POLL: Should NASA Send Astronauts Back to the Moon?

Page 4 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

Should NASA Send Astronauts Back to the Moon?

  • Absolutely! The 40 years since the first moon landing have been way too long.

    Votes: 85 85.0%
  • Perhaps, but only if the new science and technologies from the effort can help the rest of humanity

    Votes: 10 10.0%
  • Just say NO to the moon. We’ve been there before, and any attempt to return is a ridiculous waste of

    Votes: 5 5.0%

  • Total voters
    100
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Robotic_Exploration_FTW

Guest
I really don't think people get it. The Moon is NOT a stepping-stone to Mars, it's a detour.

No spaceship bound for Mars will be built or fuelled on the Moon in the next 100 years AT LEAST. The gain from having less gravity simply doesn't compensate for the enormous cost of building mines and factories and support facilities - never mind the time it'll take to build them. Building a Mars spaceship on the Moon makes as much sense as building Toyotas on a mountaintop in Antarctica.

What the Moon mission will do, though, is delay any mission to Mars, Europa, or Titan, because we can't afford to run more than one mega-mission at a time.

It's not even a good dress rehearsal for the Mars mission as the Moon is so dissimilar to Mars. Antarctica is actually a better training ground than the Moon is.

But the most damning for the Moon mission is that there exist no reason to go there. NASA has really tried, but still hasn't found a single viable scientific or economic reason to return to the Moon.
We're going back there solely because GW Bush decided we should, there is no other reason, and he decided that because he wanted to enthuse the US public.

It's a huge waste. It wastes better than 100 billion dollar and at least ten years which could be used for worthwhile space exploration.
 
J

jimjetson

Guest
For crying out loud.

The Moon as a way station to Mars? Give me a break. We escape Earth's gravity just to do it again with the Moon's on the way to Mars. What sense does that make? What have we got a space station up there for? Why can't that be used as the base and assembly site for the mission to Mars?...

$$$.,

Double Slit, the Quantum Phantom
WaKeeney, Kansas
 
B

bbfreakDude

Guest
Robotic_Exploration_FTW":2ny9aady said:
I really don't think people get it. The Moon is NOT a stepping-stone to Mars, it's a detour.

No spaceship bound for Mars will be built or fuelled on the Moon in the next 100 years AT LEAST. The gain from having less gravity simply doesn't compensate for the enormous cost of building mines and factories and support facilities - never mind the time it'll take to build them. Building a Mars spaceship on the Moon makes as much sense as building Toyotas on a mountaintop in Antarctica.

What the Moon mission will do, though, is delay any mission to Mars, Europa, or Titan, because we can't afford to run more than one mega-mission at a time.

It's not even a good dress rehearsal for the Mars mission as the Moon is so dissimilar to Mars. Antarctica is actually a better training ground than the Moon is.

But the most damning for the Moon mission is that there exist no reason to go there. NASA has really tried, but still hasn't found a single viable scientific or economic reason to return to the Moon.
We're going back there solely because GW Bush decided we should, there is no other reason, and he decided that because he wanted to enthuse the US public.

It's a huge waste. It wastes better than 100 billion dollar and at least ten years which could be used for worthwhile space exploration.
I respectfully disagree. I just do not see how a straight to Mars mission would ever work, at least without getting everyone killed and setting the space program back another 50 years.

While yes we technically we have the ability to send humans to Mars. At least as so much as sending a rocket with humans on board is possible, our experience with long duration flight is non-existence and you want to test this on a lengthy trip to Mars? :roll: Apollo in case you forgot had only 10 missions beyond LEO, six in which we landed on the surface. That's about our entire experience beyond LEO.

For good reasons, humans weren't designed to live in space. You know because space is hostile towards life, and the lack of gravity is punishing on one's body.

10 short missions, 6 on the surface of the moon hardly prepares us to head to Mars.

So, since you don't want to go to the moon, where exactly would we get the experience and technical know-how to ever be ready for Mars? Earth? LEO? All of which are poor substitutes for the real thing. The moon meanwhile is right in our back yard.
 
