"Sure, we just landed STS-124. That's the 124th launch. But hell, we've only had 124 launches! Think about it.." Unfortunately we haven't had 124 landings.

LoganSix

@EQC: If you leave the space shuttle in space, how do the astronauts get back down to earth?

yougottabekidding

the problem is that our government is not going to want to share the huge advancements that would undoubtably occur with the rest of the world... especially if we pay for it... from a political standpoint colonizing any planet is a nightmare

HaLfRiCa

"Why are we going back? Will we finally start colonizing the moon..."
@DarthTader: This time we are going up there to colorize the moon. It's been that drab black and white looks since the 1950's. It's about time we got Turner Classic movies on it's ass and had some different hues. If we are lucky, they'll use programmable paint chips so if you have enough money you can get a message plastered on there for your sweetie.

LoganSix

@yougottabekidding: You know, there is some truth to the feeling that we should be further along in space exploration. Let's be honest: it all comes down to budget. NASA has the potential not just to perform amazing feats, but also to inspire new generations of engineers, scientists, technicians, etc. Negative impacts to the budget combined with a public that has come to consider space flight passe have had a detrimental effect on the time-frame behind our innovations.

Sure, we just landed STS-124. That's the 124th launch. But hell, we've only had 124 launches! Think about it... This is still experimental. There's nothing passe about our brave men and women who risk their lives every flight.

jnasser

I'm still waiting to get my paperwork back, but I'm 120 percent sure I'm going to the moon. I have my makeup and hair down too.

SinAmos

@HaLfRiCa:
That's RIGHT!!!!!! I'm the toast KING and I rule over the moon! Therefore keep your stinking hands off my mooooon.

JEmlay

@HaLfRiCa: And who exactly is going to tell us to "get the hell of my moon-lawn"?

All you need to do is make it a scientific research station and invite the odd foreign national. TaDa! All better!

I wanna go!

Oldbrass

@EQC: Actually, I would have highly enjoyed hearing him speak. I have a problem seeing this program (through my biased eyes) as a failure when I consider the scope of it's accomplishments.

What your scenario does not accommodate is a way for the crew to return.

And no, a parachute won't work :)

jnasser

@ripfire: We still don't have anything strong enough for that. I say screw rockets, we just need some big effin rubber bands.

Barry99705

@LiquidGravity: Because we're planning a full scale invasion of the Moon!! Those rocks won't know what hit them!

yougottabekidding

@McLucky: If they stack enough stuff, it might even reach space without having to launch it.

Space elevator anyone?

ripfire

@qbrad: "I mean, if we really went, why didn't anyone else?"

No other nation was rich enough to go up to the moon and with little return. I mean sure other nation can spend buttloads of money to send someone there only to find the same data produced by someone who has already been there. Doesn't make economical sense.

Just ask anyone other than an American to see if their nation is worth going to the moon. They'll say "Hell no! We'd rather spend our tax money on more immediate issues. Let the Americans do it."

ripfire

i can haz rogolith?

MagnoliaBoy

@HaLfRiCa: The same way we have "bases" in Antarctica. They will be internationally manned and hopefully funded just like the space station. We'll just be the ones starting the whole thing off. Just like the space station. Me, I say finders keepers.

Barry99705

"international law forbids ownership of the moon"

Oh, well then, we'd better not go. Norway might get pissed off and um, file a resolution at the UN or something.

superbad

@bdk185: Well, depending on how you look at it, the Space Shuttle is a huge waste.

Think about the size of the space shuttle. We use tons of propellant to launch that thing up into orbit...it's basically a space station on its own...then we bring it back down!?

Building a space station piece-by-piece by dragging parts into orbit with the shuttle is kindof silly in a way -- imagine if we just left the remaining shuttles in orbit and attached them to each other instead. A little reconfiguring to convert cargo-areas to living-spaces, and you'd have a huge-ass space station ready to go.

(Yes, there are advantages to the Space Shuttle, and yes, my ideas here have been influenced by a lecture I saw, given by Burt Rutan...so feel free to take my words with a handful of salt.)

