Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 246 posts

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#91

Post by valuearb »

pjc50 wrote: post #84
stupidcar wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your analogy makes no sense. America isn't a person, doesn't have a limited working life, and isn't going to "retire". The solution to an inefficient federal bureaucracy and a large national debt isn't to cut economically irrelevant spending in those areas where the US enjoys an actual advantage over other countries. It's to improve the bureaucracy and balance spending in meaningful ways. Unfortunately, any sane atte…

> wherein it becomes politically possible to eliminate all social programmes altogether .. but not, as you pointed out, the biggest expense of all in the military. The way back to the moon is the same reason as America went to the moon in the first place: competition and colonialism. As soon as China or India look like they might go back to the moon, the space race will resume.

Social program spending is far higher than what is spent on the military. Unless you aren’t counting social security and medicare as “social programs” which would of course be silly.

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#92

Post by valuearb »

maccam94 wrote: post #49
Animats wrote: post #43

Because, half a century later, it's not any cheaper to do it than it was then.

It's recently gotten way cheaper. Cost per kilogram delivered to LEO: Saturn V (used for the Moon landing mission): $8,250 Falcon 9: $2,700 (price for an expendable launch) BFR (hypothetical, in development rocket): $500

Space Shuttle $50,000

SLS: $15,000

Falcon Heavy: $700

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#93

Post by nnq »

ThomPete wrote: post #81

The question is why would we put a man on the moon? I grew up with Moonbase Alpha (although I am not expecting to be thrown into space by a major explosion) and want this as much as anyone else but is there any reason (mining, strategic, know benefits to research) which justifies the price?

> is there any reason [...] which justifies the price

THIS kind of thinking is our problem imho - we are living in rich times and we should start behaving as such! We have more of everything than we need. Yeah, there are children starving or dying of preventable diseases somewhere in the world, but guess what, even if we'd be 10x richer there will still be. Or we'll whip out a world war or some runaway next gen bioweapons instead to ramp up the killing that way. That's who we (Homo Sapiens) fking are!

A space race would be a pretty awesome way to encourage competition and progress on a scale similar to that encouraged by the last "world" war. But no, instead we'll go for the "mass-surveillance-technology supremacy race" or "best AIs for trading race" or the "let's pretend energy is scarce and price-war on in while talking about solving climate-change race"...

GROWTH and EXPANSION are our only reasons of being and our own authentic good motivations as human beings, and infecting as much of the cosmos as possible with ourselves, aka "space technology" development should be our core drive as a species!!!

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#94

Post by indubitable »

The article answers itself: "NASA’s traditional manned programs for deep space exploration, costing well over $3 billion annually, continue to enjoy solid bipartisan backing among lawmakers and major agency contractors." That quote is speaking largely of the SLS. It's supposed to essentially be the Space Shuttle 2.0, but it's often just referred to as the Senate Launch System for good reason. We've spending billions of dollars on that program and it's not going anywhere anytime soon. This [1] is the Wiki entry from 2011 detailing the program's promises, which have been constantly 'reimagined.' In reality it's mostly a giant pork project.

Ultimately it's being driven by congressmen who only care about getting their kickbacks and it's being developed by ULA, an anticompetitive merger of Boeing and Lockheed, who only care about profit. And the companies themselves are also falling apart. This [2] is Lockheed Martin's CEO. One of the largest aerospace companies in the world is headed by a person who has absolutely no background whatsoever in aerospace or related technologies. Until 2015, this [3] was the head of Boeing - same story. Perhaps not coincidentally, since Boeing put an aerospace engineer in charge - they have sharply changed their direction and competitive outlook.

We have an increasingly corrupt government contracting work to companies who are driven only by money. Musk's success and the government's success in the 60s have something very simple in common. They were not driven by greed or short term self interest, but big picture ideology and aspirations. And it seems the whole notion of aspirations, beyond earning lots of money, is something that is somehow fading in society.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Launch_Syst...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marillyn_Hewson

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_McNerney

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#95

Post by ThomPete »

ams6110 wrote: post #90
ThomPete wrote: post #81

The question is why would we put a man on the moon? I grew up with Moonbase Alpha (although I am not expecting to be thrown into space by a major explosion) and want this as much as anyone else but is there any reason (mining, strategic, know benefits to research) which justifies the price?