H

HiGh_GuY

Guest
bbfreakDude":1d6vf8ug said:
I respectfully disagree. I just do not see how a straight to Mars mission would ever work, at least without getting everyone killed and setting the space program back another 50 years.
It would work..not to say that there is no risk, and everything will go exactly as planned but thats a risk worth taking.

bbfreakDude":1d6vf8ug said:
While yes we technically we have the ability to send humans to Mars. At least as so much as sending a rocket with humans on board is possible, our experience with long duration flight is non-existence and you want to test this on a lengthy trip to Mars? Apollo in case you forgot had only 10 missions beyond LEO, six in which we landed on the surface. That's about our entire experience beyond LEO.
so how does flying a short range mission to the moon prepare us for a long range mission to mars? The only way we will learn is by doing it. Also, the ammount of landings on the moon has nothing to do with mars...mars has atmosphere (yes, very little, but more than none like the moon) Landing on mars, is more like landing on earth, than the moon.

bbfreakDude":1d6vf8ug said:
For good reasons, humans weren't designed to live in space. You know because space is hostile towards life, and the lack of gravity is punishing on one's body.
ever heard of artifical gravity...surely that would be a feature on a mars ship. Also..There have already been designs proposed for shielding from solar radiaton that don't involve any radically new technology. Maybe a tweak of current technology at the most.

bbfreakDude":1d6vf8ug said:
So, since you don't want to go to the moon, where exactly would we get the experience and technical know-how to ever be ready for Mars? Earth? LEO? All of which are poor substitutes for the real thing. The moon meanwhile is right in our back yard.
Again...how do you think going to the moon, which is nothing like mars, is going to prepare us for mars? Lets stop pretending that the moon and mars are the same...and stop making excuses. When going to mars is CLEARLY the better option. Also...think on this. Being new/untested/dangerous...didn't stop columbus from finding the new world, didn't stop louis and clark from traveling from east coast to west coast on foot, and didn't stop us from going to the moon 50 years ago...why should it be any differnt now??? Unnfortunately, the human race is going soft. as our technology gets better and we grow as a species...we become bigger pussies...Well at least the ones making the decisions.
 
G

grison

Guest
Answer to Voyager_NL.
Microgravity during the trip to Mars.
It is true that a six months trip under microgravity would be very debilitating but more than ten years ago, Robert Zubrin already found the solution:
Set up a link (tether) between the last stage of the launcher (after it is burnt out!) and give an impulse to the couple. Since there is no atmosphere in Space, rotation will keep on indefinitely and maintain inside the habitat an artificial gravity which can be regulated according to the length of the tether and the speed of the spin.
NASA should urgently experiment the idea. Unfurling the tether should not be a problem because it would be attached to both the launcher and the habitat before the launch.
Of course, rotation should be stopped upon approaching Martian atmosphere and trajectory corrected.
 
R

RDyer

Guest
The moon is ok, but Mars is our next big destination. On To Mars!
 
V

vulture4

Guest
>>Poll results are somewhat misleading. 95% chose either the first or second choice, both indicating we should go back to the moon (as long as we learn from it, which is a given - I really don't see the difference between the first two responses).

The question is, will we learn something useful. Like developing new technology that can get us to the moon for a price that is affordable for research and tourism, the two main reasons for sending people to any exotic environment. Constellation, in contrast, uses obsolete technology at unsustainable cost.

This being the anniversary of Apollo 11, we should realize that Apollo was justified by the purely geopolitical mission of proving the superiority of the US system over the Soviet system.. Ironically, NASA apparently was not aware of this and was surprised when the program achieved its objective and was summarily canceled,. Today, trying to use the same rationale, many push the idea of a new space race with China. First, China has no possible interest in such a race. Second, if we made it a race, and won, we'd be in exactly the same position we were after Apollo 11; with no justification for Apollo 12.
 
H

HOORGANVISOR

Guest
There are many inexpensive ways to travel back to the moon and establish a colony. One way is by using my Ground/Ship Launch/Propulsion System. It uses a powerful ground energy source to generate electromagnetic energy beams that will be pumped into a powered projectile to repel against it, be used by the engines, and spin flywheels that will store kinetic energy to power repulsion-drive engines that will send the craft back to earth. GSLP could be up an running in less than a year and send enough material to the moon for a colony by 2012.

Another version of GSLP uses a series of electromagnetic energy beams and energy fields that would surround the powered projectile which would use linear induction and repulsion to fly through the energy tube to the moon. Both GSLP systems would send material to the moon directly and in less than a day and cost less than the Apollo Program.

