Salvage rights for Apollo sites?

Page 2 - 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
U

uberhund

Guest
Whatever. We're debating slideware here.

Meanwhile, Earth was served notice yesterday that there are more urgent issues on the table.

While the US still has some semblance of an economy, wouldn't it be better to divert resources from pointless HSF and put them into a response to the graphic below? Squandering resources on manned lunar exploration moves the planet no closer to a protection plan, and is therefore irresponsible.

 
Y

Yuri_Armstrong

Guest
uberhund":f12vd3be said:
Whatever. We're debating slideware here.
No, I'd say it's pretty important actually that those historical sites are preserved. Just as we preserve civil war battlefields today, we should do the same and honor the astronauts of Apollo.

Meanwhile, Earth was served notice yesterday that there are more urgent issues on the table.
There's countless issues facing us right now. Good thing we don't spend all of our budget on one thing eh?

While the US still has some semblance of an economy, wouldn't it be better to divert resources from pointless HSF
HSF is pointless? What are you on about? There are many technological advances that can be directly attributed to the Apollo and manned space flight programs. Apollo also stimulated the American economy in a post war climate whereas it has been sluggish ever since the end of that program.

and put them into a response to the graphic below?
You realize that some of the best options for asteroid impact prevention are manned solutions right? I wouldn't really call close asteroid passes urgent issues, but I agree we need a plan on the table to help protect such an event.

Squandering resources on manned lunar exploration moves the planet no closer to a protection plan, and is therefore irresponsible.
Absolutely wrong. HSF is the MOST responsible thing for us as humans to do. A lunar base is the next step towards practicing how to live in the long term on another celestial body. A lunar base is not essential for Mars but it does help. And Mars is a whole other world which can be settled and transformed into an earthlike planet. What is irresponsible is confining ourselves to one world which is quite vulnerable and sitting it out until some extinction event occurs. Be it asteroids or something else, eventually Earth will not be able to sustain human life.

PROTECT manned space flight AT ALL COSTS. It is the bold step into the future, and by making short term sacrifices and spending some money we can see great benefits.
 
S

scottb50

Guest
Yuri_Armstrong":3bz1cv11 said:
uberhund":3bz1cv11 said:
Absolutely wrong. HSF is the MOST responsible thing for us as humans to do. A lunar base is the next step towards practicing how to live in the long term on another celestial body. A lunar base is not essential for Mars but it does help. And Mars is a whole other world which can be settled and transformed into an earthlike planet. What is irresponsible is confining ourselves to one world which is quite vulnerable and sitting it out until some extinction event occurs. Be it asteroids or something else, eventually Earth will not be able to sustain human life.

PROTECT manned space flight AT ALL COSTS. It is the bold step into the future, and by making short term sacrifices and spending some money we can see great benefits.
Transforming Mars into an Earth like environment is well in the future, we have to get there first! The moon could be explored by robotic vehicles, telescopes on the dark side could spur human uses.
 
Y

Yuri_Armstrong

Guest
You misquoted me. I said that, not uberhund ;)

And yes we must get to Mars first before we can terraform it. And a lunar base should be our next step, but the Apollo sites should be protected as areas of historical interest. They should be protected in the same way that civil war battlefields are protected today.
 
N

neutrino78x

Guest
annodomini2":2e7xn725 said:
They'll put the base inside the crater and the solar panel outside.

The shaded area inside the crater will offer additional protection from solar radiation.
Well, good point. That, or a cave, if one exists close by....

--Brian
 
N

neutrino78x

Guest
uberhund":2kw59x0m said:
Whatever. We're debating slideware here.

Meanwhile, Earth was served notice yesterday that there are more urgent issues on the table.

While the US still has some semblance of an economy, wouldn't it be better to divert resources from pointless HSF and put them into a response to the graphic below? Squandering resources on manned lunar exploration moves the planet no closer to a protection plan, and is therefore irresponsible.
I agree, in terms of HSF done by NASA, although, would it not be useful to use HSF to go to the asteroid? So the crew can make quick decisions without speed of light delay issues?

I suppose, if you know about the asteroid early enough, you can use an unmanned probe to slowly push it, over a period of decades.

Probably depends on the situation...

--Brian
 
U

uberhund

Guest
neutrino78x":3mqjlbhs said:
Would it not be useful to use HSF to go to the asteroid? So the crew can make quick decisions without speed of light delay issues?
Thanks for your input, Brian. Perhaps this should be moved to my Plymouth Rock thread. Until then, though, let me ask a question:

Would quick decisions really be necessary? I don't know. Maybe someone familiar with NEO orbital mechanics could inform us as to what type of NEO Swiss Army Knife human visitors would need, and why quick decisions would be necessary in the first place. Ordinarily, things happen really, really slow in space, given the low gravity and high masses involved. I suspect that no one knows the answer to this until a few probes have successfully returned samples.

Also, remember that the NEOs visited by probes would be inside Mars orbit (thus the name), and closing on earth rapidly. So the delays would diminish to be eventually less than what we observed with lunar rovers, at least for the first half of the encounter.

My thinking remains that in the time and expense it would take to equip a single HSF mission, dozens of probe missions could have been funded and executed for approximately the same or even superior result.
 
Y

Yuri_Armstrong

Guest
And what makes you think that they will send "dozens" of probes to asteroids over a human mission? That's just as much a pipe dream, and rather pointless because it's not like sending dozens of probes accomplishes more than a few probes.

The problem isn't the quantity, it's the quality. And manned human missions would have a much better science quality because they have bigger facilities, more science experiments, and a much higher chance of bring back samples.

And if you think that manned missions are done only for science, then you are clearly missing the point of human spaceflight.
 
U

uberhund

Guest
Yuri_Armstrong":30lkndr7 said:
And if you think that manned missions are done only for science, then you are clearly missing the point of human spaceflight.
Well, yes. That is true. I clearly miss the point of human spaceflight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY