Panel calls for big detour in NASA's moon plans

NASA needs to make a major detour in its effort to return astronauts to the moon, a special independent panel told the White House Thursday.
Under current plans, NASA has picked the wrong destination with the wrong rocket, the panel's chairman said. A test-flight version of the rocket, the new Ares I, is on a launch pad at Kennedy Space Center in Florida, awaiting liftoff next week for its first experimental flight.

FROM news.mobile.msn.com...
So it look's like the Moon could be off wrong destination with the wrong rocket so what's the point of this rocket then just what is going on at NASA.
This bit i find weard.

During a Thursday news conference, the panel's chairman, retired aerospace executive Norman Augustine, focused on fresh destinations for NASA. He said that it makes more sense to develop America's space capability with the aim of putting astronauts on a nearby asteroid or one of the moons of Mars - destinations that could be reached more easily than the moon.

How can putting astronauts on an asteroid or one of the moons of Mars be reached more easily than the moon this dose not make sence to me what do you think.

THANKYOU

Just found another link to this story.
Nasa Moon plans in tatters as expert panel advise heading for asteroid instead
From www.dailymail.co.uk...
What is the point in this nobody got anything to add

THANKYOU

reply to post by mars1


Just wait a little while mate, many posters are still in bed or at work

It has always seemed logical, to me, that we should use the Moon as a stepping stone to the Universe - if not for anything other than saving fuel on launch and mining the Moon's resources.

There has to be a specific reason they don't want to put anything on the Moon just yet - and I don't think it's radiation or space debris, we have the technology and the know-how to come up with good solutions to these already - and that's not including any "secret" technology that "doesn't exist".

yeah that is pretty strange. we haven't been to the moon in 40 years.. imagine what we could do up there now, we could easily have bases and people living there. and travel in space from the moon. but its possible that secret military are already up there, with all their ufos and everything, or maybe there is a et race on the moon and we arent welcome lol, we cant be sure . there is just so much mystery about the moon and it seems silly to go elsewhere

reply to post by Kryties


I can see what you are saying it just seems so strange they want to land on a asteroid or the Moon's of mars and to say it would be reached more easily than are moon that can not be right this just makes it seem more likely there is something to hide on the Moon.

THANKYOU

reply to post by dallas18


There is some strange thing's going on like that Moon crashing that did not happen but they say it did the only proof they had was a little spec that could have been a image artifact.
Take a look .spaceweather.com...

THANKYOU

Well everyone and there dog on ATS say there's nothing on the moon so why bother going back there?

I'm sure the Chinese, Russians and the Europeans will be glad to return to the moon - benefit from any economic and mining operations.

Money is probably the reason for potentially dumping the NASA moon colony plan.

reply to post by MOTT the HOOPLE


Where have you been? The moon is coming alive more than ever.
Are you sure you read the articles here on ATS?

reply to post by MOTT the HOOPLE


I would love to here where you get this from
Please share your link's to the post's for this because this is not the way i have been reading ATS as off late.

THANKYOU

[edit on 073131p://2009-10-23T07:52:45-05:002310 by mars1]

In my opinion NASA should be scraped and a new World Wide space program should be implemented to get the world behind it spread the cost instead of having all these different agencies.
NASA can not be trusted people have lost faith in them it's time for a change NASA have not achieved anything since the Moon landings and some do not believe that happend.
What do you think

THANKYOU

Why would we bother going all the way to Mars only to land on a moon? So we can get home perhaps? I can't see any vital point in going to an asteroid. Let's look for life on Mars. Is that too much to ask?

IRM

Here's a link to the Augustine commissions final report. It's a bit of a read (157 pages), but it might help to read the actual report rather than just some journalists summery of it.

Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee - Final Report (pdf, 7.7MB)

There are a number of different options presented in it. But no decision has been made as to what they're going to do yet.

Just found this link it has video in it. news.bbc.co.uk...