My hypersonic spaceplane which I designed in 1991 uses my injection reactor to provide the charged particles for the compression-field engines that would have no moving parts, yet they would allow the plane to fly from the ground out into space without switching engines. Flywheels might be used for a flight to the moon since they may be able to store enough kinetic energy to power the engines. That means tourism to the moon could take place before the middle of the century. And the price for a ticket to the moon and back could be less than $100,000 and the carrier would start making a profit within a few years.

Once a series of relay satellites are placed in orbit around the earth and toward the moon, they could be used to form electromagnetic energy fields that will produce a linear induction effect that will allow a GSLP projectile to reach the moon in less than three hours. The technique could be called "threading the needle." If the relays are in line, the powered projectile could be accelerated by them until it reaches the ones closest to the moon which would slow the projectile so it doesn't slam into the moon at over 100,000 mph.

GSLP might allow kids to send powered projectiles to the moon and not cost them the same as what four years of college will cost them. Just plug in the energy projector, place the powered projectile on the launch pad, and turn on the projector. The cost for the electricity might be several dollars. But if the projectile has a camera and a microwave transmission system, the person who launches the projectile could watch it get closer to the moon until it slams into the surface at hypersonic speed. For maybe less than $100, the projectile might have retro-rocket engines that will allow the object to land softly on the moon. And if the projectile is large enough, it might have a remote-controlled rover the size of a shoe that will explore the moon . It would use solar energy to provide limitless power and have flywheels to store kinetic energy so that it can travel in the dark. The projectile would be the microwave relay system to help control the rover and be in contact with earth.

If my systems work, we could have an active moon colony before the middle of the century with maybe 1000 to 2000 tourists flying to the moon weekly. The same systems could be used to send people to Mars and beyond by then.
 
Q

Quantinius

Guest
Mankind’s presence is a consequence of a sufficiently long absence of cataclysms of extinction, from self annihilation, from the planet itself and from outer space.

Earth’s species are confined to a seemingly unique place in the universe but with no capacity to survive radically extreme events.

A presence throughout the solar system and beyond is the hope for life and for intelligence to prevail and evolve in a very hostile and indifferent universe.

Doing this with robots alone won’t cut it.

With no proof of alien intelligence, emergence of Earth’s life forms may well be unique and be the most remarkable extension of a physical universe to one inclusive of thought, awareness and ability for self modification.

There is choice is between eventual extinction and prevailing eternally.

Perhaps collectively we are gods in the making and over billions of years may eventually control the fate of the universe, and thus ourselves.

But the first steps must involve - the Moon, Mars and beyond, together with equally ambitious quests for advancement of biological and mechanical life and for technologies and machines currently beyond our imagination.
 
M

MartianBoogie

Guest
This is a no-brainer! There are literally millions of jobs connected with the space program and continued mission R & D will help keep the economy more stable. The lunar missions of the 1960's and 1970's may have been mostly politically motivated at the time. But, the Moon is a obvious choice of initial destinations to establish an outpost to better monitor all aspects of our continued existence here and to pave the way for future space travel.

Granted, the Moon is a very dangerous place right now without an atmosphere to protect it. However, the technology already exists to establish safer subterranean manned and unmanned stations to better monitor incoming NEO's, possibly creating a lunar defense system and eventually a more effective launch platform for future space travel.

It sickens me to know how much the nations of our world have spent and must spend in defense of each other while it is so obvious that our future is ultimately in space. Considering the hesitation to react to the obvious effects of global warming, will an extraterrestrial planetary threatening event be the final motivating element before we will stop the insanity? Sorry folks, unlike what Hollywood has shown us, we won't have enough time to react.
 
A

Aquaeus

Guest
Anonymous_John":2tn9r2wl said:
The only thing that robots can do better, is taking photos from orbit. On the surface, there's nothing better than boots on the ground.
We learned more about the Moon from Apollo than from all the unmanned missions before and since. Mars will be no different.
And then, there's the economy.

I'm surprised that nobody in this thread has pointed out that besides the accelerated scientific discovery the Apollo program generated, it created entire industries for people to work in and to inject money into the economy. The Apollo program may well have been funded by the best money the government ever spent; the profits and the additional wealth it generated exponentially surpassed the amount spent on it.

Going back to the moon and then to Mars would be the ultimate stimulus package. It would not only benefit the economy through the spending itself, but it would do the same thing it did last time: over and over again, it would create new demand for new technologies, huge numbers of new jobs, and the expansion of an entire sectors of the economy. And unlike the pork that passes for stimulus now, it would not merely stimulate but create new areas of growth.

