• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Obama Will Stick with Bush Moon Plan

jmc247

Vice Admiral
Admiral
The fiscal 2010 NASA budget outline to be released by the Obama Administration Feb. 26 adds almost $700 million to the out-year figure proposed in the fiscal 2009 budget request submitted by former President Bush, and sticks with the goal of returning humans to the moon by 2020.

The $18.7 billion that Obama will request for NASA - up from $18.026 billion for fiscal 2010 in the last Bush budget request - does not include the $1 billion NASA will receive in the $787 billion stimulus package that President Barack Obama signed Feb. 16.

Aviation Week has learned that in addition to the human-lunar return, Obama wants to continue robotic exploration with probes to Mars and other Solar System destinations, as well as a space telescope to probe deeper into the universe.

He will request increases in Earth Science, in keeping with his call Feb. 24 for action on global warming. And he will ask for additional funds for the NextGen satellite-based air traffic control modernization effort within NASA's aeronautics request.

In addition to those newly requested funds, under the stimulus package the space agency will receive $400 million for back-to-the-moon exploration work; $400 million for science directed at climate-change space missions and the supercomputing capability needed for climate modeling; $150 million for aeronautics, including NextGen, and $50 million for repairs to hurricane damage suffered in 2008.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...headline=Obama Will Stick with Bush Moon Plan

First the moon then Mars.
 
I suppose the question needs to be asked: What does the moon provide that the ISS doesn't?

I'm no expert, but one obvious possibility: A testing ground for offworld bases which is nearby enough to make the effort relatively low-risk (as these things go). An emergency return would not be out of the question, for one thing. You can do all the experiments you want in the Sahara, but until you actually try building a base on another rock, there are a lot of problems you won't anticipate.
 
I suppose the question needs to be asked: What does the moon provide that the ISS doesn't?
For one thing, Helium 3.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3

Not a single mineral economically mined on Earth has ever been present in the low concentrations that Helium 3 is on the moon.

You would have to mine and process a million tons of lunar soil on the average to produce one ton of Helium 3.

If we ever need Helium 3 for fusion reactors, we'll be getting it from the atmospheres of Uranus and Neptune.
 
NASA's budget, when compared to those of the HHS and the DoD, is a pittance yet yields a greater return.
 
I suppose the question needs to be asked: What does the moon provide that the ISS doesn't?

It takes less fuel to leave Luna's gravity for starters and the ISS can't be used as a staging platform for anything seeing as how it's too small and fragile. It's designed to hold 6 people and occasionally a few more and that's it.

If you want a low-Earth orbit launch platform then you'd have to design and build a totally new station.
 
I suppose the question needs to be asked: What does the moon provide that the ISS doesn't?

It takes less fuel to leave Luna's gravity for starters and the ISS can't be used as a staging platform for anything seeing as how it's too small and fragile. It's designed to hold 6 people and occasionally a few more and that's it.

If you want a low-Earth orbit launch platform then you'd have to design and build a totally new station.

It seems to me that building a new station in space versus building a new station on the moon isn't going to be much different in terms of difficulty.
 
The moon can at least provide some resources...if you're in Earth orbit you're sort of fucked in that regard...everything has to be brought up.
 
You don't need a lunar base to go to Mars or anywhere else.

As Dr. Robert Zubrin explains clearly in his book "The Case For Mars".

The moon offers no resources you couldn't find cheaper and more accessible elsewhere.
 
I wonder if those left up there moon buggies will be classic lunar cars some day. It would be fun to put those in a lunar garage and restore them.
 
:Mallory walks into a auto scrap yard:

"Excuse me, do you have a fender for a 1972 NASA Lunar Buggy?"
 
i'm getting my towel ready to throw on a deckchair at Lake Armstrong. get in before those German buggers! they always nick the good seats!
 
The moon can at least provide some resources...if you're in Earth orbit you're sort of fucked in that regard...everything has to be brought up.

It's also much more efficient and practical to build space hardware on the ground than in orbit. Roberto Orci says so. ;)
 
It's much more efficient and practical to build damn near anything on the ground than in orbit.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top