That really explains why it happened the first time. Price was not a concern. We were on almost a war footing to get it done. The whole reason that NASA stopped innovating after about 1972 was that the costs were unsustainable.

Yeah that's what I am thinking too.

I would love that we are the point where we need a base on the moon, but I don't know what would justify it other than tourism and we aren't that rich and it isn't that easy and safe just yet.

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#96

Post by extrapickles »

GCU-Empiricist wrote: post #68
maccam94 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really want to see asteroid mining prioritized, as well as a space station capable of permanent human habitation (either partial or full gravity). A space station is also preferable to another planet for our next big space endeavor IMO because it is easier to get materials to and from it (no extra gravity well to deal with). Also, I feel like a lot of people think "ah, everything has to be done differently because…

It'll happen when there's a business model that reduces the operating margin for a company. My best guess is this will be when the price for lithium or trans-uranics goes up significantly, or some engineering process requires microgravity conditions.

Lithium will never be that expensive/rare. Its somewhat common, just we haven’t needed as much as we do now.

Some rare earths are getting close to being worth it. That why a few companies are looking at nearby asteroids to see if they have enough of them.

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#97

Post by nnq »

Why don't more people realize that infecting as much of the cosmos with ourselves should be one of the MAIN GOALS of Humanity?!

Ergo, space exploration technology should be a priority, even at massive costs, and even when those cost are measured in human lives and human pain and suffering. This, plus "defeating aging", plus "achieving superhuman general-purpose intelligence" (either by augmenting/improving human I or by developing AIs). Almost nothing else matters besides these. What fucked up global leadership did we end up with that they seem to have completely forgot this?

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#98

Post by zmk_ »

Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #58
jpatokal wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Classic trams and modern light rail are different beasts. Trams were popular worldwide back in the days where automobiles were far too expensive for most people and buses hadn't taken off yet, and since they were the only practical means of transport for medium distances, even small cities had massive ridership. They also ran right on the road, sharing space with cars, which was OK because there were a lot less cars…

Yes, that's a very good summary of what happened. I'm aware of those factors, but I still think we took a wrong turn. Maybe not in the US due to the population sparsity and sprawl, but in Spain and many other European countries, if we could connect every town or city of more than 10K people by either rail, light rail or tram (instead of having spent billions on highways), that would cover 80% of the population. A lar…

Welcome to the Netherlands then. Most people ride trains between the cities. It does help, however, that most of the population lives in cities that are 30-40 minutes away on a train.

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#99

Post by nkrisc »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #35
jl6 wrote: post #34

You can’t put a man on the moon but your grandparents could.

"Back when I was your age, I had to go to work 400 000 km. In near 0K cold for 3 days. Upwell! Both ways!"

If you were in direct sunlight for those 3 days to the moon I'd be more concerned about being hot than cold.

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#100

Post by micheljansen »

jpatokal wrote: post #54
Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #50

This seems to happen to a lot of things. In my city (random Spanish mid-sized city, around 250K population) there is often debate about building a light rail or tram public transport line. But it is always dismissed by the administration for being too expensive, pharaonic, disproportionate for a city of this size, etc. Doing some research on the history of the city, I discovered that not only there were several tram…

Classic trams and modern light rail are different beasts. Trams were popular worldwide back in the days where automobiles were far too expensive for most people and buses hadn't taken off yet, and since they were the only practical means of transport for medium distances, even small cities had massive ridership. They also ran right on the road, sharing space with cars, which was OK because there were a lot less cars…

Interesting take. Where I live (The Hague, Netherlands), trams are slowly turning into light rail systems. Where trams historically shared the roads with cars, they are now increasingly running on separate tracks (elevated or otherwise). This allows for different kinds of (more comfortable) trains, because they do not need to be built for collisions with cars.
Post reply on HN