Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 70

Thread: 50 Years Since Apollo 11 : Should we Go Back?

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by TAZ View Post
    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.

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Moonshot View Post

    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.
    The Minority Marksman.
    "When you meet a swordsman, draw your sword: Do not recite poetry to one who is not a poet."
    -a Ch'an Buddhist axiom.

  3. #13
    Student
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Arizona
    Sorry for posting in the wrong thread. I've already reported myself so the mods will delete or move it soon enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe in PNG View Post
    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.

    Name:  space-age-houston-stone-age-schools.jpg
Views: 254
Size:  34.9 KB

    http://www.capradio.org/news/special...he-space-race/

    https://www.airspacemag.com/history-...ion-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.

  4. #14
    Site Supporter farscott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Dunedin, FL, USA
    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.

  5. #15
    Site Supporter Hambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Behind the Photonic Curtain
    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.
    "Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA

  6. #16
    Modding this sack of shit BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    I absolutely support going back, a Mars mission, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by 4gallonbucket View Post
    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.
    Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.

  7. #17
    banana republican blues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mtns
    Yes...space exploration will always be part of man's attempt to understand both himself and the uni multi-verse.
    There's nothing civil about this war.

    Read: Harrison Bergeron

  8. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by TAZ View Post
    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.
    Last edited by DC_P; 07-10-2019 at 08:17 AM.
    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

  9. #19
    Gucci gear, Walmart skill Darth_Uno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    STL
    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.

  10. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    The Sticks
    Quote Originally Posted by GardoneVT View Post
    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..

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •