50 Years Since Apollo 11 : Should we Go Back?

[GardoneVT]

This month marks the 50th anniversary of the Moon landings.

Since the Apollo missions ended, we haven’t been back since. Another series of missions would cost quite a bit ($102 billion) - is it worth the money?

I’d say so, but I’m also cognizant that we have issues right here on Earth which should be attended to first. What say the PF assemblage?

[snow white]

fuck yeah the moon is awesome.

[Joe in PNG]

This month marks the 50th anniversary of the Moon landings.

Since the Apollo missions ended, we haven’t been back since. Another series of missions would cost quite a bit ($102 billion) - is it worth the money?

I’d say so, but I’m also cognizant that we have issues right here on Earth which should be attended to first. What say the PF assemblage?

The "problems on Earth" argument was used to end Apollo, and guess what- it didn't help, and I would argue spending that money on fixing those problems just made them worse.

[TAZ]

Depends. $100B isn’t peanuts, but I’d rather use that $$ to generate high tech jobs and potential offshoot technologies than feed another generation of Gimme dats.

Also kind of want a goal for the program aside from to go there cause. We already went there cause. Research station, observatory. Mars launch point???

[Bergeron]

I can’t say yes enough!

NASA has failed by becoming focused on science instead of exploration. Unmanned missions can certainly do more science for less money and risk than manned missions, but NASA should be in the business of exploration, not in the business of science. NASA can assume risks to human life that no other spacefaring organization can, and that makes exploration their best actual purpose. I do worry that they’ll never see it that way, the there are too many bureaucrats, administrators, and scientists to actually prioritize exploration.

Ya’ll want to hear some sad stories? Apollo 18, 19, and 20 were planned and funded, had rockets built, but were canceled. There’s a whole Saturn V at JSC, I’ve seen that one live and in person, as well as the one at MSFC, but I haven’t seen the KSC Saturn V. Yet.

Skylab was an outcome of the Apollo Applications Program, replacing the upper Saturn V stage. We lost Skylab under frankly embarrassing conditions. Nixon’s lack of interest in space, combined with NASA’s now obviously misguided fixation on the Shuttle, eliminated the Apollo Applications Program. Using Saturn V rockets, moon visits could have gone from 2 to 14 to 30 to 90 to 180 days duration! A moon base instead of the Shuttle! von Braun was already working on super booster “Nova” rockets of 10-20 million pounds thrust.

Please, let’s go back.

[RevolverRob]

NASA has failed by becoming focused on science instead of exploration. Unmanned missions can certainly do more science for less money and risk than manned missions, but NASA should be in the business of exploration, not in the business of science. NASA can assume risks to human life that no other spacefaring organization can, and that makes exploration their best actual purpose. I do worry that they’ll never see it that way, the there are too many bureaucrats, administrators, and scientists to actually prioritize exploration.


That is, and I say this as politely as I can, one of the dumbest things I've read this year. If you think science has stood in the way of space exploration, you are...out of your damned mind. Like seriously.

It wasn't as though John Glenn was hanging out in his covered wagon waiting to go to space as an explorer and just needed permission from the scientists to "go explore". The National Aeronautics and Space Administration not only conducts more research than most organizations can dream about. It has developed some of the most important pieces of technology in use here on Earth. It has done the impossible more times than should be possible.

We navigate, use this thing called the internet, and have satellite TV and communications courtesy of that "science".

The only reasons we haven't sent people to Mars or beyond has far more to do with the current limitations of propulsion than, "Oh we're too busy doing science to send someone to Mars." And how are we going to extend beyond that propulsion? Well, I guess we can try...science. :rolleyes:

And you guys realize that there are two Americans in space right now? Flying over us, in the International Space Station which has been continuously inhabited by humans for 20 years? For 20 years we've had a colony in space, no big deal.

___

I'll take this moment to be a jackass and remind you that there has been continual cuts of funding to NASA annually. And reduction in financial support of science in general. If Americans want America to be a global leader in space exploration, technological development, intellect etc. We have to commit to those things financially. We sent men to the moon once, because we were committed as a country to do it. We were motivated by fear, but committed none-the-less. We have not been committed to American Excellence in 50 years*...

*Which by the by means you can't lay the blame for that loss at the feet of "millennials".

[HCM]

Depends. $100B isn’t peanuts, but I’d rather use that $$ to generate high tech jobs and potential offshoot technologies than feed another generation of Gimme dats.

Also kind of want a goal for the program aside from to go there cause. We already went there cause. Research station, observatory. Mars launch point???

Denying the Chinese access is reason enough.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

NASA has failed by becoming focused on science instead of exploration.

Might disagree. They have had a significant role in aeronautical development. Interesting engineering projects are in place.

[4gallonbucket]

I’m against the program entirely. I wish they’d shut the whole thing down. Leave it to the private sector.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moonshot]

Read my login name.

Absolutely we should go back. And this time, we should stay. The near term future for exploring and exploiting our little solar system lies in a self-sufficient and self-contained lunar colony. From the moon, with its 1/6th gravity, we can easily and cheaply launch ships, manned and unmanned, to other locations.

Not until we develop some exotic drive will we be able to reach the outer planets and the asteroids easily and inexpensively from Earth, and even with an exotic drive, it will be cheaper from the moon.

The lunar colony must be self-sufficient, producing food, water and O2 in quantity. They will need an industrial base to design and build whatever they need to survive, thrive, and expand outward. Once they are truly self-sufficient they can become independent and it's this independence from Mother Earth that will let them make their own decisions, and not be just an instrument of any one country's foreign policy - even ours.

The future is out there. Whether we learn to take care of our little planet or end up destroying it, if we are to survive as a species, we need to colonize other worlds.

How can anyone look at the photos returned from the Hubble and not be awed by what's out there and not wish to visit those places. Yes, we should return to the moon. Sooner rather than later.

[beenalongtime]

Also kind of want a goal for the program aside from to go there cause. We already went there cause. Research station, observatory. Mars launch point???


Honestly, there are things I would like to see the moon used for. Practice landing and learning to switch from feet to meters is one (so we don't crash stuff on other worlds anymore). Sending some sort of rovers to head towards the dark side and watch for asteroid impacts (how often, types of asteroids, materials, rare elements etc, that could advance a space program). Otherwise I agree, no goal, no real motivation to go.

I think the science with unmanned vehicles, may lead to their use to build somewhere for us to go to, first.

[GardoneVT]

The future is out there. Whether we learn to take care of our little planet or end up destroying it, if we are to survive as a species, we need to colonize other worlds..

I’m not sure physical colonization of any other world is possible. Traveling to Mars takes months, during which time the crew will be exposed to hard cosmic radiation and total communications isolation from Earth. If Apollo 13 happens to a manned Mars mission the crew is history- with up to 30 minutes comm delay Mission Control is relegated to a post incident response team. Then there’s the psychological problems. Humans just don’t do well confined in small groups for substantial periods of time . Even if one builds an ultra reliable space vehicle which can resist cosmic rays , is it humane to lock three or more of our best and brightest into what’s essentially the Fastest Cellblock Ever?

I’m forced to unhappily conclude that barring some major innovation in propulsion or hibernation technology, the Moons probably as far as we can realistically go.

[Yung]

Sorry for posting in the wrong thread. I've already reported myself so the mods will delete or move it soon enough.


The "problems on Earth" argument was used to end Apollo, and guess what- it didn't help, and I would argue spending that money on fixing those problems just made them worse.

When I was in high school, I looked at a lot of news photography. One thing I've had a hard time finding again are pictures of protestors holding signs expressing opposition to the space program, like this one. Very significant in developing my perspective on priorities in government spending.

39992

http://www.capradio.org/news/special/race-and-the-space-race/2016/01/18/race-and-the-space-race/

https://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/how-nasa-joined-civil-rights-revolution-180949497/

Most things regarding anything aerospace is out of my interest and understanding. My opinion is that we've got some issues to address with STEM fields in academia and technology removing any incentive to leave our homes, among other things that would ruin our chances for overall success even if the national debt was paid off overnight and Elon Musk revealed a working fusion reactor AND faster-than-light drive while changing Tesla's name to Capsule Corp. I'm reminded of Tim Kennedy's comments on his most recent appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast with the pool of special ops candidates being even smaller than it already was. Meanwhile we're using more of the best computing power than it ever took to actually get us on the moon, to make more TV shows, video games, and films about special ops.

[farscott]

In my mind, going to the moon was a goal that drove a ton of technology development, much of which we use today. It also served as a unifying goal to honor the wishes of a President, assassinated while in office. Apollo also followed one of the biggest investments in infrastructure, the Interstate Highway System.

Today I rather see the money spent on infrastructure that is needed to drive technology, especially things like nationwide high-speed wireless (fiber, 5G, and/or WiMAX), expanding the capabilities of the AC power grid, and fixing the Interstate Highway System (bridges). It is much more prosaic than Apollo, but the investment in us would lead to a huge payoff in terms of supporting and driving development of new technologies.

If we assume that it has to be space exploration, it needs to be "bigger" as repeats do not play well with the public (who remembers any of the Apollo missions after Apollo 13?). I would suggest a manned mission to capture an asteroid and bring it back to earth or moon orbit. There it could be farmed/mined for water and multiple fortunes in minerals and metals. The technology needed to do that would drive gains in fields from navigation to mining to pipeline engineering to radiation hardening of environmental suits to satellite links. It would also serve as a shorter duration mission than one to Mars and require an ability to get to someplace like the moon and back -- yet not be the moon. It would probably start with unmanned missions to the asteroid and back to see if we can do that as well as do the necessary prep work on the asteroid for a manned mission.

[Hambo]

It's in our nature to physically explore. The moon landings are the most significant exploration in human history. Of course we should go back.

[BehindBlueI's]

I absolutely support going back, a Mars mission, etc.


I’m against the program entirely. I wish they’d shut the whole thing down. Leave it to the private sector.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The private sector has no interest in exploration and advancement. There's too much risk and no known profit. The private sector can do things like launch satellites or "space tourism". Space exploration is in the same vein as the Columbus expedition, or Lewis & Clark. Gov't investment is required to open the frontier to society, and then private enterprise can flourish.

[blues]

Yes...space exploration will always be part of man's attempt to understand both himself and the uni multi-verse.

[DC_P]

Depends. $100B isn’t peanuts, but I’d rather use that $$ to generate high tech jobs and potential offshoot technologies than feed another generation of Gimme dats.

I say plunk that money into funding the 3 most important but underpaid jobs in the country - Law enforcement, firefighters, and school teachers.

I think space exploration is very cool, but the goal should be gaining knowledge. Unless we plan to colonize the moon (maybe build prisons there to send lifers to?) not sure what else there is to be learned.

[Darth_Uno]

I feel like we should go back just because space is awesome. And if you can’t make it back to the moon, you’re likely not going much further. But we can’t get any further now, not in any kind of ship designed for more-or-less indefinite habitation, or at a speed measured in anything less than multiple human lifetimes.

I’m not sure that we need to though. It’d have to have a point to the excursion besides “just because we can”. Which was a fine reason (among many others) the first time, but maybe not so much now since we’ve already BTDT.

[ralph]

I’m not sure physical colonization of any other world is possible. Traveling to Mars takes months, during which time the crew will be exposed to hard cosmic radiation and total communications isolation from Earth. If Apollo 13 happens to a manned Mars mission the crew is history- with up to 30 minutes comm delay Mission Control is relegated to a post incident response team. Then there’s the psychological problems. Humans just don’t do well confined in small groups for substantial periods of time . Even if one builds an ultra reliable space vehicle which can resist cosmic rays , is it humane to lock three or more of our best and brightest into what’s essentially the Fastest Cellblock Ever?

I’m forced to unhappily conclude that barring some major innovation in propulsion or hibernation technology, the Moons probably as far as we can realistically go.

That's pretty much right..if we want to go any farther, then we need to be able to travel at, or near lightspeed, that however, opens up problems of it's own..

[Darth_Uno]

I’d tell you my joke about black holes, but it’s pretty dark.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blues]

I’d tell you my joke about black holes, but it’s pretty dark.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What's the matter?

[Zincwarrior]

Nothing about the space and moon program was done for science. It was done because of the Cold War.

If we go back on a manned basis, at has to be justified on a basis as important. The cost for manned exploration is absolutely staggering, and it won't get cheaper.

[pooty]

We have to go back to build in order to build the ultimate artillery base that can launch moon rocks at Earth for bullying other countries, like in that Heinlein book.
This Lunar Space Force will satiate the MIC in a way that US taxpayers can be proud of instead of our current, long list of boondoggles.
Threatening others with being moonrocked will allow The Powers That Be to finally achieve world domination, and without much bloodshed!
Extraterrestrial Helium-3 will provide unlimited energy, solving so many of the problems humanity expects to face.
Unlimited energy!!

[Jim Watson]

And you guys realize that there are two Americans in space right now? Flying over us, in the International Space Station which has been continuously inhabited by humans for 20 years? For 20 years we've had a colony in space, no big deal.

You mean the ones we pay taxi fare to the Russians for?
What kind of manned space program is that?

The US space program will not survive the next Left Liberal administration.

[txdpd]

What's the matter?

Are you trying to pull us into another one of your jokes.

I don’t think we should go back. We’ve been to the moon and it was done with a whole lot less technology than what’s used to develop a Formula1 car. There’s more computing power in my iPhone than all of Apollo.

Going back to the moon is like bragging about hitting a watermelon at 50 yards with an M40A5, because 300 years ago it was a real challenge with a match lock musket.

[RevolverRob]

The US space program will not survive the next Left Liberal administration.

What?

The budget for NASA hasn't been over 1% of the annual federal budget since 1993. And during the glory days of Reagan, it decreased annually.

Under Bush 2.0 it decreased every year except his last year in office.

Under Trump there has been a .03% cut to 0.47% of the annual Federal budget, the lowest funding rate for NASA since 1958, NASA's second year in existence.

[BehindBlueI's]

Going back to the moon is like bragging about hitting a watermelon at 50 yards with an M40A5, because 300 years ago it was a real challenge with a match lock musket.

What about going...and staying?

[RevolverRob]

What about going...and staying?

For what purpose, though?

We went there and got a bunch of rocks and dust. We spent the last 50 years or so analyzing that stuff. And the biggest conclusion from those materials? The moon split off from the Earth and is made up of a mixture of meteorite and Earth when Earth was still in its semi-molten state.

There isn't a real purpose to go back or stay for any significant reason. I'd much more support a manned Mars mission than another manned Moon mission.

That said, even though we have more computing power individually than we did when we pulled off the Apollo landings, we have no spacecraft currently capable of doing such a thing now, let alone a manned mission to Mars. If we wished to return to the Moon as a trial run for technological development to go to Mars, I'm all for that. But beyond that there isn't much of a purpose.

The real issue I see is that we've lost the engineers and institutional knowledge that got us to the moon in the first place. We've nearly lost the institutional knowledge for building spacecraft that are manned. I'd be for manned missions simply to build a new range of spacecrafts.

[BehindBlueI's]

For what purpose, though?

What could we do if we had a in-space refuel and refit station?

[blues]

What could we do if we had a in-space refuel and refit station?

First thing you'd have to remember is that the mute button is the 2nd button down on the right side of the screen.

[Drang]

We need to go, and stay. Preferably the US and friends, but the human race either way.

“The Earth is just too small and fragile a basket for the human race to keep all its eggs in. - Robert A. Heinlein”

Also:

“Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. Then do it.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

Related:

“Animals can be driven crazy by placing too many in too small a pen. Homo sapiens is the only animal that voluntarily does this to himself.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love


“Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.”
― Robert A. Heinlein


“When a place gets crowded enough to require ID’s, social collapse is not far away. It is time to go elsewhere. The best thing about space travel is that it made it possible to go elsewhere.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, The Notebooks of Lazarus Long

Source: Robert A. Heinlein Quotes (https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/205.Robert_A_Heinlein?page=1)

[txdpd]

What about going...and staying?

If we could get around that thing where people start to atrophy and slowly die in space, I think that would be something worth considering. We’ve learned how to escape earth’s gravity but we haven’t been able to escape earth’s gravity.

[LSP552]

The real issue I see is that we've lost the engineers and institutional knowledge that got us to the moon in the first place. We've nearly lost the institutional knowledge for building spacecraft that are manned. I'd be for manned missions simply to build a new range of spacecrafts.

I have a very close friend that is a contractor for NASA at Kennedy Space Center. He is one of those brilliant chemist types. KSC now probably has more contractor than GS employees. According to my buddy, and he has been there probably 20 years now, the best and brightest are no longer looking to NASA for work.

[blues]

I have a very close friend that is a contractor for NASA at Kennedy Space Center. He is one of those brilliant chemist types. KSC now probably has more contractor than GS employees. According to my buddy, and he has been there probably 20 years now, the best and brightest are no longer looking to NASA for work.

It's too bad. Back in the early 2000's I actually spoke to a couple of "rocket scientists" about an investigation I had into solid rocket propellant that was at risk of falling into the wrong hands.

Those guys were sharp.

[farscott]

I have a very close friend that is a contractor for NASA at Kennedy Space Center. He is one of those brilliant chemist types. KSC now probably has more contractor than GS employees. According to my buddy, and he has been there probably 20 years now, the best and brightest are no longer looking to NASA for work.

That is because USG does not pay well, and it is a PITA to apply for a position with USAJOBS. And when you get an offer, it gets revoked because the funding failed to come through. Ask me how I know.

[RevolverRob]

What could we do if we had a in-space refuel and refit station?

I dunno if that makes a logistical sense. First thing that strikes me, even though the moon has no atmosphere to enter/exit, it still has gravity due to its mass. As a result you still have to power out of its gravitational field with your refueled/refitted spacecraft. That's why with the Apollo missions we had the Lunar Module and the Command Module, where the Command Module stayed in orbit around the moon. Effectively, there wasn't a good way to store all of the necessary fuel to both escape the Moon's gravitational field and jettison back to Earth. So a moon base would be vs. a geosynchronous space-station that while it technically has gravity is in freefall and as a result, can more easily jettison spacecraft from it. That said, I don't know if we've ever tried to actually jettison a craft from the ISS and away from Earth's gravitational field, that probably still requires some significant fuel burn.

Also, though we've 'escaped' Earth's immediate gravitational field - we haven't really "escaped" the gravity of Earth because even the Moon is still within the Earth's gravitational sphere. So though we have understanding of the effects of low and near-zero gravity - we still don't know what happens to people when they truly get beyond Earth's gravitational pull, because we've just never had it happen.

BTW - For those not in the know. At present NASA is planning a Lunar Orbital Space Station and is developing the Space Launch System, which if fully developed should have the capability of sending a crewed mission to Mars before 2030. And ostensibly the development of a manned Lunar Surface base, deploying the materials to it by 2028.

Also supposedly, Russia and China will build moon bases by 2030. I'll believe that when they actually successfully get to the moon. Only 50 years and counting since we beat the Ruskies there. They haven't gotten there even once. :eek: :rolleyes:

[Moonshot]

This is why the moon is so important, more important than Mars - it's easy and cheap to get to.

Three days rather than six months, and we can have a conversation with people on the moon, but not on Mars.

Don't misunderstand me. We can easily communicate with someone on Mars. The technology is trivial, but with a round trip time delay of between 5 minutes and half an hour (depending on the relative positions of both planets), communication is possible, but not a conversation.

The Moon, on the other hand, is a 2 1/2 second delay. Annoying but tolerable.

Going to Mars is a worthy goal from an exploration standpoint and from a lifting the human spirit standpoint, and it must be a manned mission, not just a series of robots, but the technology today is not up to the challenge of getting us there economically. That and the time to get there will make it a rare event. Not until something like an ion drive comes on line can we hope to get there in days rather than months, and that technology is likely generations away.

Going back to the moon, on the other hand, would be relatively easy. It would take decades to build a colony, and longer still to make it self-sufficient, but once that happened, it would become the forward outpost of the human species. With its low gravity, we can more readily explore the outer planets and exploit the mineral rich asteroids.

As for the cost - what is the cost to do nothing? We stay here, we die here. The Earth will not last forever, and our spirit to explore and grow will die out long before our planet does.

[Jim Watson]

"Earth orbit is halfway to anywhere." Heinlein (Energy, not time.)
"NASA, making space safe for robots." Pournelle
"You will be able to buy a ticket to the Moon. But you might have to pay in Yen, because there IS intelligent life in Tokyo." Heinlein. (Or some other currency.)

[RevolverRob]

As for the cost - what is the cost to do nothing? We stay here, we die here. The Earth will not last forever, and our spirit to explore and grow will die out long before our planet does.

Yea, that's not actually incentive, in my opinion, to explore the universe with manned missions. In fact, that is probably a good reason to not do it. Humans are already a cancer on this planet. Why infect other worlds with it? That's kind of sociopathic if think about it.

The reason I support space exploration has far more to do with finding what I want to find, which is Life on another planet. I'd prefer if a robot found it to a human, because the robot is far less likely to have brought contamination with it. The human is nothing but a walking contamination factory, because it is alive.

[Drang]

If we could get around that thing where people start to atrophy and slowly die in space, I think that would be something worth considering. We’ve learned how to escape earth’s gravity but we haven’t been able to escape earth’s gravity.

Well, gee, we'd better not even bother studying the problem, then, had we?

[LSP552]

That is because USG does not pay well, and it is a PITA to apply for a position with USAJOBS. And when you get an offer, it gets revoked because the funding failed to come through. Ask me how I know.

Sorry to hear. I had a similar issue when applying for federal contract specialist positions to come to RI. Got referred on a Coast Guard position in Newport, RI, was looking good, then the position went away after the President’s hiring freeze. I was lucky enough to get hired by the Army Contracting Command a couple month later. Keep looking and it will happen.

One of the big problems with NASA is that a lot of cutting edge in space stuff is now being done by the commercial side, not gov. A lot of that is federally funded, but still being conducted by private companies. That’s where a lot of your smart space folks are going now. And .gov typically can’t match top pay from the private side.

[farscott]

Sorry to hear. I had a similar issue when applying for federal contract specialist positions to come to RI. Got referred on a Coast Guard position in Newport, RI, was looking good, then the position went away after the President’s hiring freeze. I was lucky enough to get hired by the Army Contracting Command a couple month later. Keep looking and it will happen.

One of the big problems with NASA is that a lot of cutting edge in space stuff is now being done by the commercial side, not gov. A lot of that is federally funded, but still being conducted by private companies. That’s where a lot of your smart space folks are going now. And .gov typically can’t match top pay from the private side.

Thanks but no worries as it all ended up working out for the best. I got promoted at my current place and am responsible for all product development, from advanced concept to sustaining once in production. I have more flexibility and no need to worry about going in and out of the gates at Redstone Arsenal.

[RevolverRob]

That is because USG does not pay well, and it is a PITA to apply for a position with USAJOBS. And when you get an offer, it gets revoked because the funding failed to come through. Ask me how I know.

True story.

I just got a job rejection for a .GOV job.

The first email started with, "You meet all of our minimum criteria. All candidates who meet the criteria will have their information forwarded to the hiring committee."

Followed by an email that said, "Your application materials have not been forwarded to the hiring committee."

When I inquired as to why Email 2 contradicted Email 1 the response was, "Right, so you met all of our minimum criteria. BUT....you also exceeded all of them. We can only hire between GS-8 and GS-10 and by our assessment you're at minimum a GS-12. Sorry."

Which I guess is...something?

[txdpd]

Well, gee, we'd better not even bother studying the problem, then, had we?

What do think they’re doing with the guinea pigs in the ISS.

A few years ago they figured out what was causing loss of vision in astronauts on ISS. Solutions apparently are much harder to come by and there’s a good chance anyone going to Mars probably would be blind be the time they got there. I read something about Scott Kelly and how he hadn’t lost much more bone density than an astronaut on a 6 month rotation, but a year was still at the upper limits of human endurance. You put a man in superb physical condition in space for a year and he comes back a cripple with long recovery.

It’s been/being studied and humans are an impediment to NASA’s farther reaching missions.

[NETim]

NO!!! There are Borgs out there!!!!

[BehindBlueI's]

I dunno if that makes a logistical sense. First thing that strikes me, even though the moon has no atmosphere to enter/exit, it still has gravity due to its mass.

I don't know either. My thought is there are resources there already. A space station is just a storage dump that has to be built from scratch. The moon can, potentially, be mined for both mineral resources and energy resources. Helium-3 is supposed to be prevalent and a source of energy if we have the technology and tools to unlock it.

Way above my abilities and intellect. I just think it's a worthwhile investment. We're probably still at the canoe level right now, maybe even lower. Nobody envisioned nuclear powered submarines when folks like Cortes were exploring but look where we ended up.

[Rick R]

Yes, we should have at least one permanent base on the moon and a ring style space station or two with spin gravity by now. There are untold amounts of resources available in space and we are squandering our resources on Earth by continual war and unchecked hedonism.

We need to get serious about exploration.

[Bergeron]

NASA’s Space Launch System includes the Orion capsule and the planned Gateway lunar space station. The planned crewed missions to the Moon are named Artemis.

An original pitch for the Freedom station, back before it became ISS, was that it would open up the possibility of manufacturing in space. While far above and beyond the capabilities of ISS, a space station “shipyard” where rockets and space vessels could be assembled and launched from orbit would help against the physics of the Rocket Equation, where we have to push off the ground and through the atmosphere just to get into space. At some point, you’re just adding fuel in order to lift the fuel, and you approach asymptotic limits.

Think about this- If we go back to the early ‘70s, NASA can’t afford to develop op the Shuttle and keep Apollo, Nixon is already trying to cut missions, and NASA’s budget is shrinking. What if, keeping the funding profile from then to now, it’s the Shuttle that gets canceled? Saturn V, having been proved out, and a Block II design locked down, goes into serial production. If it’s heavy, or goes far, it goes on Saturn V. There’s a clear path to a moon base, and to space stations. Maybe SLS and the planned commercial super-heavy launch systems will give us second chance at actually exploiting these breakthroughs.

NASA’s budget reminds me of NRA membership, it’s much smaller than people tend to think- about 0.5% of the budget here in the 21st Century, and 4.5% in the height of Apollo. The FedGov spends more on improper Medicare payments than on NASA. As citizens, we tend to overestimate NASA’s actual budget, and some Business Insider poll indicates that people who wanted to “cut” NASA’s funding were actually tossing out numbers several times larger than the actual NASA budget.

Why should we go into deep space? Asteroid mining! There are more resources, insane, enormous quantities of resources in asteroids that can let us develop into species that can grow wildly and fully occupy our solar system. NASA could lead the way there.

[Old Man Winter]

///// Sarcasm Warning /////

Should we go back? Go back where, the sound stage? We've never been to the moon!

[HCM]

///// Sarcasm Warning /////

Should we go back? Go back where, the sound stage? We've never been to the moon!

You better watch out.


https://youtu.be/UryIstlIGks

[Zincwarrior]

This is why the moon is so important, more important than Mars - it's easy and cheap to get to.

Three days rather than six months, and we can have a conversation with people on the moon, but not on Mars.

Don't misunderstand me. We can easily communicate with someone on Mars. The technology is trivial, but with a round trip time delay of between 5 minutes and half an hour (depending on the relative positions of both planets), communication is possible, but not a conversation.

The Moon, on the other hand, is a 2 1/2 second delay. Annoying but tolerable.

Going to Mars is a worthy goal from an exploration standpoint and from a lifting the human spirit standpoint, and it must be a manned mission, not just a series of robots, but the technology today is not up to the challenge of getting us there economically. That and the time to get there will make it a rare event. Not until something like an ion drive comes on line can we hope to get there in days rather than months, and that technology is likely generations away.

Going back to the moon, on the other hand, would be relatively easy. It would take decades to build a colony, and longer still to make it self-sufficient, but once that happened, it would become the forward outpost of the human species. With its low gravity, we can more readily explore the outer planets and exploit the mineral rich asteroids.

As for the cost - what is the cost to do nothing? We stay here, we die here. The Earth will not last forever, and our spirit to explore and grow will die out long before our planet does.

But its not cheap to get to. An Apollo sized lifter is massive, and massively expensive.

[Moonshot]

I guess "cheap" was a poor choice of word. Lets say "less expensive". A trip back to the moon can be done with today's technology. Building a small habitat for a long-term stay can be done with today's technology. Resupply can be done with today's technology. While there, the habitat can grow in size and complexity. There will be setbacks. There will be accidents, and fatalities. There usually are when you push the envelope, but the long-term benefits to mankind are as vast as space itself.

The things we'll invent, discover, find or harvest will advance our knowledge and our quality of life back here on Earth. People have no idea what going to the moon in the 60's did for their quality of life today.

If we stay here, we over populate the planet, pollute the planet and use up the resources of the planet. If we don't figure out something first, nature will find a way to cull the heard. She always does.

By branching outward, we may just find ways to solve many of our pressing problems down here. We may not as well, but it's worth the investment. To do nothing is a lose-lose proposition.

Someone mentioned the problems of long-term exposure to humans in zero gravity. I agree that is a real problem. The long-term solution is artificial gravity, but that is the stuff of science fiction and may not be possible. The short-term solution is simulated gravity through centripetal force - the spinning portion of a ship or space station we have all seen in movies (think of 2001 A Space Odyssey). That is technologically possible today, but we haven't developed the engineering or space construction skills to make it economically feasible. Yet.

But all these obstacles are solvable if we have the will and the time to solve them.

Again, going back to the moon can be done today. There is room to grow. There is gravity - enough to hopefully mitigate any long-term health effects while low enough to allow for easier access to the rest of the solar system than would be possible from the surface of our planet.

Finally, if you need another reason to go, there is always this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FGgHEKko3E

[Pistol Pete 10]

Bottom line------------------------It's a total waste of our resources. The money should be used to take care of business. We have a lot of problems here in the U S of A, we should spend tax move wisely.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I'm for the robot exploration missions and esp. the in orbit telescopes. As a scientist, such basic science is a good thing. We can afford. Walking on the moon, so much. Mars - not with current tech unless there truly is life to be found (unless it invades us back).

[Drang]

Sometimes I contemplate moving to Texas just so I could vote for Ted Cruz...
Ted Cruz calls for 'bold vision' for future space exploration at Senate hearing - Washington Times (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jul/10/ted-cruz-calls-for-bold-vision-for-future-space-ex/)

[blues]

Sometimes I contemplate moving to Texas just so I could vote for Ted Cruz...
Ted Cruz calls for 'bold vision' for future space exploration at Senate hearing - Washington Times (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jul/10/ted-cruz-calls-for-bold-vision-for-future-space-ex/)

I thought you were kidding but now I see that he's actually auditioning for a role...

https://twt-thumbs.washtimes.com/media/image/2019/04/10/AP_19086718020929_c0-148-3000-1897_s885x516.jpg?05b98e6d64313c560c212f8df962f91d dd8ccd12

http://www.oocities.org/TNGtribute/riker17.jpg

[TGS]

Bottom line------------------------It's a total waste of our resources. The money should be used to take care of business. We have a lot of problems here in the U S of A, we should spend tax move wisely.

I wonder how many people said the same thing to the Queen of England or Crown of Castile spending money on exploration of the Americas, simply because they were also short-sighted and didn't have the outcome laid out in front of them in immediately obtainable, defined benefits.

Ensuring the security of our nation is our business. You can take all the possible money from every other government program and spend it on whatever you consider legitimate problems, and guess what...….there's still going to be problems.

The minute someone from Not the Free WorldTMoutruns us in space exploration and technology and is able to exploit such against us, they will, and we'll all be waking up at 5am to the loudspeakers playing the anthem of our new Dear Leader, if we're even still here.

That is also our problem. There are a number of countries out there who don't conquer us for one reason, and it isn't the good of the heart or their respect for dignity of human life...….it's mutually assured destruction. The minute we lose that mutually assured destruction is the day America ends, and Russia, China, or whatever other state of evil exists at that time takes over.

[blues]

https://media1.giphy.com/media/khG8hJTIbUK2LHwk3H/giphy.gif

[Wondering Beard]

Perhaps more like:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GImJdrCSOFA

[Robinson]

The reason I support space exploration has far more to do with finding what I want to find, which is Life on another planet.

Really? That surprises me. I know you're smart enough to know that discovering life elsewhere in the universe is not necessarlly good news.

[RevolverRob]

Really? That surprises me. I know you're smart enough to know that discovering life elsewhere in the universe is not necessarlly good news.

Not if it's a robot probe that finds it, with no way for it to come back to Earth. There are advantages to unmanned missions.

But to be clear - we are highly unlikely to find intelligent Life on another planet, which is an important distinction to draw. We are much more likely to find Life (capital L) of the unicellular type on another planet. Particularly the ones we are currently exploring (i.e., Mars).

The discovery of Life on another planet has profound implications for understanding both the history and evolution of Life on our planet (up to and including our origins). And it has profound implications for determining if Evolution is a natural law. Life on Earth currently evolves, but because we have an N=1 sample size, we do not know if that is a universal natural law or merely the a localized law to Earth.

