NASA heading back to Moon soon, and this time to stay

Jim Bridenstine, head of the US aerospace agency NASA, says he hopes to have austronauts back on the moon by 2028
Jim Bridenstine, head of the US aerospace agency NASA, says he hopes to have austronauts back on the moon by 2028

NASA is accelerating plans to return Americans to the Moon, and this time, the US space agency says it will be there to stay.

Jim Bridenstine, NASA's administrator, told reporters Thursday that the agency plans to speed up plans backed by President Donald Trump to return to the , using private companies.

"It's important that we get back to the moon as fast as possible," said Bridenstine in a meeting at NASA's Washington headquarters, adding he hoped to have astronauts back there by 2028.

"This time, when we go to the Moon, we're actually going to stay. We're not going to leave flags and footprints and then come home to not go back for another 50 years" he said.

"We're doing it entirely different than every other country in the world. What we're doing is, we're making it sustainable so you can go back and forth regularly with humans."

The last person to walk on the Moon was Eugene Cernan in December 1972, during the Apollo 17 mission.

Before humans set foot on the lunar surface again, NASA aims to land an unmanned vehicle on the Moon by 2024, and is already inviting bids from the burgeoning private sector to build the probe.

The deadline for bids is March 25, with a first selection due in May, a tight timeline for an agency whose past projects have run years behind schedule and billions over budget.

"For us, if we had any wish, I would like to fly this calendar year. We want to go fast," said Thomas Zurbuchen, the associate administrator of NASA's Science Mission Directorate.

However, he admitted that "we may not be able to."

NASA's accelerated plans flesh out the Space Policy Directive that Trump signed in December 2017, envisaging a return to the Moon before a to Mars, possibly in the 2030s.

NASA plans to build a small space station, dubbed Gateway, in the Moon's orbit by 2026. It will serve as a way-station for trips to and from the , but will not be permanently crewed like the International Space Station (ISS), currently in Earth's orbit.

As with the ISS, NASA would seek the participation of other countries, who could provide some of the necessary needed, such as modules for the Moon station or vehicles to allow landings on the surface.

"We want numerous providers competing on cost and innovation," Bridenstine said.

Before this manned program, NASA is also pushing to send and other technological tools to the Moon in 2020 or even before the end of this year.

The agency is also calling for quick-turnaround bids to manufacture and launch such instruments, offering financial incentives to make it happen fast.

"We care about speed," said Thomas Zurbuchen, associate administrator of NASA's Science Mission Directorate. "We do not expect that every one of those launches or every one of those landings will be successful. We are taking risks."


Explore further

Next US moon landing will be by private companies, not NASA

© 2019 AFP

Citation: NASA heading back to Moon soon, and this time to stay (2019, February 15) retrieved 15 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-02-nasa-moon.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
5811 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments


Feb 15, 2019
Sounds fine. But the ISS was a make-work project for Russian nuclear scientists who became unemployed after the wall fell. The Americans didn't want them runnng off to make weapons for Arabs. They didn't need dozens of Gerald Bulls over there. So, they concocted the ISS. So far, the useless orbiting white elephant has sucked up $180 BILLION in funds that could have been used for productive projects like more planetary probes or space telescopes. Going back to the moon is at least progress. Though it would have made more sense to simply build the Saturn V or something larger along the same lines. The LS or whatever NASA calls it, is years behind schedule and overbudget.

Feb 15, 2019
The deadline for bids is March 25


Is that a pun for Mach 25?

Feb 15, 2019
So far, the useless orbiting white elephant has sucked up $180 BILLION in funds that could have been used for productive projects like more planetary probes or space telescopes.


And how would that help to advance manned spaceflight? It would not. Despite what some people think, science is not the only goal of spaceflight. ISS is cetainly overpriced but at least it provides permanent human presence in space for last two decades. And without the ISS to resupply, SpaceX probably wouldnt exist today.

Feb 15, 2019
MORONS!

Sending people to the Moon anytime soon would be a vast waste of money and resources that would do little for science and could be better spent on other things, such as sending unmanned probes there (which with a LOT less cost could at least do more for science), or even go part way to end world poverty (why not?) etc.

For exactly the same reasons, it would also be moronic to send some people to Mars anytime soon; better for now to just stick to probes.

Feb 15, 2019
Is this like the wall, or like fixing the national debt, that got promised?

Feb 15, 2019
Will Stanley Kubrick be filming it?
Has anyone speeded up the video of the moon landings, looks like Earth gravity?
Have not seen any Moon video showing 1/6 Earths gravity?

Feb 15, 2019

Has anyone speeded up the video of the moon landings, looks like Earth gravity?
Not quite; most people, even athletes, would find it rather difficult to continuously keep jumping 5 meters or more into the air with apparent ease.

Feb 15, 2019
"By 2024" - "By 2025" - "By 2026"....blah, blah, blah. I'll be dead by the time this project leaves the ground. It will be more like 2035 if NASA does it. Flush with extended timelines and cost overruns, NASA means "Not Adequate for Space Anymore". Just look at James Webb Scope and the SLS. Why should we do this? To inspire people and extend ourselves beyond this planet but it has to be done with the excitement of the Apollo program and not some "drag our feet and manage the crap out of it" project. Give this project to SpaceX or another private company that has some guts, some ambition and some drive. I can give NASA a real goal...beat the private sector at something and do it under budget! ...my two cents.

Feb 15, 2019
No problem. They've done it already tons of times. Rovers, rocks, and men. With fifty years of new technology to improve a little on whats already been done it's bingo back in business.

Feb 15, 2019
Sounds fine. But the ISS was a make-work project for Russian nuclear scientists who became unemployed after the wall fell.

Except the ISS had its origins in the 80's under a different name: Space Station Freedom. Russia was only incorporated into the venture long after it had started and nuclear scientists had nothing to do with it.

The Americans didn't want them runnng off to make weapons for Arabs.

There really isn't any overlap between building the ROS and weapons, and the major Arab powers were already American allies using largely American weapons.

Though it would have made more sense to simply build the Saturn V or something larger along the same lines

Except 1. The tooling needed to build the Saturn V has been long gone courtesy of cuts that began during the Apollo program, and 2. That was the entire point of the Ares and SLS Heavy LVs, but they were never going to have anywhere without payload funding.

Feb 15, 2019
The Apollo program cost only $20.4 billion . . . Corrected for inflation, the Apollo program's total cost comes to about $109 billion in today's money (2017).


https://www.astro...issions/

What Lockheed Martin has done to NASA on the Orion capsule and SLS rocket is criminal. So far $16B spent on the pathetic Orion capsule alone and zero to show for it.

https://en.wikipe...cecraft)

So far about $14B spent on the pathetic SLS and zero to show for it. Even if the SLS Block I is completed years from now, it will only be able to launch 70 mt into orbit versus the 64 mt the Falcon Heavy already has demonstrated. Shockingly, an SLS launch ($2B) will cost at least 20 times more than a Falcon Heavy launch ($90M).

https://arstechni...ordable/

Cancel Orion and SLS and use SpaceX to get to Mars, not the moon.

