Page 1 of 1
Nasa to send manned missions to the moon
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:26 pm
by thepieman
They say they will be sending a 4 man mission to the far side of the moon using the largest rocket ever built. The study will include looking for water. (Confused look) Does anyone know if they mean The Dark Side of the Moon when they say Far Side of the Moon? I wonder what would make them believe water may be possible there? I would have thought Mars would be the most logical place to go first since it shows a lot of promise for sustaining life in the future.
Nasa to put man on far side of moon
Jonathan Leake , Science Editor
NASA, the American space agency, has unveiled plans for one of the largest rockets ever built to take a manned mission to the far side of the moon.
It will ferry a mother ship and lunar lander into Earth orbit to link up with a smaller rocket carrying the crew. Once united they will head for the moon where the larger ship will remain in orbit after launching the lunar lander and crew.
The design emerged during a space science conference in Houston, Texas, last week. The plan is part of Nasa’s “Return to the Moon” programme set in motion by President George W Bush two years ago.
Under the project, up to four astronauts at a time will land on the far side of the moon to collect rock samples and carry out research, including looking for water that might one day support a lunar base.
The scale of the missions is much larger than the earlier Apollo programme, which is why Nasa will need two separate rockets to take the mother ship and crew into space.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 95,00.html
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:29 pm
by TrUtHsMaCkEr
interesting news
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:34 pm
by ghettoside
maybe they're really looking for aliens, or they know aliens are there and they're going there to kick a*s, and this is just a cover story to avoid mass panic.
lol.
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:41 pm
by Bastid
ghettoside wrote:maybe they're really looking for aliens, or they know aliens are there and they're going there to kick a*s, and this is just a cover story to avoid mass panic.
lol.
and when it fails they will blame al quida ;D
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:49 pm
by Chris
Maybe they're taking GW up to have him recharged by the Klingons
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:52 pm
by Prey521
According to some morons, we never landed there in the first place, so this would be the first time!
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 6:27 pm
by Immortal
And we land only to find 100 foot native indians.
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 7:52 pm
by blebs
Wait a minute, isn't the moon made out of cheese?
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 8:21 pm
by YARDofSTUF
I bet somebody left their watch there.
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:06 pm
by jeffe5150
thepieman wrote:(Confused look) Does anyone know if they mean The Dark Side of the Moon when they say Far Side of the Moon?
Far side, dark side, yes... it's the same thing.
I wonder what would make them believe water may be possible there? I would have thought Mars would be the most logical place to go first since it shows a lot of promise for sustaining life in the future.
Far/dark side or poles of any planet have a higher likelyhood of having frozen gasses, liquids ect.
Mars is no more or less likely to support life over the moon. All that matters is the raw materials avalible to sustain "bubble" life.
Mars is a dead planet that will never support life as we know it. Due to its losing its magnetic feild. It could never hold a atmoshere against solar winds....just like the moon.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 95,00.html[/QUOTE]
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:57 pm
by Joint Chiefs of Staff
All this talk about finding water on Mars and now the moon makes me think there is a water supply issue for the future here on planet earth.
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 11:00 pm
by thepieman
Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote:All this talk about finding water on Mars and now the moon makes me think there is a water supply issue for the future here on planet earth.
Nah I think they just want to establish bases and water would just make it easier if its there already rather then have to transport it on a constant basis.
Maybe even because it contains oxygen???
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 11:03 pm
by jeffe5150
thepieman wrote:
Maybe even because it contains oxygen???
BINGO!
think...rocket fuel for missions further out into the solar system. less gravity on the moon and a possible ready supply of fuel material....
win/win