Moon exploration dead?

[tanstaafl76]

Pick an appropriately sized crater and give it a roof, no bulldozers needed! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jsmoody]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"I don't see it as a rush. I do see but two MERs on Mars with one MSL to come. One of the MERs (Spirit) is nearly dead and might not survive the next few days. I doubt Opportunity will last more than another Martian year. It is hard to say how long MSL will last. Humans will readily cover more ground faster than even MSL will. If you look only at the ground covered per dollar, it doesn't make sense. However, more ground covered also means far more science completed." <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The rovers cost a few hundred million to get there. A human mission would cost at minimum, a few hundred BILLION. And who knows what the cost might be in lives lost if it fails. Loss of life would also probably end or postpone indefinitely any hope of further missions.<br /><br />The rovers have accomplished a LOT in their stay on Mars. Future rovers can accomplish much more. They'll be much more automated, autonomous and able to move around on their own without a lot of guiding from the ground. We can send balloons, aircraft, all kinds of robots without spending astronomical amounts or endangering any lives. What's not to like about that? The fact that we don't get to send some cowboys on a joyride so we can say we did it? Not IMHO.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> No amount of belief makes something a fact" - James Randi </div>

 

[one_g]

"And for me colonizing is the point. Learning to be self sufficient on those bodies is the point. What is the point of Science if it does not benefit society? Learning about planets and stars is great but how does it affect society if we don't go there?"<br /><br />There is risk in manned space programs. There is also risk on Earth. And more and more scientists have been uncovering reminance of asteroid impacts with Earth. Where before we thought we hardly ever get an impact. Scientists have also found and are tracking Near Earth Objects, life killers for Earth.<br /><br />So it is possible that our attempt in colonizing the Moon and Mars may be the very survival of humankind because we wouldn't be "all in one basket". "<br /><br /><br />I didn't think it would take long to find an occasion to restate the premises of the old "U.S. Expansion" thread.<br /><br />Yes, colonization is the ultimate point, and discussion about space suffers from the frequent failure to distinguish between exploration and colonization as goals.<br /><br />And once one thinks seriously about AMERICAN space colonization, Mars doesn't make sense. <br /><br />Any people whose settlers remain long in, and whose descendants are reared in, .38 Earth gravity, will separate from the Earth nation that sent them. That people will become exactly what Robert Zubrin said it will become: "a new branch of human civilization."<br /><br />It is not in the American interest to fund, at several hundred billion dollars, a new branch of human civilization.<br /><br />It IS in the American interest to fund the territorial expansion of the United States.<br /><br />That means close - days, not months away, so that terrestrial and territorial America can be in one economy, so that the average professional person, the average student, can travel back and forth without having to make a major life commitment. And that means 1 Earth gravity.<br /><br />Mars exploration - exploration - is of overwhelming scientific importance. But it shoul

 

[baktothemoon]

My reasons for going to the moon are two fold, the first is the moon as a long term investment to our survival, I believe that the moon could serve as a sort of ark for humanity, we're already working on a huge facility in the arctic to preserve the plant populations of the world in case of mass extinction, so why not apply the principle to the moon? A similar facility on the moon would be safe for the next million years. Plus, the moon is an environment completely isolated from Earth, so in the event of a plague, war, infertility, or a meltdown of the global economy a self sufficient lunar population would be able to work on a solution without being affected and send a solution back to earth. <br /><br />The second reason is real estate, the moon provides us with an enormous amount of sprawl space with which to develop. Also, if we utilize mars and resources of Jupiter's moons we will basically have all the resources for an earth-like economy on the moon.

 

[j05h]

<i>> The rovers have accomplished a LOT in their stay on Mars. Future rovers can accomplish much more. They'll be much more automated, autonomous and able to move around on their own without a lot of guiding from the ground. We can send balloons, aircraft, all kinds of robots without spending astronomical amounts or endangering any lives. What's not to like about that? The fact that we don't get to send some cowboys on a joyride so we can say we did it?</i><br /><br />Robots can't breed. When was the last time you saw two rovers produce a little baby rover? The larger point of going into space is to colonize, mine and settle the Solar System. Robots are simple tools by comparison. <br /><br />I'm not talking about "cowboys" and neither are most of the other posters. Most of us have seen where "astronaut hotels" take us - round and round in circles. While some might focus on NASA's Moon effort, the larger trend is toward a broad opening of a massive new frontier. Robots can only do so much. <br /><br />Also, there are enough of us that want to physically go ourselves that it is inevitable that space will be developed further. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[richalex]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>As mentioned earlier: water is a very effective shield material. And polyethylene, although not as good as water, is also extremely effective. Basically any material with large quantities of hydrogen will work well. <br />They are not lightweight but they will protect against cosmic rays.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />What makes you so sure of that? <br /><br />It is my understanding that when hydrogen absorbs radiation above a certain energy level, the radiation actually ejects the proton from the material, causing a secondary shower of radiation. So, while hydrogen is a good shield for moderate radiation levels, it only makes highly energetic radiation worse.

 

[MannyPim]

That's exactly the reason that hydrogen is the best shiled material - because it has a single proton so it can't split into multiple subatomic particles.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>The only way to know what is possible is to attempt the impossible.</em></font> </div>

 

[qso1]

jsmoody:<br />I don't think we should send manned missions to the Moon nor to Mars at the expense of other, more fruitful scientific missions.<br /><br />Me:<br />Nothing could be more fruitful to science than to find a second genesis...life that originated on another world which is still a possibility for mars. And for absolute scientific confirmation and verification of such life (Verification that its not earthly contaminants), robots are not sufficient for such a task. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

You either need a bulldozer or a crane and some imported shielding material. Just putting a steel roof on a crater doesn't provide any protection from above. The bulldozer could push regolith up on top of the roof. A crane might be needed anyway depending on how your roof is designed. If there are large components that have to be lifted into place, you might need that crane to do that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It is not in the American interest to fund, at several hundred billion dollars, a new branch of human civilization.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Actually, I doubt that tax dollars will be used once a beachhead is established. Maybe not even for that. Private funding will readily take over. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[richalex]

I would like to see us go to Moon <br /><br />- to learn about its composition in detail, <br />- to learn about its physics and chemistry in detail, <br />- to set up exploration bases (including astronomy, geology and chemistry and physics)<br />- to establish a manned habitat<br />- to develop lunar resources<br /><br />Robots can do some photography, extremely limited geology, chemistry and physics studies, but robots are not likely to be able to assemble complex or large structures w/o human presence anytime in the near future. It won't be robots alone that assemble a large radio telescope on Moon. It won't be robots alone that assemble mining, refining and construction facilities on Moon. It won't even be robots alone that construct permanent human habitats on Moon. Robots will be highly helpful for these things, but we will need human presence if we are going to do more than churn up some top-layer dust.

 

[qso1]

I agree. There is no really convincing reason that I can see not to. Sure the moon and mars can wait. Wait for what, to solve all earthly problems? To solve all scientific riddles? Well be waiting forever. For those who believe we go back to the moon as another Apollo style stunt...Bush 1 said it well...we go to the moon to stay. Hardly a flags and footprints. Of course, I'd be willing to bet we will end up not staying unless private enterprise takes over from the government.<br /><br />I still doubt the VSE will actually materialize, especially if Democrats win the Presidency. Nothing againts dems, its just that by and large, historically...dems have been lukewarm at best to human spaceflight since Apollo ended.<br /><br />Using money savings is an excuse conjured up by politicians to finance their own personal agendas or finance programs they may see as being more worthy. For those that see programs more worthy...I agree with them. I'd rather take NASA human space flight moneys and feed hungry children than go to the moon. In a case like that, the moon can indeed wait.<br /><br />But the fact is, the moon has waited since Apollo ended and NASAs budget was slashed by around 50% never to recover to Apollo levels and we still have hungry children to feed. And we have that because despite the noblest wishes of those who see NASA as an obstacle to cures for social problems, the money taken from NASA wont go to curing social ills.<br /><br />It'll go to the next S&L scandal, the next huge deficit which will be driven by more spending caused by special interests. Poor children do not own the government, special interest and business owns government.<br /><br />So I say, go back to the moon, go to mars...at least get those out of the way in case some future altruistic form of government does get elected and does take money from wasteful spending and divert it to those truly in need. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I didn't think it would take long to find an occasion to restate the premises of the old "U.S. Expansion" thread.<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />LOL! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />, very nice. But don't forget how North and South Americas were discovered and explored and exploited. And how natives came to America, (north bridge or alge highway).<br /><br />Exporation and colonization is the nature of humans, of All Nations. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[3488]

Hi RichAlex,<br /><br />In reply to:<font color="yellow"> I would like to see us go to Moon <br /><br />- to learn about its composition in detail, <br />- to learn about its physics and chemistry in detail, <br />- to set up exploration bases (including astronomy, geology and chemistry and physics) <br />- to establish a manned habitat <br />- to develop lunar resources</font><br /><br />I like the Moon & Mars very, very much too.<br /><br />The Moon, is a treasure trove of information, regarding every thing in your list.<br /><br />Another this is that the Lunar Regolith contains trapped particles, holds a record of primeval<br />solar activity, the environment the Earth / Moon system has been it over the past 3.8 GY or so,<br />since the end of wide spread marial volcanism ceased.<br /><br />It will hold meteoritic dust, maybe particles from passing stars that have long since<br />moved on & maybe even extra solar / extra galactic meteorids (as discussed <br />in MeteorWayne's thread in SS&A). The Moon itself is the size & mass of a small planet, with<br />the potential of enormous mineral wealth. The Lunar farside a giganti Radio / optical / <br />multispectral/ Solar observatory, far larger than anything that can be constructed on Earth & <br />not have to worry about Adaptive Optics, etc.<br /><br />It has been suggested that early Earth rocks may be on the Moon (I do not know what <br />to think about that), almost certainly Mars, 2 Pallas, 4 Vesta, etc meteorites to be found.<br /><br />Deep core samples really need to be taken from the regolith & for it to be <br />thoroughly examined.<br /><br />I like the Moon. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />Lets go back with humans. Then Mars, but not just Flags & Footprints.<br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[jsmoody]

I don't see any attraction in colonizing a barren, airless, radiation filled, wasteland with extreme temperatures. Especially since getting people and supplies there on a regular basis would cost a fortune for each trip. And I certainly don't see any benefit in creating a new species of humans that after a few generations would be too weak to even stand on their ancestral homeworld. <br /><br />As for asteroid impacts, if we spot them quick enough we already have the technology to deal with them. <br /><br />There may be some scientific benefits to exploration of both the Moon and Mars but again, what's the rush and why endanger human beings and spend an enormous amount of money on it? Yes, people can get killed walking accross the street but it doesn't cost hundreds of billions of dollars to get them accross the street. <br /><br />It's humanity's destiny to go into space. We WILL go there. My concern is that we not do it for the wrong reason and that we not rush into it simply for the excitement and gee-whiz factor.<br /><br />Also, I think the robots have shown us that there are no other "advanced" life forms in our solar system. There may be microbial life but it's highly doubtful now that there are any higher forms.<br /><br />So why not concentrate our efforts on other star systems? Let's develop the technology to get a probe to the Alpha Centauri system. With just a little bit of luck I think a breakthrough could be made that could get a probe there within a few decades. <br /><br />Let's put larger and larger telescopes in space to look for life on planets around other stars. That's the real goal of space exploration in my opinion, not trying to adapt human life to an airless, irradiated, frigid world where it would mutate into who knows what.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> No amount of belief makes something a fact" - James Randi </div>

 

[anthmartian]

jsmoody : Hi! I hope i am not assuming too much, but i hope you remember me from another space message board. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I have missed your posts, and views on space exploration. I look forward to reading your views once again here. <br /><br />I want humans on the Moon, if they can aid in the understanding of the place. Which i feel they probably can. I would really like to understand, and explore every world in our solar system thoroughly.<br /><br />Are you suggesting we leap frog much of the exploration of our solar system? Also a search for microbial life? In favour of finding carbon copies of Earth?<br /><br />I would very much like what you have suggested in place. But i am hugely interested in our own solar system. Mostly by robotic means it must be said. I feel we can apply what we learn here to other new solar systems. And vice versa.<br /><br />I would not be in favour of sending humans anywhere long term, until we have successful radiation shielding invented, and in place. So i guess we are not so far apart on our views.<br /><br />I am sure you will ruffle a few feathers here JSMoody! lol<br /><br />But good to see you again. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em>"Traveling through hyperspace ain't like dusting crops, boy! Without precise calculations we could fly right through a star, or bounce too close to a supernova and that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?"</em></font></p><p><font color="#33cccc"><strong>Han Solo - 1977 - A long time ago in a galaxy far far away....</strong></font></p><p><br /><br />Click Here And jump over to my site.<br /></p> </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I don't see any attraction in colonizing a barren, airless, radiation filled, wasteland with extreme temperatures. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />People live in stranger places. Eye of the beholder and all that.<br />I wouldnt see any attraction colonizing Nevada either, nevertheless they went ahead and built Vegas there.

 

[anthmartian]

That's a very good point no_way. <br /><br />Many people say i am odd. Because i find desert or rocky landscapes very beautiful to look at. Even over lush green scenic spots for example.<br /><br />I found the sahara, and the Atlas mountains, also the rocky landscapes of lanzarote the most wonderful places i have ever seen. I imagine the Moon would have a simular effect on me. It is also a great place for astronomers like myself. lol <br /><br />Around the far side of the moon, superb for radio astronomers too. Maybe that should be a consideration when deciding bases on the Moon. Totally cut off from the noisy Earth a radio telescope could be a huge asset for a Lunar base on the far side. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em>"Traveling through hyperspace ain't like dusting crops, boy! Without precise calculations we could fly right through a star, or bounce too close to a supernova and that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?"</em></font></p><p><font color="#33cccc"><strong>Han Solo - 1977 - A long time ago in a galaxy far far away....</strong></font></p><p><br /><br />Click Here And jump over to my site.<br /></p> </div>

 

[jsmoody]

Anthmartian - good to hear from you. I still post on the other board. It's just that this subject hasn't come up there lately...<br /><br />I agree that at some point we should have a manned presence on the Moon and possibly even Mars. It's just that I don't see the rush and our technology needs a lot of work before we'll be ready for that in my view.<br /><br />I don't think we should stop looking for microbes on Mars and in other places, but the robots can do that pretty well.<br /><br />I don't think we should leapfrog to other systems but I do think we should be looking at what the technological challenges might be to sending small, unmanned probes that could get there in a few decades. That would be in <i> addition </i> to robotic exploration of our own solar system. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> No amount of belief makes something a fact" - James Randi </div>

 

[anthmartian]

JSMoody : I agree, there can be no harm in starting the evolutionary process now of exploring other star systems. I dare say though, the first probes launched will not be the first to arrive! those built later will get there first i expect.<br /><br />I agree now, and have in the past in other discussions with you on your other points. If we do not have the technology to safely send humans to Mars or the Moon, then we should not do it. <br /><br />Manned exploration of space will always have a certain amount of risk, and i hope we will never lose that courage to explore which has got the human race to where it is today. But, in a civilized world to send humans to a probable death by radiation is inhumane at best.<br /><br />i hear a lot of people say, well, we can dig under ground and house colonists there, use the Moon itself to protect from radiation. Well, no we can't. We will not have that capability for a very long time, i am sure people would agree, if they took their rose tinted glasses off for a while. believe me, i had to have mine ripped off me before i took these opinions.<br /><br />I hate to say it, but i think all we can hope for is longer duration Apollo style missions, with a higher emphasis on science i hope. For a long while yet. I would hesitate to send humans on those, unless we have a comprehensive space weather warning system in place.<br /><br />I want Moon bases, i want Mars bases, I want to go and check in to a Lunar hotel! I was born in July 1969, there is not a person who was around then and knows me that can believe i am approaching 40 and we are nowhere near Mars, or that we have gone backwards in general with manned flight.<br /><br />But those are the facts, and i fear it will take us until beyond 2020 to even get back to where we were in the early 70's. The process of engineering evolution, which may have been approaching tackling the problems now of long duration colonies etc did not happen. We are paying for it now, because our imaginations, an <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em>"Traveling through hyperspace ain't like dusting crops, boy! Without precise calculations we could fly right through a star, or bounce too close to a supernova and that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?"</em></font></p><p><font color="#33cccc"><strong>Han Solo - 1977 - A long time ago in a galaxy far far away....</strong></font></p><p><br /><br />Click Here And jump over to my site.<br /></p> </div>

