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

A rough guide for going back to the Moon

research.ibm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 158 posts

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#61

Post by bdamm »

wavemode wrote: post #48
somenameforme wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this sort of view is quite myopic. In general space has practically infinite everything - land, resources, energy, and more. It has the potential to enable, in turn, infinite expansion of humanity. But we're not going to get to the endgame without playing the opening first. The path to international air flight began with often suicidal attempts to flap our arms with various instruments attached and act like b…

> space has practically infinite everything - land, resources, energy The Earth has more land than mankind will ever need. The Earth has effectively infinite energy from the Sun. And most of the resources we need are derived from biological matter, which Space lacks.

Ah, but humanity is an expansive and consuming force, as is natural since most forces in the universe are entropy increasing ones. And since amino acids have been discovered on asteroids and tardigrades and fungus have been shown to survive space travel, we can't even say that Space provably lacks biological matter. Expanding (back?) into space is our manifest destiny, and good for the price of real estate too since all of earth becomes a luxury destination.

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#62

Post by thrance »

somenameforme wrote: post #29
bluGill wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going to the moon is a publicity stunt. Been there done that. There are very few good arguments for putting anything on the moon, much less a human (which generally can do much less because all the life support needed can't be put into science). All the arguments for going to the moon need to be considered against everything else we can do - opportunity cost is real, but investing in the moon we are not investing in…

I think this sort of view is quite myopic. In general space has practically infinite everything - land, resources, energy, and more. It has the potential to enable, in turn, infinite expansion of humanity. But we're not going to get to the endgame without playing the opening first. The path to international air flight began with often suicidal attempts to flap our arms with various instruments attached and act like b…

Radioactive, toxic, dry, low-gravity and anoxic land isn't exactly prime real estate. Even the North Pole is a better environment for humans to live in than the Moon or Mars are.

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#63

Post by Exoristos »

tempfile wrote: post #35
dabluecaboose wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard a lot of arguments against human space exploration, but "We could put that energy into working less" is probably one of the more out-there arguments that's hard to take seriously.

Work is a necessary evil. If it is not necessary, then it is just a regular evil. There are no credible arguments that going to the moon is necessary, or supports some other necessary goal. Of course by work, I mean work directed by somebody else to serve their ends, in exchange for money to live your own life. If we could afford to have people work five hours a week and still maintain a functioning society, then sur…

Work is a good.

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#64

Post by bayindirh »

somenameforme wrote: post #29
bluGill wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going to the moon is a publicity stunt. Been there done that. There are very few good arguments for putting anything on the moon, much less a human (which generally can do much less because all the life support needed can't be put into science). All the arguments for going to the moon need to be considered against everything else we can do - opportunity cost is real, but investing in the moon we are not investing in…

I think this sort of view is quite myopic. In general space has practically infinite everything - land, resources, energy, and more. It has the potential to enable, in turn, infinite expansion of humanity. But we're not going to get to the endgame without playing the opening first. The path to international air flight began with often suicidal attempts to flap our arms with various instruments attached and act like b…

> In general space has practically infinite everything - land, resources, energy, and more. It has the potential to enable, in turn, infinite expansion of humanity.

Love the (sorry, but greedy) take. Maybe we shouldn't expand infinitely. I don't see our species as that special. Maybe we should stay a bit modest, and errm, down to the earth in our ambitions.

Both humans and resources can't be in infinite number at the same time. Something can be infinite relative to other, and I like the current balance, thanks.

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#65

Post by GolfPopper »

bluGill wrote: post #6
Planktonne wrote: post #2

It's hard not to see this as a consolation prize. In 1969, we went to the moon. In 2026, with all the benefits of a tech industry that has become ever more powerful, with endless money poured into innovation, our 'rough guide back to the moon' is an AI model that maps it. It's powerful and impressive, of course, and doubtless very useful to researchers, and space exploration is not a priority--all of that is true, su…

Going to the moon is a publicity stunt. Been there done that. There are very few good arguments for putting anything on the moon, much less a human (which generally can do much less because all the life support needed can't be put into science). All the arguments for going to the moon need to be considered against everything else we can do - opportunity cost is real, but investing in the moon we are not investing in…

>There are very few good arguments for putting anything on the moon

Farside radio telescope:

https://www.colorado.edu/project/lunar-farside/

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#66

Post by GMoromisato »

Planktonne wrote: post #2

It's hard not to see this as a consolation prize. In 1969, we went to the moon. In 2026, with all the benefits of a tech industry that has become ever more powerful, with endless money poured into innovation, our 'rough guide back to the moon' is an AI model that maps it. It's powerful and impressive, of course, and doubtless very useful to researchers, and space exploration is not a priority--all of that is true, su…

But we are going back to the moon. By 2030, I would bet, humans will land on the moon again. Probably Americans first, but if not, definitely Chinese.

And this time, both countries are planning ambitious missions--not just flags-and-footprints, but bases and resource extraction (ice from the lunar south pole).

SpaceX Starship, the vehicle that will return to the moon, can carry 100 tons to the lunar surface--compared to less than 10 tons for Apollo. Moreover, whereas a single Saturn V launch cost almost a billion dollars to launch, Starship should cost a third the price. Effectively, we'll be able to deliver cargo to the moon for 1/30th the price of Apollo. That's real progress.

I've been following the space program since the 1970s and I have never been more excited about it.

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#67

Post by wat10000 »

hmokiguess wrote: post #34

I'm not gonna lie, I'm closer to a conspiracy theorist and non-believer than I am to trust history on the moon landing stuff. Doesn't help that I wasn't alive when it happened, and that we haven't since gone again. It feels so nonsensical to me, I would love for someone to help me educate myself on it from a more grounded point of view that can satisfy my paranoia. Did we really go there? How come we (as in humanity,…

Yes, we really went there. There's zero legitimate doubt. If nothing else, consider: the Soviets were locked in a massive propaganda war with the US over the respective countries' space achievements, with the Soviets spending vast resources to show that their ideology was superior by showing what they could achieve in space. They had no trouble tracking American activity in space. If the moon landings had been fake, wouldn't the Soviets have brought their receipts and utterly humiliated their rivals?

We haven't gone again since because there's not much point to it. The US spent an amount of money equivalent to about 10 Manhattan Projects to ultimately put a dozen people on the moon for a cumulative total of somewhat less than one person-month. There was no military utility to it, no commercial benefit, just some science and exploration. Once you've done that a few times, what's the impetus to continue?

The technology was so bleeding-edge that each mission required a huge amount of bespoke manufacturing that got thrown away after a single use, and massive teams of people to run everything, such that each individual mission still cost billions of inflation-adjusted dollars. The American public's stomach for spending such vast sums of money just didn't last. Imagine if you needed to build and throw away an entire Airbus A380 to reach the summit of Mt. Everest. Maybe it would have been summited a few times to show it could be done, but we probably wouldn't keep doing it.

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#68

Post by GMoromisato »

bluGill wrote: post #6
Planktonne wrote: post #2

It's hard not to see this as a consolation prize. In 1969, we went to the moon. In 2026, with all the benefits of a tech industry that has become ever more powerful, with endless money poured into innovation, our 'rough guide back to the moon' is an AI model that maps it. It's powerful and impressive, of course, and doubtless very useful to researchers, and space exploration is not a priority--all of that is true, su…

Going to the moon is a publicity stunt. Been there done that. There are very few good arguments for putting anything on the moon, much less a human (which generally can do much less because all the life support needed can't be put into science). All the arguments for going to the moon need to be considered against everything else we can do - opportunity cost is real, but investing in the moon we are not investing in…

Is that your litmus test--it has to have "value"? What's the value of Hubble? Of the Nancy Grace Roman observatory? Are you against those too? Maybe you prefer if they had left it as a spy satellite--at least that has real value.

Humans are going to walk on the fucking moon! How can you not be excited about that? There is value in pushing the frontier, in doing things at the limit of human technology, in seeing new worlds through human eyes.

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#69

Post by WalterBright »

bayindirh wrote: post #64
somenameforme wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this sort of view is quite myopic. In general space has practically infinite everything - land, resources, energy, and more. It has the potential to enable, in turn, infinite expansion of humanity. But we're not going to get to the endgame without playing the opening first. The path to international air flight began with often suicidal attempts to flap our arms with various instruments attached and act like b…

> In general space has practically infinite everything - land, resources, energy, and more. It has the potential to enable, in turn, infinite expansion of humanity. Love the (sorry, but greedy) take. Maybe we shouldn't expand infinitely. I don't see our species as that special. Maybe we should stay a bit modest, and errm, down to the earth in our ambitions. Both humans and resources can't be in infinite number at the…

The solar system has effectively infinite resources.

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#70

Post by hmokiguess »

mesrik wrote: post #57
scrumper wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes we really went there, quite a few times in the 1970s. We have been again, also several times, with rovers and landers. As for why not humans since then? There's bugger all there to justify the extreme cost (at this time). It's an unpleasant ball made from tiny abrasive dust particles that is more easily explored with robots. The prestige thing is done; until we set up some base there in support of some broader mi…

Also to get the mood and sense how it felt following those flights media outlets back then there is great site https://apolloinrealtime.org/ I've listened through those flights few times and it still each time takes me back to memories still giving me goosebumps. Especially Apollo 11 when I was nine year old kid listening tiny battery radio all nights at our summer cottage attic.

That's so cool. I feel like society did a bad job passing on the torch of that throughout history to the newer generation, especially outside the US (I'm not an American), so a lot of us are really disconnected with what went down outside of the US.
Post reply on HN