Uranium and helium-3 aside, it's worth going back to the moon and onward to Mars for economic reasons alone!
 
B

bbfreakDude

Guest
HiGh_GuY":2h59why3 said:
It would work..not to say that there is no risk, and everything will go exactly as planned but that's a risk worth taking.
There are two types of risks, calculated risks which are acceptable and even part of human space flight, and hoping everything goes well because you want it to or sheer will. A direct mission to Mars is the latter, because you have unprepared astronauts with technology that has never been used in any manned capacity if at all.

HiGh_GuY":2h59why3 said:
So how does flying a short range mission to the moon prepare us for a long range mission to mars? The only way we will learn is by doing it.
So I assume when you were a child you just started walking as soon as you tried it or didn't give up on walking until you did succeed! :roll: Skipped right past crawling eh?

I'll repeat it again, our experience with long duration space flight is zilch. This is especially true for outside the protection of LEO. The moon may be a short trip from earth, but the goal in going back to the moon is to stay. Gradually learn how to deal with the hazards of space instead of just throwing everything at Mars and hoping it sticks. The first time we went, we went to prove that we could go, this time we're going to prove that we can live in space.

HiGh_GuY":2h59why3 said:
Also, the amount of landings on the moon has nothing to do with mars...mars has atmosphere (yes, very little, but more than none like the moon) Landing on mars, is more like landing on earth, than the moon.
I mentioned the Apollo landings because not so much because of the landings themselves, but because they are our only experience on another celestial body and again those were short trips. Also because no active astronaut has any experience on another planet and again the moon while not being a planet is similar to a planet in many ways and at the very least a better alterative to learning as we go.


HiGh_GuY":2h59why3 said:
ever heard of artificial gravity...surely that would be a feature on a mars ship. Also..There have already been designs proposed for shielding from solar radiaton that don't involve any radically new technology. Maybe a tweak of current technology at the most.
Artificial gravity at least in the realistic attempt is expensive, why? The more you have to lift, the more expensive its going to be and a spacecraft that has artificial gravity as you imagine is going to be big and expensive. Shielding also adds weight, and thus cost. Living on the moon, its easy to imagine we develop more effective ways to deal with the hazards of space instead of just going big and hoping it all works simply because it does in theory.


HiGh_GuY":2h59why3 said:
Again...how do you think going to the moon, which is nothing like mars, is going to prepare us for mars? Lets stop pretending that the moon and mars are the same...and stop making excuses.

They are the same in one very important way, we can't live on either without making something out of nothing. Meaning using whatever resources are available and protecting ourselves from the hazards of space.

HiGh_GuY":2h59why3 said:
When going to mars is CLEARLY the better option.
Why is Mars the better option exactly? For what? Human settlement? Both are hostile environments, in which case you have to use what is there on the celestial body to survive. Tell me, how much ice water is on Mars. Enough for astronauts to live off of?

HiGh_GuY":2h59why3 said:
Also...think on this. Being new/untested/dangerous...didn't stop Columbus from finding the new world, didn't stop Louis and Clark from traveling from east coast to west coast on foot, and didn't stop us from going to the moon 50 years ago...why should it be any different now??? Unfortunately, the human race is going soft. As our technology gets better and we grow as a species...we become bigger pussies...Well at least the ones making the decisions.

Oh, so its about thinking with our balls! Not our brains! :roll: :lol: Also, it was 40 years ago that we first sent men to the moon. 41 this December, 40 years on the 20th since we landed, and 37 this December since we left.
 
T

turiddhu

Guest
i don't see how we can claim to have advanced in space exploration without first establishing a base on the moon,besides,if we don't do it other countries like china will, if we allow that to happen ,it will be the chinese and not us ,to claim to have the lead in space exploration ,not only, but probably also in technology and science.
 
T

tpn

Guest
One only needs to look back a few hundred years when Islanders in the Pacific had to look for new lands in order to survive, resources are finite unfortunately in an ever increasingly populated Earth. We either move on to other planets or fight for the remaining resources. The choice is ours thankfully.
 
J

jjames1274

Guest
should we go back to the moon i would say yes. when we do go back then we should use solar energy to power the the colony there it would be cheaper and cleaner and it would be safer. i was 23 when they first landed on the moon and what a joy it was to see man able to go that far and still survive. technology is now better and the risk is still the same but the rewards are great.
 