EQC

@hardtoremember: Like what for instance? This isn't the same as finding a new continent to explore and colonize. It's an inhospitable place to be where everything you need has to be taken up with you. It's not like you can land on the moon and pick apples from the abundant forests up there. It's alot to expect anything more than what has already been accomplished in the last 40 years, such as the advancements in communications. Now if you've got any solutions to make space exploration more 'star trekish' by all means, please let NASA know.

yougottabekidding

you people are ridiculous... building a moon base... ha... international law forbids ownership of the moon... how are we supposed to build there?... people need to learn how to leave the star wars ideas in their heads... welcome to politics

HaLfRiCa

@hakubak: Yeah, they keep insisting on a 'return trip'. Whatever that is.

Gann

@jchasse: "Shouldn't they just stack it on top of the first rocket?" obviously a great option that NASA just apparently forgot to think about. There is always space to just simply stack more stuff on top of a rocket right?

McLucky

@qbrad: There was only one other space capable nation at the time, the Soviet Union. Their space program was plagued with a number of massive failures and continually changing oversight and directors with conflicting visions. I don't know the specifics of why they never made it to the moon, but I would posit that it relates to the reason why they never had manned flights of their orbiter. In the late 80's they built a few (4?) Buran orbiters that were extremely similar to ours. They were launching using the Energia launch system. However, of their multiple orbiters, there was only ever one unmanned test flight. It was successful, but external factors (including, I don't know, the decline of the Soviet Union!) prohibited the program from continuing.

jnasser

@jnasser: Sweet! OK You may proceed.

LiquidGravity

@jchasse: The CEV (crew exploration vehicle) is Orion and is what is lifted by ARES I. The CEV can be used for LEO (low Earth orbit) projects as well as the combined ARES I/ARES V projects. LEO activities would include ferrying astronauts to the ISS until she's retired.

jnasser

Why is everyone saying "go back to the moon" All we ever did was go to New Mexico in the dark!
I mean, if we really went, why didn't anyone else? Did every other space capable nation just trust us?! (oh there's nothing there, don't even bother. No, the US flag is enough, there's no need for Russia to put one there.)

qbrad

@LiquidGravity: With the payload capabilities of this system, we should be leaving behind various "facilities" or equipment each mission for subsequent missions to utilize. The build up of equipment and supplies can be seen as nothing other than - a lunar outpost!

jnasser

Oh great, more fake moon footage.

itchytooth

Ok so I'm no rocket scientist but I don't get the need for 2 rockets. The Command capsule doesn't look all that big compared to the rest of the ship. Shouldn't they just stack it on top of the first rocket? Is there like a max carbon footprint spec per rocket. Seems like a lot of taxpayer money going to waste to send two up. Does NASA get a volume discount or something?

jchasse

@KhaiJB, @jnasser: O noes refurb rocketz!

NASA gets 'em for cheap on woot.com and hope they don't blow up...

adamator

All I want to know is how much money did they spend on that animation and are they going to start building a moon base? If they are not building a moon base on this trip then why the hell are they going?

Also anyone else wonder why they would name it Ares the god of savage warfare, bloodlust, or slaughter personified.(Yeah I can Google search Wiki like the best of them.)

LiquidGravity

@adamator: The STS SRBs are actually captures, refurbished, reloaded and reused multiple times.

jnasser

i personally enjoyed the starwars lightsaber fight meets 1990's action movie soundtrack! it really says "space is cool, in a keanu reeves way"

TV reporters say it all the time, but if you've never seen a rocket or shuttle launch with your own eyes...you gotta get here...especially to see THESE massive beasts go up...

BryaninFlorida

It is great that we are going to the moon again but I'm a little bit more than a little disappointed.
We should be doing so much more in space by now.

hardtoremember

Cut these guys some slack.

I suspect that we could use some more research into landing stuff on the moon before we call U-Haul. Obviously, technologies have evolved since the last moon landing.

We have a lot of growing up to do as we get ready to leave Earth. All the plans I hear for the Mars mission sound pretty sucky from the astronauts' perspective.

hakubak

Thanks for the vid. I'm one of the 10s of thousands across the US and globe that work for NASA. I am relatively new the agency and am quite in awe of what it is we do. My boss was a payload operator for skylab; my coworker helped design the ground tracking stations for Apollo. I smile when I think that my legacy may well be supporting the Constellation program.

