Exploring the Moon: Then and Now

[bozo the clown]

Was wondering how we managed to land on the moon back in 69 and now 35 years later we are just managing to orbit the Earth.
Surely as we did it 35 years ago is it not a lot easier to do it again now given the advances in technology etc
And what a great moment for our generation to witness.
Should we not try to concentrate moon landings before we try to go to Mars which seems to me to be far more difficult for us than going to the moon back in 69.

 

[Integral]

There must be a significant scientific or economic reason for returning to the moon. What are these reasons? Simply for the "glory" is not a reason. Space travel is a VERY expensive hobby, there needs to be a reason, currently there is no reason to go to the moon.

I am not sure what you mean by

35 years later we are just managing to orbit the Earth.

Considering the fact that there have been men in orbit continuously for several years now, how does this constitute "just managing"?

Unfortunately we must be able to justify every mission with either economics or scientific gains. So far there has been no real economic reason found for being in space, so space travel has remained up to governments which have sufficient funds to spend on pure science. Scientifically there is little of interest on the moon. Soo...

As soon as you can come with some way to derive a profit from a mission to the moon, it will happen, until then... Don't hold your breath.

 

[bozo the clown]

What was the economic gain back in 69 was it not more of an economic drain also wasn't it a political reason psychological gain over the russians.

When I say just managing look we are not exactly up their in numbers are we and astronauts have to wait months before they can come back down due to delays, shuttle catastrophies etc ...

I bet if Bush announces before election a moon mission under his administration you'd see him get reelected isn't that an economical reason ( from his point of view anyway )

 

[Integral]

There was no economic reason in the '60s, it was done, at great expense, for glory and minimal scientific gain. Once again, if you can find a way to generate a profit from a man in orbit then it will happen in numbers. Currently it is an expensive hobby for our government and little else. About the only science being done is the effect of weightlessness on the human body. We can do better science, cheaper, if humans would stay OUT of space. Send remote sensing equipment to gather data. When some reason is found, then start sending humans.


I doubt that any real reason for Humans in space will ever be found...

Though a low gravity resort on the moon would be a very interesting change of pace for the rich and famous.

 

[check]

While actually going into space may not brought any economic gains, the technology developed to do this task certainly has.

 

[Integral]

While actually going into space may not brought any economic gains, the technology developed to do this task certainly has.

I would like to see some real solid data on just what technology that was developed by and for the space program which has had a major impact on our economy.

Certainly NOT Solid state devices, perhaps some metal alloys... what else..Oh yes, can't forget Tang!

Over all I believe that this is an old saw that is more legend then fact.

 

[bozo the clown]

Ok how much to replicate build the rockets and craft that sent man to the moon copy the blue prints I am sure they have all the data saved from start to finish, touched up with a little modern day technology surely the expense is not that great as all the research testing and actual practice has been done. Of course if we start from scractch its going to cost.

 

[marcus]

bozo I don't understand wanting to put humans on the moon or mars
they are dry places inhospitable places where any exploring needed can better be done by robots

so all this talk by the present political leaders about men on moon and Mars strikes me as cynical grand-standing or extremely ill-advised

so I don't understand your line of questions, you seem to believe it would be a worthy goal and you say "let's go! it can't cost all that much, what would it cost?"

maybe you can explain why those are reasonable questions to be asking.


I would rather be asking how much would it cost to set up and maintain a manned base on Callisto or Ganymede. Those have a dirty-ice crust
to tunnel into
to use for cooling power-generators
to extract minerals from and provide water and propellant

Stuff could live under the ice
and they are interesting beautiful places where people haven't been

a basic point about Callisto is, if you can take a nuclear power plant there then you don't need to take water, or oxygen, or vehicle propellant

the main bulk items of any space mission are abundantly available on the ground

I don't see manned moon or Mars missions as the slightest bit interesting. Maybe you can explain what they would accomplish that robot craft could not do cheaper

 

[RAD4921]

Moon Landings

The USA went to the moon in 1969 because we were in a "space race" with the Soviet Union. JFK proclaimed in the early 60s that we would put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. No doubt that the moon landings were done mainly out of national pride but it also had some scientific worth to it. Like others have said, space travel is very expensive and we would gain little scientific knowledge by returning to the moon but it beats spending money on boomer submarines. Write your congressman and complain.:)

 

[marcus]

... would gain little scientific knowledge by returning to the moon but it beats spending money on boomer submarines. Write your congressman and complain.:)

there are a lot of both technical and slang words I don't know
what is a "boomer submarine"?