Experts asked to review the US human spaceflight programme have given strong support to the use of commercial services to launch astronauts.
The Augustine panel published its final report on Thursday and said America could find cheaper, faster successors to the shuttle in the private sector.

A bigger version of the video for you.
news.bbc.co.uk...

THANKYOU

Maybe i should have started a prediction thread instead of this.
So not many people find it strange that they want to skip the moon
We know nothing about the Moon but they want to go to the moon of Mars or a asteroid.

THANKYOU

I, too, am curious as to their wording of "Destinations that can be reached more easily than the moon", considering the logistics and resources behind a manned mars mission would far overshadow a relatively simple flight to the moon.

I also remember a post a while back (probably a year or more ago) that talked about them going back to gather moon rocks - I thought they gathered a ton of moon rocks the last time they were there?

reply to post by Ecidemon


Exactly why spend all that money to find water on the Moon with the LCROSS mission then say lets go to an asteroid or the moons of mars and how can it be more easily reached than going to are Moon

THANKYOU

According to the report, NASA could send a man to an asteroid or the moons of Mars within 15 years, sooner than reaching the moon in 2020

Conclusion: 15 years to finance a moon landing, but sooner to reach Mars or an asteroid. Hmm

[edit on 23-10-2009 by infinite]

This is exactly what I imagined would happen about 4 years ago. The powers that be, say we have a lofty goal like going to the Moon and starting a permenent presence, and then about 4 years later you get a new president and he scraps the old plan and changes direction. This way people continually have their hopes up, but you never actually do anything. This has been going on for about 40 years now.

One thing is clear from the report... Whatever happens we must not be allowed to land on the Moon or Mars at any cost. Why not!?

I'm really fusturated right now, but not suprised at all. Like I said, I thought this was going to happen four years ago. I know Obama still needs to make a descision but I don't have much HOPE at all. This is all leading up to the obvious. I really want to see something interesting happen with space in my lifetime, but this will put anything like landing on the Mars or starting a permenent base on the Moon off for another 30-40 years.

It looks like private companys like Bigelow Areospace and SpaceX are our only hope at this point. Let's cross our fingers for those guys.

Originally posted by mars1
I can see what you are saying it just seems so strange they want to land on a asteroid or the Moon's of mars and to say it would be reached more easily than are moon that can not be right this just makes it seem more likely there is something to hide on the Moon.

The Augustine report lists a number of different paths NASA could take, as I said earlier. One of them is what they call the "Flexible path" which involves doing a variety of things like Lunar flybys/orbits, going to the Lagrange points, going to NEO's and also doing Mars flybys/orbits and going to it's moons. Using and controlling robotic probes on Mars from orbit. They could even do robotic sample returns from both the Moon and Mars this way. It's easier in that they wouldn't need to land on the surface themselves. Landing on the Moon and Mars (especially on Mars) requires more energy and thus becomes more costly, which is what makes it harder.

They do say in the report that landing astronauts on Mars is the ultimate goal. There is a "Mars first path" in the report, but from what I understood, it would be more expensive and difficult to do. They also have a "Moon first path" with the goal of it eventually leading to Mars. But the "Flexible path" seems to be the easier one, as it doesn't require landing on the surface of the Moon or Mars right away, which makes it more affordable. It would still give us practice and experience for travelling longer distances from Earth and spending more time working and living in space. Which can lead to other things like returning to the Lunar surface and eventually Mars. There are a number of different routes one can take with the "Flexible path". If you open the report I linked to above, on page 43 there is a diagram showing the different paths that eventually lead to landing on Mars.

So not many people find it strange that they want to skip the moon
We know nothing about the Moon but they want to go to the moon of Mars or a asteroid.

Who said they want to skip the Moon? Going to the Moon is still apart of the plan. It just might not happen as soon as originally planned. I really recommend reading the Augustine report instead of news articles about it.

[edit on 24-10-2009 by jra]