Sights are off the moon, and maybe put away for good.

  • News
  • Thread starter MotoH
  • Start date
  • #101
ideasrule
Homework Helper
2,266
0
Something like 1 out of 3 Mars missions have failed. And those missions were orders of magnitude simpler than a manned mission.
Not to mention with an order of magnitude fewer safeguards.
 
  • #102
ideasrule
Homework Helper
2,266
0
The possibility of finding traces of frozen water in the bottom of a shadowed crater near the moon's poles is such a thin excuse that it does not even bear repeating, much less actual support.
This has been mentioned before, but launching from the Moon is much easier than launching from Earth. With a moon base, space exploration becomes easy, and that includes launching satellites into Earth orbit.
 
  • #103
266
0
This has been mentioned before, but launching from the Moon is much easier than launching from Earth. With a moon base, space exploration becomes easy, and that includes launching satellites into Earth orbit.
A moon base with crew and supplies capable of producing and launching satellites? :bugeye:
You do realizes that the moon does not have the natural resources that we take for granted here on earth?

I think that pretty much anything you would actually end up doing on a moon base could just as easily be done in orbit.

If you want to be inspired, do it with your own dollars. Pragmatism is the highest goal to which the bureaucrats who spend our money can strive.
 
  • #104
ideasrule
Homework Helper
2,266
0
You do realizes that the moon does not have the natural resources that we take for granted here on earth?
Natural resources? You mean iron, copper, silicon, helium 3, water, and solar energy? One thing the Moon doesn't have is fossil fuels; thank goodness for that.

Even if only 80% of a rocket's weight is manufactured on the Moon while the other 20% has to be brought from Earth, launching the rocket from the Moon would still be vastly less expensive than launching it from Earth. Compare the Saturn V with the small portion of the lunar module that lifted the astronauts off the Moon and you'll see the difference.
 
  • #105
18
9
You do realizes that the moon does not have the natural resources that we take for granted here on earth?
It has titanium, aluminum, and silicon. That right there is enough to build a simple probe once you refine the materials. If the solar energy isn't enough for that kind of energy intensive refining there's always nuclear. Japan's lunar orbiter discovered uranium. Not to mention we can use that stuff to build things in lower earth orbit much easier that pre-fabbing it on earth. Of course this would provide jobs for people, can't have that now can we.......

Of course the purpose of the space program aside from cutting edge exploration and space science should be to lay the foundations for private enterprises to do exactly that, industrialize space. To some degree this has been accomplished.
 
  • #106
2,985
15
The Apollo project inspired an entire generation of scientists and engineers, something which benefitted us greatly in the last 30 years. What would be the point to going to the moon? As a first step towards further expansion into space.
That's a great sound bite, but don't avoid my question I clearly laid out. Further expansion to space where? Do you have an idea what distances are involved to the next solar system?


And the solutions to these problems can't be applied here on Earth for certain problems?
Then solve them here on earth first, and apply them to space.

There's far far more being spent on that than on space exploration.
That doesn't justify the spending on human based space exploration.

Huge amounts of money are already being spent on developing better batteries for our vehicles, and we already have the ability to replace our coal powerplants with a (potentially) zero carbon source of energy, but envrionmentalist scare mongering have been holding that one up.
Nuclear energy isn't a silver bullet.

We have the capability to do this, have had it for a long time. We spent enormous amounts of money on aid to help developing countries do that amoung other things....the result? Waste on a collosal scale.
Do you have a source for this claim? I'm also not talking about going around making clean water for other countries on tax payer money, so I hope you did not interpret my post that way.

I agree but it wont be done throwing money at them. Problems like poverty in the third world are solved with economic development and industrialization, not handouts. No matter how many tens of billions of dollars we send them, it wont ever be enough until they industrialize. Sacrificing the space program will do none of these things.
I never said to throw money at anyone. Where did I say that? Please, do not put words in my mouth.

It allows us to build stuff in space much much easier.
Why do we need to build stuff in space?


Here's another thought to consider: Future economic development of space. Long term think of all the jobs we can create up and down the pay scale if we actually did industrialize it and develop it even close to its potential, not to mention the potential benefits of technological developments. The funny thing is when you invest in science and technology, the results are not always predictable, that's why "return on investment" arguments don't work with argueing against them.
Um, okay..... I don't buy this argument. What 'potential' to develop space. Apart from satellites, its a big tourist attraction.
 
