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

171–180 of 246 posts

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

#171

Post by dsr_ »

stcredzero wrote: post #168
StavrosK wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(edited) Would these homeless people be sent to the moon mandatorily or voluntarily? If voluntarily, why only send homeless people? Why not send everyone who wanted to go?

In The Moon is a Harsh Mistress , the Moon was a penal colony. In that book, a form of harsh natural selection took place, and everyone who wasn't smart enough to survive in the demanding technical environment (and smart enough to foresee the disasters caused by those who weren't smart enough) quickly died gruesome deaths, leaving a population which was quite intelligent and valued learning.

... in other words, a work of fiction about setting up a disaster, and then partially avoiding it.

Please take that as a warning not to set up disasters.

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

#173

Post by ThomPete »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #154
ThomPete wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, cause the most crucial ones are technologies about getting things into orbit and sustaining life in obit, creating habitable environments and so on. Whether on a planet or in space those challenges aren't much different and whatever you gain as knowledge on a space station you can apply to a moon base later on. Furthermore, the challenge of building a space station and not suddenly run into budgeting or construc…

If you're talking about some kind of self-sustaining station, then space wouldn't be where you'd go first anyway. You'd want to establish a self-sustaining colony in the antarctic, where conditions are significantly more favorable and yet still incredibly hostile. And if you aren't... haven't we already done that with ISS?

There are already closed off habitats made to simulate living without outside assistance. It's the combination of a lot of things that are relevant here including zero-g not just any single one of them.

We haven't made space travel safe enough yet, we haven't made enough progress on habitats in space.

Plenty of things to figure out and a space station is by any means a much more effective way to do that both financially, when it comes to speed of iteration and ability to course correct and focus on improvements.

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

#174

Post by mcguire »

bonesss wrote: post #62
make3 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that back then they couldn't see what was in the new world. Now we can (on the moon), and know that there isn't much. Also, it would take a lot more than just sending people there for them to be mostly be self sufficient like in the 17th century, because: - there is no oxygen, - there is no food, - there is no water, - there is no magnetosphere.

We can make [oxygen from moon rocks]( https://phys.org/news/2009-08-scientists-oxygen-moon.html ). There is [water on the moon]( https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Mini-RF/multimedia/featur... ). With oxygen, water, and power, we can make food. Appropriate radiation shielding is a matter of construction, which could occur on the moon itself using local materials ideally, or building underground enough to be shielded.…

We are going to need a POC for that. Here's a rock, there's ice in Alaska; go survive. Oh, and you have to do it with mittens on.

Good luck!

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

#176

Post by hackeraccount »

paulus_magnus2 wrote: post #103

Economy. If Moon was made of gold it wouldn't be worth going there for it [1]. Perhaps reusable spacecraft can change that. For strategic / military reasons (money no objective) we can achieve much more than if profit is the only motivation. [1. need a better source?] https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/22059/if-the-moon-... Edit: Elon Musk: With New SpaceX Tech, Rocket Costs Will Drop By A Factor of 100 https:…

I wonder about that idea. I mean, thinking about it there's almost nothing found outside of earth that's worth the cost of the infrastructure needed to bring it inside of Earth's gravity well.

Which is a bummer. The only thoughts I have contra that are that it's only expensive if you count the cost of the infrastructure - given that moving resources from outside of Earth to it isn't super unattractive.

Second it's possible that costs should be viewed not just Earth to outside of Earth but also outside of Earth to outside of Earth. That is to say mining water on the Moon doesn't make sense if the destination is Earth - it the destination on the other hand is another part of the Moon there might be some logic to it. You could in theory be cost competitive with the Earth as you don't have to get it out of Earth's gravity.

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

#177

Post by DennisP »

dsr_ wrote: post #171
stcredzero wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In The Moon is a Harsh Mistress , the Moon was a penal colony. In that book, a form of harsh natural selection took place, and everyone who wasn't smart enough to survive in the demanding technical environment (and smart enough to foresee the disasters caused by those who weren't smart enough) quickly died gruesome deaths, leaving a population which was quite intelligent and valued learning.

... in other words, a work of fiction about setting up a disaster, and then partially avoiding it. Please take that as a warning not to set up disasters.

Especially since it didn't work out too well for people back on Earth.

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

#178

Post by mcguire »

dkonofalski wrote: post #155
mcguire wrote: post #132

Not a WSJ subscriber, so I can only see the first two paragraphs... " NASA’s current plans for returning astronauts to the moon aren’t affordable and likely won’t produce sustainable, long-term economic benefits, according to an independent research study commissioned by the agency. " As an ex-NASA contractor (at the NASA Enterprise Applications Competency Center, and yes, I think that name illustrates some of the pr…

ProTip™️: Copy and paste the headline of the article into Google to get the full article. I really need to write a Chrome extension for this but haven't had the time. :(

Didn't that stop working recently? Or was that the NYT?

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

#179

Post by mcguire »

bigfcjjyfcg wrote: post #140
mcguire wrote: post #132

Not a WSJ subscriber, so I can only see the first two paragraphs... " NASA’s current plans for returning astronauts to the moon aren’t affordable and likely won’t produce sustainable, long-term economic benefits, according to an independent research study commissioned by the agency. " As an ex-NASA contractor (at the NASA Enterprise Applications Competency Center, and yes, I think that name illustrates some of the pr…

I heard similar things from my ex-NASA roommate when I worked at SpaceX, do you think NASA can correct the problems you've outlined?

I don't know.

There's a lot of institutional inertia and forces opposing any change (and change itself is just churn).

The science side of things has a much better track record, but the interplanetary stuff is done by JPL, which isn't really NASA, and most of the rest is mostly a-political (modulo the Earth sensing stuff, which I'm continually surprised isn't cancelled for global warming reasons).

Then there's private enterprise, which seems to be doing better. But I'm not entirely comfortable with the "Guilded-Age" model of development.

So, I dunno.

Edit: when I wrote, "Until an aerospace engineer and solid rocket dude pointed out...", that should be "pointed out to me".

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

#180

Post by logfromblammo »

baursak wrote: post #120
johnminter wrote: post #75

The author answers the question in the first sentence. It is not that we can't, the problem is that it is not cost effective to do so. Or, as the cliche goes, "It's all about the Benjamins". The inconvenient truth is that the US has a national debt of over $21T and a federal bureaucracy with a reputation of being unable to bring projects to completion on budget. Think of this in a more personal context: you need to p…

National debt is simply national savings. "Paying off" national debt means taking away one of the most popular, liquid, income producing asset from people and corporations. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/deficit-tax-cuts-...

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 reexamine your premises and analysis before repeating it.

Post reply on HN