Return to the moon...It's about time!

[coffeediver]

Interesting article on National Review Online. Short version is the President is expected to announce a manned American return to the Moon and the possible building of a permanent manned presense there. This announcement is expected to come during his speech December 17th on the 100th anniversary of the Wright brothers first flight. Read it at:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/p ... 030858.asp

This is outstanding news!!!! It's about time that we re-established an American, not an international, presense in space. But of course knowing the over-engineering, glory hungry, blame-the-other-guy hotheads at NASA, it'll take the next 100 years!

Oh how I long for the glory days when it took us only 8 1/2 years to go from cannonballing a man into space to landing man on the moon

[Benji]

Charles Krauthammer described the ISS as a "tinker-toy space station." I disagree. It's more like a kit car, an old one that's out of date which you have been working on for decades and are missing parts for, which are impossible to get because the thing's so old.

Anyway, I'm glad we're going back, but I don't think the announcement is going to have to same effect on the public as it did in the 60s and the project could ultimately end up like the ISS, "behind schedule, over budget, and of limited utility."

I sound pessimistic about this, I know, but when was the last time NASA was truly successful with it's major project? I might say Apollo.

[ApolloXI]

I personal feel that if this rumor is ture I think it is a stunt for re-election. Bush has pulled stunts like this such as landing a plane on a carrier, landing in Iraq a so called moral booster on Thanksgiving, and lying not just to the American people but the people of the World about Iraq's chemical research programs. I think he is trying to look like JFK because JFK said "Before the decade is out, we will land a man on the moon....." during the early start of Viteman War. Also we have to rember that he does not make the decisons for NASA without approval of Congress and Dick Chenny. We know that many of the fromer companies that made the Space Shuttles have gone bankurpt or been bought by bigger aerospaace companies like Lockheed Martin, etc. This tells us that if they can't remake the shuttle how on earth are the going to make a Saturn V rocket again. Plus know we don't have many of the orginal engieers and techology has grown so fast if they where alive I don't think they could keep up in the age. To go to the moon would hurt our econmy, even though it is hurting already. With the new techology we would be starting from the boosters to the esacpe tower. When the Saturn V was made NASA had many things come right out of the RED STONE Arsanal. Now where would we start?

Here is one carntoontist feelings "Too The Moon"
[img]http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/pre ... 4916C}.gif[/img]
Image by Sandy Huffaker

If you don't get the pun think of the Honeymooners

[CastAway]

Wow. That's really awesome. I sure hope it ends up being realized. Either that or bumped back enough years so I could be one of the astronauts going. But I sure hope we do go back some time soon.

[coffeediver]

A few points....

1- As to our return to the moon, do you really think that we couldn't do it? We have the resources, we have the technology, we have the capital. The Saturn V wouldn't have to be rebuilt. We have an entire generation of engineers that have learned from, and are currently learning from, the original engineers that helped put man on the moon. We have the minds that could do it.

2- The Redstone, Atlas, and Titan Two were all off the shelf military rockets modified to travel into space. The Saturn series of rockets were the first rockets built from the ground up to journey into space. If we could build the Saturn series from scratch once, what makes you think we couldn't build another? And it's Redstone Arsenal, not RED STONE Arsanal.

3- The reason that the companies that built the STS are bankrupt is because times change. These companies (Thiokol, Rockwell, etc.) were on the verge of bankruptcy before they were ever envolved with the STS. The thing that save their bacon was that the government always goes with the lowest bidder. They just happened to be it. Once the deed was done and they went back to being broke, in swooped the larger companies (Lockheed, Boeing, etc.) and saved theirs sixes.

4- For those of you who think President Bush's trip to Iraq was a "so-called moral booster," it was. I have many friends in the sandbox as we speak and those that were there that day said it a tremendous moral boost. And not just for the people there. When was the last time a Commander-in-Chief cared enough for his troops to visit them in a combat zone? Here's a hint... his name was Bush too. Stunt for re-election huh? For one, there hasn't been one "stunt" made by our President. Two, even if there were stunts performed, who cares? The Dems couldn't put up a real fight against the President if they had to. You think Dean, Clark, or any of the rest really stand a chance?

5- President Bush has no desire at all to be like JFK. Read your history. Not the garbage they teach you in school, but look at the different viewpoints and draw your own conclusions. JFK wasn't the savior people make him out to be. Don't listen to Kevin Costner.

And finally, 6- Next time you check in at the Hab for your fun filled week that mommy and daddy or grandma and grandpa or you or whoever paid for, ask if our economy is really hurting? And ask yourself that same question everytime you put on your $70 sneakers and climb into your $40000 SUVs.

[Benji]

Amen. And since you mentioned Bush and the Dems, try this out: Type "miserable failure" into Google and hit "I'm Feeling Lucky." Apparently, the Dems bombed Google for a cheap laugh.