  • #107
266
0
ideasrule and aquitaine:

Guys, think more basic. Like an atmosphere and water and food. You can't just go to moon and set up shop.
Are you really suggesting that not only do we build a moon base capable of manufacturing and launching satellites and other rockets but also capable of having a large scale mining operation?
You're talking about having entire and multiple industries functioning on the moon.

What you are proposing is highly impractical, to say the least.
 
Last edited:
  • #108
2,985
15
Why find a cure for cancer? Why deal with poverty, global warming, or any of those problems? If these problems become too big/personal, we can pull out a gun and suicide.
Come on ideas, I know you can make more thoughtful posts than this.

I'm asking you to ponder seriously. I don't commit suicide every time I face a problem because I want to get the best out of my life: the most excitement, the most adventure, and the most intense sense of achievement. I'd rather get cancer at age 70 after designing the first spaceship to send men to Mars than do nothing and die of a heart attack at age 80.
I gave you a serious answer, please do the same.
 
  • #109
19
1
They had a large scale excavation in 2001 on the moon, I am not sure what you are talking about Rob.
 
  • #110
37
2
That's a great sound bite, but don't avoid my question I clearly laid out. Further expansion to space where? Do you have an idea what distances are involved to the next solar system?
Just to put things into perspective Voyager 1 has been travelling for 33 years and it still hasn't reached interstellar space. I think it just crossed into the heliosheath. It is currently travelling at 17km/s which is just above 61000km/h... compare that to the fastest speed any manned spacecraft has attained which was under 40000km/h, and that was the re-entry of Apollo 11.

To put it further into perspective if we aimed Voyager 1 at the nearest star it would still take Voyager 1 just under 75 000 years for it to travel there...

Humans will most likely never see interstellar space in person, and they definitely will not see another star in person, regardless of what advancements are made in propulsion systems. (we have to remember these are PEOPLE we're dealing with... not hunks of sturdy metal.)

something I find amazing about all this however is that they are still recording data from the instruments on both voyagers... even after 30 years and all that distance it's still works like a charm, that's something.
 
  • #111
ideasrule
Homework Helper
2,266
0
I gave you a serious answer, please do the same.
You didn't give a serious answer to my question: why don't we all pull out a gun and suicide at first sight of trouble? If life involved only routine tasks like eating, exercising, being healthy, going to school/work, and sleeping, without any excitement or drama, most people would probably do this. If humanity focuses only on reducing crime, improving sanitation, helping the poor, and other routine tasks, I'm not sure I'd be optimistic about its future. Having a vision, fulfilling age-old dreams, and pushing available technology to its limit doesn't just have practical benefits like inspiring the next generation to become scientists/engineers; it has the benefit of making humanity worth caring about and improving.
 
  • #112
18
9
That's a great sound bite, but don't avoid my question I clearly laid out. Further expansion to space where? Do you have an idea what distances are involved to the next solar system?
It's a sound bite that accurately reflects reality. In anycase what I mean is push out to the other planets and moons in this solarsystem. Earth isn't the only planet here.

Then solve them here on earth first, and apply them to space.
Doesn't always work that way. For example, the Apollo project pushed a lot of the early research done on integrated circuits in order to miniaturize the then monstrous computers to fit on the Apollo capsule. After words that, combined with increased engineering talent that occured from being inspired by the project, helped drive the computer industry to be where it is today, and of course one of the side effects of this has been greatly improved research efficiency, especially in medical research.

That doesn't justify the spending on human based space exploration.
Yes it does because the research being done has helped to push back the frontiers of science that much more. That and the technological developments have made it worthwhile, certainly much more worthwhile than the military adventures we've gotten ourselves into.

Why do we need to build stuff in space?
Any number of reasons. R&D facilities, the people that live and work there, other people that want to live in space (or the moon or wherever), space probes, exploration ships to further explore the outer areas of the solar system, probably a few others too,

Um, okay..... I don't buy this argument. What 'potential' to develop space. Apart from satellites, its a big tourist attraction.
Space has a lot of space, but more importantly it also has resources. Most of those resources wouldn't be sent back to Earth, but the more valuble ones would be.

I never said to throw money at anyone. Where did I say that? Please, do not put words in my mouth.
It was implied. You said we should instead do things like cure poverty and so forth instead of sending people into space. The implication being that money being spent on sending people into space would instead be spent on trying to do that. I'm saying we've, for the most part, been doing that for more than 30 years without effect.