 

[RAD4921]

Boomer submarines

"Boomer" is jargon used by people in the military to describe a submarine that carries ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile).

 

[neutroncount]

Actually marcus the moon is FULL of resources. The dust makes a great rocket fuel and if there is some ice in the polar craters we could obtain oxygen by reacting that water with iron oxide.

http://aerospacescholars.jsc.nasa.gov/has/cirr/em/8/4.cfm

At some point I could see a mining corperation set up a manned mining operation on the moon. Using a solar power "catapult", material could be placed in reentry containers and placed on an Earth reentry trajectory. After the initial costs, it would start to pay for itself. Electricity is free, the building material is free, water MIGHT be free (i want to see ice evidence from polar craters first) and if that is true than oxygen is free as well. I do think human are destined for space...its only a matter of time that's all. I doubt much of this will start happening until a couple decades laters.

 

[russ_watters]

Ok how much to replicate build the rockets and craft that sent man to the moon copy the blue prints I am sure they have all the data saved from start to finish, touched up with a little modern day technology surely the expense is not that great as all the research testing and actual practice has been done. Of course if we start from scractch its going to cost.

Unfortunately, even with our modern technology, it still costs $10,000 per pound to send an object into orbit. That is a physical limitation of chemical rockets and the only way to get around it is by finding another source of propulsion.

Unfortunately, Integral is right: there will never be a real, viable, commercial reason for people to go into space or to explore beyond possibly Mars.

 

[marcus]

Unfortunately, Integral is right: there will never be a real, viable, commercial reason for people to go into space...

that might be true but what if you remove the word "commercial"

... there will never be a real, viable, reason for people to go into space...

[edit: this is Russ quote with "commercial" removed---so it is not what he said. I just want to focus on that statement. I think i disagree with it even though all the science can probably be done better by robotic probes]

I would like to take an orbit around the earth. So I have a reason to go into space---if somebody offered me the ride I would go.

But I wouldn't want to go to the moon. I would rather take a ride across Texas on a Greyhound bus than go to the moon.

I would rather go to one of the moons of Jupiter than go to Mars.
(Mars has some very beautiful scenery but it doesn't look half as thrilling as the planet Jupiter, which you get to watch from one of its moons)

also I like the idea of a >50 km shell of ice. I picture ice-skating everywhere----thru tunnels.

 

[bozo the clown]

Well we could replanish some of the cost regarding a moon landing by bringing back a fair weight of rocks crushing them down and selling them. Bring back the old US flag from the 69 landing and auction it off also one could deismantle the ship and sell the parts and also having landed on the moon doesn't the USA have the right to sell land on the moon I mean couldn't they sell like acres on the internet for a few bucks !

 

[russ_watters]

that might be true but what if you remove the word "commercial".

If you mean consumer, I would include that in commercial. I see two categories of reasons to go into space: commercial and scientific.

Well we could replanish some of the cost regarding a moon landing by bringing back a fair weight of rocks crushing them down and selling them.

It also costs $10,000 per pound to bring something back. So they'd better be some really nice looking rocks. And that was just from orbit, btw - to get something to the moon and back is a good 3x that cost.

 

[marcus]

Well we could replanish some of the cost regarding a moon landing by bringing back a fair weight of rocks crushing them down and selling them. Bring back the old US flag from the 69 landing and auction it off also one could deismantle the ship and sell the parts and also having landed on the moon doesn't the USA have the right to sell land on the moon I mean couldn't they sell like acres on the internet for a few bucks !

porn movies made in zero gravity?

there must be a lot of ways a good promoter could make a buck off of manned space ventures

personally I wouldn't be interested in owning a moon rock but I would
pay five dollars for a half-pound rock to give as a present to someone
except that I don't happen to know anyone who'd like it as a present


the ice on the surface of Callisto is some of the oldest material in the solar system

I would be more interested in what a scientific lab could learn from one pound of that ice
than in what could be learned from a ton of the moon.

 

[bozo the clown]

Unfortunately, even with our modern technology, it still costs $10,000 per pound to send an object into orbit.

It also costs $10,000 per pound to bring something back

One could sell 1oz rocks for the $10,000.

