US Plans Base on Moon (1 Viewer)

[HotShot]

US plans permanent base on Moon
US space agency Nasa has said it plans to start work on a permanently-occupied base on the Moon after astronauts begin flying back there in 2020.

The base is likely to be built on one of the Moon's poles and will serve as a science centre and possible stepping stone for manned missions to Mars.

The US has already said it plans to build a new lunar spacecraft to succeed the last Apollo mission in 1972.

Funds will be moved from space shuttle flights, due to be scrapped in 2010.

The structure of the base and the exact duties of the astronauts stationed there have not been decided.

Nor is it clear when the base will begin functioning.

Lunar outpost

"We're going for a base on the moon," Scott "Doc" Horowitz, Nasa's associate administrator for exploration, said.

The agency's deputy head, Shana Dale, is quoted by the Associated Press news agency as saying that the "fundamental lunar approach" will be very different to earlier Moon missions.

Nasa has elected to build a lunar outpost rather than operate brief trips to the satellite as it did in the 1960s.

Nasa is also expected to ask other countries - and businesses - to help it build the base.

The permanent base will be built near one of the two poles, as these are felt to have a moderate climate and more sunlight - essential if the base is to use solar energy.

"It's exciting," Shana Dale told the Reuters news agency. "We don't know as much about the polar regions."

According to Reuters, funds for building the lunar base will be diverted from the space shuttle programme, which is to be phased out by 2010.

After the Columbia space shuttle accident, US President George W Bush announced plans to send astronauts back to the moon by 2020.

Nasa announced in August that the Lockheed Martin Corporation will build the next US spaceship to take humans to the Moon.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6208456.stm

Published: 2006/12/05 01:17:35 GMT

© BBC MMVI

So much for climate change.. and global warming... :wave:

On the note the scientists who work at NASA I believe to be some of the brightest in the world - so naturally if they continue to work on space programmes given the amount pollution released by construction of space rockets, materials and launching you would expect - THAT POLLUTION DOES NOT LEAD TO GLOBAL WARMING AND THAT IT IS A WAY CYCLICAL PROCESS.

the IRONY is was Branson building his rocket for tourism purposes - wasnt he the same guy getting behind GREEN PEACE - hypocrisy at A GLOBAL LEVEL..

 

[Not-That-Bright]

...

Rocket's really aren't that bad on a global scale. A day of australian car use is probably equal to the amount of emitions from one of the old Saturn's.

 

[mr_brightside]

...

Rocket's really aren't that bad on a global scale. A day of australian car use is probably equal to the amount of emitions from one of the old Saturn's.

...

and the fact that the article mentions they were phasing out the space shuttle programme.

 

[HotShot]

...

Rocket's really aren't that bad on a global scale. A day of australian car use is probably equal to the amount of emitions from one of the old Saturn's.

What about all the resources used to build one rocket? the time and money spent?

I am not saying it is bad to put a base on the moon, just bit hypocritical that there is 'climate change' and that it poses a 'significant threat' and there is not quite the investment there.

I am just wandering if all this 'climate change' - is just a load of crap?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

NASA has been pretty thoroughly silenced on climate change by the government, they actually changed the breadth of NASA's mission statement to eliminate possible studies on climate change lol.

 

[Capitalist Scum]

For every $1 spent on space exploration, about $7 get returned to the economy from the resulting inventions.

 

[Serius]

this is pretty cool, and like they said it should make travel to mars easier.

 

[HotShot]

For every $1 spent on space exploration, about $7 get returned to the economy from the resulting inventions.

where did u get that figure from?

But they are not spending only $1 - wat about the oppurtinity cost, the cost of cleaning up the pollution, the cost of the time wasted? (if it is being wasted) and the cost of training individuals and then losing them (shuttles disasters..)

 

[Serius]

payoffs from space enterprises have been pretty large, alot of modern day materials like modern plastics were designed in space modern satelites have provided an incredible boon for information technoledgy, and NASA has a very good safety record, out of the thousands of employees they have, and the dozens of men they have put in space only a couple have ever died.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Actually quite a few have died, certainly more than a couple and I think it's important we remember that.

 

[HotShot]

payoffs from space enterprises have been pretty large, alot of modern day materials like modern plastics were designed in space modern satelites have provided an incredible boon for information technoledgy, and NASA has a very good safety record, out of the thousands of employees they have, and the dozens of men they have put in space only a couple have ever died.

But suppose they had invested a lot that money to find new new forms renewable energy that could be used instead of fossil fuels and uranium etc?

Then definetly on the way they invented numerous other materials, chemical etc that would have been beneficial - chances are they wouldnt have been quite the number of fatalities and it would lead to more worthwhile discovery/invention?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

But suppose they had invested a lot that money to find new new forms renewable energy that could be used instead of fossil fuels and uranium etc?

It's not just about money mate, alot of it was the drive to succeed and beat the russians.

 

[Serius]

Actually quite a few have died, certainly more than a couple and I think it's important we remember that.

i thought it was only 14 [ challenger and the recent columbia] but turns out 18 astronaughts have died in flight. Thats not bad out of 277 considering how dangerous the job is.... i dont really think NASA should be criticised on their safety, loss of life has been mimimal.

Sure maybe a few bennefits might be found along the way to cold-fusion [which i would very much like to see realised in the next 50 years] but you cant compare them to the bennefits of space tech, and thats only stuff that is a direct bennefit. Pure science has advanced alot because of spacefight.
You are also forgeting that space travel is a very long term goal oriented process, i dont think humans have any plans on staying on Earth forever and NASA is pioneering the last frontier.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

i thought it was only 14 [ challenger and the recent columbia] but turns out 18 astronaughts have died in flight. Thats not bad out of 277 considering how dangerous the job is.... i dont really think NASA should be criticised on their safety, loss of life has been mimimal.

You said a couple, I think forgetting 16 people's lives lost is a pretty bad thing to do. It has nothing to do with criticising their 'safety' (However there are some examples of them ignoring engineers warnings in order to meet deadlines...), which I feel is fairly good given how dangerous space-flight it.