The change in design has many factors, and I am not qualified to speak to most of them. However, conceptually, there is a major difference between the STS program and Constellation. STS (shuttle transport system) had one primary mission: launching the reusable orbiter into low-earth orbit. Constellation actually has a few mission objectives: 1.) lunar payload lift, 2.) lunar manned missions, 3.) mars manned missions.

Additionally, the Ares V (seen in the video launching the trans-lunar vehicle) will be a heavy payload lifter the likes of which I don't think we've seen. I think the current goal is somewhere around 300,000 lbs.

jnasser

"so we are moving backwards in nasa to the old non-reusable rocket design? "

the Orion is based on the Shuttles reusable Boosters and the Craft itself is planned to be reusable for 5-8 uses.

"Shuttle uses non-reusable rockets(two solid fuel rockets), too,"

no, they are re-fitted, refueled and reused.

KhaiJB

@bdk185: Shuttle uses non-reusable rockets(two solid fuel rockets), too, and a big-ass non-reusable fuel tank(the big red thing underneath it).

adamator

@Hectorvex: Some of us geeks are also simple and need bright, shiny things to keep our attention.

...like the iPhone 3G.

Chromeo

Houston, Tranquility base here. The Eagle has landed, boyyyyyyeeeee.

SlinkyDink

@DestroyerMTL:

Yes it was. The technology was actually designed to send us to mars in the early 70's. Yes - after they went to the moon they wanted to go to mars, but the budget got canned, as did the project before that.

Creibold

Why are we going back? Will we finally start colonizing the moon or is this another trip to leave flags and foot prints?

DarthTader

Good animation work by NASA. Now let's see if they can get us back to the moon on time....or better yet, under budget.

jayhawk11

Also, wasn't Orion the name of a spaceship project that used Hydrogen Bombs as a propulsion system?

DestroyerMTL

Wait, didn't we have problems with the thinner rockets at the beginning of the space program?

jmurph05

@bdk185: It's because they totally went before. Totally.

DestroyerMTL

Godspeed

strider_mt2k

This is great. It's about time that NASA was doing something to get the public excited about space exploration again. I mean, as tech nerds, we've probably been following the space station progress pretty close, but the general public are simple and need big things. Which isn't a bad thing. I volunteer to open the first video game trade-in store on the moon.

Hectorvex

Bang! Zoom!

tucker

so we are moving backwards in nasa to the old non-reusable rocket design?

bdk185

Bad. Ass.

Magnakai Haaskivi

"One way ticket to the Moon" :)

honk4RC

What's the timetable? Will they beat the Chinese?

ANoel

@altus: My first child is due in January. I am overwhelmed with pride when I think about telling him/her what it is I do for a living... what I have helped support.

I remember being that starry eyed 8-10 year old that was in awe of NASA. Now, the only thing that's changed is my age :)

Apollo did exactly what you are talking about... I'm not convinced STS has done that to the same degree. If there is one major advantage to the new Constellation program, it's the increased capacity for excitement, passion, and awe.

jnasser

I just saw the video. Nice! I was expecting the first person who stepped out to say "It's time to kick ass and chew bubble gum and I'm all out of gum."

ripfire

wow, screw being a NASA scientist, i wanna be a NASA musician
the music in that video was sweeet!

maybe i could even convince the brass to make a moon recording studio

arkbuilder

technology and Science need to make humanity dream. This does. It sure beats speculating on the price of the oil barrel. It will make every kid who is 8 to 10 years old when that happens want to be a scientist or an astronaut. beats drug dealing and pimps! Go NASA go!

altus

@qbrad: "I mean, if we really went, why didn't anyone else?"

Because we are more awesome than everyone else.

"Did every other space capable nation just trust us?!"

There were no other space capable nations, besides the Soviet Union. And they pretty much gave up the dream when we won the bragging rights. [Oh, and that big explosion that killed their top rocket scientist didn't help, either.]

ideaman2020

@Oldbrass: Just make sure the invite says "transportation not included."

