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

111–120 of 246 posts

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

#111

Post by smitherfield »

zmk_ wrote: post #98
Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Netherlands is approximately the same land area and population density as the NYC metropolitan area[1], so it is (as you say) a very different environment from the entire US or even Spain.

[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/NY...

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

#112

Post by lmm »

ThomPete wrote: post #107
lmm wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see it as worthwhile for the same reason that art or theoretical research is worthwhile.

Philosophically I agree 100% but they cost a fraction of what it would cost to create a base on the moon for instance. Someone has to pick up that bill. I am sure we will get a base on the moon with time but technologically we aren't there yet. Let's focus on build a solid and habitable space station then we can use some of that knowledge to establish a base on the moon. (once we have solved the resource issues)

A moonbase is likely safer and more convenient in many ways than a space station, since you don't have to deal with microgravity. Certainly they have different problems with different solutions, so there's only a limited amount of knowledge that would transfer over.

I'm not opposed to an "ISS 2.0", but how much more would we expect to learn from it that we don't already know? I think it's already time to go to the Moon and/or Phobos.

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

#113

Post by Pigo »

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?

There's no Soviet Union boogeyman to compete with. Maybe if North Korea was competent and had the resources to start shooting for the moon, then I'm pretty sure we'd deem it worthwhile. I'm not sure we fear China enough to see them as that type of threat.

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

#114

Post by kazagistar »

nnq wrote: post #97

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…

You might wanna justify those claims? Having a bunch of oppressed miserable humans rules by tyrannical AIs or whatever seems quite a bit worse then living happily on our single planet.

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

#116

Post by ThomPete »

lmm wrote: post #112
ThomPete wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Philosophically I agree 100% but they cost a fraction of what it would cost to create a base on the moon for instance. Someone has to pick up that bill. I am sure we will get a base on the moon with time but technologically we aren't there yet. Let's focus on build a solid and habitable space station then we can use some of that knowledge to establish a base on the moon. (once we have solved the resource issues)

A moonbase is likely safer and more convenient in many ways than a space station, since you don't have to deal with microgravity. Certainly they have different problems with different solutions, so there's only a limited amount of knowledge that would transfer over. I'm not opposed to an "ISS 2.0", but how much more would we expect to learn from it that we don't already know? I think it's already time to go to the Mo…

It's cheaper and closer to home to get it up and running and I don't believe there is any base to claim it will only be limited amount of transfer over. And if that was the case then the purpose of a moon base would be put even more into question.

We have plenty to learn when it comes to building not just habitable space stations but also comfortable ones most of which will be easily transferable knowledge to a moon base when the cost of construction have come down signiticantly by the means of ex. space x or even a space elevator.

There are so many things we could be spending money on which would make a moonbase way more likely to happen than just skipping over a lot of intermediate steps to get there.

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

#117

Post by Pigo »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #12
TylerE wrote: post #8

THere is little POINT in putting a man on the moon after you've done it. We have plenty of moon rock to run experiments on. Any micro/low gravity experiment can be run cheaper in LEO. There aren't any valuable resources there to exploit. It's a bit like asking why we don't build a habitat on the bottom of the Marians Trench - we COULD, but why WOUDL we?

Because it's awesome. :) I mean, we burn piles of money just for fun. May as well burn a pile of money to put someone on the moon again. Doing it just because we can is a fine reason. "Still got it!" One tweak, though. Rather than forcing them to find a reason to go, i.e. gathering moon rocks, they should just let the astronauts play around. That's the goal. Go there, then turn on a webcam and romp around for a few d…

I wish more people were inspired by Gene Roddenberry's vision of an ideal human society. I know it's a science fiction pipe dream because we're always held back by the lowest common denominator, but if mankind moved past the need for acquisition and power all that would be left is working together to achieve goals that make everyone's life more meaningful. We have to wait for meaningful goals to intersect with acquisition and power.

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

#118

Post by wott »

lmm wrote: post #102
golergka wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A large majority wouldn't need a car, and could instead use Uber-like services for the last mile. They wouldn't need it, but I bet that majority would still want it.

In Europe? I doubt it. The car doesn't quite have the same cultural significance as a symbol of adulthood/independence here, at least not to the younger generation.

That's what they pretend. However, the reality is this:

* car sales do not drop, they oscillate depending on various governments subventions;

* vehicle fleet keeps rising (albeit slowly because the market is saturated);

* car owning per household has always been and is still on the rise (despite household size constantly decreasing);

* the distance travelled with cars keeps rising as well.

And visually, the amount of cars parked in the streets and along roadsides becomes insane. You already thought it was full 30 years ago, but now it is fuller.

Oh, and the cars become bigger every year. Not American-big, but still, on the way to it. For example, pickup trucks never took off in the French countryside in the last 50 years, not a single bit; but for a couple of years, it has started :-/

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

#119

Post by smitherfield »

stupidcar wrote: post #77
johnminter wrote: post #75

The author answers the question in the first sentence. It is not that we can't, the problem is that it is not cost effective to do so. Or, as the cliche goes, "It's all about the Benjamins". The inconvenient truth is that the US has a national debt of over $21T and a federal bureaucracy with a reputation of being unable to bring projects to completion on budget. Think of this in a more personal context: you need to p…

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…

Actually, Republicans usually favor more NASA spending than Democrats do (e.g. Bush started funding manned Moon/Mars missions while Obama cut that program and the Space Shuttle), because most of it goes to red areas (Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, rural Florida, rural California). By contrast, Lockheed Martin made the F-35 program unkillable by selecting facilities and suppliers in all 50 states, plus several NATO allies and other prospective buyers.

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

#120

Post by baursak »

johnminter wrote: post #75

The author answers the question in the first sentence. It is not that we can't, the problem is that it is not cost effective to do so. Or, as the cliche goes, "It's all about the Benjamins". The inconvenient truth is that the US has a national debt of over $21T and a federal bureaucracy with a reputation of being unable to bring projects to completion on budget. Think of this in a more personal context: you need to p…

National debt is simply national savings. "Paying off" national debt means taking away one of the most popular, liquid, income producing asset from people and corporations.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/deficit-tax-cuts-...

Post reply on HN