Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Race to Develop the Moon

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 103 posts

Re: The Race to Develop the Moon

#91

Post by 8bitsrule »

woodandsteel wrote: post #90
imtringued wrote: post #72

Unfortunately there is almost no carbon or hydrogen on the moon with the exception of trace amounts in permanently shadowed craters. Self sufficiency is barely possible in those areas which comprise less than 1% of the moon's surface.

As the article says, the moon has water, and that means hydrogen. Regarding carbon, it is an abundant element in the universe, so I would expect there would be a good deal in the minerals.

It says "now we know that there’s water there"

"Know" ? According to Wiki, "scientists have conjectured since the 1960s that water ice could survive in cold, permanently shadowed craters at the Moon's poles." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water

That article is full of qualifiers. Considering how much thorough science is found in WP ... and the -strong desire- many feel to verify this as fact ... where's the beef?

We "know" Mars has methane, too.

Suppose there really is water. In what quantities? Where? (If they don't land near it ... transport?) Who is going to -bet their life on it- ??

I've never found a definitive source for this "know". I'm all eyes.

Re: The Race to Develop the Moon

#93

Post by eesmith »

empath75 wrote: post #84
eesmith wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ahh, I think I got it. I'll restate it to see if you correct me. The SpaceX long-term goal is cheap and safe space travel to Mars. The risk is very high that this goal will fail. NASA won't accept this sort of mission because it's very likely to be a waste of money which could be used for other NASA goals (eg, robotic probes). Though looking at it, it implies that NASA is being fiscally responsible, but the other 1/2…

Tesla autopilot has killed a few people and they’re still using it.

In the context of overall mission goals, the mission for the misnamed 'autopilot' of Tesla is to be safer than humans.

Moreover, while the car industry certainly produces safer cars than ever before, a huge number of deaths are auto related, so there's already some general acceptance that people will die.

I think a better example is Virgin Galactic, where several people have died (one on a flight, three on the ground explosion), while the project mission continues. Then again, VG still isn't flying commercial flights.

I don't know how to interpret that in terms of NASA's proposed non-risk-taking.

Re: The Race to Develop the Moon

#94

Post by rjf72 »

eesmith wrote: post #57
rjf72 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there are two sides to risk. Risk tolerance for a given mission is one. Mission tolerance for a given risk is the other. What I mean there is I doubt that SpaceX will be a less safe option than NASA, Roscosmos by proxy, for getting crew to the ISS. But SpaceX's big picture plan is to get people, regular people, to Mars. And that is something I think would never happen with NASA would never even consider takin…

Ahh, I think I got it. I'll restate it to see if you correct me. The SpaceX long-term goal is cheap and safe space travel to Mars. The risk is very high that this goal will fail. NASA won't accept this sort of mission because it's very likely to be a waste of money which could be used for other NASA goals (eg, robotic probes). Though looking at it, it implies that NASA is being fiscally responsible, but the other 1/2…

Not at all. It's not about the big picture goal but about the individual missions. There's effectively 0 risk that the big picture goal of getting people to, and ultimately colonizing, Mars will fail. It's a question of when, not if. But the individual missions, especially the early ones, to Mars will involve a high degree of risk.

Getting to low earth orbit, by contrast, is trivial. In spite of this we've sent fewer than 600 people to LEO, and have lost at least 30 astronauts in the process of it [1]. 5% of our astronauts have lost their lives just getting to and from low earth orbit! This is already pushing the edge of NASA's risk tolerance, which goes a long ways towards explaining why NASA hasn't sent a man beyond LEO in 47 years.

And missions to Mars are substantially more complex and risky than getting to and from LEO. No matter how safe we try to make things, people will die in the process of what ultimately will be the colonization of Mars. This means it's a mission that NASA is unable to take on, as they have become intolerant of risk. But at the same time it's a mission that must be executed. And for this it's a very good thing that we're managing to move beyond dependence upon government agencies for progress in space.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_ac...

Re: The Race to Develop the Moon

#95

Post by mongol »

rjf72 wrote: post #94
eesmith wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ahh, I think I got it. I'll restate it to see if you correct me. The SpaceX long-term goal is cheap and safe space travel to Mars. The risk is very high that this goal will fail. NASA won't accept this sort of mission because it's very likely to be a waste of money which could be used for other NASA goals (eg, robotic probes). Though looking at it, it implies that NASA is being fiscally responsible, but the other 1/2…

Not at all. It's not about the big picture goal but about the individual missions. There's effectively 0 risk that the big picture goal of getting people to, and ultimately colonizing, Mars will fail. It's a question of when, not if. But the individual missions, especially the early ones, to Mars will involve a high degree of risk. Getting to low earth orbit, by contrast, is trivial. In spite of this we've sent fewer…

Do you mean that it is absolutely, without a doubt, certain that man will colonize Mars and that it will succeed?

Re: The Race to Develop the Moon

#96

Post by rjf72 »

mongol wrote: post #95
rjf72 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. It's not about the big picture goal but about the individual missions. There's effectively 0 risk that the big picture goal of getting people to, and ultimately colonizing, Mars will fail. It's a question of when, not if. But the individual missions, especially the early ones, to Mars will involve a high degree of risk. Getting to low earth orbit, by contrast, is trivial. In spite of this we've sent fewer…

Do you mean that it is absolutely, without a doubt, certain that man will colonize Mars and that it will succeed?

We've breached countless barriers that, at one point, seemed impossible or insurmountably challenging. Crossing the ocean by boat - later by plane, breaking the sound barrier in human flight, living in 'unlivable' locations on Earth, getting into space, putting a man on the moon, living in space for months at a time, and so on.

But one important factor here is that well before we accomplished any of these, it became evident that we eventually would. And that's because the technologies involved were no longer fantasy. What I mean here is that for a person in the 18th century putting a man into space was fantasy. We could foresee it as maybe being possible, but it might also be that the technologies to achieve such might simply never be able to be developed. By contrast, by the earlier part of 20th century century it became clear that such an achievement not only could, but would happen - sooner or later. The technologies necessary were no longer fantasy. And so all that remained was bearing the costs and pushing forward.

And we've now long since passed the same point for Mars. We can, and will, put men on Mars - sooner or later. And this is what I was referring to by 0 risk of failure - technical failures, as in some insurmountable roadblock that simply makes further progress impossible. Colonization is of course a social question, which is going to inherently be much more subjective than a technical one. But I find it not only difficult, but impossible, to imagine any scenario where humans, all, somehow decide to simply stay on a single planet. And if we assume that humans will leave Earth, Mars is arguably the most logical first permanent destination. Mineral rich, water rich, atmosphere with CO2 (sabatier reaction for methane + water), large land mass, reasonable gravity, reasonable temperature extremes, near identical day-night cycle, etc. Big downsides are extremely low atmospheric pressure which is of course unbreathable, as well as high radiation exposure.

Re: The Race to Develop the Moon

#97

Post by eesmith »

rjf72 wrote: post #96
mongol wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean that it is absolutely, without a doubt, certain that man will colonize Mars and that it will succeed?

We've breached countless barriers that, at one point, seemed impossible or insurmountably challenging. Crossing the ocean by boat - later by plane, breaking the sound barrier in human flight, living in 'unlivable' locations on Earth, getting into space, putting a man on the moon, living in space for months at a time, and so on. But one important factor here is that well before we accomplished any of these, it became…

We can certainly send someone to Mars. But doing so is "of course a social question" ... and you haven't answered the question of why must do it now.

You've used the same rhetorical constructions that I've read in books written before I was born. They also argued that then was the time. Why were they wrong, and you are right?

Oh, and those proposing undersea cities made many of the same arguments.

I'll point out that "living in 'unlivable' locations on Earth" can be done with neolithic technology, so that's a rather odd one to list. Crossing the ocean by boat" through stages was something the ancient Polynesians did without metal.

And 'breaking the sound barrier in human flight' hasn't yet proven to be economically feasible for general passenger services.

As for "more subjective than a technical one" ... there's a major problem of how to create a self-sustaining ecosystem, much less one where the people who live in it have enough time to train the next generation to run the ecosystem.

Re: The Race to Develop the Moon

#98

Post by eesmith »

dTal wrote: post #60
eesmith wrote: post #19

Article: "Watching the footage of Neil Armstrong’s first steps, it takes a moment for one’s eyes to make sense of the low-resolution image" As I understand it, the problem wasn't the video feed, it was the re-transmission for the global TV audience. The original video was then lost. Quoting from https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1200161/Apol... : > Nasa believed they might contain electronic information…

>> The grainy images that the world saw in 1969 came from a TV camera pointed at a giant wall monitor at mission control, of a live feed from pictures sent by satellite from Australia to California and relayed by landline to Houston. Rather offtopic, but if that chain isn't convoluted enough for you, check out exactly how they accomplished giant wall monitors in the 1960s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eidophor [edit…

Neat! Also used in the 'Mother of All Demos' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mother_of_All_Demos . Watching recordings of that demo is where I first saw them.

Re: The Race to Develop the Moon

#99

Post by lorenzhs »

eesmith wrote: post #68
lorenzhs wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how the moon works. There's no "dark side", only a "far side" that always faces away from the earth. It's just that a moon day lasts ~28.5 earth days.

I believe Symmetry understands that, though the phrase '24 hours a day' should be '24 hours an Earth day' to prevent possible confusion.

I believe Symmetry edited their comment to correct it, or maybe I misread. Anyway, it's correct now.

Re: The Race to Develop the Moon

#100

Post by RugnirViking »

imtringued wrote: post #83
bsamuels wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably yes. There's a few things the moon has going for it: - it's in a vacuum - it has low gravity - abundant solar energy without the uncertainty of weather So many different kinds of industrial manufacturing processes are hampered by the presence of oxygen/air; in a vacuum you could make super pure alloys. Low gravity means you can use smaller, less powerful machinery to do the same work. The solar thing is kind…

The atmosphere is only "clean" because nobody is polluting it right now.

The atmosphere of the moon is not 'clean'. It is -almost- nonexistant. Unless you are thinking of mars?
Post reply on HN