NASA official envisions six-month stays on the moon

An astronaut works outside the Columbus Laboratory of the International Space Station in February 2008, during the third and final spacewalk of the mission. The US space agency hopes to build moon bases that can house astronauts for stays of up to six months, with an intricate transportation and power system, Carl Walz, director of NASA's Advanced Capabilities Division, said Friday.

NASA wants astronauts who will return to the moon to take one long step for mankind.

The US space agency hopes to build moon bases that can house astronauts for stays of up to six months, with an intricate transportation and power system, Carl Walz, director of NASA's Advanced Capabilities Division, said Friday.

NASA is examining different designs for lunar outposts but that they could be inspired by the orbiting International Space Station (ISS), he said.

"We need to establish a long, extended presence on the moon, up to six months -- same as the time we spend at ISS," Walz, a veteran astronaut, told AFP during a forum on the future of NASA at the University of Miami.

"I would anticipate that we would build something similar as what we are building for the ISS, but maybe something different," he said.

The station usually houses three scientists, although it can accommodate more when astronauts arrive aboard NASA's space shuttle on missions to expand the orbiting laboratory.

The orbiting ISS contains a complex set of laboratories from the United States, Russia, Europe and Japan that allow scientists to study the effects of very low gravity on humans and plants.

NASA plans to finish construction of the orbiting outpost in 2010, when it is scheduled to retire its three shuttles and replace them with a new spacecraft capable to taking humans to the moon and eventually to Mars.

US space officials plan to return to the moon by 2020 and build permanent outposts on the surface of Earth's natural satellite.

The space agency will also need to design transportation, communication and power systems for the lunar surface as well as give the astronauts the ability to venture out of their bases for scientific research, Walz said.

"We will live at the moon, work at the moon, do sites at the moon and use its resources," he said.

Š 2008 AFP

ť Next Article in Space & Earth science - Space Exploration: Solar flares set the Sun quaking

would you recommend this story?

User Rating

4.4 out of 5 after 25 total votes

not at all
1
2
3
4
5
highly

Leave a Comment or

Flag

Posted by drknowledge 04/18/08 19:43

Rank: 5/5 after 3 votes

NASA needs to have a greater public dialog about these decisions, which will, after all, affect human history. There's a split in the organization between those who want to increase non-manned missions and manned missins, yet the decision for how to allocate public funds is not being given to the public. I worked creating the ISS for some years, and frankly was worried about the scientific value, given the cost. There are some of the same issues with a moonbase. As much of an advocate of manned space flight as I am, I can't help feeling that unmanned missions to Mars, Venus, Titan, Io, and Enceladus have the potential to radically change the course of human history in a short time, in a way that a very expensive manned trip to the moon seems unlikely to do. At any rate, there should be public discussion of this. When Russia recently suggested a joint manned Mars mission, NASA should not have had the authority to decline. That should have been on a national, public ballot.

Flag

Posted by x646d63 04/18/08 19:50

Rank: 5/5 after 3 votes

Shouldn't we really be working to create more efficient, less polluting and more reliable methods to accelerate things into space? Once that happens we can send whatever we want to the moon.

Flag

Posted by superhuman 04/19/08 06:13

Rank: 5/5 after 3 votes

The cost of manned missions is too high for them to be scientifically justified. All the money should be invested in a more worthwhile endeavour, like R&D of better space technologies.

Flag

Posted by Incony 04/19/08 14:36

Not rated yet.

I think: the only way we are to be free to expand our future horizon and ensure the free continuity of the human race is not by exclusion or limiting the possibilities.Not one road can be ignored. Success over adversity has brought us to this point, and the few, have given us that that ability. Limit ones view,and one limits the possibilities to succeed. I for one, in my limited time, am happy to see we push the known and sustainable limits of our continued existence, forward. Be well take care Nasa, and everyone who who follows that road. Some of us think you are exceptional contributors to the human race.

Flag

Posted by SteveNovak 04/19/08 14:46

Not rated yet.

Shouldn't we really be working to create more efficient, less polluting and more reliable methods to accelerate things into space? Once that happens we can send whatever we want to the moon.

AGREED! Write your congressman! NASA continues to go down this flawed path of reinventing APOLLO era hardware instead of moving pass the shuttle to all reusable hardware that could be used and reused to launch hardware into low earth orbit cheaply for use to explore the solar system. If any of you are following the path that NASA is taking with Orion and ARES you will see that we will get less out of the program then APOLLO gave us while wasting tens of billions in the hope that the first Orion can be launched in 2015!

Flag

Posted by holoman 04/19/08 19:52

Not rated yet.

Save the Space Shuttle and thousands of NASA jobs is the call sign for a new propulsion technology that ENVISIONS (NASA used the word first-na na na na na) to use the Space Shuttle at Near Light Speeds to go to MARS and beyond.

http://nlspropulsion.net

Orion is too funny to be thought of anything
other than some joke perpetrated by NASA.

Everyone I send this flash falls on the floor laughing.

Is this kind of scientific garbage NASA will give us in the future ?

http://www.nuclea...ION.aspx

NASA Upper Management Should BE REPLACED.

Flag

Posted by Mayday 04/20/08 08:04

Not rated yet.

We are not a truly adventurous, risk-taking culture. Our society will find any loss of life during these endeveours utterly unacceptable. And it would be foolish to imagine the kind of "impossibly perfect" safety record NASA achieved the first time around. We have seen that accidents have a terrible effect on the public's view of space exploration. I believe the best path for the near future(20-30 years)is numerous and varied robot missions. The Chinese will beat us to Mars with men, but the losses they will likely suffer will harm their program and all manned-programs greatly. Unmanned, though less romantic, will further technological developments in ways we can use here. And will do it quickly and "cheaply."