McLucky

When Karellen & Co. finally come to earth, we'll stop this silly space business and get on with the flying cars.

Kaiser-Machead's Chips Ahoy!

@Geisrud: lol

jnasser

Sheesh, even in the cartoons they can't keep the damn rockets from falling apart. They really gotta stop going low bid on the bolts holding that thing together.

Best of luck to all who go. It's gotta take some big cajones to strap that much explosives to your back and aim yourself at a big rock in the sky.

Geisrud

@yougottabekidding: they don't... lulz

HaLfRiCa

@altus: Seems lots of people are killing the dream and saying things like "it's too expensive" "it's not important" "but what about our stupid fucking gasoline?" and imprinting this stuff onto younger people who will share the same incredulity and paranoia.

It's my belief that a society without wild fantasies is a society that literally dies of boredom.

Kaiser-Machead's Chips Ahoy!

@jnasser: Keep up the good work!

Why go back?
1. To Stay
2. Learn how to go further
3. Helium-3

We may not own pieces of the moon, but we sure as hell own the hardware the crew is standing on when they're there! Can we all agree to push the lawyers out the airlock before we land?

TrafficGeek

@Kaiser-Machead's Chips Ahoy!: You've got a point there, and I agree. Of course, wild fantasies don't have to come true to still have them.

yougottabekidding

@HaLfRiCa:
@superbad:

I say the first one that gets there and carries a shot gun, owns whatever real estate he wants. Period. It's how our ancestors did it on earth.

Screw international "earth" law. It does not apply to space bodies beyond earth.
Unless someone is willing to steal the moon and carrying it somewhere else (in which case it would screw earth tides, etc...), I frankly don't care who lives in it.

Whom ever get there first and fences it in it's theirs. To me no one has rights to any land on earth (or solar body) if they cannot get there.

If I had the money, I would fence myself the Sea of Tranquility and start selling Apolo 11 landing site view lots.

It won't happen now, but 500 from now it might be different. And eventually it will be Mars... Colonizing means that. Making COLONIES, for country or self.
Stake your claim and be done.

aec007

It's all about the benjamins. The shuttle, while cool-looking and innovative and all, costs ~$6500+ per pound to throw something into orbit. It's probably more than that now, as I recall that figure from some years ago. It's ridiculously expensive. On the other hand, BDBs (Big Dumb Boosters) are relatively cheap (waaaay cheaper compared to the shuttle), even when they're only single-use.

jamstigator

@bdk185:

Actually, I think the Shuttle was chalked up as a failure design wise. The size and weight of the shuttle had to be taken into account when sending payloads up into space. And why? So the astronauts could ride home in style? It's not like we were ever transporting anything back down to the surface. It makes more sense to have just a rocket for a one-way mission where the entire payload is going to stay in orbit. Let the crew come back in the smallest of capsules. Also, there's danger in having the return orbiter below the fuel tank, like on the shuttle. Pieces are shaken off and can damage the wings like they did in Columbia. With the Aries design, the entire lifting capacity can go to the orbiting payload, without having to reserve capacity for the return shuttle.

@jchasse:

Did you see the size of the module where the command module came from? It's undoubtedly a cover for spy satellites and other secret stuff the gov didn't want us to know about.

newgalactic

I want to see the US go to Mars.

"Not because it is easy, but because it is hard."

yashichi8bit

@jnasser, yougottabekidding:
I believe the Russians, for example, still use a small capsule as their return vehicle...

But, yes, using the current shuttle design and leaving the shuttle in space would indeed leave the astronauts without a way home...unless they took a ride with the Russians or something.

But the point of my statement (which I stole from Rutan) was that the concept of the shuttle itself is a bit flawed from one perspective: you're launching a huge mass into space, only to bring it back down. Previous return capsules in the US space program were much smaller than the shuttle...

Again, there are trade-offs of course, which I understand...but the idea that a large, reusable shuttle is "best" or "more advanced" (as bdk185 seemed to suggest) isn't *necessarily* the case.

EQC

@aec007: You might also remember some of those ancestors arriving with BIGGER guns and taking that real estate away from you. That's why international Earth law exists; to protect your *legitimate* claim.

