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

241–246 of 246 posts

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

#241

Post by ThomPete »

lmm wrote: post #240
ThomPete wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just a step up it's a factor up. Space stations are less expensive than moon bases so why do a moonbase? It teaches us nothing much more compared to a space station and cost a fraction. They help by being a habitable space station which can be docked with. It might even be a place to escape and wait for rescue if something goes bad on the planet a much cheaper way to rescue than having everything based on th…

> Space stations are less expensive than moon bases so why do a moonbase? It teaches us nothing much more compared to a space station and cost a fraction. We need to learn how to build habitats off-Earth, out-of-atmosphere with all that entails (e.g. handling fine sharp-edged dust), and outside the van allen belts. And these things need to be closed systems that can be inhabited for decades at a minimum. At the same…

Might, maybe etc lots of unknowns where each mistake is costly and can threaten to bring down the project.

We have no idea so actually establishing a base on the moon isn't yet cheap enough that we can do it for the hell of it and we don't learn enough we aren't already learning with the space station.

Let's solve getting people and material cheap into space, lets solve better AI, lets have some optimal automated building processes on earth then we can talk about moving people and material up on a base on the moon just for the fun of it.

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

#242

Post by frangipane »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #236
frangipane wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, so we might not stop an eccentric rich adventurer from self-funding an effort like this. But that doesn't necessarily mean the government would sponsor it, or allow people to be employed to do it.

Well if your justification for that is because people might die, I'm afraid you'll find that the government is more than happy to sponsor and employ people for projects with rather high fatality rates.

Aside from the military? Federal projects are very safety conscious. That was the whole point.

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

#243

Post by nnq »

ThomPete wrote: post #239
nnq wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> natural next steps This never works... People need to be forced into developing solution by creating more problems while solving existing one. Like "shit, the mars colony got wiped out by a diseases, no more humans to repair the stuff there, quick, figure out how to make robots that make more robots themselves, nothing else fits the budget". Or "shit, we underestimated the effects or magnitude of cosmic radiation o…

The economic game is what makes it all make sense.

> makes it all make sense

Yeah, I know this kind of thinking... To many people have it. Hopefully I can try to "cure" at least a few from the "need for things to make sense" and to teach them to think more from the first principles of physics and the givens of biology. That's the only thing that needs to make sense.

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

#244

Post by maccam94 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #229
maccam94 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, I didn't realize Earth's gravity was still so strong at 500km up. Getting payloads to the station from space would still be cheaper because we could rely on aerobraking, but accelerating mass to Earth escape velocity from LEO would require an extra 1km/s of delta-V compared to the Moon. I think the Moon might make sense if we can mine significant materials from it, but I haven't read much about what's th…

Yup, our well is steep :). See also this subway-style ∆v map of our system (inspired by a similar map for Kerbal Space Program): http://i.imgur.com/AAGJvD1.png . I feel it would work great as a poster on a wall. The map really brings home the point that "Low Earth Orbit is halfway to anywhere in the Solar System".

Neat pic (after I figured out I had to zoom in to see the destinations). It's just missing the route from the Moon to Earth Intercept(/Escape). I'd also love to see these maps include routes to the asteroid belt from the Earth/Moon/Mars.

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

#245

Post by maccam94 »

valuearb wrote: post #220
maccam94 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, I had no idea the Shuttle was so crazy high. Wikipedia says it ranged from $16.5k - $50k, not sure on what basis. I guess the drastic cut in launch rate must have really tanked the efficiency of the program.

actually I was a little high. It’s cost per launch was $1.5B in 2011 dollars ($193B over 133 flights). It’s cargo capacity was only about 40,000 lbs, so around $37,000 per lb. The truth was it’s stack had massive launch capacity, over 200,000 lbs. but it was almost all used up by lifting that space plane. A higher launch rate was never really possible. The solid boosters weren’t reusable without a huge amount of work…

Yeah, unfortunately there were a ton of compromises as NASA had to get funding support from other agencies, which resulted in a design that didn't meet their original goals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_design_process is an interesting read.

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

#246

Post by aeorgnoieang »

alexnewman wrote: post #227
aeorgnoieang wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People telling you things is evidence.

Actually,that's a good point! People telling me things isn't exactly evidence. I wonder what pure evidence would look like?

No, it is exactly evidence. But, as you seem to be aware, each kind or instance of evidence should be weighed differently, i.e. stronger evidence should sway your beliefs more strongly.

People telling you things may not be particularly strong evidence, but you should still probably update your beliefs at least a little.

Post reply on HN