What is the value in visiting the Moon again?

[wolram]

Just interested in what may be achieved by putting a man/men on the moon again.

 

[Ophiolite]

In no particular order.

1. Geopolitical statement
2. Testing/Development of technology for a manned Mars mission
3. Expression of the innate human desire to explore
4. Identification of resources for in situ development
5. Identification of resources for potential export to orbit (Earth or Lunar) or Earth
6. Improved understanding of lunar geology
   1. Insights into lunar formation
   2. Improved delineation of the age of lunar events
   3. Enhanced mapping of lunar features
   4. Expanded knowledge of lunar petrology and mineralogy
7. Subdue the babble from the conspiracy theorists who deny the reality of the moon landings

 

[russ_watters]

Last time I went, all I got was this lousy t-shirt.

 

[BWV]

Nothing worthwhile in any manned space exploration - for the cost you could instead to a multiple number of unmanned missions.

 

[Ophiolite]

Nothing worthwhile in any manned space exploration - for the cost you could instead to a multiple number of unmanned missions.

I would readily agree that robotic missions can acquire substantial volumes of information for a cost low in comparison with manned exploration. However, to assert that "nothing worthwhile" can emerge from manned space exploration is surely hyperbole.

Until we have developed AI to the point it approaches the discretion of a trained human, advanced robotics to match human flexibilty and built systems that possesses the adaptability, mental and physical, of humans, until then manned exploration will deliver valuable data and more valuable understanding. What is important is to provide a balanced mix of exploration techniques, remote, robotic and manned. Excluding anyone of these will limit the quality and quantity of data we can acquire.

 

[TeethWhitener]

As a counterpoint and food for thought, this paper came out several years ago:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.6250.pdf
The author argues that humans are far more efficient than robots at the type of scientific work that space exploration requires (he estimates a human:robot efficiency ratio of 1500:1). One example he points out is that the Apollo 17 astronauts covered more ground in 3 days than the Mars rover Opportunity covered in 8 years.

Not sure if the efficiency argument above can counterbalance the dangers of sending people to space, but it may counterbalance the argument from cost that we seem to see over and over.

 

[symbolipoint]

Why go there again? To find and visit a place like EATS:

 

[russ_watters]

The author argues that humans are far more efficient than robots at the type of scientific work that space exploration requires (he estimates a human:robot efficiency ratio of 1500:1). One example he points out is that the Apollo 17 astronauts covered more ground in 3 days than the Mars rover Opportunity covered in 8 years.

Not sure if the efficiency argument above can counterbalance the dangers of sending people to space, but it may counterbalance the argument from cost that we seem to see over and over.

Well, but that's just it: he didn't calculate cost efficiency, he calculated per mission efficiency. The total cost per rover was $500M. The Apollo program cost about $25B, with 6 landings, of which the Apollo 17 EVA was longest. By EVA time ratio, Apollo 17 cost about $6 B. So the cost ratio is 12:1, when comparing a moon mission to a Mars mission. I'm not sure what the Mars premium is, but I could believe a factor of 100 to close the remaining gap.

And that doesn't include the economy of scale for launching 1,500 rovers or geographic effectiveness.

 

[TeethWhitener]

And that doesn't include the economy of scale for launching 1,500 rovers or geographic effectiveness

Sure. It doesn’t include a lot of things. But it does illustrate that manned missions can’t simply be rejected out of hand for not being as cost-effective as unmanned missions.

 

[phinds]

Subdue the babble from the conspiracy theorists who deny the reality of the moon landings

No, it will not. People who are stupid enough to believe the original moon landing was a hoax are not going to be convinced by another landing. It will just be another hoax.

Arguing fact against conspiracy theories is a complete waste of time.

 

[russ_watters]

Sure. It doesn’t include a lot of things. But it does illustrate that manned missions can’t simply be rejected out of hand for not being as cost-effective as unmanned missions.

I wouldn't reject anything out of hand, I'd just do a full/relevant analysis...

 

[TeethWhitener]

People who are stupid enough to believe the original moon landing was a hoax are not going to be convinced by another landing.

Well, we could always send them to the moon.

 

[russ_watters]

No, it will not. People who are stupid enough to believe the original moon landing was a hoax are not going to be convinced by another landing. It will just be another hoax.

Even worse, now that CGI is viable. Faking a moon landing in 1969 would have been reeeeeaaaaaaaly difficult. Today, notsomuch.

 

[phinds]

Well, we could always send them to the moon.

And they will argue that they were drugged and/or hypnotized and it wasn't real. AGAIN, arguing fact against conspiracy theories is a waste of time.

 

[BWV]

Ok the 1500:1 ratio comes from this quote:
“[t]he unfortunate truth is that most things our rovers can do in a perfect sol [i.e. a martian day] a human explorer could do in less than a minute” (Squyres, 2005, pp. 234-5).

Which makes it a fallacious argument. So what if it takes a Martian day for a robot to do what a human can accomplish in 60 seconds? The last Mars Rover, Curiosity, has been operating for over six years - how long could a human operate? And could a human really have gathered all the information that Curiosity has compiled so far in a day and a half (1/1600th of six years)?

 

[Rive]

And they will argue ...

I would like to point out that @TeethWhitener was about ' to send them' but 'bring them back' was not mentioned at all...

 

[Ophiolite]

No, it will not. People who are stupid enough to believe the original moon landing was a hoax are not going to be convinced by another landing. It will just be another hoax.

Arguing fact against conspiracy theories is a complete waste of time.

I did not suggest that it would eliminate the babble of conspiracy theorists. I said it would subdue it. I should have remembered the distinctions that often exist between American English and British English. In the latter "subdue" can carry the sense of "reduce". It is not generally a synonym for "suppress". I have met enough hoax believers who would be persuaded by further landings. The babble would be quietened. (Not silenced.)

Thus, I chose "subdue" carefully. . . . . . Just not carefully enough.

So what if it takes a Martian day for a robot to do what a human can accomplish in 60 seconds? The last Mars Rover, Curiosity, has been operating for over six years - how long could a human operate? And could a human really have gathered all the information that Curiosity has compiled so far in a day and a half (1/1600th of six years)?

Surely the more important point is that the robot and the human bring different strengths (and different costs) to the table. An argument for only one automatically eliminates all the benefits of the other.

Moreover robots can never fully address the third point I listed as a reason for manned exploration:

Expression of the innate human desire to explore

 

[TeethWhitener]

Ok the 1500:1 ratio comes from this quote:
“[t]he unfortunate truth is that most things our rovers can do in a perfect sol [i.e. a martian day] a human explorer could do in less than a minute” (Squyres, 2005, pp. 234-5).

Which makes it a fallacious argument. So what if it takes a Martian day for a robot to do what a human can accomplish in 60 seconds? The last Mars Rover, Curiosity, has been operating for over six years - how long could a human operate? And could a human really have gathered all the information that Curiosity has compiled so far in a day and a half (1/1600th of six years)?

First of all, take a look at Figure 2. It seems that, from a scientific publication output, yes: a few days on the moon can generate far more publication-worthy data than years of a rover on Mars.

Second of all, unless you’re talking about an entirely autonomous robot, humans will still be making decisions about what to examine. In the case of Mars, it takes at least an hour’s round trip for a signal to be sent by a rover to Earth and back. A decision which takes a human a few seconds to make encounters a three-orders-of-magnitude delay simply in communicating to the rover, and it’s only going to get worse the farther away from Earth you get.

Robots and AI will get better, and endangering astronauts will always be a tough hurdle politically, but saying that nothing worthwhile can come of manned missions is simply incorrect.

 

[Rive]

Just interested in what may be achieved by putting a man/men on the moon again.

To be honest, as scientific achievement I do not expect much. The most important things to know about the Moon are already known, big surprises are unlikely. Some details might be confirmed, some holes might be filled, but that's all. It'll remain a lifeless, dusty piece of rock what we can't really utilize in a near future.
I think more (and more useful) data can be expected from - no, not from rovers, but from some new set of satellites, which might has more power, higher resolution and less strict weight limit than the actual ones.

I expect such endeavor more like as an engineering experience/testground what comes naturally when prepared to reach further goals. Might be thrilling and useful, but at the end I think it will be more like a milestone rather than actual goal.

Ps.: due this I think it is a bad idea to force or rush such visit. When time is ripe it'll come naturally: but if forced it'll just eat up resources from building the background for later success. Quite like the Space Shuttle: seemed to be a good idea that time, it was also a heroic effort what could keep the high spirit around space exploration, but by the later account it was also a bottomless pit which delayed the further development of space reaching capacity by two decades.

 

[russ_watters]

Second of all, unless you’re talking about an entirely autonomous robot, humans will still be making decisions about what to examine. In the case of Mars, it takes at least an hour’s round trip for a signal to be sent by a rover to Earth and back. A decision which takes a human a few seconds to make encounters a three-orders-of-magnitude delay simply in communicating to the rover, and it’s only going to get worse the farther away from Earth you get.

Robots and AI will get better, and endangering astronauts will always be a tough hurdle politically, but saying that nothing worthwhile can come of manned missions is simply incorrect.

I do agree that the "nothing worthwhile" statement was too absolute (though it also wasn't grammatically correct, so it might be able to be interpreted more softly...), but the anti-robot arguments are also being overstated.

The signal delay and slow movement issues with the rovers are as much a feature as they are a bug. An astronaut on an EVA is literally on a clock and while it's great he can work reasonably fast, it is even more important to remember that he has to because his life depends on it. The lunar EVAs were for the most part planned down to the second. Astronauts even commented on the luxury of just a few seconds break to stop and look around. If an astronaut found something interesting, there might not be time for processing the new info and changing the plan. This will obviously improve with more robust missions, but these limitations are inherent: The astronaut is tethered to a base and on a clock that kills him if it reaches zero.

A team of scientists and engineers in Polo shirts in an air conditioned control room in Pasadena taking hours to make daily decisions on what to do tomorrow has far more time and flexibility to process information on the fly and direct the course of the investigation. And this can easily be multiplexed: it is far easier to send two probes to locations thousands of miles apart, being operated by separate teams, than it is to design a manned craft to carry the astronauts to a second location thousands of miles from base.

It's also worth noting that the time/speed issue decreases with distance, it doesn't increase. Why? Because the transit duration takes a larger and larger time the further away the destination is. You can somewhat counter that by making the stay at your destination longer, but then you run into the issue of diminishing returns at a particular location and lack of ability to move.

Putting all of this together is complicated though, and the specifics of the mission objectives will obviously make a big difference for how you approach any particular mission. A complex in-situ task may still favor an astronaut.

 

[hmmm27]

Just interested in what may be achieved by putting a man/men on the moon again.

In modern times, approximately 5,000 people have climbed to the top of Mt Everest. Approximately 4,999 of those weren't the first to do so.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I think these questions are best framed in terms of cost vs. benefit, and whether the funding is available.

Nothing wrong with a family taking a vacation to China if they have the money. But if they are in debt and have to borrow money for the trip, one could reasonably question the wisdom of the expense, especially if the purpose is mainly recreational/educational in ways that the benefits are not well justified by the costs.

I have yet to see a convincing detailing of the benefits that would justify the expenses and risks of visiting the moon again.

 

[BWV]

I think these questions are best framed in terms of cost vs. benefit

opportunity cost is the big hurdle - given limited resources, is another moon trip the best use of our capital? What will not get funded if this does?

 

[jackwhirl]

What will not get funded if this does?

Bombs, ideally.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Bombs, ideally.

Unlikely given the current state of the US government.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Setting aside the discussion of the dollar-value costs involved, can anyone really point to benefits in terms of science to another manned mission to the moon specifically, as opposed to robotic missions to the moon, or satellites or robot probes to the outer cosmos, or maintaining and extending the operations of the International Space Station?

 

[jackwhirl]

Setting aside the discussion of the dollar-value costs involved, can anyone really point to benefits in terms of science to [...] maintaining and extending the operations of the International Space Station?

They wrote a book about it.

 

[StatGuy2000]

They wrote a book about it.

I think you misunderstand my post. I had asked what benefit is there to a manned mission to the moon as opposed to maintaining the International Space Station.

In other words, what good is putting people on the moon? We already have the International Space Station, which NASA argues in that book you quoted is a benefit for humanity -- an argument that I agree with.

 

[jackwhirl]

I think you misunderstand my post. I had asked what benefit is there to a manned mission to the moon as opposed to maintaining the International Space Station.

In other words, what good is putting people on the moon? We already have the International Space Station, which NASA argues in that book you quoted is a benefit for humanity -- an argument that I agree with.

I see. Sorry I missed that the first time.

Well, I don't know about science, specifically, but there will be a lot of engineering challenges involved with extended missions beyond LEO. Probably a lot of medical science focused on the effects of extended exposure. Like ISS, but more.

 

[hmmm27]

Setting aside the discussion of the dollar-value costs involved, can anyone really point to benefits in terms of science to another manned mission to the moon specifically, as opposed to robotic missions to the moon, or satellites or robot probes to the outer cosmos, or maintaining and extending the operations of the International Space Station?

Bluntly, if money isn't an issue, do them all.

Free of context, putting another man on the moon is mostly PR. Absolutely huge PR, of course. But, not just for the uplift of the soul ; currently, we've only a very small sample set of off-Earth experience to work with.

The upcoming China missions might be simply viewed as a new superpower claiming ascendancy (or parity, anyways) over the slightly less new one, but every datum from that mission vastly improves our understanding of what's necessary to survive - arguably thrive - outside of the Earth.

 

[phinds]

... every datum on how well their spacesuits bear up, engine design, etc. etc. vastly improves our understanding of what's necessary to survive/thrive outside of the Earth.

That assumes they will share the information. They are better known for TAKING information, not sharing it.

 

[Steelwolf]

Mankind has had a way of sending explorers to extreme places sometimes just to gain understanding and data, sometimes looking for new places to live. With our increasing tech base being able to take us beyond our atmosphere, it is only a matter of time before some billionaire wants to set up housekeeping on the Moon and open the first Motel on the Moon. Others like Bigelow Aerospace have been wanting to set up hotel in space, and it looks like they get their chance using the Space Station after 2020..

But putting a base on the moon, one that can become relatively self-sufficient with hydroponics and materials processing there on site with lunar regolith and basalt for base materials including oxygen. If enough water ice can be found, then at first the major imports might be high end foods and bulk nitrogen. But it would turn into first a research station and second as a tourist spot for the over-wealthy building it's way to self-sufficient quickly.

For me the problem comes in with the history of Governments using either their own military peoples, to throw into the hardships, or like the British did with the Colonies and then Australia and sent their poor and criminal classes there to flood the area with colonists. Robert A Heinlein did a good analysis of this in his Sci-fi work The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, 1966, where the prisoner/colonists force their freedom from Earth. Some say this was a piece that actually slowed down the space program due to the whole politics of the people to be over our heads with weapons like mere rocks launched from mass drivers. A well directed chunk of rock 20ft in diameter, with a thin iron skin to hold it together, basic attitude and deorbit control and high angle direct impact with multi-tons of rock at several hundred miles per second can make one heck of a hole, with no 'explosives' involved. Was a scary thought during the Cold War and still merits consideration.

However, that aside, with the ISS EVERYTHING aside from solar power comes up from the planet. On the moon there would be space and materials to be able to make things, if you take along the right equipment to be able to Build with, and bootstrap up, then the Lunar base can be rather self-sustaining, growing their own food underground (like we are having to in some cities even now), be able to mine for ice to use for drinking, agriculture and splitting into hydrogen and oxygen for both fuel and breathing (again, need the nitrogen, some can be liberated from rock, but more oxygen is locked in rock than nitrogen normally so it may need imported). Recycling will be a Must, and there will be very little that will be made as 'disposeable' there for some time, but perhaps that would be a boon for us here as well, getting away from a Disposeable Everything Society and the pollution challenges it brings would get a boost from such a program where everything HAS to be reused or recycled.

But in time I expect that mankind will find the Moon to be no more of a far off, extravagant vacation spot as Hawaii was in the 19th and 20th Centuries, to the point where it is a normal enough destination and not particularly special or difficult to get to anymore.

