Project Orion to Bring U.S. Back to the Moon 399
ganjadude writes "Thirty-seven years ago yesterday, Project Apollo put the first humans on the surface of the Moon. The next time the U.S. launches its astronauts to Earth's natural satellite, they will do so as part of Project Orion." From the article: "Under Project Orion, NASA would launch crews of four astronauts aboard Orion capsules, first to Earth orbit and the International Space Station and then later to the Moon. Two teams, one led by Lockheed Martin and the other a joint effort by Northrop Grumman and The Boeing Co., are currently competing to build the CEV. NASA is expected to select the winner in September."
Don't jinx it... (Score:3, Interesting)
Not exactly the most auspicious name...
Re:inherent scientific value? (Score:5, Interesting)
Finding even simple organisims that evolved on Mars would be of fantastic value. Right now all we know about life is derived from one sample point. A lot of what we assume to fundamental about life could be proven completely wrong if we find out the Martian life does it differently. It could be that Earth life has unnecessary complexities and finding Mars life is the key to creating life from scratch in the lab. All sorts of amazing bio-technology could result.
Re:Thanks for getting my hopes up, NASA (Score:5, Interesting)
No kidding. Naming in Orion is travsity. The real Orion would open up the entire solar system. This return to Apollo style capsules is an embarassment, a belated acknowledgement that we went down the wrong path and now must back up and start again. Nothing at all like the great leap forward that a nuclear pulse rocket would be.
Re:inherent scientific value? (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as the value of "putting men on a rock in space" is concerned, it's more than just the science value. That is not to discount the science value which is very real. I heard of an experiment that was done with a simulated "alien" environment. First the unmanned probes (may have been rovers) were given their chance to explore the area. They found nothing remarkable. Then they sent in the *HUMANS* who within seconds discovered a soda can that obviously did not belong in the simulated environment.
That may be an urban legand, but I believe it makes a valid point. A trained *HUMAN* scientist can quickly determine what is relevant and what is not, and focus on the relevant. That is not to say that all exploration should be manned. I believe the manned and unmanned missions should be complimentary, not competitors.
Re:inherent scientific value? (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, repeating the past is hardly going to help advance current science, don't you think?
We need fundamentally different, harder challenges! Why? Because going to the Moon is possible with 1960's technology, so actually going to the said Moon will sink hundreds of billions into the said 1960's technology!
Why not invest this US$ trillion or so into fusion research, quantum computing, neuroscience (so we can finally understand and replicate our brains, create a true AI).
Why not give that money to science teachers so that we don't need to import engineers from India, China, Russia? Why not turn that money into scholarships for the trailor/ghetto-trash youths, help them break out of the vicious circle of poverty-pregnancy-poverty?
The usual suspects (Score:5, Interesting)
All of which are lies. They're obviously justifications because they don't want to tell you the real reason: because it's cool. And arguably, that's the best reason.
The US reached its position of power in the world largely on the back of its inventiveness. (Immensely fertile land didn't hurt, but we'd have long since tapped that out if we hadn't invented a huge array of technology to prop it up).
If a high-profile "scientific" mission (there's actually little scientific value to manned space-flight) inspires the things that bring money into America today, from Sergey Brin to Dean Kamen to Craig Venter, perhaps it's money worth spending.
Other than that, it's mostly a way to funnel vast sums of money to prop up the military contractors. Guess what Boeing, Northrup-Grumman, and Lockheed do when they're not building space-ships? And they do it in practically every Congressional district in the country.
Re:Space Wars (Score:3, Interesting)
Capsules?!? (Score:4, Interesting)
We need to head up there and build a glass factory and an iron factory, is what needs to happen. Then we need to start building all types of stuff that will be very inexpensive to launch because the moon's gravity is so much less than the earths.
I mean, is there a point to these missions? Or are they just more little go and take picture expeditions?
rhY
Re:inherent scientific value? (Score:3, Interesting)
I hope this litte joke illustrates the problem with what you are proposing. Do you realize that the Titan rockets burned 20,000 gal. of fuel per second (!) to go to the Moon. Current technology is no better; Crew Exploration Vehicle launchers will be about as efficient as the old Titans, so the money invested into the Moon missions will literally go up in (rocket exhaust) smoke!
What we need is a new propulsion system, something like the ion thruster prototypes the Europeans got (ions get expelled at near-light speed, with power coming from a nuclear reactor or solar batteries, hence very little fuel is actually needed; this tech is at a vaporvare-prototype stage due to lack of funding).
To be sure, Lockheed-Martin and NG want money to build 1960's junk relabeled as CEV at a premium, not asking for money for new fundamental research. If they invest the taxpayer money into fundamental research, they will have nothing to show for it to taxpayers for decades!
The truth is, companies cannot make profit off the fundamental research; this is why you need NSF, NIH (of government), or universities/non-profit labs to get the money, not the likes of Lockheed-Martin and NG, as would happen under this Orion scam.
Sorry for ranting, I hoped this might help you.
Re:The usual suspects (Score:2, Interesting)
The first reason the list is usually so short, is that most of us here are not avionics experts. There are hundreds of components (possibly thousands) used in current jets that were developed by NASA.
The second reason that the list is short is that most of us are too lazy to do some honest research when posting a reply here on /. As you can probably tell, I'm including myself in this...
You're a movie critic, aren't you? Kidding. Honestly though, either help or shut up and get out of the way. Like adam(1231), I am also a filmmaker (albeit, still amateur). One of the pipe dreams I've had for years is to film Robert Heinlein's "The Menace from Earth". There's only one place that can be acheived: the moon. Practical? Hell no. Worth it? Hell yes.
There are plenty segments of the human population that wouldn't pain me to disappear in a cloud of radioactive particles *cough* red states *cough*, but I certainly believe that what we have acheived as human beings is important, beautiful and good. Those 'others' are just the bottom end of the bell curve. I, personally, would rather be at the other end of said bell curve.
Re:inherent scientific value? (Score:3, Interesting)
IMHO, this is one of the reasons why we don't have a base on the moon already. Even starting to build one would be the equivalent of stockpiling nukes again, suddenly every major arms country would need some means to balance the firepower.
Re:inherent scientific value? (Score:5, Interesting)
For many nations, it's easy to guess which stage they are at. You could say that, say, China is clearly being reborn. France is looking back at its past glories. The US is an unusual case. It's sort of still in its golden age, held there by the immigrants who keep renewing it past where the nation could normally stay without becoming decadent. The space program is a good indicator. If it is cancelled, it would mean that the US is finally on its way down. It does not matter to me whether it is the economically right thing to do, its the right thing to do if we don't want to end up where the other empires usually do - decaying into the dust as its young and vigorous neighbors go forward.
Re:How about just the Economy of it? (Score:3, Interesting)
In many cases that is true, and why? Because there is no more efficient way to do it. The obvoius industrial need that you are overlooking is called "the competitive edge". If you can produce something cheaper than your rival, you beat him on price and prolong the success of your company. If you prefer to ignore this industrial need as pithy and inconsequential, then please explain to me why billions and billions of dollars are being spent to move manufacturing to China?
The downside to that is that solar energy is all you have. It's not enough for most industrial processes. Aluminum plants are built only where cheap hydro or nuclear energy is available, for example.
Solar energy on the moon is a completely different creature. You can get GOBS of power from it because there is no obstructive atmosphere in your way. Refining, since you went there, would probably be a highly plasma based process, engineered to the circumstances there.
I wonder why it isn't already? A hint: it isn't profitable.
No, what you mean to say is, "It isn't short-term profitable". And that was the point of my post. The big question is, can we collect and deliver energy more efficiently using solar on the moon and satellites than we can in some areas on earth? The answer is a resounding yes. The problem is that it is extremely expensive to get that ball rolling, and the length of time to recover initial costs is not appealing.