 

[marcus]

bozo you must be kidding

if one were to glut the market with moon rock it would
have little or no value

people would be selling it on eBay

Ten grand an ounce is way more than market value

you could probably obtain an ounce of moon rock for less than that
right now, if you asked around, assuming you wanted it badly enough


-----------
but the other thing is that if moon rock were a commercial item it would be cheaper to send a robotic rock-scoop to the moon to get it

it would be real inefficient to send people to the moon to get rocks
because machines can do it safer, quicker, cheaper
-----------

the thing about humans is they are sentient
they experience what they are doing, significantly more than machines do

ultimately the "real, viable" purpose of including humans in it is
that the experience is worthwhile-----and ultimately because
humans may be able to make a home and raise families on some of these places in the sky

so in the last analysis it is neither commercial nor scientific

and it sure is not about bringing rocks back for the astronauts to peddle at ten thousand bucks an ounce.

 

[check]

I would like to see some real solid data on just what technology that was developed by and for the space program which has had a major impact on our economy.

This site has a good list of technologies, http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html
although it doesn't provide much reference into how and when NASA developed these. (So I guess it doesn't count as 'solid data')

Independently, many of these innovations may not have brought huge economic gains, but collectively I'm sure they have.

 

[SuperKamiokande]

I would rather go to one of the moons of Jupiter than go to Mars.
(Mars has some very beautiful scenery but it doesn't look half as thrilling as the planet Jupiter, which you get to watch from one of its moons)

Isn't tht your personal preference over technological ability?

Realistically, we would have to have some set up on Mars or the Moon before we go anywhere else in the solar system. The biosphere dome experiments on Earth are all well and good but would they stand up in space? The problem here is that while the inside might be well contained, the outside only suffers from the climate the Earth has to throw at it. What would happen on the much larger temperature fluctuation of the moon, or the more distant sun from Mars? They would need to be able to set up in these places before going gallavanting off to some moon in the outer Solar System. A case learning to walk before you run.

 

[bozo the clown]

bozo you must be kidding


-----------
but the other thing is that if moon rock were a commercial item it would be cheaper to send a robotic rock-scoop to the moon to get it

-----------

No I am just suggesting ways to help pay for a moon landing not to go their to collect rocks to sell.
The moon landing is simply for glory and to give the world something to be in awe at once again and to bolster space exploration.

 

[enigma]

Ok how much to replicate build the rockets and craft that sent man to the moon

The biggest reason we can't build another Saturn V right now is because the jigs have been destroyed. Any time you're building something as large as a rocket, you first need to build the production and construction facilities to do so. You need huge contraptions to hold the pieces together while you're constructing it. You need specially modified aircraft to move the pieces around. You need mammoth warehouses to build and assemble them. You need to fully train a small army of technicians. etc. etc. etc.

The actual pieces which go into the rocket are a small fraction of the total cost to build it.

 

[Integral]

The USA went to the moon in 1969 because we were in a "space race" with the Soviet Union. JFK proclaimed in the early 60s that we would put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. No doubt that the moon landings were done mainly out of national pride but it also had some scientific worth to it. Like others have said, space travel is very expensive and we would gain little scientific knowledge by returning to the moon but it beats spending money on boomer submarines. Write your congressman and complain.:)

Are you sure about this? Could not the boomers be used to explore the 2/3 of Earth's surface that we know less about then the surface of the moon or mars? I am speaking of the ocean floor of course. Is there not huge potential for commercialization, is there not the possibility of discoveries and technologies which could extend the life of our civilization for centuries, on gaining greater knowledge of the oceans of the earth?

I think it is the science fiction that we all grew up with the makes us turn to outer space as a potential solution. I see much that can be learned there, but unfortunately, at our current level of technology, man is a hindrance in space not a benefit. We can can explore and mine the moon or Mars without a man ever sitting foot on them.

This century is bound to be a turning point in the history of our civilization. There exits a strong possibility that civilization as we know it will not survive to the next century. If we fail to pass the test of survival in our future then mankind is doomed to a 1850's life style at the best. There is simply no easily retrievable energy sources left to exploit. So we must use our current knowledge and technology to solve the energy crisis which is looming. Resources squandered on ill advised and pointless manned space missions are irrecoverable. Can we afford them if there is no long term gain? It is not clear that we have much of a margin for error in our future, we have serious technological hurtles to over come. Solutions need to be found and they need to be found quickly. We need to allocate the available resources, both human and economic wisely and not ignore a potential solutions simply because it is not glamorous. There is still much to be learned about the solar system, this can be done much more efficiently by leaving humans on the surface of the earth.

I am sure many of you see me as simply a voice of negativity, I see myself as a voice of reality. We must apply what know, if we must pursue the understanding of the universe in an efficient a manner as possible and mean while we need to increase our under standing of inner space as well as outer space. At this point in time man in space simply makes no sense.

 

[Integral]

Ok how much to replicate build the rockets and craft that sent man to the moon copy the blue prints I am sure they have all the data saved from start to finish, touched up with a little modern day technology surely the expense is not that great as all the research testing and actual practice has been done. Of course if we start from scractch its going to cost.

Unfortunately there is much more to it then blue prints. Much of the knowledge of how the 60s moon missions were accomplished remains with the men who did it, they have long since retired. When they retired they took their knowledge of rockets with them, our current engineers knew little of that generation of rocketry and are having to relearn it. Did you not see the pictures of rockets exploding on the pad in the recent (10yr?) past? This is the learning curve of rockets. So no we simply cannot assemble and launch, as if it were a model rocket, a Saturn V.

 

[bozo the clown]

Can anyone here approximate the cost of a moon landing ?

 

[marcus]

Isn't tht your personal preference over technological ability?
.

No, I am basing this on technical considerations. Our technology is better suited to establishing habitats on water ice worlds than on dry ones.

Realistically, we would have to have some set up on Mars or the Moon before we go anywhere else in the solar system... A case learning to walk before you run.

No, I do not think so. A "set up" on luna or Mars would be a frivolous undertaking which would not serve to get us closer to bases on a jovian moon.

humans on either luna or Mars would live constricted lives
in cramped prefab quarters transported from home
and walking around in funny suits on a thoroughly inhospitable desert
surrounded by vacuum or near vacuum

if we were misguided enough to send people there


erecting larger structures containing breathable atmosphere and
supplying them with adequate amounts of water and oxygen
is apt to be a big deal on either luna or mars
even with some permafrost or polar ice

technically I expect it would be simpler to set up a permanent habitat for humans on Ganymede or Callisto (though the trip takes longer)

colonists would melt a tunnel deep into the ice
and hollow out as much space as they needed
and install an airlock at the mouth

the key piece of equipment is a small reliable nuclear
power source
because nitrogen does not seem as readily available
inhabitants would need to adjust to breathing
an oxygen atmosphere

 

[marcus]

Can anyone here approximate the cost of a moon landing ?

Bozo it's surprising that you continue asking about this. You yourself say you are interested in glory and awe and bolstering space exploration!
Putting humans on the moon would not gain glory or impress anyone in their right mind. nor would it advance space exploration.
It is a stupid move that would mainly serve to disgust our friends and amuse our critics.

When Kennedy gave the "We choose to go to the moon" speech, that was thrilling and the enterprise was awesome.

the second time would be an unworthy and contemptible anticlimax, supported by phony rhetoric, serving no purpose.

but you say:

"The moon landing is simply for glory and to give the world something to be in awe at once again and to bolster space exploration."

If you care about values like glory and awe and space exploration, then why don't you advocate a worthy undertaking?

why not something really analogous to Kennedy's decision in 1961
to do something that had not been done and that opened up new capabilities

there are dead and bone-dry worlds and there are worlds made largely of water
life as we know it is water-based
the conquest of an ice world is a natural and respectable goal
but returning to the moon is a pathetic and contemptible goal

I fear that a moon base would be seen as an expensive boondoggle and
tend rather to excite hostility to space exploration

US space policy needs to be redirected

 

[SuperKamiokande]

Well, I think robotic missions should be sent first to assess the adequacy of setting up habitats on such worlds first. The martian topography is very indicative of there having been water. Perhaps this water lies beneath the surface of mars? Investigation should be made.

humans on either luna or Mars would live constricted lives
in cramped prefab quarters transported from home
and walking around in funny suits on a thoroughly inhospitable desert
surrounded by vacuum or near vacuum

if we were misguided enough to send people there

And Jovian moons would provide the same problem. Remember that they too have no atmosphere, having been stripped of it by Jupiter's gravity. And at that distance from the sun not only would it be much colder, but far more inhospitable from exposure to cosmic rays as well as asteroid and meteor impacts as indicated by its surface. The "cramped" prefabricated quarters transported from would also be necessary for a settlement on these moons and ppl would still need to walk around in "funny suits on a thoroughly inhospitable planet surrounded by vacuum". Settling on a nearer planet would just serve to show that such settling can be done before gallavanting out to the further reaches of the solar system.

erecting larger structures containing breathable atmosphere and
supplying them with adequate amounts of water and oxygen
is apt to be a big deal on either luna or mars
even with some permafrost or polar ice

technically I expect it would be simpler to set up a permanent habitat for humans on Ganymede or Callisto (though the trip takes longer)

Erecting larger structures on Ganymede or Callisto is also likely to be a big deal. I say get started on inhabiting nearby foreign worlds before trekking out to the outer reaches of the solar system (and maybe beyond).