[coffeediver]

Very interesting. Did some digging and apparently this is an attempt by Presidential candidate Dick Gephardt (D., MO) to smear the President. Remember, this is the same individual that ran in '88 and lost the Democratic ticket to Mike Dukakis. This is just another sad attempt at making the President look foolish, when in fact the only people who look foolish right now are the 9 people running for the Democratic ticket.

[Vincent]

I would greatly apprciate an end to any and all political rhetoric in a thread about returning to the moon.

Thank you.

[Space Nerd]

Well that was interesting........ However I pose a question, if we were going to try to go back to the moon do you think we would rebuild the Saturn V as it was before or change it completly? We have so much more technology now but why fix something that isn't broken? I spend a lot of time thinking about this and what we would do but what does everybody else think? New or Old?

[Benji]

Depends who's doing it. For NASA, I would say old. Burocracy would just be too much of a pain in designing a new spacecraft. For a private company, new technology could definetly make a much better spacecraft, as long as they don't ry to make it do too much.

[Smiley]

You guys ever here of a project named NOVA? now that my friend was ambitious.

[Benji]

At 5:55 EST this evening (11/14) marks 31 years since Challenger lifted off from the Moon with Gene Cernan and Jack Schmitt on Apollo 17. In Cernan's words, the "Odd Couple" leaves the Moon; we have not been back since.

[aerodiver]

OK I have been sitting back watching the debate and I have decided to out in my 2 cents about the whole thing.

First off we do need to go back to the moon. Of course most of you reading ths are asking WHY??, Well the fact of it is that we want to go to Mars and set up a colony there, but there is one problem, the only permantent outpost in space is the space station and it only has micro g. We need something with some form of gravity, as well as being close to get eveerything perfected on. We need to go back to the moon, not for research on the soil, but on how we are going to build our on future colony on Mars.

Secondly, the "tinker toy space station". Oh where do I start. The space station is modular we can add new pieces to it and allow it to grow with changing times. Also it is made so that the software and controls inside can easily be upgraded when the time arrives. Every space station has problems, but its something we expect. Murphy's law is completely seen here. More times than not the problems we experience have been trained for, but really are not expected. The point is everything has its problems and we still learn to deal with it.

I think we should go back to space soon, and back to the moon to set up our outpost in space, but right now we are waiting for the inflight shuttle repair issue is still bieng worked out. But that's another topic for another day.

[ApolloXI]

I do agree that we should go to the moon but first we have other things to do first. To anyone I have angered because of my feelings about Bush must rember that I was just letting my feelings out (we have the right to free speech even if it is about President Bush) and I did attack Coffeediver writtenly but now I will say that he can have his feelings and I can have mine. So I am semi-sorry for what I caused. And about misspellings sorry but we are all just human.

1. Get the Shuttle back up in space.

2. Finsh Space Station to the point of where it is safe for a larger crew

3. Design and build something to replace the orbiter.

4. Design and build something that would capable of taking a men/women to the moon and back.

5. Go to the moon but there are more steps first that I can't think of right now.

[Benji]

Sometimes, you have to realize a bad investment and move on. I think the ISS may be one of those bad investments. I like the idea of a space station, but the ISS is too far behind schedule, over budget, and obsolete. The payoff of the ISS at this point is not worth any more expense.

I think the space elevator could be a the key to the future of space- if we can pull it off. The X-Prize contestants could also provide a lot of great ideas and new technology that could be extremely useful in future ventures.

[Boomerang]

Well i had really hoped my pesimism about the presidents speech today was wrong. That the white house saying their would be no announcement was just to try and keep it a secret. Well unfortunately the news article i had read was telling the truth. President Bush just finished his speech and all he did was reafirm our committment to space flight but said nothing specific about any goal for NASA. The article i had read said that he was going to wait for all the studies on a future plan and direction for NASA to make the announcement were true.

[ApolloXI]

In Bush's speech at the anniversary of a 100 years of flight president Bush made no comment about going to the moon. But John Travolta said "Not only do I vote for that option, but I volunteer to go on the first mission."

[Boomerang]

Well just because the announcement wasn't made today doesbn't mean there wont be one sometime in the near future. Although i was hoping for one i really wasn't expecting one after the whitye House had said there wouldn't be. We'll just have to wait for all thje recomendations to be in about where NASA should go next before we get anything i guess.

[Benji]

I do hope a firm goal, whatever it may be, is set. Of course, I'd like something new and exciting, but a firm goal is better then nothing and may help get NASA back on track.

[Boomerang]

I just hope that when they do set a goal its not replace the shuttle with the OSP and keep flying to the space station for 15 years. NASA needs a better goal than the same old thing we've been doing with the shuttle for over 20 years now.your not going to get people intrested in space flight again by only going to low earth orbit and keeping a permanently manned space station in orbit thats barely doing anything.