Why Are We Orbiting Earth Instead of Landing on the Moon Again?

[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.

 

[bozo the clown]

Getting back to my original question why is it that landing with apollo 11 they returned 5 times to the moon with only 1 failure AP 13, so that's 5 out of 6 attempts ( 6 out of 7 including AP 11 ) that's a pretty good strike rate. So it would appear to me something that is not that difficult and why did they need to return 5 times ?

 

[enigma]

To explore different areas of the lunar surface.

To most of us, we just think they'd be up there going: "Oh look! Another rock!".

In actuality, you can study how the rock are located to determine how the Moon formed. You can look at the magnetic moments to learn about the early Earth's magnetic field. You can analyze craters from different periods of time to figure out the history of the makeup of the solar system. There is tons of geologic research to be done which just isn't possible to do from Earth.

 

[LURCH]

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...

Better than that; there is an unused Saturn-V rocket sitting out as a display piece at Cape Canaveral!

 

[Phobos]

Getting back to my original question why is it that landing with apollo 11 they returned 5 times to the moon with only 1 failure AP 13, so that's 5 out of 6 attempts ( 6 out of 7 including AP 11 ) that's a pretty good strike rate. So it would appear to me something that is not that difficult and why did they need to return 5 times ?

Well it took several years preparation, billions of dollars, strong political will, and the world's leading scientists and engineers to make it happen. The fact that they succeeded almost every time is a testament to their skill and determination, and not to a simple task.

Why return after the first time? As enigma said, there are a million scientific reasons to go back again and again, but the Apollo program was more of a political thing than a scientific one (I think only 1 of the 12 Apollo astronauts that reached the Moon was a scientist). Carl Sagan said the reason was probably "momentum". After a huge up-front effort, the overall political goal was achieved at the first landing & return. After that, the program was still in place for a few more launches, but the political will quickly disappeared.

 

[Entropy]

It seems like every day I watch something on the discovery channel about the same 5 scientists telling us how one day people will live on Mars and the moon because its "mankind's destiny." Who would want to live in such a hellish place? Maybe if you a scientist who loves studying I could picture maybe living a few years. But raising a family is rediculous. Bring up a child in a small cramped pod with low gravity would probably kill someone from mere insanity. Who would want to leave Earth forever? Visiting other planets is awesome but living a life there? No thanks. Earth is a perfect paradise except for stupid people who mess things up.

As for space funding. Cut the US military budget in half and give it to scientific research and space exploration. Money spent on killing people is more useless than blasting hunks of metal into space if you ask me.

 

[shrumeo]

exactly, before I would live in a colony on another planet, that planet had better be just like Earth (or better), or the colony had better simulate Earth to the fullest, otherwise you couldn't pay me enough to leave, i think most people would feel this way if actually confronted with the option

it's like asking some guy in a mansion to live in a tent for the rest of his life

 

[TALewis]

Who would want to leave Earth forever?

As long as we're entertaining irrational fantasies, I, for one, would live and die in space. I'm sure there are many people that would endure enormous hardships for the chance of leaving Earth and living a dream.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Amen, brother. Milions of us, I believe, around the world, would volunteer if there were ever a true habitat that took ordinary people and not specialized astro/cosmo nauts.

 

[Entropy]

Yeah, volunteer to take a trip and stay for a while. But I dought many people would want to live there forever. Seeing that you probably would die within 5 years or so due to bone loss, weaked immune system, and other disorders.

Of coarse people would live a life time up there if there was a perfectly replicated environment of Earth, or one extremely close. Even on Earth in bio-domes a small group of people get sick of living around each other within months. Plus it wouldn't be all that special once we have civilians going into space by the thousands. It won't be really that much of a dream once its common place.

You make it sound like we don't even want to touch space with a 50ft pole. Sure I'd go into space in a heart beat and so would lots of people. But leave my family, friends and home behind forever? No.

 

[TALewis]

Yeah, volunteer to take a trip and stay for a while. But I dought many people would want to live there forever.

Depends on the person. Someone with a spouse and children is not going to want to leave it all behind -- they've got a family to raise. However, a person with no family and nothing to lose might chose to live in space.

Seeing that you probably would die within 5 years or so due to bone loss, weaked immune system, and other disorders.

It might be difficult or impossible to return to Earth after having lived in a low-G environment for a long time, but who's to say you can't remain in space indefinitely? The medical consequences of living in space for that long remain to be seen.

 

[bozo the clown]

Living in the North Pole is prob about 10 times better than living on the moon or Mars

And living in a New York ghetto is prob 100 times better than living at North Pole

The Moon and Mars in prob a 1000 years will become penal colonies

 

[TALewis]

72.4% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

 

[neutroncount]

61.4% of all people know that.

