moon landing


by bozo the clown
Tags: landing, moon
bozo the clown
bozo the clown is offline
#1
Jun22-04, 12:29 AM
P: 93
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.
Phys.Org News Partner Astronomy news on Phys.org
First potentially habitable Earth-sized planet confirmed: It may have liquid water
A sharp eye on Southern binary stars
Hubble image: A cross-section of the universe
Integral
Integral is offline
#2
Jun22-04, 01:08 AM
Mentor
Integral's Avatar
P: 7,291
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
bozo the clown is offline
#3
Jun22-04, 01:31 AM
P: 93
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
Integral is offline
#4
Jun22-04, 01:42 AM
Mentor
Integral's Avatar
P: 7,291

moon landing


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
check is offline
#5
Jun22-04, 01:50 AM
check's Avatar
P: 275
While actually going into space may not brought any economic gains, the technology developed to do this task certainly has.
Integral
Integral is offline
#6
Jun22-04, 02:40 AM
Mentor
Integral's Avatar
P: 7,291
Quote Quote by check
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
bozo the clown is offline
#7
Jun22-04, 09:00 AM
P: 93
Ok how much to replicate build the rockets and craft that sent man to the moon copy the blue prints Im 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
marcus is offline
#8
Jun22-04, 09:24 AM
Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
marcus's Avatar
P: 22,800
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 dont 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 havent been

a basic point about Callisto is, if you can take a nuclear power plant there then you dont need to take water, or oxygen, or vehicle propellant

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

I dont 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
RAD4921 is offline
#9
Jun22-04, 09:37 AM
P: 314
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
marcus is offline
#10
Jun22-04, 09:45 AM
Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
marcus's Avatar
P: 22,800
Quote Quote by RAD4921
... 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 dont know
what is a "boomer submarine"?
RAD4921
RAD4921 is offline
#11
Jun22-04, 10:05 AM
P: 314
"Boomer" is jargon used by people in the military to describe a submarine that carries ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile).
neutroncount
#12
Jun22-04, 10:22 AM
P: n/a
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.go...irr/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 thats all. I doubt much of this will start happening until a couple decades laters.
russ_watters
russ_watters is offline
#13
Jun22-04, 10:39 AM
Mentor
P: 21,998
Quote Quote by bozo the clown
Ok how much to replicate build the rockets and craft that sent man to the moon copy the blue prints Im 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
marcus is offline
#14
Jun22-04, 10:58 AM
Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
marcus's Avatar
P: 22,800
Quote Quote by russ_watters
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 wouldnt 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 doesnt 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
bozo the clown is offline
#15
Jun22-04, 11:21 AM
P: 93
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
russ_watters is offline
#16
Jun22-04, 11:50 AM
Mentor
P: 21,998
Quote Quote by marcus
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
marcus is offline
#17
Jun22-04, 11:59 AM
Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
marcus's Avatar
P: 22,800
Quote Quote by 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 !
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 wouldnt 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 dont 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
bozo the clown is offline
#18
Jun22-04, 12:02 PM
P: 93
Quote Quote by russ_watters
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.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Was the Moon Landing a Hoax? General Discussion 18
Landing on the moon General Discussion 22
faked moon landing (again...) General Discussion 0
moon landing General Discussion 9
Was the first moon landing a fake? General Astronomy 15