Slight tangent but related: Andy Weir's new book Artemis has some good scientific details about living on the moon.
Some future cost estimates on getting there: https://www.marketplace.org/2017/11/27/world/blog-what-econo...
If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?
141–150 of 246 posts
Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
Calling this a republican problem is being willfully ignorant of the problems in our government structure. We didn’t get $21B in debt cause of republicans, or democrats, but because of congress. Congress directed NASA to spend $20B to build the SLS, a super heavy launch system built by congresses favorite contractors. It won’t be reusable at all, ever launch rocket will be burned up in the atmosphere. Each launch wil…
The problems being discussed here happen at least 2 orders of magnitude larger than you are talking about. The little NASA journey to SLS has effectively no impact on the grander US government debt or the issues causing it. The issues causing the debt are much much bigger problems that last centuries and are largely Republican-driven. They are things like overspending on War, keeping the poor population poor (war on…
Again, there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. They both are responsible for the war on drugs because it’s politicalky popular. The few Opponents are either very liberal democrats or libertarian republicans.
Secondly, we are spending more on education than virtually any time on our history.
Thirdly, Obama was a democrat, at times had political majorities in congress, yet he never pulled us out of Iraq or Afghanistan, because it would be politically unpopular, and cost significant democratic party funders billions on contracting revenues.
Trump says he would cancel the F-35, but dame thing, same reasons.
Imperial congress has a turnover rate akin to the members of the communist party in the glory days of the USSR. They are all professional politicians who get re-elected by voting for what their financial backers want.
Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?
#143This 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…
Does your city have buses? If so, what would light rail do for you that the buses can't?
Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Space stations are not important in the long run, but the technologies developed to make them enjoyable and safe places are indeed very important but in the short and long run.
Planets will have different g's so first making things in zero-g work seems to be a much more solid approach to developing a long term space program.
If you want to spread you need to learn how to deal with being surrounded by space and a space station is the best way to do that short of sending people out in space arks.
Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?
#145Maybe because doin anything else that is slightly more complicated than a few experiments is gonna cost exponentially more and the budgets won’t get approved.
Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?
#146Economy. 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:…
There's a lot of interesting things manufacturing-wise you can do in zero gravity which are now pretty impractical financially since it's so hard to get raw materials up the Earth's gravity well. It might be cheaper to get them from elsewhere where the gravity wells are shallower and the lack of air lets you use a mass driver rather than a rocket. Then it's a long slow trip to Earth orbit via ion driver but if it's just a hunk of metal it doesn't care.
Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?
#147Maybe 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?
Rethink this comment.
Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?
#148Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?
#149What evidence leads you to believe that nasa is currently run as efficiently or as innovative as during say the first half of Apollo. Everything I’ve heard from people who worked there is that it’s generally become more and more of nightmare
You ask for evidence, then follow up with "I heard from people..."?
People telling you things is evidence.
Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?
#150Earlier 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)
Does your cost analysis account for the dividends in the form of new technology developed during the project?
Yes, cause the most crucial ones are technologies about getting things into orbit and sustaining life in obit, creating habitable environments and so on.
Whether on a planet or in space those challenges aren't much different and whatever you gain as knowledge on a space station you can apply to a moon base later on.
Furthermore, the challenge of building a space station and not suddenly run into budgeting or construction issues is many many many many times higher when it comes to establishing something on the moon.
Each new learning that could be done on the space station will come as at a much higher cost doing something we don't have good enough technology to do with-in a realistic comfort zone.
If you like me believe that technology is the primary forcemultiplier for any realistic development into space the trick is to focus on developing within our comfort zone, until we it within our comfort zone to risk a next step. Then you will actually end up with a space station much faster (and a mars station and an out ring station and a space ark etc) because of the exponential force of technology.