FredicvsMaximvs

@jnasser:

NASA has the potential not just to perform amazing feats, but also to inspire new generations of engineers, scientists, technicians, etc.

That, right there, is the key to our future success as a nation. For many years now, countries all over the world have been catching up to us technologically. If we want to stay at or near the top, we're going to have to start motivating our kids to become those engineers and scientists.
So in my mind, the rewards that the space program creates are more than just what data we can bring back from space.

FredicvsMaximvs

@EQC: Oh yes, there is almost always a Soyuz docked at the space station for use as a return vehicle.

I see your point...

jnasser

how does the process work in reverse... how do they get back home?

fallenturtle

@yashichi8bit: If/when people get there, it may get a lot more attention than when probes do. I think that's also part of the disconnect. No matter how many machines we send to Mars, it's not as meaningful as seeing an actual person take the first steps.

Kaiser-Machead's Chips Ahoy!

Too bad that Obama plans to shelve the Constellation program if elected. From his own website: "Barack Obama's early education and K-12 plan package costs about $18 billion per year. He will maintain fiscal responsibility and prevent an increase in the deficit by offsetting cuts and revenue sources in other parts of the government. The early education plan will be paid for by delaying the NASA Constellation Program for five years..." [obama.3cdn.net]

McCain 2008!

CaliforniusRex

That was so done in a studio.

OldCrow

that video implies we are leaving them on the moon, i want to see re-entry... is that going to be sea based again? If so i cant wait to see live footage of 3,2,1 splash down

purple_pillows

@FredicvsMaximvs: Wouldn't it be easier to declare foreign engineers and scientists "terrorists"? Send them to Guantanamo, and America remains number 1!!! Woo!

EQC

I think they need some Pixar in this thing. I didn't see either of those little monster dudes in this video, and that's a damn shame. That little one, with the one huge eye, jumping out and scaring the dude on the moon? That would've been the stuff of epic wins.

But seriously, I think it's totally wonderful we're going back to the moon. The technology involved-- and the risks-- both blow my mind. God bless the brave men and women who leave the Earth on this mission. I truly admire them.

wild homes is weathering cephalopod trouble!

@CaliforniusRex:

So its children or the moon huh?

Yeah, I pick the moon.

Thaddeus

@aec007: Meh.

That's one way to get the job done, for sure -- privatize it, auction off parcels, treat it like the Dutch East India Company or something.

I think it's a good way to end up with "Coors Planet at Mars" or something.

kenboy

@EQC: The hell you say!

@wild homes is weathering cephalopod trouble!: The Claw is our master. The Claw decides who will stay and who will go. Nirvana is coming! The mystic portal awaits!

FredicvsMaximvs

I like the way those astronauts shake, and look a little worried.

MeesterBell

The new moon missions look a lot like computer animations.

heroineworshipper

This is a waste of resources. What should be happening is a badass probe to Europa that can drill into the sea beneath the ice and document the life there. I could see a Moon mission being valuable if it were to setup a small colony but spending billions to go back, walk around up there and come home (again) well..

JordyT

If anybody thinks China is going to honor any treaties regarding arms in space or ownership of the moon...

Leaving shuttles up there is not a bad idea. The Ruskies can bring us down, and the shuttles are capable of docking, so with an adapter (Radio Shack?) you should be able to dock at least two together.

@bdk185: "so we are moving backwards in nasa to the old non-reusable rocket design?"

Forward, into the past!

@LiquidGravity: "why they would name it Ares the god of savage warfare, bloodlust, or slaughter personified."

You say that like it's a bad thing.

@jnasser: "I don't know the specifics of why they never made it to the moon, but I would posit that it relates to the reason why they never had manned flights of their orbiter."

They were a little busy trying to dominate by force a fairly large chunk of the world at the time, while also depending on an inefficient command economy. [insert Yakov joke here]

GadgetPlay

One day we'll look up in the sky at the moon and see dozens of giant inflatable corporate logos.

fluf

some of you naysayers and detracters really havnt grasped the entire concept of Orion.

We are going back. It took some time, a lot of failures and a lot of dead ends, but those dead ends and the technology developed in between have now paved the way for something that really, and truly this time, could be that moment we have all been waiting for.

