Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Manned moon outpost could be NASA's next big mission

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   


NASA has secretly been working on a plan to develop a manned outpost on the far side of the moon, but the lofty plan has been kept quiet until after the presidential election, according to media reports.

According to Space.com, the plan has probably already been cleared by the Obama administration. Officials kept the plan under wraps in case Mitt Romney won the presidential election.

The plan would set up a manned station in an area of space called the "earth moon libration point," CNN reported. The spot is a point in space where the gravitational forces of the moon and Earth are roughly balanced.

The location would give the U.S. a presence in deep space that could double as the last stop before more ambitious missions, such as a trip to asteroids or beyond, according to Space.com.

Link

Space.com


So much for staying away from the moon. Wonder where NASA will get the funds.

Space.com make it sound like it might happen. Never a straight answer, it seems.




posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Right and who's paying for this again?

Don't let an asteroid see it.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
I thought we were still in a Recession. Why make plans to spend a lot more money on something not necessary?



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


This is one of the few government expenditures I'm all for. And such funding is explicitly constitutional.

Getting off this rock is imperative to the survival of the human race.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel


secretly been working... has been kept quiet...
kept the plan under wrap...

Never a straight answer, it seems.


Nailed it.
edit on 9-11-2012 by zilebeliveunknown because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Base on far side of moon
Station at earth moon libration point

Either or both? Undecided? Wish list?

Maybe since the word is out we will hear more.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Agreed!

However, the snippet in the OP called the dark side of the moon "deep space"
I'm not so sure I'd consider the moon "deep space".

They probably have something up there already and are breaking us in slowly.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Sign me up!

I'd love to get off this friggin lunatic asylum of a planet.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Agreed!

However, the snippet in the OP called the dark side of the moon "deep space"
I'm not so sure I'd consider the moon "deep space".

They probably have something up there already and are breaking us in slowly.


They are talking about the L2 point. It is on the other side of the moon but the point they don't make strongly enough is how far past the moon it actually is. The L2 is 1.5 million kilometres from earth. It is the furthest humans will have gone by a long way.
edit on 9-11-2012 by justwokeup because: typo



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 



However, the snippet in the OP called the dark side of the moon "deep space"

That's because you are not NASA management or a government spokesperson.


jra

posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
I thought we were still in a Recession. Why make plans to spend a lot more money on something not necessary?


Spending money on big projects can actually be very beneficial for the economy during a recession. Big projects require lots of people, which means more jobs creation. The Hoover dam for example was built during the middle of the Great Depression.

Take a look at the economic impact of NASA funding.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


Money spent on advancing space travel, science, and engineering is a good investment IMO. NASA exploration has also led to a number of innovations that have greatly benefited society.

Most government programs are a total flop. Lately NASA has been too. But that's because it lacks real leadership, and the political climate has taken NASA off course from a space fairing agency to a PR agency. It's really quite a shame. I'd like to see NASA returned to inspiring Americans to literally reach for the stars.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


They're talking about the L2 point, which is on the far side of the moon.

That probably means those who would be stationed there wouldn't be able to ever see Earth right?

That's got to be absolutely horrible.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
I thought we were still in a Recession. Why make plans to spend a lot more money on something not necessary?


The NASA budget has historically been less than 1% of US national expenditure (except in the Apollo years when it was up to 3-4% range for a few years). This plan will be executed on a budget less than 0.5% of US national expenditure.

Also the NASA spend is largely recycled through the economy in the form of employing people directly and indirectly in middle class jobs, so the % quoted above is pessimistic due to some of it coming back as tax.

We can explore the heavens and inspire our kids with heroic endeavour, or not. Don't fool yourself that not doing it will make the slightest difference to anything else thats wrong in the world.
edit on 9-11-2012 by justwokeup because: typo



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
I thought we were still in a Recession. Why make plans to spend a lot more money on something not necessary?


I think there's a case to be made that exploration is a necessary part of the human psyche. As for the timing, the general consensus among economists is that increased spending is beneficial during a recession. Considering the other things we've spent money on during this whole mess a moon base doesn't bother me. Also, we're not technically in a recession at this point (though they get backdated so it's possible).



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by hezro
 


Not to delve too much off topic, but increased spending can only be good if there is money to spend.

While I'm all for spending money on NASA, the money has to come from somewhere, and if there's no way to pay for it, then there's no way to pay for it.

More debt, despite what the "consensus" might be among keyensian economists is certainly not good for either space exploration in the future, or the fiscal health of the nation now.

I wholeheartedly believe in the promise of a national space agency. Such ventures, however, must be paid for.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
The article said 'on the moon' then talks about the other point. Probably just the author misinterpreting the information.

Maybe the moon is still of limits.


A station in space would seem to make more sense for ingress / egress.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by hezro
 


Not to delve too much off topic, but increased spending can only be good if there is money to spend.

While I'm all for spending money on NASA, the money has to come from somewhere, and if there's no way to pay for it, then there's no way to pay for it.

More debt, despite what the "consensus" might be among keyensian economists is certainly not good for either space exploration in the future, or the fiscal health of the nation now.

I wholeheartedly believe in the promise of a national space agency. Such ventures, however, must be paid for.


Thats all true. Fortunately this is not an increase in spending, its a reduction. Its simply deciding to do something more worthy of the organisation within the usual funding allocation.

There is an argument that we could go straight for mars with Zubrins 'Mars Express' plan but i'll settle for the L2 and rovers exploring the dark side of the moon. Might be something cool to find there. If not the lessons learned travelling and maintaining human health that far out will be useful later.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
i hope they call it Moonbase Alpha.



and fly around in these cool ships



and shoot the aliens with these cool stun guns



all images come from the show Space 1999.
edit on 9-11-2012 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


I'm guessing the PR campaigns have been due to the fact that they've focused on research missions that are not terribly exciting to the general public (combined with fighting for funding during hard times). As you said, we need something that reaches for the stars and hopefully their intention is to use this as a jumping off point.

Personally I feel that a base on the moon may have been a better choice given the resources available and technological advancements it could facilitate (new forms of energy generation, on site fabrication, etc) which could have economic benefits back home. Not to mention the PR bonus that the term "moon base" offers. Though surely they have their reasons and are much better informed than me.

Whatever we do, I hope we do not do it unilaterally. There's a lot of talent out there we can use if we're ready to stop planting flags.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join