President Trump signs directive ordering NASA to return to the moon and beyond

a reply to: hiddenNZ

Don't hold your breath.




Because, you know, embolism.

a reply to: Phage

(Mind blown)/is man kind really going to try and go to the moon?

a reply to: Phage

Trump gave them 19.1 billion they have to do something with it.

a reply to: Phage

Your link shows payload capacities for LEO, GTO, and Mars. No moon.

Whoops, screwed the pooch there for sure hehe

Real talk though, I'm excited to see a renewed vow for the moon. I think with the current private space race we will start seeing either and advance in technology, or suppressed technology get "discovered" at a rapid rate concurrent to what we've already seen in recent times.

I think a GTO platform similar to the ISS but with the purpose of stationing lunar transit vehicles is a realistic endeavor, and a necessity in the process of leaving earth.

a reply to: dragonridr

Trump gave them 19.1 billion

No, he didn't. Trump cannot give them anything.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: dragonridr

He's a smart guy but he is getting on in years.

I'm ambivalent, to say the least, about a Lunar base. It really is not necessary if the goal is exploration.

America was Great back when we went to the moon, don't you want to make America Great Again?

a reply to: dragonridr

Wow where did you get 104 billion so far with building and testiing orion has spent about 16 billion.

I posted one page back.
ats page2

Orion is one shot for 16 billion not including fuel.

A space elevator is permanent access to space. Rockets may be able to deliver a pound for $1000 to space and an elevator would do it for $100 to $200 daily.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Go to the moon makes the geek in me warm and fuzzy, but that same geek has to look at the reality. It is too damn expensive with current technology.

I really believe we need a moon base, but before that, we need new materials that can build a space elevator. Until such materials can be produced such an endeavor is wasting money and resources. Instead of spending 2 billion on a moon rocket they should spend it on RND of materials like graphene.

By space elevator you mean a satellite in low earth orbit tethered to earth with a module/platform that can raise objects/materials to the low earth orbit. Ive always been fascinated with these concepts.

www.extremetech.com...

www.space.com...

a reply to: putnam6

Yup, that is exactly what I mean.

Currently, we can't do it because we do not have a material strong enough. Carbon nanotubes are hopeful to do the job if they can fix a flaw in their creation process. IMO that is what NASA should be spending time and money on RND. With a space elevator things like colonization and asteroid mining in space can become not only a reality, but also profitable.

One thing that never pops up in these discussions is that if you invest $103bn in American Aerospace, you will get probably more that 2/3 back in taxes. you create American jobs, they pay taxes, they buy more which is taxed, you pay less welfare, where the American supply is, those workers take on more people, the supply chain is mostly American, everyone feels a bit richer and buys more...it actually stimulates the economy.

If they could measure military spending, the USA is mostly self sufficient so apart from fat cat profits which don't get reinvested and lands in offshore tax havens, every other penny will find its way back to the US coffers aside from that spent overseas.

Of course there is the GDP which means spend on products made overseas will leave the US, but then it puts you in a position to make better deals.

It also breeds future scientists, skilled labour and cutting edge technology which again finds it way back into the US economy.

Smart move if they do it IMO

originally posted by: Forensick
One thing that never pops up in these discussions is that if you invest $103bn in American Aerospace, you will get probably more that 2/3 back in taxes. you create American jobs, they pay taxes, they buy more which is taxed, you pay less welfare, where the American supply is, those workers take on more people, the supply chain is mostly American, everyone feels a bit richer and buys more...it actually stimulates the economy.

If they could measure military spending, the USA is mostly self sufficient so apart from fat cat profits which don't get reinvested and lands in offshore tax havens, every other penny will find its way back to the US coffers aside from that spent overseas.

Of course there is the GDP which means spend on products made overseas will leave the US, but then it puts you in a position to make better deals.

It also breeds future scientists, skilled labour and cutting edge technology which again finds it way back into the US economy.

Smart move if they do it IMO

Absolutely, don't forget how much pride can do to bring a country together.

Make America great again, a bloody good way to do it.

Great, so we're finally going to land someone on the moon. For real this time.

a reply to: projectvxn

NASA seems to be doing well with an almost 20 billion dollar budget, and additional earmarks for certain missions, which better the previous administrations' efforts.

NASA estimated the cost at about $104 billion , that was in 2005 , add ten years worth of inflation to that and the 20 billion dollar budget looks a bit weak.

a reply to: jjkenobi


Oh good. A moon hoax believer? If so, would you care to explain why you believe this to be so?

But, please, none of the Van Allen Belt nonsense.

I could do with a laugh.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: putnam6

Yup, that is exactly what I mean.

Currently, we can't do it because we do not have a material strong enough. Carbon nanotubes are hopeful to do the job if they can fix a flaw in their creation process. IMO that is what NASA should be spending time and money on RND. With a space elevator things like colonization and asteroid mining in space can become not only a reality, but also profitable.

A space elevator is science fiction never happen. Biggest problem would be the cable has to be extremely strong yet incredibly light. No current material exists with sufficiently high tensile strength and sufficiently low density out of which we could construct the cable,There's nothing in sight that's strong enough to do it — not even carbon nanotubes. If put under stress they would unzip much like a run in womens stockings. To prevent this you would have to increase density,doing that causes it to snap.

Another serious problem is that of radical cable movement and the potential for whipping action and vibrations. Just interactions with the sun and moon will send huge vibrations down the cable i couldnt even imagine how you would keep it anchored.

Next problem wobble any vibration caused by the elevator is going to cause the piece in orbit to wobble in huge circles.once this happens it be useless. The only way to prevent that is the elevator would have to move really slow picture a month to get to orbit.


The expense and maintenance costs would be huge as you continually had to make new cables. The easiest and cheapest way would be a plane. Or using a plane as a launch platform.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: projectvxn

NASA seems to be doing well with an almost 20 billion dollar budget, and additional earmarks for certain missions, which better the previous administrations' efforts.

NASA estimated the cost at about $104 billion , that was in 2005 , add ten years worth of inflation to that and the 20 billion dollar budget looks a bit weak.

Thats cheap actually shuttle prgram costed 205 billion when it was in use. Much of the expenses have all ready been done we have a working launch system.

originally posted by: projectvxn
Now that Trump is doing it space exploration is bad.

I'm all for space exploration, but talk is cheap, especially with Trump. I'll believe it when I start seeing the funding to make it a reality.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: projectvxn
Now that Trump is doing it space exploration is bad.

I'm all for space exploration, but talk is cheap, especially with Trump. I'll believe it when I start seeing the funding to make it a reality.

All ANY president can do is set the agenda. Congress has to act on it and if you want any action on a particular initiative you have to do your part too. Write letter, e-mails, faxes, and phone calls.

Otherwise you're just blowing hot air expecting more from the executive than can be legally done.

originally posted by: projectvxn
All ANY president can do is set the agenda. Congress has to act on it and if you want any action on a particular initiative you have to do your part too. Write letter, e-mails, faxes, and phone calls.

Otherwise you're just blowing hot air expecting more from the executive than can be legally done.

It's ultimately on Congress, but the President can fight for the budget to make their directives happen. If Trump does that here, I'll be thrilled. But so far he hasn't, he's delegated responsibility and abdicated his own.