The next missions to the moon

why a 48 year gap from 1972 to 2020 for man to next walk on the moon, i mean how advanced will the technology be in 2020 when they next step foot on the moon?

Originally posted by apollospeed
...how advanced will the technology be in 2020 when they next step foot on the moon?

Well, the thing to remember is that the equipment will be purpose-built, and form follows function. If you compare a pickup truck from 2009 to one built in 1969, they are designed and built using completely different methods and technologies; yet because they were designed to fulfill the same basic requirements, they turn out looking basically similar.

I think that future lunar equipment is going to look different from Apollo not because of the changing technology, but rather because of the changing requirements. Some requirements won't change; notably the strict weight restrictions and a premium for reliability. On the other hand, the longer missions will necessitate rethinking everything from shielding to mechanical connections (and how to keep dust out of them).

As much as I want to see us return to the Moon, I think it is a good thing that we're not working under a short deadline this time. The short-cuts taken to get us there in only 8 years (notably single-launch Lunar Orbit Rendezvous missions, as opposed to building a space station first and assembling the lunar craft in Earth orbit) cost us dearly. If we'd built a large orbital infrastructure, we could have continued to use and build on it even if further lunar exploration was curtailed. Instead, the Apollo technology was so mission-specific that politicians had no trouble just throwing it all away.

Originally posted by Saint Exupery
As much as I want to see us return to the Moon, I think it is a good thing that we're not working under a short deadline this time.

Haha.

How many administrations do you plan on such a program lasting through?

reply to post by Exuberant1


Excellent question.

It will take until someone in power realizes that the large up-front investment will lead to a virtually unlimited economic return - similar to colonizing the Americas.

In truth, I no longer believe that US politicians can be that far-sighted. China and Russia stand a better chance. Of the democracies, Japan & India may be contenders.

I do think that, once one or more of the other space-faring powers get going, the US will wake-up and catch-up (we're kind of famous for doing that), but I don't think we will lead the way. I could be wrong (and hope that I am).

CHeck this out! all weekend long!

www.universetoday.com...

Today I got the news that the president [Obama] is cutting the NASA space programme down. No manned missions beyond LEO [low earth orbit]. No manned missions to the moon or mars or anywhere except LEO. This really does make me [and probably quite a few others too] wonder about the authenticity of the Apollo moon missions during the late 1960's and early 1970's. For those who are not yet familiar with the reasoning, it is stated in various documentary video's that the Apollo moon missions could not possibly have been anything more than operations in LEO simply because of the radiation problem. This is the reason why the ISS [International Space Station] is for ever and very expensively in a LEO. Now that would indicate that the real reason why there are not going to be any manned missions beyond LEO is not fiscal but rather is radiation. Thus it makes me wonder what are they [governments] doing covertly in space using advanced technology [levitation] that they deny in public. Personally I am convinced that there is a fully operating interstellar space programme on going all the time. I think it has always been that way. Going back into prehistoric times. Using advanced technology such as levitation [cancellation of mass] it is thus possible to levitate into space as much heavy metal as required as shielding against the radiation problem. Presumably these deep space operations [DSO] are a department of the US Navy. Here in the UK that would be a covert [submarine] compartment of the British Royal Navy. Advanced technology for levitating these heavy ships [lead zepplins] into orbit is then applied to cancel the kinetic inertia [mass] so as to get these heavy ships [often reported as submarines] into interstellar space travel at greater than the speed of light. Are you comprehending what the government are really doing up above your [our] head ?

reply to post by CAELENIUM


WHAT radiation problem? Dozens of countries have operated satellites in high Earth orbit for decades. Half a dozen countries have sent probes to the Moon, and three countries have successfully flown probes into interplanetary space for months or years at a time.

The radiation environment in space is no secret. It's like trying to classify the weather (which some dictatorships have tried - and gotten laughed-at for).

Every research agency or university that has measured radiation levels in space agree: With adequate shielding, manned missions of limited duration can fly in deep space with low risk. No aeronautical engineer in the world has suggested that the Apollo spacecraft and mission plans were not up to the task.