H

HiGh_GuY

Guest
bbfreakDude":25oj411u said:
There are two types of risks, calculated risks which are acceptable and even part of human space flight, and hoping everything goes well because you want it to or sheer will. A direct mission to Mars is the latter, because you have unprepared astronauts with technology that has never been used in any manned capacity if at all.
going to mars will not use that much technology used to go to the moon. differnet, much larger ship, radiation protection, artificial gravity, none of these will be used for a moon mission. astronauts will be prepared as humanly possible before a mars mission, they will train longer for a mars mission than they've ever trained before. after the mars ship has been built, it can test the art. grav., life support systems etc..in earth orbit.

bbfreakDude":25oj411u said:
So I assume when you were a child you just started walking as soon as you tried it or didn't give up on walking until you did succeed! :roll: Skipped right past crawling eh?
no i didn't skip crawling, But i'm happy you chose this analogy. the multiple LEO flights we've done, in addition to the Moon flights 50 years ago, was the crawling. We've done the crawling, now its time to walk. you don't learn to walk by continuing to crawl. you learn by trying....even though, you're sure to fall down. There might be some hicups on the first mars flight, hopefully nothing that can't be fixed, but that's just the nature. no matter how much you crawl, its never going to garuntee that you first walk is going to be perfect.

bbfreakDude":25oj411u said:
I'll repeat it again, our experience with long duration space flight is zilch. This is especially true for outside the protection of LEO. The moon may be a short trip from earth, but the goal in going back to the moon is to stay. Gradually learn how to deal with the hazards of space instead of just throwing everything at Mars and hoping it sticks. The first time we went, we went to prove that we could go, this time we're going to prove that we can live in space.
I agree...but going to the moon is not long duration space flight. there will be some form of manmade radiation protection on the moon (as there would be on mars too). But wether on the moon or mars, its still going to be different than the radiation protection used in flight. The only way you can test long duration space flight, without actually getting that far from earth, would be to do laps around the Earth+Moon, which is just stupid. as far as life support systems (excluding radiation protection) we already have them...and though, we would want more advaced systems for a mars flight (especially water and air recycling/cleaning..etc) this can all be tested on earth.

bbfreakDude":25oj411u said:
I mentioned the Apollo landings because not so much because of the landings themselves, but because they are our only experience on another celestial body and again those were short trips. Also because no active astronaut has any experience on another planet and again the moon while not being a planet is similar to a planet in many ways and at the very least a better alterative to learning as we go.
yeah...a really bad alternative. building a base on the moon, mars, or anywhere else, will take huge ammounts of money and time. Doing it on the moon will delay a manned mars mission by at least 50 years probably more like a century. And at the end of it all, it won't provide any real benefits. and i'll say it again.. the moon is not mars

bbfreakDude":25oj411u said:
Artificial gravity at least in the realistic attempt is expensive, why? The more you have to lift, the more expensive its going to be and a spacecraft that has artificial gravity as you imagine is going to be big and expensive. Shielding also adds weight, and thus cost. Living on the moon, its easy to imagine we develop more effective ways to deal with the hazards of space instead of just going big and hoping it all works simply because it does in theory.
Newsflash...a mars ship, wether it has Art. grav. or not, is going to be big and expensive. The supplies/weight/money needed to incorporate art. grav. and solar radiation shielding is going to be a TINY percentage of the total ammount of supplies/weight/money needed to build the whole ship....its like if you buy a $400,000 maybach, but then complain about spending $60 to fill it with gas.

bbfreakDude":25oj411u said:
They are the same in one very important way, we can't live on either without making something out of nothing. Meaning using whatever resources are available and protecting ourselves from the hazards of space.
EXACTLY...mars has far more resources than the moon. We don't even know if the moon has water....Mars does. Mars also has an atmosphere that we can make rocket fuel from....the moon??? NO Mars may even have liquid water deep in the ground, which is something we can do while we're there....look for it. even if doesn't, we KNOW there is waterice. oh yeah....and once we are there....mars has less radiation to deal with than the moon, for one its farther away, for another it has a thin atmosphere.

think of how much weight (therfore $$$) it will ad to a mission to bring all the water/air/return to orbit rocket fuel needed for a moon mission. We can produce oxygen from large indoor hydro gardens (yes this can be done on the moon too) but on mars, we can also use electolysis to split water into oxygen and hydrogen. the oxygen we can breath. and we could have mars buggies or whatever else needs power run off of hydrogen fuel cells, among other things...but then we have free fuel for getting around on the surface as well.

