MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Is there are scientific / practical reason or is it just for a bit of feel-good propaganda?
Yes it would be great to see it in my lifetime and to see some wonderful 4k footage of the Moon's surface rather than the grainy b&w of the 60s.
But it seems to me that we (NASA at least) proved half a century ago it was possible and whilst there may still be discoveries to be made on the moon, it seems a bit pointless to go to the expense and difficultly to include all the life support systems to make it possible to take a human (and of course the tricky getting back bit) just so they can hold the tools to study it, when we could *just* mount them to a robot as we've done on Mars and transmit the data back.
I think that there's an element of not being left behind and losing out on commercial benefits alongside massaging the US's ego.
I think that there's the potential for resource mining on the moon and the recent discovery of lots of water at the South Pole makes bases more plausible. Both India and (perhaps most worrying for the US) China have active moon programmes and the US could get left behind.
NASA's also going to look a bit silly if Space-XX or Blue Origin manage it first.
I've no idea whether the US's prior planting of the Stars and Stripes on the moon entitles it to claim the moon (or part of it) in the same way planting a flag on a newly discovered (and inhabited) continent used to (I believe that Russia is claiming the North Pole following the planting of the Hammer & Sickle by a Nuclear sub.).
I suppose to that some of the technology and research currently ongoing for a potential manned visit to Mars could be trialled on the moon.
Most things I’ve read have indicated that establishing a moon base is an important precursor to getting to Mars.
Whether that’s entirely true I don’t really know, but it does make some sense.
Most things I’ve read have indicated that establishing a moon base is an important precursor to getting to Mars.
Whether that’s entirely true I don’t really know, but it does make some sense.
Given that the average distance between Earth and Mars is over 200 times as far as it is from the Earth to the Moon why does it make sense? Not saying it doesn't - I just don't know.
How does sending someone to the moon make money? Surely it cots a fortune.
Given that the average distance between Earth and Mars is over 200 times as far as it is from the Earth to the Moon why does it make sense? Not saying it doesn’t – I just don’t know.
Because leaving the Earth's gravity takes up most of the fuel. Having a refuelling and launch point on the moon will allow them to travel further.
Given that the average distance between Earth and Mars is over 200 times as far as it is from the Earth to the Moon why does it make sense? Not saying it doesn’t – I just don’t know.
Because the vast majority of the fuel requirement is to get off earth and away from our gravity. You could use moon to refuel or resupply. Potentially you could leave a Mars transporter craft there and transfer to or from it on the way there and back.
Given that the average distance between Earth and Mars is over 200 times as far as it is from the Earth to the Moon why does it make sense? Not saying it doesn’t – I just don’t know.
Presumably because it's a lot easier to take off and land from the moon due to lower gravity and thinner atmosphere, rather than anything to do with distance.
If you look at the Saturn V, pretty much the entirety of the rocket is used up simply to get sufficient speed to escape Earth's gravity. Compare that with the top half of the LM taking off from the moon.
Went to a talk from Helen Sharman recently (highly recommended, if you get the chance), no major scientific need to go to the moon as we're still analysing the samples brought back on the Apollo program, but going there would be a necessary step to Mars, I think because we can't build a spaceship that would make the journey taking off from earth, but the moon's lower gravity would make it significantly simpler to take off from there. So if you can build a moonbase, you can then start planning your Mars shot.
Edit - Jesus, you gotta be quick round here! 🙂
Because leaving the Earth’s gravity takes up most of the fuel. Having a refuelling and launch point on the moon will allow them to travel further.
Makes sense.
How does sending someone to the moon make money?
Coca-Cola uniforms, RedBull helmets, Mars - offical chocolate partner of space, Moon buggy by VW?
There's presumably also value in trying out the various required building techniques and technology for human habitable bases in a place where a rescue mission can be mounted in a timescale of days rather than years.
How does sending someone to the moon make money? Surely it cots a fortune.
It doesn’t involve putting the money in a suitcase and taking it to the moon with the rocket. The money is spent in engineering, research, training, and all the other expenses keeping that sort of stuff going.
Everyone benefits.
I’d like to see it.
Its one more step for man, a giant leap for mankind.
Do you reckon Baumgartner will go, make an attempt to jump back to earth..😵
Mars and the Moon are reasonably good analogues in quite a few respects so most of what you learn on the Moon would hold true for Mars.
If you want to send humans to a faraway dusty, rocky and cold world with almost no atmosphere then using a nearby dusty, rocky, cold world with no atmosphere makes sense.
Have we learnt nothing from space 1999. One nuclear explosion and the moon will be gone
If there are any significant amounts of water ice at the poles (and I don't think people are sure) you can use it to manufacture rocket fuel. Saves the cost of lugging the fuel up there first.
Cock waving nonsense.
Conflicted
I would prefer we take the x billions of people on the planet out of poverty first,
but also
"yay, Science*"
*engineering too.
How does sending someone to the moon make money? Surely it cots a fortune.
Doesn't it just.
Inflation corrected it cost about $180Bn for the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo Projects to get Human's on the Moon, but that's supposedly on the direct costs, Apollo especially was a massive undertaking and required the sort of effort from US Government more a akin to a war, which is sort of was.
