If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon? • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by Robotbeat » Tue, Jan 02, 2018, 4:05 PM UTC

paulus_magnus2 wrote: post #103

Economy. If Moon was made of gold it wouldn't be worth going there for it [1]. Perhaps reusable spacecraft can change that. For strategic / military reasons (money no objective) we can achieve much more than if profit is the only motivation. [1. need a better source?] https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/22059/if-the-moon-... Edit: Elon Musk: With New SpaceX Tech, Rocket Costs Will Drop By A Factor of 100 https:…

But we ARE talking about retrieving stuff from Mars: the BFS must be returned to Earth to be reused. It's also capable of bringing people back from Mars, and that's supposed to be included in the $200k/person ticket price. Assuming at least 200kg of human plus consumables per person for the trip back, that implies that anything worth at least $1000/kg would be worth sending back.

So I think Musk is actually wrong when he says that he can BOTH send people to Mars super cheap with return tickets AND that there could not possibly be something of enough value on Mars to return to Earth even if you had cocaine ($100,000/kg?) prepackaged on the surface (gold is $35,000/kg or something).

...not that I expect a vibrant Mars export economy or anything. Musk's basic point about not expecting Mars to fully and profitably pay for itself with physical exports is correct.

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

#122

Post by Exuma » Tue, Jan 02, 2018, 4:05 PM UTC

So how much would it cost to send someone to the moon again?

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

#123

Post by Robotbeat » Tue, Jan 02, 2018, 4:07 PM UTC

Simply put, we need a lander. If we had a lander, we could use existing rockets to get to Mars via Earth orbit rendezvous (see Gemini, also ISS is regularly refueled and boosted by visiting vehicles). But we spent all of our exploration money on an expensive rocket (and a capsule that is much heavier than it needs to be...).

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

#124

Post by justinhj » Tue, Jan 02, 2018, 4:08 PM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #87

jpatokal wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but sharing right of way with cars is slow, dangerous and generally avoided whenever feasible.

Yes, has all the disadvantages of a bus system with the added disadvantage that changing routes is tremendously expensive since you need to lay new track.

See SF’s muni train for an example of this double disadvantage. the trains run slowly and unpredictably stopping at red lights with the traffic

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

#125

Post by lmm » Tue, Jan 02, 2018, 4:13 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #116

lmm wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So much of engineering is very different in zero-G. I want humanity to spread among the stars, so I want us to be able to construct habitats on planemos and smaller bodies. I don't see space stations as important in the long run; even interstellar spaceships would likely operate under continuous acceleration so involve little zero-G engineering.

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

#126

Post by conanbatt » Tue, Jan 02, 2018, 4:18 PM UTC

nnq wrote: post #93

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 biowe…

> Yeah, there are children starving or dying of preventable diseases ~~somewhere in the world~~ in America

Fixed that for you.

I love space much as the next guy, but i dont see why the government has to spend considerable sums for it. The only purpose for space is science, either aplicable to science in general or to the military, but im sure its not cost-efficient for all the science there is to be made.

So if people love the space, they should pay for the things they want to be done out there. No reason for Nasa to not crowdfund or SpaceX to get private money to build something. The people that want to go to space or get space stuff get what they pay for, and the people that dont, dont.

I dont find it reasonable to think someone making very little money has to pay taxes that somehow fund Elon Musk's journey to Mars.

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

#127

Post by agumonkey » Tue, Jan 02, 2018, 4:23 PM UTC

kalleboo wrote: post #59

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…

I lived in a Swedish city of a similar size. They had a tram network that was dismantled bit by bit until it was completely shut down in 1973 because it was seen as unmodern. And now 40 years later they're all talking about building trams again since they're so modern...

the so subtle notion of progress..

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

#128

Post by kraig911 » Tue, Jan 02, 2018, 4:29 PM UTC

Maybe we realize now going to the moon from a financial standpoint is purely political. If there was a efficient way and industrial need for plenty of resources from the moon maybe they'd make it possible. But right now grandiose measures of showing off your countries genitals kind of creates a narrative of wasted resources to me right now.

I've heard the argument that spending on stuff like this creates jobs and economy and I'm sure it does. But work a soup kitchen for a day and you'd realize we have economies of wealth built on the back of despair and hopelessness.

Our society needs to change to be a space faring one. Maybe I'm stupid and a traveling to space would initiate the change we need. I just can't see how.

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

#129

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet » Tue, Jan 02, 2018, 4:31 PM UTC

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)

Does your cost analysis account for the dividends in the form of new technology developed during the project?

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

#130

Post by Endy » Tue, Jan 02, 2018, 4:36 PM UTC

kraig911 wrote: post #128

Maybe we realize now going to the moon from a financial standpoint is purely political. If there was a efficient way and industrial need for plenty of resources from the moon maybe they'd make it possible. But right now grandiose measures of showing off your countries genitals kind of creates a narrative of wasted resources to me right now. I've heard the argument that spending on stuff like this creates jobs and eco…

Well, could it be possible to send currently homeless people to colonize the Moon?