bbfreakDude":25oj411u said:
Why is Mars the better option exactly? For what? Human settlement? Both are hostile environments, in which case you have to use what is there on the celestial body to survive. Tell me, how much ice water is on Mars. Enough for astronauts to live off of?
ok, so if you just want another publicity stunt...just getting there as quickly as possible, just to say we did, then the MOON is a better option. But for establishing a permanent presence, Mars is a far better option. as you've already pointed out...resources, mars has many more, mars is bigger, offers similar days/seasons/years as earth, more gravity, more science to be done...the list goes on.

oh yeah....don't forget about the fact that mars can be terraformed. Respected scientists say it can be done with current technology ( i happen to agree). that means if we start now, in about 200 years, people could be walking around on mars with no space suit. Now, wether or not this can be done with current tech is a whole different debate, but the fact is, that sooner or later it will be possible...where as the moon will always be cold and dead. So mars has a future, and it makes much more sense to invest in mars, than the moon. And back to the resources again....mars simply has more. At one point in time, mars was similar to earth, so it stands that there are probably even more valuble resources that we havn't even discovered yet. For all we know we might find a kimberlite pipe containing the biggest diamonds man has ever seen. that is just a theory....but diamonds or something else, we're more likely to find other unknown valuble resources on mars than not.

here's another reason...although it wouldn't be anytime soon. once there was an established infastructure on mars, we could launch missions from mars to other spots in the solar system, giving us closer and more launch windows. the farther out you go, the longer it takes to get another launch window. so by having a second site...we get twice as many....the moons launch windows would be roughly the same as earths.

bbfreakDude":25oj411u said:
Oh, so its about thinking with our balls! Not our brains! :roll: :lol: Also, it was 40 years ago that we first sent men to the moon. 41 this December, 40 years on the 20th since we landed, and 37 this December since we left.
ok wow...who cares. its like saying its 7pm instead of 5 till 7. that has no useful meaning in this debate. It's not just about thinking with our balls not brains. Its about...advancing as a species. that doesn't happen by redoing stuff we've already done, it happens by trying new things, and striving to be better. this is the same reason why the constellation program is such a dissapointment.
 
D

davcbow

Guest
If we ever plan on getting out of orbit again and plan on going to outer space beyond our own earth and moon then we do need to go back to the moon. We have many things to learn how to do and it would be much better to learn them on the moon thats only 3 days away than it would to do them on Mars which is 6 months away. At a given 3 days away a rescue mission could be sent if something major were to happen while learning these new technologies where at 6 months away you would just die before a rescue could get there.... The Moon is the perfect place to learn how to go further into the solar system....... :D
 
J

jstepp590

Guest
I am sick and tired of simply exploring space. With the material wealth out there anything less than the commercialization of space is a dangerous expenditure of money, time, abilities and worse yet, opportunity. Like Richard Diamandis said, even a small .5 kilometer metallic steroid is worth $20 trillion dollars on todays metals markets and other countries are paying huge amounts of money to buy even scrap metal to fuel their growing economies. There are thousands of these in near Earth orbit but fewer economically attractive ones and if we don't get them other countries will. We need to be doing WHATEVER it takes to go get them. That would be a jobs program worth having.
 
D

davcbow

Guest
jstepp590":jg3g50jh said:
I am sick and tired of simply exploring space. With the material wealth out there anything less than the commercialization of space is a dangerous expenditure of money, time, abilities and worse yet, opportunity. Like Richard Diamandis said, even a small .5 kilometer metallic steroid is worth $20 trillion dollars on todays metals markets and other countries are paying huge amounts of money to buy even scrap metal to fuel their growing economies. There are thousands of these in near Earth orbit but fewer economically attractive ones and if we don't get them other countries will. We need to be doing WHATEVER it takes to go get them. That would be a jobs program worth having.
Even to do what you are saying which is a good idea for the future we still need to learn how to get there. We need to learn how to be self sufficient out in deep space. There is really a lot more to it than sci fi tv makes us believe... :cool:
 
R

Robotic_Exploration_FTW

Guest
bbfreakDude":17zz2e73 said:
So, since you don't want to go to the moon, where exactly would we get the experience and technical know-how to ever be ready for Mars? Earth? LEO? All of which are poor substitutes for the real thing. The moon meanwhile is right in our back yard.
Like I said: the dry valleys of Antarctica. It's more similar to Mars than the Moon is, and training there wont use up 150 billion dollars & 20 years. Building a permanent base on the Moon as a dress-rehearsal for for a manned mission to Mars doesn't make sense as the demands are completely dissimilar - frankly the only real similarity is that both the Moon and Mars are in space - and having a permanent base on the Moon has no intrinsic value as the base wont be self-sufficient (and hence wont function as a backup-population in case disaster strikes earth) or financially viable. It's simply ISS all over again.
 