 

[marcus]

Amen, brother. Milions of us, I believe, around the world, would volunteer if there were ever a true habitat that took ordinary people and not specialized astro/cosmo nauts.

the habitat I'm picturing is a series of ice caves about 1 km below the surface of ganymede or calisto

any of the larger caves can have a lake with fish
and water plants

its not a cramped pod and the gravity is certainly better than zero
the spaces can be as big as you can afford to light and heat
they can grow to accommodate the human, animal and plant population

there are some problems with it but its not all that repugnant

I think one could raise kids there

 

[marcus]

Living in the North Pole is prob about 10 times better than living on the moon or Mars

And living in a New York ghetto is prob 100 times better than living at North Pole

The Moon and Mars in prob a 1000 years will become penal colonies

what I'm talking about, bozo, is like living 1 km deep in greenland ice
or antarctic ice
in caves with artifical lighting
assuming essentially free electric power

(the support organization has to supply the nuclear power plant up on the surface of the ice)

we could try this on Earth now and see how people liked it

I'm assuming that Calisto ice has a lot of minerals mixed in---it is not as differentiated as Earth ice--but if we were doing a trial run in greenland or antarctic we could supplement the minerals

I agree with what you say about Luna and mars

living under a thick layer of mineral-laden ice with essentially as much space as you can use and want to hollow out
(with an atmosphere you make by electrolysing melt-water)
sounds like your factor of 10 times better than Luna or mars

how it compares with harlem would depend on the kind of people
you were with on the job---did you find them interesting and cogenial:
essentially your job would be Civil Ice-Engineering
or mineral mining and refining
or fish-farming----you'd have to like doing those things or it wouldn't be fun

you might have to develop a taste for hardboiled penguin eggs
(at least until they built the greenhouses)

 

[bozo the clown]

only time you'l find me under 1km of ice is during the next ice age

 

[marcus]

only time you'l find me under 1km of ice is during the next ice age

we will just have to make a special little house for you at the surface then

 

[marcus]

come to think of it
as long as the ice has enough structural integrity
some of the living quarters could be near the surface

somebody has to be up there to keep an eye
on things up topside

so we ought to be able to accommodate you bozo

 

[bozo the clown]

Could anyone explain how astronauts on the way to moon survived van allen belt radiation ? And also how the ship stayed intact when there are micro metoers traveling very fast that would rupture the craft wouldn't it ?
Cant be luck as we repeated this feat 6 times with 1 failure

 

[Entropy]

Aluminium which the spacecraft is made of absorbs the particular radiation in the van allen belt. The radiation is mostly alpha particles (a helium nuclieus) which is easily stopped by just a few centimeters of air and beta particles (a rogue electron) which can really only make it a few meters of air or a centimeter or two of alumium. Only large consentrations of these particles pose a threat, which would usely come from solar flares, or gamma rays (high energy EM waves). You probably saw that show on Fox about how they faked the moon landing. They almost had me having doughts but a little research will show you its all rubbish.

As for micro meteors, space is a huge place! There are only a small few those small meteors per every dozen square kilometers. If you really think about it there's a very very low chance a small spacecraft will be hit, but its still possible.

 

[neutroncount]

Actually aluminium is bad for stopping radiation because its secondary decay products are sometimes as bad as the primary impacts (not to say its still wasn't/isn't being used today..it is). You want something with a lot of hydrogen in it...water, high density plastics, liquid hydrogen, ect.

But the astronauts didn't die because they didn't SIT in the belts. They passed through them rather quickly and they were on their way. Some shuttle missions themselves also pass briefly through part of the belts at times.

 

[marcus]

You want something with a lot of hydrogen in it...water, high density plastics, liquid hydrogen, ect.

.

ice

 

[shrumeo]

What Asimov book was it where they were living on Titan? Or was it A. Clarke?

The folks mostly lived underground, but they would come to the surface to enjoy the methane sea, and the ammonia lakes. (Enclosed, of course.)

God, what book was that?

 

[Janus]

What Asimov book was it where they were living on Titan? Or was it A. Clarke?

The folks mostly lived underground, but they would come to the surface to enjoy the methane sea, and the ammonia lakes. (Enclosed, of course.)

God, what book was that?

Imperial Earth, A.C. Clarke

 

[bozo the clown]

Was wondering why I've never seen any interviews with any astronaut that walked on the moon, apart from Armstrong's speech one small step i aint heard a word from any other, am I ignorant or are these guys of very few words, I heard a story though about Armstrong being at a dinner and was asked about the moon landing he apparently was in tears and walked out the room.