Feb 15, 2019
One feasible spacecraft could support a sustained human presence on Mars AND the Moon. A single reusable nuclear thermal rocket powered spacecraft capable of getting to Mars in 2-3 months could spend ~6 months out of every 26 months delivering people too and from Mars. The remaining 20 months can be used for multiple moon trips and necessary refurbishing. The first trips to Mars could be used to set up a fuel depot on one of the Martian moons to help enable such fast trips before we are ready for Mars surface missions. Lunar missions with such a powerful spacecraft would be like taking the Tesla P100D on a 2 mile ride to the local convenience store, giving mission planners a whole lot of freedom.

Feb 15, 2019
One feasible spacecraft could support a sustained human presence on Mars AND the Moon. A single reusable nuclear thermal rocket powered spacecraft capable of getting to Mars in 2-3 months could spend ~6 months out of every 26 months delivering people too and from Mars. The remaining 20 months can be used for multiple moon trips and necessary refurbishing. The first trips to Mars could be used to set up a fuel depot on one of the Martian moons to help enable such fast trips before we are ready for Mars surface missions. Lunar missions with such a powerful spacecraft would be like taking the Tesla P100D on a 2 mile ride to the local convenience store, giving mission planners a whole lot of freedom.

Feb 15, 2019
NSA costs 90$ billion a year.
That's a Moon mission for every year?

Feb 15, 2019
NASA doesn't have a workable plan, and contracting for landers isn't going to make up for the deficiency.

They're still pushing SLS - a program that will cost taxpayers at least $20 billion *plus* a billion dollars per launch. They're still pushing a lunar orbital station that isn't needed for *anything.* It will cost more fuel to go to the station, then go somewhere else, than to just go to the final destination - and it will cost a pretty penny to operate and man that thing. These projects are pure pork, and the costs will leave precious little for actual science to be done.

No surprise there. This Administration is actively hostile to science.

SLS needs to die. The orbital lunar station needs to die. NASA needs to get seriously behind Blue Origin and SpaceX and help fund their next-gen heavy launch systems. The long term savings will be simply enormous - more science and more missions will be the result.

Feb 15, 2019
Next president will switch our focus to getting to Mars. I wish we'd just pick one and stay with it until it's done.

Feb 15, 2019
If you look at what the defense contractors are doing to NASA, one can only imagine what they are doing to the Department of Defense (DoD). How much of that ~$700B a year is overcharging? Don't forget Lockmart is hitting the DoD with over $400B in charges for the F-35. They have been fined many times over the years and it appears to be their modus operandi is to overcharge and accept the fines as a cost of doing business.

https://www.bloom...gon-says

People say we haven't gone to Mars because it is too expensive. Maybe it is just too expensive doing business as usual. The obvious answer is SpaceX.

Feb 15, 2019
Next president will switch our focus to getting to Mars.


I sincerely hope so, but I also agree with, "I wish we'd just pick one and stay with it until it's done."

Just make something happen! It has been 46 years since anyone went beyond LEO and the most likely way this will be broken is with a bunch of Japanese tourists going around the Moon courtesy of SpaceX. I miss the deadly seriousness and laser-sharp focus of Project Apollo. None of that exists in the feel good announcement above. It feels far more like they have decided to pretend we are going to the moon instead of pretending we are going to Mars. Billions will be wasted on overcharging defense contractors, but nothing will actually happen.

Musk is right, we should reach for Mars while we can. If it wasn't for SpaceX, the brief window where it could happen is already closed. Pathetic.

Feb 15, 2019
An absolute waste of money and effort if NASA is involved. Let the private sector do it, or India or China. What is most annoying though is that we have been told quite clearly by a few people 'in the know' that anti-gravity or some other exotic technology spacecraft have been around for a long time, but present no military threat to us. See Paul Helyer, ex Canadian minister of defense, and Bob Dean, 40 year USA/NATO veteran.

Feb 15, 2019
What is most annoying though is that we have been told quite clearly by a few people 'in the know' that anti-gravity or some other exotic technology spacecraft have been around for a long time,
Yes, I also find it annoying when loonies and druggies claim to know of the existence of physically impossible anti-gravity machines and green men from Mars, travelling in flying saucers that look exactly like light shades thrown in the air, doing anal probes to some drunks and druggies that nobody will believe, etc. etc.

Feb 15, 2019
Next president will switch our focus to getting to Mars.
I take it then the next one will also be a moron, wasting billions of dollars of tax payers money.

Feb 15, 2019
The "Gateway" is ridiculous. There is nothing there. It's just vacuum and radiation. Slowing down to stop at the Gateway uses fuel, which means you have to launch even more fuel to carry that extra, unnecessary fuel, and even more to accelerate again to leave your nothing station. Basic rocket equation. Maybe if you tugged an asteroid or comet to that Lagrange point first -- you'd at least have some shielding to play with and maybe some science.

Zubrin's "Mars Direct" approach works for the Moon too. And a lot less hardware to develop. SpaceX seems like they're almost there already. Shuttle, Constellation, Orion, SLS, it's like pathetic ego and lack of reading history have leashed exploration. The budget is dismal and they just piss it away on this nonsense.

What's it going to take to get some administrators with vision and drive? To really get us out there? Instead of this chain of fumbling from one failed money black hole to the next operation in futility.

Feb 15, 2019
So, 4 Trips/Month !
Great.
After Half Century ?
Since so many are doubtful, SEND Robots First !

Feb 15, 2019
What's it going to take to get some administrators with vision and drive?


Donald Trump appointed Jim Bridenstine, so if you want "to get some administrators with vision and drive," start by replacing Trump with somebody who is at least believes we could be doing more in space AND is willing to focus on it for more than 30 seconds.

I doubt we will ever see another John F. Kennedy ("We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.") Maintain that kind of focus and determination long enough and Enterprise won't just be the name on a series of naval vessels.

Feb 15, 2019
What is most annoying though is that we have been told quite clearly by a few people 'in the know' that anti-gravity or some other exotic technology spacecraft have been around for a long time,
Yes, I also find it annoying when loonies and druggies claim to know of the existence of physically impossible anti-gravity machines and green men from Mars, travelling in flying saucers that look exactly like light shades thrown in the air, doing anal probes to some drunks and druggies that nobody will believe, etc. etc.

No doubt you have watched the videos from these 2 well known and well respected individuals and dismissed them as flat earthers, but they seem to me to be level headed and sincere. Why do you think they would say such things?

Feb 15, 2019
Has anyone speeded up the video of the moon landings, looks like Earth gravity?
Have not seen any Moon video showing 1/6 Earths gravity?


You stupid idiot, why would they fake it SIX times? Fool.

Feb 15, 2019
Should have done 50 years ago! Excellent.

Feb 15, 2019
What for? Anyone has a business plan? If not leaving flags and footprints, what else?

Feb 15, 2019
@fishnuke
You don't seem to understand how spaceflight works. A vehicle heading to the Moon will have to propulsively brake to begin with under any realistic flight plan. There really isn't much of an added cost in propellant for making orbit before landing, and this is precisely the architecture the Apollo missions used.

And no, the Mars Direct approach would easily involve higher hardware costs than a Lunar gateway because it is wholly predicated on fueling up a crew return vehicle with local resources (something that will require significant R&D investment) and using a lander that must also double as a combination deep-space/Martian surface habitat for at least two years with little room for return-to-Earth aborts.

Feb 15, 2019
83 million paid by u.s. to russia for each u.s. astronaut brought to the ISS.
nuff said. you want progress? wait until artificially robots can be launched to replace humans in orbit, and launch them up for 1 million each with no life support systems. in habbitats weighing far less than human habitats.

this avoids the need for multiple launches x83 million per person. and increases the capacity to do science in space with hundreds of robots being cheaper to send up than a single person. also, they can be controlled by thousands of cheap land based human controllers with no problems if a robot 'dies' and no need to bring them back down.

Feb 15, 2019
Still waiting for why this isn't another "border wall" or "fixing the deficit."

Feb 16, 2019
Scolar wrote, "You don't seem to understand how spaceflight works. A vehicle heading to the Moon will have to propulsively brake to begin with under any realistic flight plan. There really isn't much of an added cost in propellant for making orbit before landing, and this is precisely the architecture the Apollo missions used."

Isn't NASA's plan for the lunar orbiter to sit in a LaGrange point? It *absolutely* costs more fuel to make a stop at a LaGrange point, then go on to land.

Feb 16, 2019
@Urgelt
The proposed Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway would be put in Lunar orbit, and this has been the case since it was previously known as the Deep Space Gateway. It was that Boeing proposed an unrelated Exploration Gateway Platform for placement in an Earth-Moon Lagrange Point.

It's worth noting that one of the arguments for a Lunar station was that it could boast an Solar electrical propulsion system capable of moving Lunar landers into a greater range of orbits without complicating the lander's mass budget; a suitable electrical propulsion system requiring a rather heavy investment in mass. This would be helpful, for instance, in making an efficient rendezvous with resupply spacecraft from Earth or putting the lander into different inclinations at a reduced cost in propellant.

Feb 16, 2019
Scolar, okay. Appreciate the clarification.

I'm no expert, but it seems to me that SpaceX's Starship should be capable of going directly to the moon, landing the entire craft, and returning to Earth. It will probably need orbital refueling (Earth orbit, not moon orbit) to do that. In their scheme, nothing is expended except fuel.

Whereas NASA is pushing expendable solutions. They're even looking at landers which will leave part of themselves on the surface of the moon, recovering only an escape capsule, the same scheme as was used in Apollo.

The ISS was frightfully expensive, . A moon orbital station be, too - maybe worse. I get your point about electric propulsion reducing lander fuel expenditures - but it only matters, I think, within the context of NASA's highly expendable (and low cargo mass) approach to moon landings.

I'd rather push Starship with NASA's funds. Direct to the Moon, nothing expended but fuel, huge cargo delivery capacity, cheaper all around.

Feb 16, 2019
Starship would still have to rendezvous with several propellent tankers to make it to the Moon, the energy required for transfer being little less than that needed to get to Mars before aerobraking is considered.

And while a lot of people like to dismiss NASA as doing little more than, "pushing expendable solutions", this ignores decades of well documented proposals for reusable craft for Earth orbit and beyond. The most recent concept for a manned Mars mission, for instance, dedicated two out of its four interplanetary vehicle proposals to reusable nuclear and Solar electric craft. The reason NASA has ultimately not funded these is because they answer to Congress and the White House, and both of those organizations are wary of the higher upfront R&D costs if they even manage to maintain coherent objectives in the first place.

As it stands, I think the optimism that Starship will inevitably succeed ignores the poor business justification.

Feb 16, 2019
As it stands, I think the optimism that Starship will inevitably succeed ignores the poor business justification.


That is where public funding ought to come in. Sadly, with most of NASA manned space exploration budget wasted on SLS, Orion and to a lesser degree, the Gateway, I dont think that will happen until SpaceX demonstrates Starship test flight.

Feb 16, 2019
"As it stands, I think the optimism that Starship will inevitably succeed ignores the poor business justification."

It might not succeed. Rockets are hard to get right, and costly.

But the business case won't be a reason for shutting it down. SpaceX projects the per-kilogram launch costs will be a fraction of Falcon 9's, and they will be able to haul virtually anything to LEO and beyond. Rideshare satellite launches, for example. The launch price they'll be able to quote will be lower than anything else flying. That's going to stimulate demand.

Further, Starship is tied to their prospects for getting their LEO internet constellation established. How else will they be able to afford to launch thousands of satellites on their own dime? So they put their constellation up and start harvesting money from that.

The business case is *great* for Starship - *if* they can get it operational. That's the tricky part.

Feb 16, 2019
"Starship would still have to rendezvous with several propellent tankers to make it to the Moon, the energy required for transfer being little less than that needed to get to Mars before aerobraking is considered."

In LEO. It isn't yet clear how many tankers, but it may be possible to top off the tanks with one tanker for a moon run. There's no need to send tankers further out than LEO. A fully-fueled Starship in LEO will be able to go to the moon, land, lift off and come home again with fuel to spare, expending nothing.

By contrast, schemes which rely on refueling from a moon-orbiting station result in very complicated and expensive logistics, involving tankers going all the way out to moon orbit and rendezvousing with the station to drop off a tiny fraction of the fuel they lifted from Earth with. Or they'll put tankers up there and reuse them - but that means they will shuttle back and forth between the moon orbital station and LEO, mating with tankers in LEO.

Feb 16, 2019
So you see, it's not easier to insert a moon orbital station into the mix. It's more complicated. This is made worse by NASA's expendable approach to most of the equipment involved.

It's great that you can cite NASA's probing reusable equipment ideas. But most of those schemes never got off the drawing board. Certainly SLS didn't bother with them, which is why a launch will go for a billion bucks a pop. That, sir, is indefensible and unsupportable. There is no argument for it that makes a lick of sense.

Feb 16, 2019
As it stands, I think the optimism that Starship will inevitably succeed ignores the poor business justification.


That is where public funding ought to come in. Sadly, with most of NASA manned space exploration budget wasted on SLS, Orion and to a lesser degree, the Gateway, I dont think that will happen until SpaceX demonstrates Starship test flight.
says ShotmanM

It is, and has been, public funding that has enabled such scientific/space/Moon projects to be possible all these years since Friendship 7 and the Apollo program. American taxpayers have footed the bills gladly, for the most part.
As to the importance and value of the ISS - without it and the science experiments done in it - there are many things that would not have been known about LEO and its hazards. We would not have learnt that humans in LEO lose or gain a bit of length/height on the ISS, depending on how much time they spend there. Bones, cartilage, etc. No matter the expense - it is necessary

Feb 16, 2019
"Starship would still have to rendezvous with several propellent tankers to make it to the Moon, the energy required for transfer being little less than that needed to get to Mars before aerobraking is considered."

In LEO. It isn't yet clear how many tankers, but it may be possible to top off the tanks with one tanker for a moon run. There's no need to send tankers further out than LEO. A fully-fueled Starship in LEO will be able to go to the moon, land, lift off and come home again with fuel to spare, expending nothing.
says Urgelt

Similar to the LEO orbit of the ISS, a huge docking station, somewhat similar to a military "dry dock" on Earth, could be built in LEO or a little further out, where spacecraft could be built by AI riveters and humans to oversee the work. Such a "dry dock" built in LEO would be less expensive once all the necessary materials had been sent up to that location so that immediate building of the structure could begin. Steel girders and such.

Feb 16, 2019
"We do not expect that every one of those launches or every one of those landings will be successful. We are taking risks."

Gah! What a load of crap.
I notice that every single person who bombasts this tripe? Is NEVER the person actually risking their lives.

& I notice that most commentators are too cowardly to share any of the blaming on the greed of Corporate executives. Who are the ones who actually make the important decisions about all of these programs.

You all know of my opinion on what it will take to construct a successful space program.
A conservative infrastructure of orbiting automation.
Using whatever resources are available in Earth/Lunar sector.

Modest goals, at a cautious pace, dependent on available technology.

But then were would be the vaunted comicbook glory?

When, if? There is evidence for biology & humans surviving & thriving off Earth?

The robotic infrastructure would then serve a supporting role supplying resources.

Feb 16, 2019
@Urgelt
Starship is an upper stage, not the launch vehicle, and getting to the Moon and back from LEO encompasses nearly as much a change in velocity as getting into LEO from Earth's surface.

To break it down (rounding down), you're looking a around 5,900 m/s from LEO to the Lunar surface (including landing) and 2,500 m/s to make it back with maximum aerobraking for an absolute minimum of 8,400 m/s of delta-v.

Keep in mind that while each Starship has a projected propellant capacity of around 1,100 tons, optimistic estimates have the tanker hold but 150 tons of propellant at time. There is simply no way to get to the Moon and back without multiple tanker rendezvous with those constraints.

It's important to note that SpaceX has predicated Starship's Mars mission performance on refueling on Mars for any return journey precisely because of the problems that making high delta-v trips in one sitting entail.


Feb 16, 2019
@Urgelt
Starship is an upper stage, not the launch vehicle, and getting to the Moon and back from LEO encompasses nearly as much a change in velocity as getting into LEO from Earth's surface.

And that's not even including a landing and re-launch....

Feb 16, 2019
I specifically included landing and takeoff from the Lunar surface in the breakdown.

Feb 16, 2019
Scolar wrote, "Starship is an upper stage, not the launch vehicle..."

And your point?

Super-Heavy + Starship is a launch system, mkay?

"...getting to the Moon and back from LEO encompasses nearly as much a change in velocity as getting into LEO from Earth's surface."

But not nearly as much energy is required for the moon jaunt from LEO. It's less mass to move, no air resistance, lower moon gravity, etc.

"There is simply no way to get to the Moon and back without multiple tanker rendezvous with those constraints."

They'll need to fill up in LEO. We don't know how many tanker trips will be required.

The same applies to tanker trips to NASA's moon orbital station. Why do you prefer the more complex plan over the simpler one, again? Particularly as NASA's plan involves so much expendable equipment, and SpaceX's doesn't?

Feb 16, 2019
OUR FUTURE IS OUR PAST – we blew it, along with the SPACE PORT

We missed our only chance
the NASA shuttle tanks
on there own
fly themselves to orbit
then the shuttle
takes sky scraper engineers
into orbit
and
assemble these tanks
into one almighty
rotating ring
with zero gravity at it centre of mass
and 32ft/s at its circumference
this would have been a massive SPACE PORT
a tourist departure space port to the planets
bringing in billions of $$$$ in revenue
now
lost
lost with the Shuttle
lost with tourists on the Moon
lost with the Concord
the fastest airliner to grace the skies
as we move in to the future
we are moving into a future before the industrial revolution
Our future is our past

Feb 16, 2019
Autonomous refueling in orbit is a technology repeatedly demonstrated on orbit. It is not something to lose sleep over.

Loitering time in LEO, on the other hand, becomes a debris impact problem and potentially a boil off issue (but they could get away with using warmer propellant too at slightly lower efficiency). So I wonder if they are planning on repeatedly moving all the propellant to the next tanker that freshly arrives in orbit.

In this manner, they could reduce the total propellant refueling operation duration debris risk (e.g. 6 months) to say a month of exposure and do not need to build a dedicated orbital facility or boil off shades.

Or....they could just bite the apple and keep one tanker in orbit as the depot. They need to experiment with long duration space exposure anyway.

Any guesses?

Feb 16, 2019
I was correcting your confusion of the Starship (which I had mentioned as having a poor business justification) with the BFR as a whole. Keep in mind that the launch vehicle's costs only make up a small portion of the net R&D as far as manned vehicles are concerned.

Yet while it doesn't take much thrust for strictly orbit-to-orbit propulsion, this won't make your proposed architecture in this case any easier because Starship would be still be constrained by a modest 380 seconds of Vacuum Isp. You're still going to need nearly as much propellant relative to payload to get to the Lunar surface an back as LVs require to get to Earth orbit. Though we do not know the exact number of tanker rendezvous required, it's still physically impossible for this to be anywhere close to just one.

And where did I argue that I was supporting one's plan over the other? I was detailing why SpaceX's plan is not as simple as you're characterizing.

Feb 16, 2019
@eljo
I'll be blunt, Musk's proposed architecture is puzzling. Launching the manned vehicle first and then launching the tankers means there isn't a lot of room for error. Unless those launches are spaced out rather far apart for contingencies, a failure or delay of one could easily result in a Starship missing its Mars launch window altogether. Success or failure, that still means your manned vehicle is going to require several tons of contingencies (stationkeeping propellent, food, etc.) just so it can stay around for tankers to dock that it wouldn't need otherwise.

Like you wrote, a propellant depot wouldn't be that much more difficult to engineer. Though given how many changes SpaceX's previous concepts went through before passing into reality, I have a feeling that Starship, if ever built, will be a lot different in the future than the current presentations.

Feb 16, 2019
Scolar, you have not made your case.

There's enough work for Starship (and its first stage Super-Heavy) from ground to LEO to build a perfectly reasonable business case. It will have the lowest cost per kilogram of any rocket ever built. SpaceX needs that launch capacity for its internet satellite constellation, and the low cost will stimulate demand for launch services from folks shut out by high prices from other providers.

There's no business case for trips to Mars, of course. They'll have to get government contracts or use profits from the rest of their business to pay for that.

But that isn't what you said. You think there's a poor business case for Starship, period.

If it doesn't work, then you're right.

If it works, then you're dead wrong.

Feb 16, 2019
"Launching the manned vehicle first and then launching the tankers means there isn't a lot of room for error. Unless those launches are spaced out rather far apart for contingencies, a failure or delay of one could easily result in a Starship missing its Mars launch window altogether. Success or failure, that still means your manned vehicle is going to require several tons of contingencies (stationkeeping propellent, food, etc.) just so it can stay around for tankers to dock that it wouldn't need otherwise."

We have no firm information from Musk as to how he will refuel, other than his statement that the tanker operation would happen right on the heels of Starship's launch, and he's aiming for a day's turnaround for tanker launches. How many tankers will he use? How long will refueling operations go on? Will he create a fuel depot in orbit? We don't know.

I very much doubt, however, that Musk intends for Starship to loiter in orbit for a month or longer before leaving Earth.

Feb 16, 2019
"I have a feeling that Starship, if ever built, will be a lot different in the future than the current presentations."

Starship has morphed and morphed again; it's obviously nowhere near a design freeze. There's a great deal to sort out.

What isn't likely to change is the sheer size of the thing, its fuel and oxidizer, and its hull material, which I think they've settled on and won't change later on. Everything else is fluid. Even the engines are still under development - and Musk already admitted that after the initial operational capability is achieved, they're going to produce a version optimized for vacuum, which they won't have initially.

Feb 16, 2019
"I was correcting your confusion of the Starship... with the BFR as a whole."

You ought to correct your own confusion, friend. There is no 'BFR.' SpaceX dropped that name. They have no name for the booster + the Starship any longer.

Starship is the vehicle that will do everything in space that SpaceX hopes to do.

Together, Starship + Super-Heavy comprise a launch system, but as it's Starship that carries cargo, it's not terribly incorrect to just call the launch system 'Starship' and move on. It's a bit clumsy to call out both parts of the rocket stack, and it's downright incorrect to call it 'BFR,' which you just did.

Feb 16, 2019
That the assembled setup could be very low cost does not mean there's a business justification for developing an interplanetary vehicle component. The costs of developing high endurance and Martian reentry and landing capabilities already dwarf payload costs, and those are tremendous R&D expenses that a simpler vehicle serving Earth orbit customers would never have. SpaceX has already had enough difficulty developing a seven occupant, 9.5 ton capsule, and that's despite a great deal of financial and technical assistance from the vehicle's only customer.

I also don't need firm information on the tanker-to-Starship refueling procedures to note its inherent problems: It's immutably less cooperative with delays and launch failures than a depot.

As far as the names are concerned: SpaceX's own website calls the first stage the Super Heavy. BFR is still used by everyone else because it usefully refers to the whole stack.

Feb 16, 2019
Anyway, BFR is neat. (naming is good enough)

Besides, for less than a tenth of the entire SLS program, they are producing a Moon/Mars SSTO (with refueling), a Moon capable lander (with refueling), an orbital workhorse (without refueling), have it tested in commercial operations (with gov. aid), that is better than the status quo of their own company (SpaceX FH), which flies heavier missions for half the price or less than the competition to LEO and GTO. And any kind of double-digit reuse on their BFR will signify very low prices to orbit, shortening development timelines for space tech.

Besides that, they have a track record of figuring things out (e.g. in what sequence to fill a tank of propellant).

Military is reluctant to put more payloads on the FH as they might get an even better deal on the BFR.

FH already flies and has found customers (New Glenn too), so any way you put it, we are witnessing an impressive amount of progress.

Feb 16, 2019
Scolar_Visari

You don't really need a business justification if your goal is philanthropic. Many discoveries were made on old horses. In other words, once a single hull has paid for itself through reuse, it becomes affordable to use the hull to be discarded for an autonomous test flight to Mars. That is what common sense dictates, and that is probably what will happen.

There is plenty of experience with the Martian atmosphere. The hull is so big, he can revert to using tested lightweight ablative materials if he so chooses and at normal thickness, even those guarantee safe return through the Earth's atmosphere (after aerobraking/aerocapture).

Building a depot (in LEO) is unnecessary, you fill up one tanker that remains in orbit, and the interplanetary flight goes light. Boil off is not an issue and scheduling is solved by parallel launch (they plan to build multiple pads). It is all fairly common sense.

Feb 17, 2019

NASA heading back to Moon soon,


Perhaps sometime in June.

Feb 17, 2019
Moon before Mars. We continue talking about boosting reaction mass and even construction materials from Earth's deep gravity well, which is foolish and unsustainable due to the inherent poor economy of those plans.

Our first priority must be a permanent station on the lunar surface near a fuel supply (water). Components for the station still need to be boosted from Earth until lunar mining and manufacturing can be completed. After that, a CIS lunar station can be built using materials from the Moon at a much lower energy budget and delta V.

Once that station is complete, we begin to build transfer ships for CIS lunar to Earth/Moon. The principal cargo for those ships become reaction mass from the Moon, re-supply and people. We don't move reaction mass or construction materials from Earth.

Then we start thinking about a Mars mission. Not before.

Feb 17, 2019
Musk has been smoke and mirrors, particularly with that cardboard and tinfoil mars rocket that blew over in the wind. Hard to say what he's really planning because he isn't being honest.

One thing is certain, doing anything in space besides unmanned reconnaissance is going to be much, much more expensive, so much so that comparing costs to it sn't really relevant.

Having said that, one way to nearly double those much larger costs is by getting in or out of another gravity well besides the earth, be it Mars or even the moon.

Thus, the logical first step is the asteroid belt, not just because it lacks a gravity well but because it is also the only such destination with a remotely viable or even feasible commercial application: mining. (Permanent base, enclosed farming, and whatever else can be done there too.)

What's more, that NASA has chosen to privatize the venture further points to that sole commercial application as the true goal here.

Feb 17, 2019
And incidentally, NASA got Kubrick to doctor the photos, not the movies.

TV was crappy back then anyhow, but they wanted glossy magazine photos that looked as good as the movie 2001. Because, they wanted maximum PR Bang for the buck after the Soviets had beaten them to all the previous "firsts" in space.

Feb 17, 2019
Autonomous refueling in orbit. . . .

Loitering time in LEO, on the other hand, becomes a debris impact problem and potentially a boil off issue (but they could get away with using warmer propellant too at slightly lower efficiency). So I wonder if they are planning on repeatedly moving all the propellant to the next tanker that freshly arrives in orbit.

In this manner, they could reduce the total propellant refueling operation duration debris risk (e.g. 6 months) to say a month of exposure and do not need to build a dedicated orbital facility or boil off shades.

Or....they could just bite the apple and keep one tanker in orbit as the depot. They need to experiment with long duration space exposure anyway.

Any guesses?
says eljo

By the time that all of these hoped-for projects are ready to be realised, there may be new technology and newly formulated/discovered propellants. It is still too early to say what the powers-that-be will decide upon. We can only wait

Feb 17, 2019
Moon before Mars.