We are going back, and this time around, I have a pretty positive feeling that this time it will be to stay.

Get that yet? Let me say it once more just in case it still hasnt sunk in.

We are going back.

Facter

I want to know when I'll be able to download the theme song for Rock Band.

akiddo

How is this so hard? Aerosmith already has a gigantic space ship (that plays Livin On The Edge, no less) and they have a gigantic space stage. It's pretty bad when NASA and the rest of the world gets beat out by a rock band entering their 60s. (Isn't Steven already 60? McJagger 2.0!)

Tomahawk214

Oh great unwashed masses! Read : "http://www.nasa.gov/topics/moonmars/index.html". Educate yourselves! That ye may talk all things NASA.

Dollarbill4

for the idiots that still think man did not land on the moon, I suggest some real reading:

www.clavius.org

Ariel_Wollinger

To answer everyone's questions I suggest listing the MIT podcast on Itunes-U about the space shuttle. It is a aeronautics class on the shuttle systems. AND IT IS AWESOME!!!
Every class has a different speaker and most were the original people in charge of the shuttle subsystem designs and most also did that for Apollo. For instance Chris Kraft does a lecture on Mission control and explains the early days to the shuttle and what they are doing now. There is so much useful info in there I can't begin to comment on it.

fastm3driver

@Hectorvex: So even on the mooon we will have to hear "Hi, would you like to pre-order anything today?"

Wubbytoes

@jnasser: @EQC:

Why couldn't the shuttle just pack a little return capsule in the cargo/payload area? Hardly seems like an insurmountable task if they wanted to leave the shuttles in space for future habit.

I think actually keeping them in orbit would be more difficult than figuring out how to get the crew back.

distortedloop

are they gonna do the same thing as Armstrong?
shooting a freaking video somewhere in the wild, and here we go people, this is the moon!
lolz

znoop

@yougottabekidding:

OK, you asked how the astronauts would come back in a "park your shuttle here" scenario. Two words: Command Module.

Think of it, the forward section makes it back, the old Apollo/Gemini fashion way, while the cargo hull stays in orbit to be refitted as service module. Even the cylindrical shape fits.

However, all that is quite pointless. When the STS program began at the latest 60's, such thing as an International Space Station was simply out of the question. The target was to put medium size payload in orbit, and the Space shuttle has done that just fine. Sure ESA and Japan have proven rockets are still better (and cheaper) at that, but hey, shuttles are way cooler, ¿right?

HamakiBCN

@bdk185: they are admitting that the shuttle was a bad design and a spacecraft doesn't need to look like a plane. Especially because it spreads the thermal protection system over a huge area that is exposed during launch and can sustain damage (RIP columbia).

Now the external surfaces of the capsule is completely contained within the rocket. Also by splitting into two rockets, the astronauts launch on the smaller, which needs less thrust lowering risk.

There are many scientific reasons to return to the moon (other than hitting golf balls and planting flags), the moon has been nearly preserved since the origins of the solar system and offers scientists a window into that time. It is also a the nearest lifeboat to this planet, the first stepping stone to going anywhere else. There will be no trip to mars without a lunar base, to prove out technology and store or generate resources for a longer trip. And it would be cool too.

gravityhomer

That's definitely not Cochrane's Pheonix; how are the Vulcan's going to find us with that. :(

prerus

by the way, the video forgot to mention that the moon set has been moved to studio 7 on lot B. all crafts service, local 80, must use the rear entrance.

TheFakeGizmodo

So the astronauts will be accompanied by the Crystal Method?

N@tedog

Mad props to Neil Armstrong for keeping it so mellow with his first words, but if it was me stepping off that lander, you'd hear, "Wooooooh! Moon, bitches! Yeah! Suck it! You listening, Stuart whats-his-face from eighth grade? I'm on the MOON, jackass!"

Then maybe fifteen minutes later: "I'm bored. Let's go to Mars next time."

Twp3pf2

@aec007: Earth Laws?... actually it isn't an "earth law". The fact that the moon is off limits was decided specifically for that reason in the 80's by the UN.

HaLfRiCa