Posted on 07/24/2015 5:25:44 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Traveling to the Moon just got a whole lot cheaper. A NASA-funded study (PDF) has found that the cost of lunar missions could be reduced by a factor of 10 using a number of techniques – and it could also have implications for getting humans to Mars.
The extensive NexGen Space study by the National Space Society (NSS) and the Space Frontier Foundation (SFF) said that partnerships with private companies could return humans to the Moon for $10 billion (£6.4 billion), rather than the previosuly estimated $100 billion (£64 billion) that had turned off potential suitors. Utilizing fuel sourced from the Moon – namely water and hydrogen – could also drastically reduce the cost of space travel further into the Solar System.
“A factor of ten reduction in cost changes everything,” said NSS Executive Committee Chair Mark Hopkins in a statement.
The goal of the study was to see if public-private partnerships and other approaches could result in a low-cost and low-risk method to return humans to the Moon while supporting future missions to Mars, dubbed an Evolvable Lunar Architecture (ELA).
The study points to NASA’s successful investments in private spaceflight so far through its COTS and CRS programs. By 2017, two manned spacecraft are set to launch as a result of the subsequent Commercial Crew Program – SpaceX’s manned Dragon capsule and Boeing’s CST-100.
Heavy-lift rockets are also in production, notably SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy and United Launch Alliance's (ULA) upcoming Vulcan rocket, that could be used to launch astronauts there without relying on NASA’s costly Space Launch System. Reusable spacecraft and lunar landers could also keep things on the cheaper side.
In five to seven years, the study says the U.S. could return astronauts to the Moon for $10 billion (£6.4 billion) – less than $2 billion (£1.3 billion) a year. In 10 to 12 years, it says that a four-person industrial base on the Moon could be operational, costing $40 billion (£26 billion), less than $4 billion (£2.6 billion) a year.
Both of these proposals could be covered by NASA’s existing deep space human spaceflight budget, which stands at about $4 billion a year.
Crucially, the study says that a manned base on the Moon could produce 200 million tons of spacecraft propellant per year from water and hydrogen on the lunar surface. This propellant could be utilized by NASA for missions to Mars, drastically reducing their cost. The study notes, though, that it would be necessary to send robotic explorers to the Moon first to confirm that water and hydrogen are “economically accessible near the surface inside the lunar craters at the poles.”
The study also recommends creating an International Lunar Authority, “modelled after CERN,” to manage the combined business and technical risks of lunar operations. “A permanent commercial lunar base might substantially pay for its operations by exporting propellant to lunar orbit for sale to NASA and others to send humans to Mars, thus enabling the economic development of the Moon at a small marginal cost," it said.
At the moment, NASA does not have plans to return to the Moon. It is using its Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) – sending humans to an asteroid – as a cheaper stepping stone to Mars. But this study follows another by the National Research Council last year that suggests perhaps a return to the Moon would be a better option, and it might even be more economical.
“This is the way that America will settle the final frontier, save taxpayers money and usher in a new era of economic growth and STEM [science, technology, engineering, and math] innovation,” the Space Frontier Foundation’s Chairman of the Board, Jeff Feige, added in the statement.
I guess solar powered since there are all those stars or cosmic wind power. Can’t have all that potential radiation getting into the pristine universe. Might contaminate the infinite amount of energy, radiation and whatever else.
Just stay here on earf, get 0-care, pay taxes, work to support parasites and enjoy the road to marxist utopia instead.
Roundup all Muslims and send them to the moon to colonize it. Then send the majority of blacks who vote for Democrat slavery to the moon to get a taste of REAL slavery from their Arab masters.
Sheila Jackson Lee can finally get that flag!
Old joke:
And aide bursts into the Oval Office saying, “Mr. President, I have good news and bad news.”
“What’s the bad news?”, asks the president.
“The Chinese have landed on the Moon.”
“Oh,” the president says. “And what’s the good news?”
“All of them!”
No doubt the Russkies are all over this.
I’m not surprised that we haven’t heard about their moonbase yet.
Our media wouldn’t report it.
I mean, come on, our astronauts have to hitchhike on their rockets while NASA screws around with Muslim outreach and global warming.
When the Russkies do announce it, Putin is going to raise that flag and say that the Moon is now a Russkie satellite.
Lavender space capsules?
the cost ............ could be reduced by a factor of 10 using a number of techniques – and it could also have implications for getting humans to Mars.
I’ve heard otherwise credible people tell me that we landed there in 1965 and that we’ve had a base there all this time.
Well, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama and his Democrats insist that there be homo sex on the moon. A lunar bath house for Barry to visit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jth4yATniS4
Or a choom room with a gnatty, jizz stained couch he can hug a hairy persian on.
The Jersey project ala Clive Cussler.
How could they find time for this with all of there global warming studies?
There have been hundreds of nuclear powered satellites launched into orbit. It is not a big deal.
Groove Tube 1973
Once upon a time, we actually expected to get there. Now it’s a distant dream, even at a tenth of the expected price.
...
We got Big Government instead.
Sigh. I guess the /sarc tag is a requirement.
“‘International Lunar Authority’.
Mmmm...sounds Orwellian, or Brave New World, or 1984ish to me.
Certainly not something we should be subject to.”
I’m inclined to agree, but I’d rather see anything than the Chinese grabbing the best (South Pole) lunar real estate for its colony. That’s the current plan according to them.
The US needs to pull its head out of Mars (heh) and wake up to the fact that the Moon is a far more realistic and achievable destination, and is pretty much as habitable as Mars. It has a tremendous amount of upside both as an industrial base, and as a “natural spaceport” opening up the rest of the Solar System.
It’s also something of a strategic asset militarily...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.