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

81–90 of 160 posts

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#81

Post by bluGill »

GolfPopper wrote: post #65
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…

> There are very few good arguments for putting anything on the moon Farside radio telescope: https://www.colorado.edu/project/lunar-farside/

Very few is not zero...

There is no reason the above cannot be maintained by robots, and many reasons it should be if we have it. We should also question if it is worth it.

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#82

Post by WalterBright »

Planktonne wrote: post #54
bryanlarsen wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> endless money poured into innovation The US put 5% of the federal budget into the original moon mission. NASA and SpaceX and the US Space Force combined don't spend anywhere close to that on R&D.

That's part of my complaint. More and more money is poured into 'innovation' across our society, but what do we have to show for it?

> what do we have to show for it?

For starters, you are on HN amusing yourself in your free time.

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#83

Post by WalterBright »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #11
abcd_f wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> won the space race Some of it. Not first to the space, not first to the Moon, not first in human spaceflight, not first in spacewalk, etc.

That remains a ridiculous argument. The thing about a race is you can always think of excuses for not winning. Plans for Mars were being met by all accounts, however Nixon still cancelled them because the Apollo victory was so decisive.

The public had lost interest in it, and so the political support for more was gone.

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#84

Post by WalterBright »

roryirvine wrote: post #41
bee_rider wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, in Russia do they have a pitch for where they’d rather draw the finish line? I admit it is probably influenced by having a US upbringing, but “landing on the Moon” does seem like a natural finish line for a space race. The move of picking an advantageous finish line is easily countered by… picking an obvious successor finish line. If they’d stuck a base on the moon that’d have been a pretty compelling “actu…

But the finish line did keep changing: first satellite in orbit, first living mammals in orbit, first human in orbit, multiple humans in orbit, spacewalk, moon landing, human moon landing, planetary landing, space station, reusable space plane, modular space station. I think both sides broadly agreed on all of those as their "next big goal" (with slight question mark over the space plane, as you could reasonably say…

> first living mammals in orbit

And left to die in orbit.

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#85

Post by WalterBright »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #51
bee_rider wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, in Russia do they have a pitch for where they’d rather draw the finish line? I admit it is probably influenced by having a US upbringing, but “landing on the Moon” does seem like a natural finish line for a space race. The move of picking an advantageous finish line is easily countered by… picking an obvious successor finish line. If they’d stuck a base on the moon that’d have been a pretty compelling “actu…

Russia has the first finish line -- Sputnik. You can pick a successor finish line to diminish the American accomplishment, but Russia will always have that first one.

Nah, the V2 was the first rocket to reach space.

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#86

Post by bluGill »

GMoromisato wrote: post #68
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…

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 w…

> Humans are going to walk on the fucking moon! How can you not be excited about that?

Been there done that. Last happened in 1972, there is nothing exciting about it anymore. I have other things in my life that are exciting - things that really are exciting.

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#87

Post by bluGill »

WalterBright wrote: post #77
tempfile wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 necessary evil. I get fulfillment via work. > Working less is the pretty much the only thing we should be putting energy into. A life without purpose leads to sloth and early death.

> I get fulfillment via work.

Good for you. And I hope you never get laid off, burned out, or anything else.

I however do not get my fulfillment via work. I work to live, and I do [mostly] enjoy my work. However I have a very long todo list that I'm not getting done in part because I don't have the time to work on it (and in part because I don't have the money for the tools/parts I need)

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#88

Post by bluGill »

edgyquant wrote: post #14
bluGill wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At that point though, there are lots of other romances to peruse. Somebody could go to the moon, but it won't be me. I could however go to my local art museum - at a much smaller costs than my share of sending someone else to the moon, but I'd get more value from my trip to the art museum than someone else on the moon. Or in my case I just went to my local high school marching band competition, and got to hear some g…

People want to go to the moon, you could make your same argument for lots of things humans have done but at the end of the day science is not the reason 99% of people care about or want to colonize space. People have a desire to colonize space

Some people. I'm all for allowing those people do to it.

However the context tends to include I'm being asked for fund the dreams of those people (via taxes) and that impacts my ability to fund my own dreams.

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#89

Post by WalterBright »

sajithdilshan wrote: post #18
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…

I think the problem is not the technological advancement, it’s the limits of physics which are the same as in today as it was back in 1960s. We have immense computing power now compared to 50 years ago. But that doesn’t help to escape the gravity well of earth. We’re still using the same chemical rockets to go to space, haven’t invented any new type of rocket drives

[dead]

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#90

Post by bluGill »

WalterBright wrote: post #74
dfgknionio wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the point in having a colony of maybe dozens of people completely dependent on shipments from Earth? Building a self-sustaining colony is so far outside the realm of possibility that it isn't worth thinking about, and building a symbolic outpost serves no practical purpose.

> What is the point in having a colony of maybe dozens of people completely dependent on shipments from Earth? The Jamestown colony relied on shipments from England. > Building a self-sustaining colony is so far outside the realm of possibility that it isn't worth thinking about And look at what America became.

Jamestown went to a place where humans had lived for thousands of years. They used shipments from England, but they didn't need them at any time.
Post reply on HN