Of course things have become a lot more efficient since, I don't think we'll ever see the likes of Saturn V again.
The making money bit is a long way off, but in theory the moon would be a staging post for exploration and exploitation of Mars and the Asteroid belt.
If you can sort the engineering side of mining asteroids the quantity of materials available are believed to be mind bogglingly huge.
The spin off benefits of such a project are similarly huge, but difficult to quantify.
I'm just hoping that the U.K. will have some involvement, just like last time.
Yes it would be great to see it in my lifetime and to see some wonderful 4k footage of the Moon’s surface rather than the grainy b&w of the 60s.
Amazing what they can do with CGI now ....eh ! 😉
Cock waving nonsense.
You could say that about any endeavour though , Everest ,under water exploration , breaking the sound barrier and anything else of that nature .
I would love to see it and then hopefully on to mars . There is enough crappy stuff going on in the world at the moment that maybe something like a mars landing could maybe change a few attitudes on earth let alone any of the possible scientific advances . Then again maybe i am a bit of a hippy who watched to much star trek .
Probably as valid now as it was “back then”
See below
We are doing it all wrong.
If I was running the Space Program we would be ploughing money into "clean" nukes, with the goal of building fusion only weapons/devices and constructing Orions. Yes there might be a few more additional deaths worldwide from the contamination whilst we get it right and god help us if there was a launch pad incident but that's why we have deserts isn't it?
With conventional rocket you are putting a few 10's of tonnes into LEO, with an Orion you could loft 1000's of tonnes. Think of the orbital defence platforms/habitats you could construct before reaching out to plunder/explore the solar system.
Putting men and women on top of a giant Roman candle and burning chemicals at a great rate to reach orbit just seems so 20th century.
I was trying to do strikethrough in places but my Macfu has failed me😁
If I was running the Space Program
That's a big if judging by your need for duplicate posts...
Inflation corrected it cost about $180Bn for the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo Projects to get Human’s on the Moon
... for a country whose GDP is about $20 trillion.
By way of comparison, $180bn is about twice what brexit has cost the UK so far, and our GDP is a tenth of the US. So putting men on the moon cost the average US taxpayer a fifth of what it's cost the average British taxpayer to achieve **** all.
I heard on a podcast that the USA government/exec are refusing to stump up the extra NASA funding directly. Instead, they have said the money will have to be diverted away from a fund for poor American students to get to university.
It's tough to think of a more toxic political manoeuvre.
It was an Interplanetary Society podcast and they were talking about the "Pell Fund".
How does sending someone to the moon make money? Surely it cots a fortune.
Because a commercial enterprise will make space travel affordable as opposed to NASA that has zero commercial nonce and only on it for the scientific advancement and the political advancement of the USA. Look at their attempt at a commercial venture...the space shuttle. A commercial enterprise can get the investment create the vehicles and it will significantly reduce costs vs what NASA could achieve....its not just set up as a commercial enterprise. The boffins just don’ Think that way. Like most if not all government institutions its a huge bureaucratic lumbering thing that lives at a snails pace. They got men to the moon inside a decade but worth an unlimited budget. That is why space travel is so expensive.
* I think you mean nous.
Nonce is something different. 😬
It's all pointless - the killer robots will have murdered us all long before we have the technology to colonise another planet (and if they hadn't they'd follow us there anyway).
Nonce is something different. 😬
True nod would have been a better word but where i’m from nonce can be used as a word for head.... so if you’re playing football you might shout “over here, on me nonce”.
Again? Pffft...
first MTB on mars? no need for an uplift with that little gravity and think how far apart the doubles could be?
…. so if you’re playing football you might shout “over here, on me nonce”.
Do you mean bonce?
so if you’re playing football you might shout “over here, on me nonce”.
No, you really wouldn't.
Conflicted
I would prefer we take the x billions of people on the planet out of poverty first,
but also
“yay, Science*”
But the engineering, tech and economic benefits of the progress engendered by a meaningful space program could be part of *how* we take people out of poverty!
Why can’t we try both!
I’m not saying “screw you poor folk! Where’s my gold plated rocket ship*”. More a long the lines of “hey! Let’s have a strong economy that makes Actual Things! Here, we made progress that can help everyone**!”
*a terrible idea. Mostly***.
**easy to say. Hard to do.
***except for the bits where it’s a really good idea.
In that case I am all for it.
Yes there is a necessity to continue putting humans into space to understand the health issues of long durations (so e.g. ISS) but I think there is a huge amount which can be achieved with robotic exploration just now.
But the engineering, tech and economic benefits of the progress engendered by a meaningful space program could be part of *how* we take people out of poverty!
I see what you're saying, but I think there's a flaw - once we drop them all off on the moon, they would still be skint 🙁
I’ve no idea whether the US’s prior planting of the Stars and Stripes on the moon entitles it to claim the moon (or part of it) in the same way planting a flag on a newly discovered (and inhabited) continent used to...
The UN has this covered with the 1967 'Outer Space Treaty'.
In short, no country can lay claim to any 'celestial body',
My only concern is giving R.E.M. another chance to write another annoying song.
I hope Trump is never allowed any involvement in future lunar missions.
He's already dropped enough clangers as it is.
The Moon is part of Mars though, so go to the Moon, they don't have far to go to Mars.