How NASA plans to get back to the moon.

[RC-1162]

i was kidding about the calcium bit. geeez, what do you take me for?

 

hellooooooo.. perhaps you didn't notice the "practice" part? We've not landed on the Moon since 1972 (Apollo 17)....

 

so what, we've gone there more than once right?

[RevanA4]

so what, we've gone there more than once right?

 

pfft I to find your lack of knowledge on this subject disturbing

 

YES six times exactly the last time was 33 years ago and 34 years ago tomorrow

 

suffice to say we are out of practice

[Achilles]

So what, we've gone there more than once right?

Based on what I've read in your repeated posts, your arguement seems to be that the only use for going to the moon is the act of going there itself. Therefore, there couldn't possibly be any other reason for going there right?

 

Is this a joke too, or do you honestly believe that?

[Samuel Dravis]

Going to the moon again is good for a couple of reasons:

 

*We can test out extended living modules etc and get real, hands on experience (I've even heard proposals to use moon rocks as radiation shielding - very useful for long missions like going to Mars);

*We can perhaps mine some metals etc from the moon (especially helium-3 if fusion ever kicks off);

*The moon might have water on it, which would help greatly in exploration purposes;

*Launching rockets made from moon materials is much more cost effective than trying to get the same stuff out of Earth's gravity well.

 

And many more reasons. It's better than the ISS, at least. Ugh, the ISS.

[ET Warrior]

actually nasa tends to make manned missions into scientific missions already

Yeah, but I don't work with manned missions, which means that the money they're diverting from pure science missions into manned missions is being diverted away from me.

 

And I dislike money diverted away from me.

[Rok_stoned]

Us Canadians already have the death star but it's sorta made out of wood and beaver pelts.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

I'm still pissed at NASA after the lack of f * 0.3048 = m.

 

***Edit***

And will be until they get their a$$es in gear and get to Mars

[RedHawke]

And will be until they get their a$$es in gear and get to Mars

Hence why they have to go back to the Moon first, and use it for testing and practice... it has been almost 34 years since we went there, and so all the new kids will have to learn to do these things.

[RC-1162]

Based on what I've read in your repeated posts, your arguement seems to be that the only use for going to the moon is the act of going there itself. Therefore, there couldn't possibly be any other reason for going there right?

 

im not saying they shouldnt go to the moon. im just saying that they should drop the moon for some time and focus on other planets. at least begin preparations for the trip.

[Samuel Dravis]

im not saying they shouldnt go to the moon. im just saying that they should drop the moon for some time and focus on other planets. at least begin preparations for the trip.

Err.. that's what going to the moon is. It's a much better 'jumping off point' than the ISS (which just doesn't cut it).

[RC-1162]

right then. then i say, get the base done already.

seriously though. now im all cleared. ill just go along with all of ya now.

[Darth InSidious]

If NASA tried to put a base on the moon there would be international uproar even the US couldn't brush aside.

[Samuel Dravis]

You know, China has already made the plans to do so and are acting on them. Should they not be the subject of 'international uproar' as well? Why not?

[Darth InSidious]

Yes, but noone will, because most countries are terrified of what might happen if someone upset China.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

The moon isn't a very strategic location, and a 'base' there would be extremely difficult to maintain, so I don't see how anyone could have a problem with it. Also, China is not very prone to go to war right now, the idea of the looming threat of Communist countries is a relic of the 1950's, besides, the idea of keeping millions alive usually takes precedent over building a lunar base.

[RevanA4]

If NASA tried to put a base on the moon there would be international uproar even the US couldn't brush aside.

 

 

correction if the military tried to

 

nasa very much is intrested in sharing the exploration of space and DOESN'T report ot the goverment about thier actions.

 

NASA is very much a part of the scientific community and would not do anything like that unless it was an international effort

[Vladimir-Vlada]

nasa very much is intrested in sharing the exploration of space and DOESN'T report ot the goverment about thier actions.

Says who?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

^^^^

They answer to the Vice-President, as they are funded by the federal government and thus must answer to a government official. This means we'll be spiking oil derricks into the moon in no time.

[Samuel Dravis]

nasa very much is intrested in sharing the exploration of space and DOESN'T report ot the goverment about thier actions.

Hehe, what? They're a government agency - they have to report to the government. Bush even told them to get their act together and go to the moon. They're doing it. Yep, that's not a connection.

[Samuel Dravis]

I meant I was agreeing with him. Maybe wasn't so clear... I'll fix it.

[RevanA4]

^^^^

They answer to the Vice-President, as they are funded by the federal government and thus must answer to a government official. This means we'll be spiking oil derricks into the moon in no time.

 

 

doubtful as they never started out to as a government agency

 

also they have enough guts to tell the VP to take a hike

 

NASA has an image to up hold they won't tarnish that image for the benefit of the military or any other branch of the military

 

simply put they have too much as stake to do anything that is against international space policy

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

doubtful as they never started out to as a government agency

They were started by the government as a public continuation of the Air Force's space program.

[Vladimir-Vlada]

doubtful as they never started out to as a government agency

They were formed to intitate a Space Military program to counter the USSR's military space program.

[Samuel Dravis]

doubtful as they never started out to as a government agency

Following the Soviet space program's launch of the world's first man-made satellite (Sputnik 1) on October 4, 1957, the attention of the United States turned toward its own fledgling space efforts. The U.S. Congress, alarmed by the perceived threat to U.S. security and technological leadership, urged immediate and swift action; President Dwight D. Eisenhower and his advisers counseled more deliberate measures. Several months of debate produced agreement that a new federal agency was needed to conduct all nonmilitary activity in space.

 

On July 29, 1958, President Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act establishing the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). When it began operations on October 1, 1958, NASA consisted mainly of the four laboratories and some 8,000 employees of the government's 46-year-old research agency for aeronautics, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), though the probably most important contribution actually had its roots in the German rocket program led by Wernher von Braun, who is today regarded as the father of the United States space program.

NASA has an image to up hold they won't tarnish that image for the benefit of the military or any other branch of the military

Does executive order count? Let's see if they will 'tarnish' it for that:

 

NASA's 2005 Planning Document (PDF, 1.7mb)

 

Oops. I guess we're going to have to live with NASA's rep being bad for a while then.

 

simply put they have too much as stake to do anything that is against international space policy

What? I don't see how going back to the moon and building a settlement there is against 'international space policy...' the closest we come to that is the UN's Outer Space Treaty:

 

The Outer Space Treaty provides the basic framework on international space law, including the following principles:

 

* the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind;

* outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States;

* outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means;

* States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner;

* the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes;

* astronauts shall be regarded as the envoys of mankind;

* States shall be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental activities;

* States shall be liable for damage caused by their space objects; and

* States shall avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies.

And that does not forbid our proposed actions with regard to the moon in the least.

[RC-1162]

you know, i think NASA should be concentrating on their work than their image. if its tarnised and others think they are maniacs, let them. the success of NASA's missions will shut their gobs forever.