 

[one_g]

<br />Actually, I doubt that tax dollars will be used once a beachhead is established. Maybe not even for that. Private funding will readily take over.<br /><br />--------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />All plans I'm reading about very definitely call for American taxpayers to fund the beachhead.<br /><br />Our descendants will smile at our notion that colonization must take place on planets. Forget planets - except for exploration.<br /><br />In the history of colonization, the spacecraft that take us TO Mars will be far, far more important than Mars itself. <br /><br />Mars colonization boosters never ask these questions about national interest. Here's another thing they never ask: once we've filled up Mars, THEN what?<br /><br />Forget planets. It's about space colonies, baby!

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It's just that I don't see the rush and our technology needs a lot of work before we'll be ready for that in my view. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Our technology is fine, its the markets and economics that need work. Thats my view of course.<br /><br />

 

[grdja]

OK. First.<br /><br />"It will cost over 500 billion dollars to fund a mission to Mars."<br /><br />False. Complete fabrication.<br />In 1989. president Bush Sr. promoted his Space Exploration Initiative. On presidents request, NASA conducted infamous 90 day study.<br /><br />They had imagined a program that would:<br /><br />Have a significant unmanned study of Moon and Mars, for both scientific purposes, and in preparation of manned missions.<br />Construction of additional Space Shuttle orbiters, development and deployment of Shuttle C.<br />Development of a conventional heavy lift launch vehicle with LEO capacity ~150tons.<br />Construction of Space Station Freedom, that was supposed to be capable of assembly and maintenance of Moon/Mars craft.<br />Development of Orbital Transfer Vehicle for in space reusable transportation within cislunar space.<br /><br />Manned flight to Moon, construction of a lunar base, its maintenance and expansion over years. Before 2010 astronauts would return to Moon, around 2010 lunar base construction would begin, and that program would continue onwards with no planned cancellation or termination. That is, support of lunar operations at least until 2030. By end of that period, multiple scientific and industrial bases on Moon.<br /><br />Flight to Mars, earliest at 2019, later flights starting construction of Mars manned outpost. I think it also mentioned exploration of Phobos and Deimos and a construction of a outpost on one.<br /><br />I cant really remember whether SEI ever included a manned GEO station.<br /><br />Price for all that, over almost 40 years of operations, was somewhere above 400 billion, not 500 billion, that was rounded up by news reporters. And to mention that that plan included (i think) a 50% reserve in funds included.<br /><br />

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I don't see any attraction in colonizing a barren, airless, radiation filled, wasteland with extreme temperatures. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />At least its free from large gas prices, lawsuits, fires, getting shot at on the freeway, high cost of living, overcrowded cities, San Andreas fault quakes, not to mention huricanes, tornados floods, tsunamis, disease and rodents. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[summoner]

One point that many people here I think are missing is that need can also drive technology. Once we build outposts on the moon or Mars, there will be a need for better launch systems, infrastructure, et. al. And when it looks like there may be some kind of business opportunity in space, then it's really going to take off as a focused business can accomplish things in a hurry. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> <br /><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:271px;background-color:#FFF;border:1pxsolid#999"><tr><td colspan="2"><div style="height:35px"><img src="http://banners.wunderground.com/weathersticker/htmlSticker1/language/www/US/MT/Three_Forks.gif" alt="" height="35" width="271" style="border:0px" /></div>