Sounds like magic; unfortunately, things are not that simple. If you don't want your microwave beam to circle the... blah blah blah
I was talking about freight, not beams. The beams thing is a simple matter of engineering, which people happen to be quite good at... or hadn't you noticed?
Oceangoing cargo ships are the cheapest transport on the planet. Besides, what lunar cargo do you plan to drop on Earth that is worth dropping and that will survive the drop? Raw materials will do, but they are better used in orbit, not on the surface.
Again, he who can do it cheaper, wins. Survive the drop? Again, engineering to the rescue. To re-use the silicon example, a lunar factory could make the huge silicon slugs, cut each one into numerous 40mm -square- slugs. They could then fire them with disposable glass rocket control systems (fuel made on the moon) in disposable dual-insulated glass shipping containers into earth orbit where satellite control could guide them to their drop destination. The landing pad might be a tank of water 80 meters across and 200 meters deep. The energy expenditure for this process would be miniscule.
Lunar manufacturing will need to come up with some real miracles to be worth of lugging all the way to Earth
Lugging all the way to Earth? Lugging is what happens from China on a barge. Moving cargo from the Moon to Earth would be nearly effortless.
Personally, I believe your real agenda here is about something else entirely. Any time I meet someone who argues a thing with such a complete lack of imagination and such determined pessimism, it is because they don't want to tell their true motive. In fact, your weak arguments make me feel that you actually agree with me, and that you only express your negativity because you are afraid that other people will agree with me as well (which somehow would not bode well for your true motive). So, to wash the bullshit off the table, why don't you just plainly tell us what you would rather see done with the money?
By the way, you wouldn't happen to be an anticapitalist, would you?
Let's look beyond capitalism, here... (Score:5, Interesting)
But I also support various programs that produce no profit (directly) and cost a great deal of time and money, including space exploration.
Why?
Because I'm a human being. I like that we're exploring. I like that we're pushing beyond these bounds placed upon us. I am fascinated by the idea that man could do something so complex as leave this earth and visit the Moon, or Mars, or beyond. It's not just the money - it's the fulfillment of a human desire. Something we were "made" for - to reach out and extend ourselves beyond this sphere and to travel to new lands. I must admit - my thoughts are based purely on ideology, not "reason". But I think I'm not alone in this.
There's something about space exploration that should set off that spark in all of us - something beyond money, beyond mere profit. It's the advancement of the capabilities of an entire species - it's not merely that Americans have been on the moon, but man has been there.
If (when) it costs hundreds of billions to go to Mars and back, with no economic returns, it will still have been worth it. We will then be able to say that man has gone to the moon, that mankind has made yet another massive acheivement.
Are there things on earth that need to be fixed? Yup. But if we wait for things to be perfect here before we leave, we'll never go. In any case, simply giving away money has rarely had a positive effect on most social problems - it's often made them worse.
Why climb Mount Everest, when it gains you nothing and could cost you your life? Because it's there. That's a good enough reason for me to see us go to the moon, Mars, or anywhere else.
In any case, I think we all love the moon... [rathergood.com]
Re:inherent scientific value? (Score:2, Interesting)
My bet is that we will find simple life on Mars, but that it will be so closely related to Terrestrial life that decades will be spent trying to uncover the truth - which will probably be a contamination origin.
SLM
Stanley Kubrick and Orion (Score:4, Interesting)
A quick google netted this [visual-memory.co.uk] web site that supports the story.
Re:inherent scientific value? (Score:2, Interesting)
More impressive... (Score:3, Interesting)
shuttle to iss then orion to moon??? (Score:2, Interesting)
I dunno, maybe it wouldnt have as bad a long term effect as I'm thinking, even with super small detonations, but I wonder...
Re:inherent scientific value? (Score:3, Interesting)
International Space Station (Score:2, Interesting)