Has it occured to you that the reason man hasn't returned to the Moon since Apollo was simply that TPTB simply don't think it's worthwhile?

Is that thought somehow less likely than Space Aliens?

[edit on 30-1-2010 by Saint Exupery]

If you'll excuse the pun, I think a more 'down-to-earth' explanation is the reasoning behind this decision. I believe it has nothing to with excessive radiation beyond low Earth orbit, or supposed 'fake landings' back in the 60's and 70's, but all about a combination of money and ambition... or rather, a complete lack of it.

If Obama suddenly decided to pump untold billions into the space program, he would be crucified by people concerned about the ongoing effects of the recession. The questions about healthcare or education spending would mount up and mount up, and cause massive problems for his overall popularity among voters. Ask yourself this question; do you think more people care about a select few people planting a flag on the Moon and everyone feeling good about it for a while, or freeing up much needed funds in other areas? I'm no statistician (nor expert on US politics), but if you are going to anger 10,000 people or 10 million, I know which way I would go if I had the same decision to make.

It's disappointing that there is an apparent lack of ambition surrounding the space program, however if the shackles are taken off then private industry could push us a giant quantum leap into the future. If it will create jobs and push the boundaries further, privatisation of the space industry is the only logical step forward. NASA is the well known, public face of space, but is stuck in the 50's both technologically speaking and in terms of ambition. Well funded, privately run organisations that are properly set up could end up doing things that NASA would only dream of. If anything, it's an opportunity to do something new, exciting, and with an outcome that could benefit everyone. So Star Trek isn't around the corner just yet, but if we approach this with an open mind it might just happen a little bit quicker.

reply to post by bokonon2010


where the hell is that from?

that's stupid even for him! lol!

This is great! Thanks for putting together all this info. I had no idea so many missons by so many different agencies were going to the moon. Like some of the other people have said, seems really weird that everyone is all of a sudden deciding to go back to the moon, just when the global economy was starting to go down. seems unlikely unless they know something we don't. i read some of Hoaxland's Dark Mission BS after hearing him on Noori's show, and he's got an answer for all this, but i'm sure if he's involved it's the wrong answer. but somebody must know the real why. and i'm sure it must relate to money or power. least well get some pretty pictures.

Paul

I think it's ok for Obama to express the interest to go to Mars, but what I think is downright worrying and disturbing is how it is talked in certain sources of context as "the place where people will move after the earth is destroyed." Even discussing it is like giving up hope and telling people to go ahead and stop caring about our nature because it's doomed anyway. Besides, it would be easier to build underwater or even underground cities here than send a team to Mars, let alone make it inhabitable...

reply to post by apollospeed


Strange, how serendipity works. I find myself on this forum because my thread which I erroneously placed on the Aliens and UFOs forum - MARS ANOMALY: Strange artifact caught by rover - was moved here. I started to check out the threads and saw this one at the top.

The serendipity is that I just sold an item on eBay to the Acting CEO of CSI (Constellation Services International, Inc.) and one of their ongoing projects is the Lunar ExpressSM Mission. Check out how they want to accomplish this at www.constellationservices.com...

Oh well...



NASA Ends Plan to Put Man Back on Moon



There goes any chance of us returning to the moon. Maybe Lear was right all along...

[edit on 15-6-2010 by Jimmy Jingles]

[edit on 15-6-2010 by Jimmy Jingles]

We need to follow the Von Braun Plan, first the shuttle to create space stations around earth, then from the spacestations to the moon, and then to mars.

reply to post by NGC2736
hi internos ,as usual great post.

reply to post by Jimmy Jingles


I think china or india will be the next countries to put man in the moon

The latest 5 images by China's Chang'E 2. They are planning to land their moon rover at this place.

slide.news.sina.com.cn...=1

reply to post by Vandermast


Archaic and amazing we could get to the moon successfully back then with such tin cans and burning propulsion. Or are you a skeptic it was all fake? If so explain the laser reflecting mirrors placed on the Moon in 1969 for distance measurements, or did we make that up too? If so how did we get those photos of the Earth as a whole in one single frame? 3d software decades before such invention? OK, I see.