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

191–200 of 246 posts

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

#191

Post by TeMPOraL »

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.

I'd say the costs were projected to be unsustainable. There apparently was this whole episode with the Congress realizing that Wernher von Braun & crew are aiming for Mars, and deciding to cut the party short before it gets out of control[0].

--

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA#Loss_of_political_suppor...

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

#192

Post by coolspot »

classicsnoot wrote: post #183
Robotbeat wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Saffron, platinum, human organs...

Prepackaged human organs on the Moon? That would be weird.

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

#193

Post by logfromblammo »

baursak wrote: post #185
logfromblammo wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it isn't savings . It is, as you said, an income-producing asset. Its primary function is not as a store of value, but as a claim against promises of future production. The national debt is mining resources needed for current operations from the future, rather than drawing down the stockpiles of those already mined from the past. Claiming that debt is wealth is mistaken at best, and fraudulent at worst. Please re…

This is the view from MMT perspective. I highly recommend looking into it, e.g. this lecture is great: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1SMjeuyF-Y Treatment of debt is at around minute 54.

Any fan of "modern monetary theory" should look at entities like the Soviet Union, Zimbabwe, and Venezuela. No government has an infinite capacity to print fiat money, and a theory based upon that as a premise is, in my opinion, complete bunkum.

I highly recommend exploring other macroeconomic theories. It is depressing how many of them amount to tricking productive firms and the labor workforce into believing a big lie of some sort, that allows some other more savvy entity to siphon value away from them.

Consumption is paid for by production. Imports are paid for by exports. Debt now is paid for by production later. Savings now is paid for by production earlier.

In theory, you can build an economy upon debts and repayment of prior obligations, but in practice, human beings are great at lying and making false promises.

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

#194

Post by TeMPOraL »

maccam94 wrote: post #56
abecedarius wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lunar resources could have great value just by their location. The energy cost to lift them into space is much lower than from Earth. Doing anything ambitious in space would require a lot of material, which has limited our ambitions since the 1970s. (Asteroids might serve better, though: a wider variety of stuff, comparable in energy cost but farther away.) I wish the damn article would link to this new report, or at…

I'm not sure what the delta-V is like to get materials from an asteroid vs the Moon, but I'd expect there is much more variety of resources on asteroids. I think an orbital station is also more attractive than the Moon from a delta-V standpoint.

> but I'd expect there is much more variety of resources on asteroids

As far as I understand, in terms of easy access, yes - in particular resources that on planemos tended to sink to the core as the object formed and cooled down.

> I think an orbital station is also more attractive than the Moon from a delta-V standpoint.

LEO? Not necessarily. You still need to burn your way up the pretty steep gravity well.

Both the Moon and the asteroids are vital components of expansion into the Solar System; they're interesting in different ways.

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

#195

Post by TeMPOraL »

Pigo wrote: post #117
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 acquis…

I for one am in full cognitive dissonance about that. On the one hand, I understand how much of a pipe dream Star Trek is, and on the other hand, I strongly believe it sets a standard worth aiming for.

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

#196

Post by Robotbeat »

classicsnoot wrote: post #183
Robotbeat wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Saffron, platinum, human organs...

Nice! "Pure, Martian Saffron! $1000 per kilo!"

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

#197

Post by baursak »

logfromblammo wrote: post #193
baursak wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the view from MMT perspective. I highly recommend looking into it, e.g. this lecture is great: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1SMjeuyF-Y Treatment of debt is at around minute 54.

Any fan of "modern monetary theory" should look at entities like the Soviet Union, Zimbabwe, and Venezuela. No government has an infinite capacity to print fiat money, and a theory based upon that as a premise is, in my opinion, complete bunkum. I highly recommend exploring other macroeconomic theories. It is depressing how many of them amount to tricking productive firms and the labor workforce into believing a big…

Looks like you're not very familiar with it. Again, I highly recommend taking a close look and see if any of your questions are already answered/addressed.

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

#198

Post by TeMPOraL »

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…

Despite your obvious irony, you're actually right - those should be primary goals of humanity. Beyond all this talk about life being a journey and not the destination, people sometimes forget that at some point, you're supposed to stop taking in the view and start doing something useful.

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

#199

Post by zamalek »

An additional reason is that expertise died out with the end of funding. We had exactly one generation that tackled this problem - there has been no opportunity for them to hand down their experience. We're not starting from scratch, but we're certainly worse-off than we were at the end of the space race - scientists and engineers will have to learn from books and papers, rather than having an expert around to guide them.

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

#200

Post by classicsnoot »

coolspot wrote: post #192
classicsnoot wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saffron, platinum, human organs...

Prepackaged human organs on the Moon? That would be weird.

I can totally imagine a Chinese Prison facility that houses any nation's bad guys for a fee and churns out prepackaged organs. The tiny Albert Speer in my head can even see the benefit of such a system. And to be honest, China already does it to their prison populations. Putting the Organ Dispenser on the moon would just be a stylized recreation of the original concept of "international waters".
Post reply on HN