Statistically speaking, there should be Life on another planet out there in the Universe. Perhaps not in our galaxy, though I suspect we will find unicellular life on planets in our galaxy, but certainly within the universe. There may even be intelligent life, but that does depend on a number of factors and right now we lack the ability to make appropriate observations to determine which galaxies may have a higher probability of produce life. Partly, because we only have Earth as the exemplar. So we keep looking for "Earths". When for all we know, below the thick cloud of Jupiter's atmosphere are a bunch of hydrogen breathing 'animals', we don't think there are, because our perspective is Geocentric and as far as we know, right now, that's the only way Life can exist, but we could be wrong.

[Robinson]

Not if it's a robot probe that finds it, with no way for it to come back to Earth. There are advantages to unmanned missions.


Yeah that's not what I was driving at. I was more referring to the implications of the Fermi Paradox and the Great Filter.

[Drang]

JFC.

Another thread on ignore.

[RevolverRob]

Yeah that's not what I was driving at. I was more referring to the implications of the Fermi Paradox and the Great Filter.

That's actually the best reason to find Life on another planet. Fermi was almost certainly wrong. He forgot to account for several critical factors including the time it takes for Life to arise and evolve into "intelligent" forms AND the rate of extinction. The Law of Evolution not only dictates change over time, it dictates extinction of all species will eventually occur.

Fermi's Paradox also doesn't account for what "intelligent" really means. Which is and of itself a highly contentious set of ideas. Humans take an anthropocentric view of what dictates intelligence - something that would want to leave its home planet and explore beyond, it's probably bipedal with a "big brain" etc. Really what Fermi and to a less extent Sagan meant when they said "Intelligent Life" was - Humanoid Life.

The Great Filter is really nothing more than a summarization of things that we understand limit or condition life on Earth. The most compelling hypotheses for why we haven't found Life on another planet are two -

1) We haven't explored nearly enough to find it.
2) The "They Are Too Alien" problem - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#They_are_too_alien - Where we might not recognize the Life we're looking at. Which is actually what makes ExoBiology such an interesting field of study. Trying to identify the critical components of Life that need to be recognizable to identify even far too alien things, as living. That's a fascinating problem and one which is as difficult to answer as it is to contemplate.

The implications for the Great Filter and Fermi's Paradox are great reasons to keep looking, as opposed to reasons to not look, in my opinion.

___

I'll openly admit though, I have virtually zero concern that the impact of discovering Life on another planet may have on philosophical/existential realms and in particular religious ones. Since we're humans and can be selfish, I am far more interested in the discovery and study of Life than the effects it may have on individuals who define their existence in the vacuum that is being human. Which I know is one reason why philosophers and theologians do not want to find Life on another planet. It will create chaos, at least with respect to some religious sects. But then again, those sects need to spend time separating and compartmentalizing their philosophies in order to be adapt to new discovery.

[Pistol Pete 10]

I still prefer my taxes stay on earth............................................. ................................................

[GardoneVT]

To play devils advocate ; one unanswered question is whether or not manned exploration is even medically viable?

Long term stays on the Moon aren’t exactly risk free. Lunar dust is basically volcanic ash on steroids, and would need to be addressed on any habitation structure. Radiation means those structures have to be located underground : with launch costs averaging $10K per lb , it’ll be awhile before we see construction contracts for moon bases.

Even an orbiting structure has a nonzero chance of awful radiation exposure from CMEs, and unless gravity could be simulated bone loss is certain. Mars is exponentially more risky, both physically and psychologically. What would await our brave astronauts is a dusty, poisonous percholrate rich rock which still wouldn’t shield them from radiation exposure.

Until our medical technology catches up to our rocket science, any discussion of non-Earth addresses is moot. There may be a valid argument to conclude we are and will forevermore remain a one-planet species. After all, no amount of technology is gonna get a dolphin to Mars despite it being an intelligent animal.

[Grey]

I’m against the program entirely. I wish they’d shut the whole thing down. Leave it to the private sector.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkI need to LOL at this comment. Who do you think is paying the private sector to develop their shit? It isnt all funded out of Elon and Bezos pockets... who do you think they want to sell their product to? If NASA isnt doing it I can tell you no one is going to the moon or mars anytime soon.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[Darth_Uno]

Yeah that's not what I was driving at. I was more referring to the implications of the Fermi Paradox and the Great Filter.



Go read Blindsight for a good novel on why we don't want to find anybody else out there. Short answer: they might not behave, think or reason like we do. Or at all. There's some deep themes in here that'll leave you thinking about our existence long after you're done reading.

Aaaanyway I'm raising funds for my asteroid mining venture. PM for Venmo.

[P30]

Haven't read the whole thread. But I want to make sure, you don't miss that:

apolloinrealtime.org/11 (https://apolloinrealtime.org/11/)

Audio and pictures from Apollo 11 exactly 50 years ago. Awesome. Moon landing in 1 h 13 min.

If you click on the picture on the right side, then you get it in big.