NASA Plans on sending astronauts back to the moon as part of SLS testing in prep for Mars missions

I didn't see this references/posted anywhere else, so I apologize if it is.

I was just watching a live online broadcast from NASA, "Our Path to Mars Exploration Forum ", and they were outlining the plans for the Mars mission(s). As part of the testing of the Orion crew capsule and Space Launch System, two flights to the moon are included, the second of which is to be manned. I don't think they'll be landing on the moon, but a manned mission to an asteroid ( Asteroid Redirect Mission) is planned as well which will include samples taken by astronauts on the asteroids surface.

Here's a graphic that I screenshot from the conference outlining the manned lunar mission.

i98.photobucket.com...

i98.photobucket.com...

BTW, stream is still live for a bit of Q&A here:
www.nasa.gov...

Sounds interesting OP...
(outta box) If there is a Moon Goddess 1 wonders would she permit a landing this time?

a reply to: JJRichey

Now I like that type of announcement.

Was there any sort of timeframe they were projecting that this would start to happen (after the actual tech development)?

I noticed in the first image that the rocket had a NASA logo on it. did they mention anything about collaborating with SpaceX or any other such company?

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13
Sounds interesting OP...
(outta box) If there is a Moon Goddess 1 wonders would she permit a landing this time?

Well, China is planning on a Moon-Palace 1 ! Well, translated thats what the name of their proposed moon base is.

a reply to: JJRichey

Thanks for the response back JJRichey. It will be nice to one day see LUNA pictures video taped live from the shiny surface

a reply to: Chamberf=6

The outlined plan calls for using US commercial spaceflight companies, such as SpaceX, to provide the lift to orbit. I heard the year 2030 thrown around, but I caught the stream more than halfway through, so I'll have to look up the proposed timeline.

Here's some rough dates:

NASA is developing the capabilities needed to send humans to an asteroid by 2025 and Mars in the 2030s – goals outlined in the bipartisan NASA Authorization Act of 2010 and in the U.S. National Space Policy, also issued in 2010.

"Our next step is deep space, where NASA will send a robotic mission to capture and redirect an asteroid to orbit the moon. Astronauts aboard the Orion spacecraft will explore the asteroid in the 2020s, returning to Earth with samples."


Source

I really want to see what the US does if someone other than them tries to establish a base...


AS A Funny side note, The US refused to sign the treaty stating the moon was held for all man and belonged to no nation.


I mean...

After all...

We put a flag on it, thats how these things work.

Well, NASA can keep dreaming. This is the way it goes:

1) To win the votes of white-collar aerospace workers, the President announces ambitious new agenda for space program with trips to the Moon and Mars.
2) Congress doesn't pass the budget for it.
3) Repeat as necessary.

a reply to: JJRichey

Thanks.

I realize all this takes huge planning and time, but with things like this I always find myself impatient and wishing for a much closer year.

I don't want to be at the point in my life where I might be shouting "get off my lawn you kids!" and straining to hear the TV. But hey, what can I do?

a reply to: benrl

That flag is now bleached by the sun. So now its just a white flag.

originally posted by: benrl
I really want to see what the US does if someone other than them tries to establish a base...


AS A Funny side note, The US refused to sign the treaty stating the moon was held for all man and belonged to no nation.


I mean...

After all...

We put a flag on it, thats how these things work.

Really? Which treaty is that?

There is the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which most countries ratified and which says the Moon is only to be used for peaceful purposes and that the Moon (or any other celestial body) can not be claimed by any country, and then there is the 1979 so-called 'Moon Treaty' that not one of the countries who have been involved in lunar exploration have signed, mostly because it adds nothing to the previous one.

If you're going to condemn the US for not signing something, you also need to condemn Russia, China, Japan and India, but those countries already signed something that says they can't claim the moon as their own or use it for military purposes.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

There is the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which most countries ratified and which says the Moon is only to be used for peaceful purposes and that the Moon (or any other celestial body) can not be claimed by any country, and then there is the 1979 so-called 'Moon Treaty' that not one of the countries who have been involved in lunar exploration have signed, mostly because it adds nothing to the previous one.

If you're going to condemn the US for not signing something, you also need to condemn Russia, China, Japan and India, but those countries already signed something that says they can't claim the moon as their own or use it for military purposes.

I was being fictitious...

Pointless and a complete waste of money. You know how many Rovers and advanced telescopes we could get for the price of a Mars mission? And for what? So a bunch of overpaid astronauts can parade around with their useless antics and over the top bravado, while accomplishing very little science and research?

If you want that, pay for it with your own money and finance private organizations like Mars One. NASA is a scientific government agency, and should put science first. It's mission is not space colonization, nor was it ever. The cost of a manned mars mission in comparison to what can be done scientifically by rovers today is economically unjustifiable and outright irresponsible.

a reply to: Diablos

While I'm all for your logic we need boots on that dirt IMO.

When that first step happens I hope I'm alive to see it. The thought sends chills down my spine.

I see it as symbolic event. Not necessary at the time but thrilling none the less.

originally posted by: JJRichey

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13
Sounds interesting OP...
(outta box) If there is a Moon Goddess 1 wonders would she permit a landing this time?

Well, China is planning on a Moon-Palace 1 ! Well, translated thats what the name of their proposed moon base is.

True, by the time America makes it back to the moon, they'll be able to order take - out!

Or go into town for a nice seat down buffet

originally posted by: benrl
I really want to see what the US does if someone other than them tries to establish a base...

Probably applaud. As we did when China landed Yutu on the moon earlier this year.

originally posted by: benrl

AS A Funny side note, The US refused to sign the treaty stating the moon was held for all man and belonged to no nation..

Incorrect. This is utter myth and completely OPPOSITE of reality.

The treaty you refer to is the U.N. Outer Space Treaty of 1967

Not only did the United States sign it, it helped draft it in the first place:

The Outer Space Treaty, formally the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, is a treaty that forms the basis of international space law. The treaty was opened for signature in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union on 27 January 1967, and entered into force on 10 October 1967. As of May 2013, 102 countries are parties to the treaty, while another 27 have signed the treaty but have not completed ratification.

Here's a map of the nations which have signed the treaty. Nations in green have both signed and ratified the treaty. Nations in yellow just signed it without ratification.

You'll note the United States is in green.



Which makes sense you know, since the US, UK and Russia actually drafted it in the first place.

smh.

Deny Ignorance.

originally posted by: benrl

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

There is the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which most countries ratified and which says the Moon is only to be used for peaceful purposes and that the Moon (or any other celestial body) can not be claimed by any country, and then there is the 1979 so-called 'Moon Treaty' that not one of the countries who have been involved in lunar exploration have signed, mostly because it adds nothing to the previous one.

If you're going to condemn the US for not signing something, you also need to condemn Russia, China, Japan and India, but those countries already signed something that says they can't claim the moon as their own or use it for military purposes.

I was being fictitious...

You were promoting ignorance.