Nuclear energy isn't a silver bullet.
Actually it is, maybe more so than you realize. Combining this with the electrification of most parts of our private transportation system would vastly reduce carbon emissions.

Do you have a source for this claim? I'm also not talking about going around making clean water for other countries on tax payer money, so I hope you did not interpret my post that way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_purification
We have clean drinking water not just because we developed the science and technology to do it, but we actually built the facilities to make it happen. Poor countries in the world generally don't have access to clean drinking water because they didn't build the infrastructure needed, and the massive amounts of aid money that have been sent to them to do stuff like this disappeared into a few corrupt hands.

And as for your second point, yes, that is exactly what you are saying. The money for manned space exploration has come from taxpayer dollars, so therefore if it isn't being spent on that and instead being spent on making clean drinking water, by definition it is using taxpayer money to make clean drinking water in other countries.

and they definitely will not see another star in person,
Never is a long time. 200 years ago people said we could never fly, 75 years ago people said we would never break the sound barrier, and we managed to do those things. Obviously there's a difference in technical difficulty, but the concept is the same.
 
  • #113
2,985
15
It's a sound bite that accurately reflects reality. In anycase what I mean is push out to the other planets and moons in this solarsystem. Earth isn't the only planet here.
That doesn't mean we have to send people to them, or that there is any value in doing so.

Doesn't always work that way. For example, the Apollo project pushed a lot of the early research done on integrated circuits in order to miniaturize the then monstrous computers to fit on the Apollo capsule. After words that, combined with increased engineering talent that occured from being inspired by the project, helped drive the computer industry to be where it is today, and of course one of the side effects of this has been greatly improved research efficiency, especially in medical research.
While I am familiar and aware with the technical challenges of the Apollo program, I would not say that they helped to drive the computer industry to where it is today. They may have accelerated the progress, but the need for computing power was already there even before Apollo.


Yes it does because the research being done has helped to push back the frontiers of science that much more. That and the technological developments have made it worthwhile, certainly much more worthwhile than the military adventures we've gotten ourselves into.
This is not being specific. Again, sending people to the moon - today would do what?


Any number of reasons. R&D facilities, the people that live and work there, other people tht want to live in space (or the moon or wherever), space probes, exploration ships to further explore the outer areas of the solar system, probably a few others too.
You mean, space tourists? We should spend money for space tourism. Errr, no. As for R&D facilities, that doesn't have to require people. But again, I'd need more specific answers. What space probes, specifically, do you want to build - and why. What exploration ships, to where, for what purpose?


Space has a lot of space, but more importantly it also has resources. Most of those resources wouldn't be sent back to Earth, but the more valuble ones would be.
Is Imagination (IM) a new element to be harvested? (Sorry, couldn't help myself) Really, what element? This is all empty rhetoric that costs tax payers money.

It was implied. You said we should instead do things like cure poverty and so forth instead of sending people into space. The implication being that money being spent on sending people into space would instead be spent on trying to do that. I'm saying we've, for the most part, been doing that for more than 30 years without effect.
What programs, and what money for the last 30 years has been 'doing that without effect'?

Actually it is, maybe more so than you realize. Combining this with the electrification of most parts of our private transportation system would vastly reduce carbon emissions.
No, it's good, but its not a silver bullet. The last thing you want is places like Iran having access to radioactive materials. There are significant policy decisions that go with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_purification
We have clean drinking water not just because we developed the science and technology to do it, but we actually built the facilities to make it happen. Poor countries in the world generally don't have access to clean drinking water because they didn't build the infrastructure needed, and the massive amounts of aid money that have been sent to them to do stuff like this disappeared into a few corrupt hands.
I'm not disagreeing with what your stating here, I'm disagreeing with you in that I never said it had to be done 'business as usual'.

And as for your second point, yes, that is exactly what you are saying. The money for manned space exploration has come from taxpayer dollars, so therefore if it isn't being spent on that and instead being spent on making clean drinking water, by definition it is using taxpayer money to make clean drinking water in other countries.
Who said it has to be other countries water?

Never is a long time. 200 years ago people said we could never fly, 75 years ago people said we would never break the sound barrier, and we managed to do those things. Obviously there's a difference in technical difficulty, but the concept is the same.
As a person who studies aerospace history in their spare time.......um, no. Weak argument.

