload or to create a simulated test mass. Quite a few of the many amateur radio satellites got a free trip this way. Of course a trip on a test rocket is more risky, and with ballast trips you are going to be limited with regards to the available shape and volume, and mostly the launch organisations can't be bothered with handling private payloads.
To go back to the original question though, I imagine that if you somehow had an off the shelf rocket design and already had the infrastructure, then £5M or so would do the job. Try Ebay for any 2nd hand Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles
This is a photo of the Earth and the Moon, showing the relative sizes and distance between them both
It really puts it into perspective I think.
It was taken about 3 months ago by NASA's OSIRIS-REx spacecraft.
OSIRIS-REx was launched in September 2016, but recently did a slingshot around the earth as it heads to an asteroid next August.
They want to map the asteroid (101955 Bennu) from close range (about 3 miles away), then get close enough to pick up samples with its robotic arm. Then head home.
It really puts it into perspective I think.
It was taken about 3 months ago by NASA's OSIRIS-REx spacecraft.
OSIRIS-REx was launched in September 2016, but recently did a slingshot around the earth as it heads to an asteroid next August.
They want to map the asteroid (101955 Bennu) from close range (about 3 miles away), then get close enough to pick up samples with its robotic arm. Then head home.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff