Page 1 of 2
Bang, Zoom Alice!
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:07 am
by G Fresh
NASA Says It Will Set Up Polar Moon Camp
Dec 04 4:10 PM US/Eastern
By SETH BORENSTEIN
AP Science Writer
WASHINGTON
NASA announced Monday it will establish an international base camp on one of the moon's poles, permanently staffing it by 2024, four years after astronauts return to the moon.
It is a sweeping departure from the Apollo moon missions of the 1960s and represents a new phase of space exploration after space shuttles are retired in 2010.
After consulting more than 1,000 experts from 14 different countries, NASA decided on what deputy NASA chief Shana Dale called a "fundamental lunar approach" that is sharply different from its previous moon missions in nearly everything but the shape of the ship going there.
NASA chose a "lunar outpost" over the short expeditions of the '60s. Apollo flights were all around the center of the moon, but NASA decided to go to the moon's poles because they are best for longer- term settlements. And this time NASA is welcoming other nations on its journey.
The more likely of the two lunar destinations is the moon's south pole because it's sunlit for three-quarters of the time, making solar power easier, and has possible resources to mine in dark areas nearby, said associate deputy administrator Doug Cooke.
To get to the moon, NASA envisions an all-purpose lunar lander that could touch down anywhere and can be the first part of a base camp, said exploration chief Scott Horowitz.
"The nickname I use for the lander is, it's a pickup truck," Horowitz said in a Monday news conference from Houston. "You can put whatever you want in the back. You can take it to wherever you want. So you can deliver cargo, crew, do it robotically, do it with humans on board. These are the types of things we're looking for in this system."
In the wake of the space shuttle Columbia accident, President Bush announced in 2004 a plan to return astronauts to the moon by 2020. His plan would take 16 years, twice as long as NASA's first trip to the moon took in planning. NASA has refused to estimate a price tag for the project.
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:56 am
by sharkmansix
Cool. Totally cool.
Although I've heard cool space things before (like from every administration) I do think it's a super-important scientific step.
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:27 am
by WBOB
this used to be the thing of comic books only!
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:41 am
by The Hand of Poo
A freakin' moonbase. Damn, between this and Hawking saying we have to colonize space to survive, the news is getting me all randy as of late.
I need to get a job at Virgin Galactic.
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:50 am
by WBOB
Next you'll recall...
"you better get your ass to Mars"
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:57 am
by sharkmansix
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:29 pm
by G Fresh
"The nickname I use for the lander is, it's a pickup truck," Horowitz said
I wonder how long it will be after we get there before we'll start seeing #3 and/or Calvin peeing on a Chevy symbol stickers in the back windows...
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:57 pm
by adam atherton
i think we would have had bases on the moon long ago, if it wasnt for those damned cylons.
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:42 pm
by G Fresh
^I think we should have our avatars battle to the death. "There can be only one."
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:48 pm
by Garr
Am I the ONLY one who thinks we should have things fixed here on OUR planet before spending BILLIONS of dollars to allow the extremely rich to abandon the planet?
I'm all cool for space exploration, but we have too many problems that haven't been fixed at home before we should be visiting the neighboring rocks.
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 3:53 pm
by Al Quandt
Garr wrote:Am I the ONLY one who thinks we should have things fixed here on OUR planet before spending BILLIONS of dollars to allow the extremely rich to abandon the planet?
I'm all cool for space exploration, but we have too many problems that haven't been fixed at home before we should be visiting the neighboring rocks.
not the only one.
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:01 pm
by sharkmansix
Am I the ONLY one who thinks we should have things fixed here on OUR planet before spending BILLIONS of dollars to allow the extremely rich to abandon the planet?
I'm all cool for space exploration, but we have too many problems that haven't been fixed at home before we should be visiting the neighboring rocks.
I agree.
But they're going to spend the money anyways; why not on something cool (and potentially) useful?
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:12 pm
by G Fresh
After skimming over some of the specs for the
vehicle that's going to be replacing the space shuttle in a couple of years I'm beginning to think that this moon mission will be accomplished more by private space foundations (Virgin Atlantic, etc.) rather than NASA. Is it just me or are we taking the technology backwards?
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:13 pm
by WBOB
Why did Queen Isabella go along with the jewels to finance
C.Columbus if there wasn't any foresight on possible
gain to be had.
The urge to know what else there is out there.
Man as a race needs to strive and continue exploration
as to the natural inclination to improve/expand
our knowledge. (sounding like Kirk here)
lots of everyday technology we have has come about
due to past moon landings, space flights, space walks
and related exploration.
I get your jist about fixing what's broken now
,.. but exploration IMHO, is long term thinking.
Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:28 am
by The Hand of Poo
Hawking hit the nail on the head. I'm fairly certain this is necessary for our survival as a species. If the first steps get to be taken by the filthy rich, oh well, what else is new.
I think there are plenty of domestic things to work on too.
But, I also think it should be an international effort instead of straight-up NASA. Or better yet, an international focus. Forget endless global full-contact staring competitions, let's all go for a ride together. Funding seems secondary to ensuring species survival.
But what do I know? Ehh.