 

[neutroncount]

(though the trip takes longer)

There's the clincher. We don't/won't have the technology to take all the resoruces we need from Earth for a year's trip and transport it from Earth to one of Jupiter's moons with a sizable crew involved...let along everything we'd need to make underground ice tunnels. We'd need better propulsion methods, much better radiation shielding (remember space is loaded with cosmic rays but its chicken scratch compared to the Jovian radiation belts), and reliable equipment. I wouldn't want to be on THAT mission if the equipment I was using wasn't tested thoroughly offworld somewhere. Plus when did living in underground tunnels not become crampped and when could you NOT wear suits on Jovian moons? See where I'm going? The moon, Mars, Ganymede..all are inhospitable to humans in their current form and we'd need to build HABITATS regardless of where we are. I could just as easily say "we should build tunnels in the martian bedrock" but I'd still be a closed up habitat that humans would be sealed up in.

And what SuperKamiokande has been saying is right; walk before you can run. Rush things you end up a dozen frozen bodies laying all over Callisto. Humanity has time and the universe isn't going anywhere...let's colonize where we can.

 

[bozo the clown]

why not something really analogous to Kennedy's decision in 1961
to do something that had not been done and that opened up new capabilities

there are dead and bone-dry worlds and there are worlds made largely of water
life as we know it is water-based
the conquest of an ice world is a natural and respectable goal

Are you talking about a manned mission? If so than that is a waste of time and expense. Robotic mission than yes why not.

incidentily I found this unedited neil armstrong moon landing speech
at
http://www.blogjam.com/neil_armstrong/

 

[shrumeo]

That it funny as hell!

The moon landing was also a "proof of concept." Proof that it could be done.
We could have gotten the same data from robotic missions almost, maybe without bringing back tons of moon rocks.

Now we know it can be done, no mystery anymore. All we need is a reason to go and we'd be there.

Besides we all know the reason we didn't go back was because of the aliens Armstrong saw! ;)

 

[Phobos]

Overall, I agree that with current technology, a strong reason to go to the Moon is lacking. If we want to go to Mars (for glory or national prestige or whatever), then we can do that directly without a sidetrack to the Moon.

Once (if) space travel becomes less expensive, then the reasons to go to the Moon become easier to find.

Putting humans on the moon would not gain glory or impress anyone in their right mind. nor would it advance space exploration.
It is a stupid move that would mainly serve to disgust our friends and amuse our critics.

Note that many other countries are targeting the Moon...India, China, Japan (and in the past, Russia)...as a matter of national prestige & economic stimulus (not from selling/using Moon resources, but from the infusion of technology).

 

[Janitor]

If you'll pardon my usual not-quite-on-target post in this thread...

I have seen the Apollo/Saturn V stack lying on its side in Houston, and it is extremely impressive. Probably more impressive than any other product of technology that I have seen with my own eyes.

But I was thumbing through a magazine the other day--I think it was Discover-- and the claim was made therein that we are not all that far away from being able to construct a space elevator, using carbon nanotubes as the essential building material. True, this would "only" get things into Earth orbit. And maybe it's just bunkum, like all those prophecies of how, by 1970 or so, most of us would be commuting around the city in flying cars. But if such a thing is actually built in my lifetime, I will be as much in awe of it as I was of the Apollo flights.

[My thought when I started reading the magazine article was that the space elevator is not feasible in a world that harbors religious extremists, but it was pointed out that if it were anchored on a platform out in the ocean and surrounded by radar, sonar, and appropriate weaponry, it could possibly be protected from terrorism.]

 

[shrumeo]

I beg to differ.

We are far far far from being able to build any kind of space elevator, especially out of carbon nanotubes. We have only begun in the past 5-7 years to be able to do chemistry on them, or even spin them into decent fibers, or make paper out of them. Folks have made prototype field-effect transistors and even logic gates using SWNTs, but I highly doubt we are anywhere near being able to build large structures out of them, or even by just incorporating them. It's all still relatively new and difficult to work with.

I mean, someone only just realized that we vould make lightbulbs with the stuff.
http://news.com.com/Reinventing+the+lightbulb,+with+nanotubes/2100-7337_3-5226906.html

It would be nice, but It doesn't seem like its going to happen any time soon.

edit: I realize now you were doubting it too.