And, even today, you can have a robot wander around Hawaii for you and take pictures, but would you not rather BE there Yourself and take those pictures, to see for yourself what is over the hill? The robot is not into laying on the beaches nor in cold tropical drinks. Human Nature seems to include the type of people who, like myself, want to GO and to DO, leaving the comfortable folks back in their comfort and finding the places that while they may be hard to get to, brings an intangible reward of Having Been There, Done That and finding things that are of interest to those who stayed in their comfort.

But when it comes to comparing the ISS to a Moon Base, the lunar base wins hands down as it is the nucleus for a self-sustaining system. The ISS will always be dependent on outside resources, even if it does end up growing a portion of it's food (and atmosphere). But the moon the materials there are usable even as a shield against radiation in the first place: put up a rigid structure and cover with a few feet of regolith as meteor and radiation shielding. Much activity is going to be below ground and much of the material is going to have to be fabricated in situ, but there should be plenty of metals to refine and it may well be that in the future it is cheaper to build spacecraft there and launch from the moon to build very large ships or structures in Lunar Orbit, much cheaper than trying to do it from Earth, with the high cost of launch from here which is always going to be a limiting factor due to the difference in gravity.

So there is no real comparison as to the cost, even. Mankind WILL Go There and Do That, once they get the idea into their head and build out the tech needed. That is how we have people in Antarctica even, or in deep sea subs, checking out the deep trenches etc. We have gold miners working some 7 miles down into the crust in South Africa, so we are a form of extremophile ourselves in that we are able to build environmental controls to take us to these places we could not otherwise go. So expect us to put men in the moon, to put up even better space stations, like the one they want to orbit Luna as a Gateway to the outer planets.

The Money is already being spent, and a lot of it is Corporate Money, not tax funded, and so we are going to see things accelerate now that some people are seeing real profit in it. Being able to reuse rocket stages is a big thing and the engine tech that SpaceX is going for is going to be a major game changer with the use of liquid methane. In some ways Musk is right about getting to Mars, as there is an atmosphere that can be recombined to form the methane fuel as well as oxygen and so the ability to set up a refueling plant there in the first few launches. The first couple/few craft may have to expect to be there for some time while the structures are built and systems going, experiments undertaken etc before they manage to produce their first fuel runs to get enough fuel to be able to set up return trips. But that is all in the planning stages presently, but Luna, as a closer gateway and jump off point is a logical and practical idea.

 

[trurle]

In no particular order.

1. Geopolitical statement
2. Testing/Development of technology for a manned Mars mission
3. Expression of the innate human desire to explore
4. Identification of resources for in situ development
5. Identification of resources for potential export to orbit (Earth or Lunar) or Earth
6. Improved understanding of lunar geology
   1. Insights into lunar formation
   2. Improved delineation of the age of lunar events
   3. Enhanced mapping of lunar features
   4. Expanded knowledge of lunar petrology and mineralogy
7. Subdue the babble from the conspiracy theorists who deny the reality of the moon landings

I think we are now moving towards avenues (4) and (6). The (6) is currently better served by orbital surveys, but (4) require actual sampling. After (4) is sufficiently developed, the (3) will become very real possibility, may be as soon as in few decades.

 

[j33pn]

Do you boys know
what makes this bird go up?
Funding makes this bird go up.
That's right. No bucks...
no Buck Rogers.
And the press over there...
They all want to see Buck Rogers.
And that's us.
Buck Rogers.

Read more: https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/movie_script.php?movie=right-stuff-the

 

[JBA]

The cost of a Moon mission must be judged against what other worthwhile uses to which those funds would actually be applied, not for what they might be used; and, at this point, I do not see our government actually doing much of anything worthwhile with our dollars right now (a lot of talk, but no action).

I have been alive for the entire period of our space exploration initiatives beginning with Albert 1, the brave rhesus monkey that took the first step; and, one issue that I have had all along with the discussions about the cost of space exploration of all types is that the cost of these missions is always discussed as though somehow the funds spent are simply disappearing into some black hole. Those funds actually create jobs at all levels and disposable income from those jobs to support even more jobs (and subsequently more tax income for the government); and, as a further benefit advance our knowledge over a wide range of sciences and new industries in the process.

Note: For those younger members that may not be aware of it, a monkey named Albert 1 was the first live passenger the US launched into a suborbital trajectory into space in a V2 rocket in 1948; and, yes, he survived the trip.