Side: can we have normal posts. I really hate having to reply all fragmented like this.
 
Last edited:
  • #114
kr0nos
Why is everyone here talking as if we have to choose between solving problems here on earth and space exploration? The two aren't mutually exclusive at all.

Perhaps, I'm the naively optimistic one, but we can do both at the same time.
 
  • #115
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,895
2,399
Why is everyone here talking as if we have to choose between solving problems here on earth and space exploration? The two aren't mutually exclusive at all.

Perhaps, I'm the naively optimistic one, but we can do both at the same time.
With a limited budget, the fox that chases two rabbits tends to catch neither.
 
  • #116
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,849
2,114
NASA's Next Space Suit :biggrin:
Engineers are developing a more flexible outfit--just the thing for a mission to the moon.

By Brittany Sauser - Monday, January 25, 2010

If NASA returns to the moon in 2020 as planned, astronauts will step out in a brand-new space suit. It will give them new mobility and flexibility on the lunar surface while still protecting them from its harsh environment. The suit will also be able to sustain life for up to 150 hours and will even be equipped with a computer that links directly back to Earth.

The new design will also let astronauts work outside of the International Space Station (ISS) and will be suitable for trips to Mars, as outlined in NASA's program for exploration, called Constellation. "The current suits just cannot do everything we need them to do," says Terry Hill, the Constellation space suit engineering project manager at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston. "We have a completely new design, something that has never been done before."

NASA has proposed a plug-in-play design, so that the same arms, legs, boots, and helmets can be used with different suit torsos. "It's one reconfigurable suit that can do the job of three specialized suits," says Hill. The space agency has awarded a $500 million, 6.5-year contract for the design and development of the Constellation space suit to Houston-based Oceaneering International, which primarily makes equipment for deep-sea exploration. Oceaneering has partnered with the Worcester, MA-based David Clark Company, which has been developing space suits for the U.S. space agency since the 1960s.

. . . .
:rolleyes: :biggrin:
 
  • #117
19
1
Constellation canceled, Constellation back on?
 
  • #118
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
NASA's Next Space Suit :biggrin:
Engineers are developing a more flexible outfit--just the thing for a mission to the moon.
Or near Earth operations - Space Station work, etc.
 
  • #119
19
1
If it was just for LEO operations they would keep the one they have.

If NASA didn't want to go to the moon, they would have tried to siphon that money their way to hire more useless personnel.
 
  • #120
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
If it was just for LEO operations they would keep the one they have.
You assume the current design is perfected for all LEO needs. It's not.
 
  • #121
19
1
You assume the current design is perfected for all LEO needs. It's not.
So we are going to spend 500 million more of what we dont have on something that is already doing a good job?

If it is used for landing on firma petra, then I am all for it. But if it is just another money spender for new space suits then it is crock.
 
  • #122
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
So we are going to spend 500 million more of what we dont have on something that is already doing a good job? ...
Almost a good question. How do you know its doing a 'good job'? Maybe there are many serious limitations to what can be done in space right now with the current suit. Maybe the crew could work much faster and accomplish much more with a new suit, that would more than justify the improvements. Why not google a bit and find out?

If on the other hand, your agenda is that you don't care about any space missions aside from manned planetary missions then skip the rationalizations.
 
  • #123
19
1
What is wrong with this one?
34.jpg
 
  • #124
100
1
What is wrong with this one?
i believe it is what the article says: flexibility. pressurizing the suit is like inflating a balloon, which is much harder to bend when inflated than when deflated. i assume they'd put rigid swiveling joints at key places (elbow, shoulder, knee, hip?, thumb?).
 
  • #125
19
1
i believe it is what the article says: flexibility. pressurizing the suit is like inflating a balloon, which is much harder to bend when inflated than when deflated. i assume they'd put rigid swiveling joints at key places (elbow, shoulder, knee, hip?, thumb?).
That is the Mercury space suit, not meant for OVA's.:tongue2: They had concepts for suits on the science channel a long while ago, and they basically had a lot more swivels, and something else. Meh my memory is mercury.
 

Related Threads on Sights are off the moon, and maybe put away for good.

  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
Replies
75
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
671
  • Last Post
2
Replies
41
Views
7K
Replies
12
Views
20K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
Top