Z

ZenGalacticore

Guest
jstepp590":3aib8rxh said:
I am sick and tired of simply exploring space. With the material wealth out there anything less than the commercialization of space is a dangerous expenditure of money, time, abilities and worse yet, opportunity. Like Richard Diamandis said, even a small .5 kilometer metallic steroid is worth $20 trillion dollars on todays metals markets and other countries are paying huge amounts of money to buy even scrap metal to fuel their growing economies. There are thousands of these in near Earth orbit but fewer economically attractive ones and if we don't get them other countries will. We need to be doing WHATEVER it takes to go get them. That would be a jobs program worth having.
Well, what's wrong with buying scrap metal? It's already forged and purified. Not to change the subject, but recycling scrap metal-especially aluminum and steel- is one of the smartest things humans can do.

Btw, who is Richard Diamandis and where does the $20 trillion figure come from? Are all .5 kilometer metallic asteroids of the same composition? Ratio wise of rock to metals?
 
Z

ZenGalacticore

Guest
Robotic_Exploration_FTW":8xuem7od said:
bbfreakDude":8xuem7od said:
So, since you don't want to go to the moon, where exactly would we get the experience and technical know-how to ever be ready for Mars? Earth? LEO? All of which are poor substitutes for the real thing. The moon meanwhile is right in our back yard.
Like I said: the dry valleys of Antarctica. It's more similar to Mars than the Moon is, and training there wont use up 150 billion dollars & 20 years. Building a permanent base on the Moon as a dress-rehearsal for for a manned mission to Mars doesn't make sense as the demands are completely dissimilar - frankly the only real similarity is that both the Moon and Mars are in space - and having a permanent base on the Moon has no intrinsic value as the base wont be self-sufficient (and hence wont function as a backup-population in case disaster strikes earth) or financially viable. It's simply ISS all over again.
Who says we can't achieve self-sufficiency on the Moon? If there is water in the shadows of craters at the poles, then we sure as heck can achieve self-sufficient bases.

What's a $150 billion dollars over twenty years? So what! We spend over $600 billion dollars a year on our military and defense budget alone. One year!! (And a lot of that great technology that the military employs to protect the freedom loving-people of this planet was the offspring of the Space Program including computers, guidance systems, lightweight composite materials, etc.)
 
Z

ZenGalacticore

Guest
Buzz makes some good points. But whoever said the current plan to return to the Moon was a 'race'? And if we leap-frog off to Mars, what's to stop the general public from becoming bored and disinterested after the first sensational landing? It could be Apollo Apathy all over again, and a waste of time and money for the near term.
They then will be saying: 'Been there, done that'. Remember the 'ratings' for Apollo 12?

Buzz said in another article I read that 'we've already explored the Moon'. We've hardly explored the Moon, we've only done a preliminary reconnaisance. Then he said 'we've been to the Moon'. No Buzz. You and Neil Armstrong and a hand full of others have been to the Moon. The rest of us only watched it on tv.
 
D

davcbow

Guest
Part of the reason that Apollo 12's ratings were so low is because Al Bean accidently pointed the TV cam towards the sun burning it up and there was no TV coverage of them on the moon except the nightly news and the special reports. I remember it well, I was a kid of 10 years and was sort of miffed because I couldnt watch them walk on the moon. Buzz is talking about home steading on Mars which is in the plans. He also talks about going to the moon to test tools and technology's. The only way to do that would be set up some sort of home base where people can stay longer than a few days or weeks. The way to save money on the endeavour would be to do it that way, not spend all the money of flight after flight to send a handful of people for short times. Do it the most cost effective way to get the most "bang for the buck." Any habitats that work on the moon would work just as well on Mars and then we could boldly go where no one has gone before.... :cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY