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

161–170 of 246 posts

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

#161

Post by _lbaq »

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…

Whats spent here is peanuts compared to whats spent on the military, the US (and the world) could easily sustain a moon/mars/ganymedes base and feed its poor if it prioritized its people instead of the defense complex.

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

#162

Post by chrisatumd »

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…

This letter gets posted time to time. Definitely one of my favorites for explaining the rationale on spending money pushing boundaries when there are plenty of things that money can do to help people in need now.

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-explore-space.html

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

#163

Post by IdeaHamstir »

lmm wrote: post #108
maccam94 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The Falcon 9 isn't human-rated, and cost per kilogram doesn't cover everything - putting together 10 pieces in orbit would be really expensive.

Falcon 9 was designed to be human rated, hence the Dragon capsule. The lag in certification is probably largely due to Russian/USA politics.

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

#164

Post by IdeaHamstir »

bonesss wrote: post #62
make3 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that back then they couldn't see what was in the new world. Now we can (on the moon), and know that there isn't much. Also, it would take a lot more than just sending people there for them to be mostly be self sufficient like in the 17th century, because: - there is no oxygen, - there is no food, - there is no water, - there is no magnetosphere.

We can make [oxygen from moon rocks]( https://phys.org/news/2009-08-scientists-oxygen-moon.html ). There is [water on the moon]( https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Mini-RF/multimedia/featur... ). With oxygen, water, and power, we can make food. Appropriate radiation shielding is a matter of construction, which could occur on the moon itself using local materials ideally, or building underground enough to be shielded.…

> With oxygen, water, and power, we can make food.

And carbon, nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium...

The lunar surface seems to have these elements in short supply, though C-type asteroids can provide many of them.

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

#165

Post by gruez »

Robotbeat wrote: post #121
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 whe…

>even if you had cocaine ($100,000/kg?)

it's $100k+ retail value, but wholesale value is much below that, more in line with gold.

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

#166

Post by Robotbeat »

gruez wrote: post #165
Robotbeat wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 whe…

>even if you had cocaine ($100,000/kg?) it's $100k+ retail value, but wholesale value is much below that, more in line with gold.

Sure, but he was trying to pick something super expensive, even more than gold.

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

#167

Post by danaliv »

Banthum wrote: post #160
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…

Our economies of wealth are not built "on the back" of the people in the soup kitchens. Those few people who are going to soup kitchens are typically so crippled by their own internal issues (e.g. mental illness, impulsive criminality, addiction, total inability to manage money) that their productivity is extremely low or negative. Nobody's taking anything from them because there's nothing to take. In fact it's the o…

> in a modern economy those with zero or negative human capital are nothing but a liability

They're also, you know, human.

I blew several hundred dollars on air travel this weekend, for fun. People in soup kitchens are not living on my back. They're maybe living on my pinky nail.

Mental illness and addiction, btw, are illnesses. They're no more "crippling internal issues" than, say, diabetes.

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

#168

Post by stcredzero »

StavrosK wrote: post #157
Endy wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

(edited) Would these homeless people be sent to the moon mandatorily or voluntarily? If voluntarily, why only send homeless people? Why not send everyone who wanted to go?

In The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, the Moon was a penal colony. In that book, a form of harsh natural selection took place, and everyone who wasn't smart enough to survive in the demanding technical environment (and smart enough to foresee the disasters caused by those who weren't smart enough) quickly died gruesome deaths, leaving a population which was quite intelligent and valued learning.

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

#169

Post by [deleted] »

stcredzero wrote: post #168
StavrosK wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(edited) Would these homeless people be sent to the moon mandatorily or voluntarily? If voluntarily, why only send homeless people? Why not send everyone who wanted to go?

In The Moon is a Harsh Mistress , the Moon was a penal colony. In that book, a form of harsh natural selection took place, and everyone who wasn't smart enough to survive in the demanding technical environment (and smart enough to foresee the disasters caused by those who weren't smart enough) quickly died gruesome deaths, leaving a population which was quite intelligent and valued learning.

[deleted]

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

#170

Post by ThomPete »

lmm wrote: post #158
ThomPete wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 spac…

> 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. I don't think that follows at all, because I think engineering at 2g or 0.5g or even 0.01g has a lot more in common with engineering at 1g or 0.15g than it does with engineering at 0g. Zero-g is qualitatively very different from non-zero g; stuff like room design, plu…

"I don't think that follows at all, because I think engineering at 2g or 0.5g or even 0.01g has a lot more in common with engineering at 1g or 0.15g than it does with engineering at 0g. Zero-g is qualitatively very different from non-zero g; stuff like room design, plumbing, HVAC, material constraints (the need to avoid things that can powder) are totally different."

Those are mostly things that can be explored on earth, no need to build a moonbase to figure that out.

The opportunity with a space station is to figure out things that can't be explored realistically in other environments.

"Within the solar system all journeys are relatively short and it's ok for spaceships to not be closed systems. For interstellar travel I think space arks will be necessary anyway. There's no really plausible way to get to another star in anything short of multiple decades."

So it's much more useful what we learn on a space station than what we learn on a moon base. Being in space without access to any resources other than what you already have is a much more important thing to solve and solving that will allow us to reach other planets much easier, cheaper and safer.

I really don't see what advantage a moon base is giving us compared to a space station for now.

Post reply on HN