back to moon and mars new lander craft are to be built for men and launched by new version of the mo

back to moon and mars new lander craft are to be built for men and launched by new version of the moon rockets that launched the old moon landers.

i have now seen this twice on the news in past few days, one was a news reader reporting it, and the other was an interview with a top NASA person, they say YUP we are going back to MOON and MARS!! manned missions, not robots, a new era of expansion and exploration for man is about to begin, moon bases and even mars baseswithin 15 years time max and that mean built and manned for few years in that time frame, new space propulsion mini nuclear reactor engines will power the new ships, oh and also they talked about building new manned lander crafts these would be launched on new super rockets like the ones that went to moon those huge rockets.


[Edited on 10-1-2004 by blobby]

watch FOX NEWS today its been on 3 times now about back to moon and why stop there Mars too!!

also i saw computer images of new NASA craft with mini nuclear reactors in it and it was Cigar shped!!! cough have we not seen cigar shaped ufo's?

the new moon landers were updated versions of the old moon landers but very updated looked real nice.

I was alive the first time and by now I figured we would already have these things better late than never

That will be a part of the project prometheus. Using it for earth to moon and later on between mars and moon. Also the nuclear propulsion will go to Europa as a part of the JIMO plan. As I heared they will motball the shuttle fleet around 2010 2012. Orbital Space Plane will become the Crew Exploration Vehical.

Will this mean more money to space exploration and less to the millitary, or higher taxes?

heared they also will be using ariana boosters and rusian tech. I think they also will let commercial groups join in some area's, that is what I hope for.

Will this mean more money to space exploration and less to the millitary, or higher taxes?

Sooner or later it will have to be free enterprise that takes on space but for now my bet is higher taxes

www.space.com...

you aren't the only one which said so. look at the site linked above.

Originally posted by intrepid
Will this mean more money to space exploration and less to the millitary, or higher taxes?

Probalby more money to NASA, less money for public use!

Nasa is not the right choice for this,

ISS is way over budget, outdated and has a crew of only 2, not the 7 it wanted to put up there. Exercise equipment is failing without replacement, communication with our counter part Russia has brought some close calls to the station.

No a completely new civilian agency is need while Nasa continue's doing what it does best, SPEND MONEY on projects it cancell's. Politicians need not apply as the current problems facing Nasa would take on new life in another agency. Too much red tape and BS from congress on what is needed to get the job done. Or wanting parts produced in their state or blockage on construction, just not productive to have them onboard.

I believe we have all we need to get there and back as rocket motors are concerned. Choosing the right vehical to explore and settle can be a National contest asking for public support to keep the project alive. Hiding behind a Government agency will only secure it's death from running over budget. Space Bonds something akin to War bonds during WWII to help drive this project, as We the PEOPLE, need to take responsibility for this and run it with National Pride for the purpose of Investing in the Future.

China has tasted victory in seeking what profits can be found on orbitiing Space Station or a Lunar Base. It has taken them entering space to motovate those in authority to seek out what we wanted to do in the first place, build a colony on the MOON. From there we can build, test and then send on their way robotic probes which have gone threw the fire of being in space long enough to ensure circuts and all mechanical systems will function upon arrival. Our current steps on sending a probe are launching and putting then setting course, if we could take that same probe and build it next to a space station and test that the system can hold up to the rigors of space we could then attach a motor to send it knowing we have worked out any clich's that surface while still in our grasp. How many prob's lost due to mal-function of an antenna that failed to deploy or not enough shielding from the radiation of space. WE can do better, both in space as well as on the surface if we plan on failure as part of what we face. Our Shuttles face failure each time they launch yet those who spoke out about concerns were mocked as if they had seen a UFO.


Sorry I'm standing on a soap box and just annoyed at were we stand compared to where most of us wish to be.

Michael

Just my thoughts, but if the moon had oil, gas, minerials, or gold...we would have already been there or we would have found a way there (private or govt funded) long ago. Too bad we (ones in control) are so narrow minded...we should have been there long ago. And, I wish they would take the politics out of the science and Nasa area and let the scientist do their thing. Its killing me to see Bush taking credit for 7-5 years of planning and vision by the researchers just for pre election stabs to the back.

I actually really love the CEV... the fact that it harkens back to the Apollo design philosophy just makes me happier, as it shows that NASA has finally realized that wings are pretty much useless in space (and, most importantly, add useless mass to the craft). I'll never understand the value of gliding back to earth when you can just parachute down.

Ironically, though, the CEV is based on a proposal from the Orbital Space Plane project.

the moon has helium 3, can be mined and used in future nuclear fusion power plants when built, and helium 3 can enhance nuclear weapons like tritium but more powerful without a short half life too.

also it will be used as fule for future space craft.