Our first priority must be a permanent station on the lunar surface near a fuel supply (water). Components for the station still need to be boosted from Earth until lunar mining and manufacturing can be completed. After that, a CIS lunar station can be built using materials from the Moon at a much lower energy budget and delta V.

Once that station is complete, we begin to build transfer ships for CIS lunar to Earth/Moon. The principal cargo for those ships become reaction mass from the Moon, re-supply and people. We don't move reaction mass or construction materials from Earth.

...start thinking about a Mars mission. Not before.
says BackBurner

The Moon must remain inviolate. No mass mining to take away from the Moon's material properties. The Earth's tides and other natural occurrences that depend on lunar presence are too important to Earth's existence. There is no data that could explain what the loss of the Moon and its environs could mean

Feb 17, 2019
There is no data that could explain what the loss of the Moon and its environs could mean


The loss of lunar mass wouldn't be measurable.

Feb 17, 2019
We can only wait


You'll be waiting a long time. Maybe exploration and colonization of the Americas should have waited for Boeing to invent the 767?

Oops. Boeing is in Seattle. Never mind.

Feb 17, 2019
Thus, the logical first step is the asteroid belt, not just because it lacks a gravity well but because it is also the only such destination with a remotely viable or even feasible commercial application: mining. (Permanent base, enclosed farming, and whatever else can be done there too.)


You understand how far away the asteroid belt is right? There's virtually no way you could even imagine direct Earth to Asteroid logistics for crewed ships. Can't be done. Anything headed for the asteroids with people on it will be built and launched from orbit and that will require an orbital support platform at the very least. The same is true for Mars. You'll know when a serious attempt to send a crewed vehicle to Mars is happening because you'll be able to see the ship in orbit with a telescope. It's going to be pretty big and it's not going to take off from or land in a gravity well.

Feb 17, 2019
Yes it could be done either way. Point is it'll be big and expensive and until we see it it's vaporeware, I agree.

Feb 17, 2019
You understand how far away the asteroid belt is right?


Trust me, this clown thinks Voyager has reached the Oort cloud! It is thick. Pay no attention to it.

Feb 17, 2019
Research into materials strong enough for a geostationary "space elevator" would seem to be the most economical approach to the lift problem. What's more, given strong enough material, another length of cabling and a couple counterweights could create both a "space rail" that would use centripetal force to do the cargo lifting from earth, as well as a "space slingshot" that could impact velocity to spacecraft for the first half of the journey.

Feb 17, 2019
And incidentally, NASA got Kubrick to doctor the photos, not the movies.

TV was crappy back then anyhow, but they wanted glossy magazine photos that looked as good as the movie 2001. Because, they wanted maximum PR Bang for the buck after the Soviets had beaten them to all the previous "firsts" in space.
says JaxPavan

I/We had watched the Moon landing of 20 July 1969 and later wondered why the Stars in the pitch-black sky above the Moon's surface could not be seen. Not even one. Finally, we came to realise that the light from the floodlights that were set up by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin had overcome the lights of the Stars - which was why we couldn't see them. On the same day, a Russian probe that was supposed to land on the Moon to pick up samples of moon regolith, had crashed instead - killing all Russian technology on board at the time. :)
The movies of Aldrin kicking up Moon dust as he walked on the Moon, seemingly in slow motion, could not be doctored

Feb 17, 2019
@jones

As usual you have nothing to contribute but fighting words.

Feb 17, 2019
@SEU,

I wrote that the photos were photoshopped by Kubrick, not the movies. I haven't examined them closely.

Feb 17, 2019
@SEU,

The hoax narrative is designed to cover up the truth: the moon landings were real but Kubrick was paid to embellish then a bit.

Feb 17, 2019
Musk has been smoke and mirrors, particularly with that cardboard and tinfoil mars rocket that blew over in the wind. Hard to say what he's really planning because he isn't being honest.

...much, much more expensive, so much so that comparing costs to it sn't really relevant.

Having said that, one way to nearly double those much larger costs is by getting in or out of another gravity...

Thus, the logical first step is the asteroid belt, not just because it lacks a gravity well but because it is also the only such destination with a remotely viable or even feasible commercial application: mining. (Permanent base, enclosed farming, and whatever else can be done there too.)

What's more, that NASA has chosen to privatize the venture further points to that sole commercial application as the true goal here.
says JaxPavan

Each very large asteroid in the Belt has its own gravity well which is why asteroids tend to flock together in the Belt.


Feb 17, 2019
If only the moon were both tidally locked and geostationary, we could run cabling to it like a Darwin spider. . .

Perhaps having a large enough geostationary satellite platform for a space elevator cable is a condition precedent to any meaningful expansion into space?

Feb 17, 2019
@SEU,

"Each very large asteroid in the Belt has its own gravity well which is why asteroids tend to flock together in the Belt."

True, but the gravity in question is negligible compared to Mars. You may be confusing the scales involved. Even feathers would clump together in the absence of a larger source of gravity.

Feb 17, 2019
-contd-
@JaxPavan

Occasionally, 1 or 2 asteroids in the Belt are knocked out of their flock and attain a trajectory towards Earth - and you have Tunguska, Chelyabinsk, and the one that came down West of Chile that killed the dinosaurs. Let us pray that we will be spared another such hit.
I have to disagree with going all the way to the asteroid belt for mining resources. For one thing - the distance is too great for such pie-in-the-sky dreams - but also because the asteroids are a tight-knit group whereby removing or moving even 1 or 2 out of their space in the Belt MIGHT cause a problem where a void is left behind - and where other asteroids will have to move in to fill that void - causing a mass disturbance of asteroids jockeying into position. Even if no asteroids are moved, just the act of removing parts by mining COULD remove at least some of the stability.
And its stability that we want to maintain in such a large flock of rocks. Otherwise, you get Tunguska.

Feb 17, 2019
@SEU,

The hoax narrative is designed to cover up the truth: the moon landings were real but Kubrick was paid to embellish then a bit.
says JaxPavan

That's Art Imitating Life. I had never heard of Kubrick doing such a dastardly deed - but the pay must have been worth it. At least, for the consumption of the general public, who might not know any better.
Humans are, for the most part, extremely gullible when there is a desire to impress them with the fantastic. But the movies were, indeed, the real McCoy - as they say.

Feb 17, 2019
If only the moon were both tidally locked and geostationary, we could run cabling to it like a Darwin spider. . .

Perhaps having a large enough geostationary satellite platform for a space elevator cable is a condition precedent to any meaningful expansion into space?
says JaxPavan

Such an endeavour is fraught with many complications. If there were no air travel where airplanes might contact the cable, such a cable might be feasible, but there is also the natural air currents, thunder and lightning storms, hail and hurricanes, etc. to worry about. Such a cable could only be stationary in only 1 location of Earth and that location would need to be very well thought out with geosynchronicity in mind.

Feb 17, 2019
@SEU,

"Each very large asteroid in the Belt has its own gravity well which is why asteroids tend to flock together in the Belt."

True, but the gravity in question is negligible compared to Mars. You may be confusing the scales involved. Even feathers would clump together in the absence of a larger source of gravity.
says JaxPavan

Mars is lucky, in that the asteroid belt - while closer to Mars itself - is far enough away from the planet to prevent mass intrusion by many large asteroids. The fact that there are so many huge craters on Mars attest to the fact that the Belt MAY have been a bit closer - close enough that many smaller asteroids made contact with the planet aeons ago. We don't remember it too well now.

Feb 17, 2019
Have to feed the dog. Will be back later.

Feb 17, 2019
There is no data that could explain what the loss of the Moon and its environs could mean


The loss of lunar mass wouldn't be measurable.
says BackBurner

Perhaps only 1 commercial venture for mining Moon rocks might be negligible (seemingly), but if many, many mining companies go to the Moon to take away enough of its mass, depending on HOW MUCH MASS is removed - it could result in dire consequences for the Earth. Consider all of the gold mining done in Africa and other continents where massive digging has resulted in the hills and mountains reduced to a plain. The same for iron, aluminium, silver, copper, etc. The only difference is that these metals are not being carted away FROM Earth.

Feb 17, 2019
Okay, anybody else enjoying watching the whiffle-ball game between jax & seu?

I am not convinced that jax is one of the typecast woo-loons to be endured on this site?
jax does seem naive & lacking in real world experience. Certainly has no knowledge of industrial processes especially logistical organization.

As for seu? ...sigh...
Oh wait, he does have good taste in cheeses. I am pleased to give him that.
Yeah? Sure that's my gluttony speaking. At my age, it's one of the few vices still left me.

But how in the hell am I suppose to avoid ridiculing him over Moon mining stealing Earth's Ocean;s tides?
Next he'll be obsessing about his "Precious Bodily Fluids".

Though I do agree with him & other commentators against mining the Moon or Mars or the asteroids. When there is a perfectly respectable asteroid at L4 & whole bunch of smaller rocks in Earth/Luna orbit plus the rocks passing by as regular as a trolley..
https://en.wikipe...h_trojan

Feb 17, 2019
Here's why we're still stuck in LEO.

All NASA budgets since foundation combined - $800 billion
Pentagon 2017 budget - $700 billion
Peak percentage of US budget during Apollo - 4.5%
Pentagon percentage of US budget in 2017 - 45%

Feb 18, 2019
Apollo was a military program to beat the russians to it. After that particular arms race spending essentially ceased. Now the chinese are "threatening" to build a base on the moon so we have another military arms race.

It's a bit sad to see that stuff never gets any political backing because of foresight or inquisitiveness but solely because of fear.

Though anything that comes out of THIS administration should be taken with a hefty grain of salt. Currently I treat any such announcements as a smoke screen.
...because fear can be translated into votes whereas a sense of "working towards a better future" can't.

Feb 18, 2019
As a relatively new American citizen born and raised in the UK, I have no qualms whatsoever as to the quality of this American president and his qualifications to complete the job that he was sworn to do to the best of his abilities. Since his time in office the unemployment rate for Americans is down even lower than during Obama's 2 terms. More women and minorities are in the work force than before with good salary commensurate to the type of job. Trump's efforts to build the wall and have it completed in a timely fashion has fallen on deaf Democrat Party members' ears, making it appear to most Americans that Democrats are unconcerned that American children and young adults are dying from illegal drugs that are being brought into the States by drug cartels from South of the border who are being enriched by the deaths of Americans. Not to mention the gang members who cross into the US and terrorise, murder and steal from Americans.
Yes, fear does translate into votes.

Feb 18, 2019
It is well known that majority of cities in the US that are led by Democrat Party members/politicians have the highest crime rates and poverty in the country. Those leaders are mainly Liberal-Socialists who are themselves rich while decrying that the rich don't pay enough taxes, although the 1% richest Americans pay ~40 - 60% of all taxes IIRC. In spite of all the promises and propaganda made by Democrat Party politicians to their constituents, their cities are still the poorest, dirtiest and most crime-ridden. It is also well known that illegal immigrants crossing the borders into the US are wanted and welcomed by the Dems in the belief that these people will vote for Democrats and keep them in power, in exchange for such things as welfare money, free housing and education and free medical care. Many of these illegals are diseased and are transmitting their diseases onto American citizens, who then transmit it to others.
Americans have plenty to fear, but from the Democrats

Feb 18, 2019
"The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA, /ˈnæsə/) is an independent agency of the United States Federal Government responsible for the civilian space program, as well as aeronautics and aerospace research.[note 1]

NASA was established in 1958, succeeding the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA). The new agency was to have a distinctly civilian orientation, encouraging peaceful applications in space science.[7][8][9] Since its establishment, most US space exploration efforts have been led by NASA, including the Apollo Moon landing missions, the Skylab space station, and later the Space Shuttle. NASA is supporting the International Space Station and is overseeing the development of the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, the Space Launch System and Commercial Crew vehicles. The agency is also responsible for the Launch Services Program which provides oversight of launch operations and countdown management for unmanned NASA launches."

Feb 18, 2019
Clearly, the Apollo space program was NOT a military project, although the astronauts were former military personnel who were trained by NASA.
The so-called "space race" began in the early 1960s after Sputnik and then the Russian cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin were launched into space. At the time, Russia was the central state of the USSR which was fully Communist. That was only part of the reason for the US to get into Space. It was also for the purpose of scientific space exploration to answer the many questions humans have had for millennia. Photographs and videos of the Earth taken from outer space would not have been possible had it not been for the US Space Program and NASA. Russians, Americans and scientists from all over the world have been, and are, cooperating for the sake of science discovery, with nothing to do with military intervention. This is why high school and University courses in STEM are so crucial to the future of humanity.

Feb 18, 2019
Sounds great. But, since NASA announced this publicly and Chinese see this, which they probably already did ... they are going to make sure that they do it before US.
How can an agency like NASA make such a huge strategic mistake ... unbelievable.

Or this might be just some kind of cover news.

Feb 18, 2019
2028???
Well, guess 2029 will be the beginning of time travel.

Feb 18, 2019
sorry seu & sa, that the Earth is rotating against your demands. i'm sure if you go out on your porch & yell loudly enough?
this planet will reverse it's rotation just to please you.

For those of us who line om the real world? Realize we have had the long-term problem of a bloated Military & Hidden Acronyms sucking the life out of the economy.

As is typical of fascist states, to oppress & destroy creativity, initiative, progress.
Devoured by the ravenous appetites of the fascist cartels. Whether Right Fascist or Left Fascist, they consume all productivity & destroy Human resources. Eventually they collapse under their inability to produce anything useful, even for basic survival.

That's whats got you racist twits in a twist of your knickers. That the Chinese have actually overcame the Left Fascist insanity to return to being Chinese. The CP-PRC is a hollow shell over an expanding & thriving society. Just like the major religious cults of the West.

Feb 18, 2019
says the soused rrwilliejoe

sorry seu & sa, that the Earth is rotating against your demands. i'm sure if you go out on your porch & yell loudly enough?
this planet will reverse it's rotation just to please you.
- Are you asking a question, williejoe? IF not, then why the question mark? You're not making intelligible sense. Lay off the Jack Daniels, aye? Even if I had a porch, I would NOT go out there and yell.

For those of us who line om the real world? Realize we have had the long-term problem of a bloated Military & Hidden Acronyms sucking the life out of the economy.
- What do you mean by "For those of us who line om the real world"? What are you trying to say, williejoe?
The US doesn't have a "bloated" military. The US military is allotted funding by Congress who votes on the amount to be paid to it each year. What "hidden acronyms"? Do try to be more specific, as it is YOU that seems to be hiding your meanings.


Feb 18, 2019
says the Socialist drunken rrwilliejoe

As is typical of fascist states, to oppress & destroy creativity, initiative, progress.
Devoured by the ravenous appetites of the fascist cartels. Whether Right Fascist or Left Fascist, they consume all productivity & destroy Human resources. Eventually they collapse under their inability to produce anything useful, even for basic survival.
- What fascist state, williejoe? Why are you so cryptic? The last Fascism occurred in Italy under the Fascist leader, Benito Mussollini until his followers garroted him with a wire.
By "fascist cartels" do you mean the Mexican drug cartels who are killing American kids who are overdosing from illegal drugs?

Feb 18, 2019
says the very confused and inarticulate rrwilliejoe aka rrwillisj

That's whats got you racist twits in a twist of your knickers. That the Chinese have actually overcame the Left Fascist insanity to return to being Chinese. The CP-PRC is a hollow shell over an expanding & thriving society. Just like the major religious cults of the West.
- Now you seem to be equating religious choice with the politics of Communist China - which, by the way, is NOT a Fascist government. Race and skin colour has nothing to do with the fact that China and the vast majority of people who live in China are COMMUNISTS.
Are you aware of what Communism is all about, wlliejoe? Or are you just "mouthing" certain epithets which you heard somewhere and thought to use it in physorg phorums to appear more relevant and intelligent than you really are?
As a Socialist in the USA, are you hoping that the country in which you live will soon take up the Communist ideology that will enslave you?

Feb 18, 2019
Sounds great. But, since NASA announced this publicly and Chinese see this, which they probably already did ... they are going to make sure that they do it before US.
How can an agency like NASA make such a huge strategic mistake ... unbelievable.

Or this might be just some kind of cover news.
says ScienceA

Red China has spies practically everywhere, so of course the Chinese gov't knew.
From what I have heard - and this is secret - there is something going on in that Satellite of Earth which NASA knows about and may have some concern. Of course they wouldn't dare announce it to the public. But it is possible that NASA might prefer that the Chinese gov't send their people to the Moon first and see what happens - before we send up our own scientists/astronauts. If their own people are zapped with ray guns, for example - then we will KNOW not to send any of our own humans there. Look at it this way - if you want to trap something, you need bait.

Feb 18, 2019
This Moonchine, on the darkside

Our moon, in conspiracy on the far side
these Chinese, their seedlings froze in the frigid Moonchine night air
this dream, this conspiracy
these Chinese dreamt up of have vast paddy fields as far as the eye could see
stretching endlessly on their Moonchine
in their conspiratorial haste they forgot one vital ingredient
paddy fields have been farmed for Aeons by coolies up their waist's in water
their Moonchine, is lacking that vital ingredient, Rain
for as long as this fine bone dry Moonchine regolith has existed
Not one single raindrop has touched this Moonchine regolith for nigh on 4.5billion years

Feb 18, 2019
The Moon Plan
NASA plans to build a small space station, dubbed Gateway, in the Moon's orbit by 2026. It will serve as a way-station for trips to and from the lunar surface, but will not be permanently crewed like the International Space Station (ISS), currently in Earth's orbit.

Acceptance of defeat before the plan is implemented; "but will not be permanently crewed like the International Space Station"
NASA cannot get to moon in a day, or a week, or a month
as it would have to, for a manned Moonchine, the Chinese have exactly the same problem
as long as we use rockets,
as they say no amount of money can buy happiness
rockets are expensively inadequate
when we have people living on the moon
we cannot hide in this darkside
we have to address this propulsion inadequacy
Now we approach our far side

Feb 19, 2019
seu, you have made it perfectly obvious confession. That you are the one buying & using the drugs smuggled into America,
& since you are a proud racist quisling, you would only purchase the drugs you consume from a Proud White Traitor.

Mewling
Antidisestablishmentarian
Gang-that-cant-shoot-straight
Authoritarists
(trademarked - made in China)

Feb 20, 2019
It's this simple; the ISS offers nothing absolutely nothing in the way of useful data on what it would be like to live in a colony or station on the moon. Stop squandering money on it and divert funds to the moonbase and rockets good enough to get there.

Feb 20, 2019
It's this simple; the ISS offers nothing absolutely nothing in the way of useful data on what it would be like to live in a colony or station on the moon. Stop squandering money on it and divert funds to the moonbase and rockets good enough to get there.

Wrong. For example, ISS have provided useful data about the dangers of zero gravity and how to battle against it with exercising etc.

Feb 20, 2019
caution cortezz, many commentators to this site resent any Space Medicine results that throw a cold bucket of piss on their comicbook dreams.

thorazineboy is sulking because the atomic priesthood didn't get to steal the NASA funding first before trump did.
The other half of that 2-headed radioactive monster, sillyegg.
Is denouncing all foreign-exchange students as spies. To steal publicly posted research. The Generals & Admirals are happy to share their secrets with any student wandering by.
When all anyone has to do is subscribe to the Theosophy Journal or the Illuminati Magazine to learn all the "Hidden Secrets" of the Universe.

Or just ask pimp putin. His whore trump has generously supplied master pimp with all the NSC & DOD briefings.

& you sillyegghead, threatening foreign students here in the USofA? Remember"Exchange"? Your rants puts American students overseas in harms way! Do you ever consider consequences before goading your fellow global lunatics?

Feb 26, 2019
.

& you sillyegghead, threatening foreign students here in the USofA? Remember"Exchange"? Your rants puts American students overseas in harms way! Do you ever consider consequences before goading your fellow global lunatics?
says the drunken sot - rrwilliejoe

Nobody said anything about threatening foreign exchange students in the USA, williejoe. Perhaps you are having the "shakes" from imbibing too much from your cache of Jack Daniels. Ease up on your drunken stuporifics so that you will be better able to understand what was actually said in these physorg phorums.
Perhaps you don't recall, or never heard of, the 23 years old college student from Ohio, Otto Warmbler, who had been detained in North Korea in 2016 and jailed for taking a poster in the hotel where he and other students were staying. He was abused and beaten and, when the North Koreans sent him back to the US, he died from all the beatings he had suffered in NK. So, are you mourning for him yet?

Mar 14, 2019
So after what? 60 years? we are finally back to von Braun's original plan?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more