EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: RoGeorge on February 15, 2019, 07:28:37 am
-
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-nasa-moon.html
Is this a "Challenge accepted" after China's plans for a base on the Moon?
Whatever it is, space exploration can not be bad! :-+
-
Anything space related is definitely a step in the right direction.
But i'm with Elon, Mars Mars Mars.
A base on the moon only really makes sense if you're there to mine something valuable and bring it home to fund the trip.
There really isn't anything useful or interesting to do on the moon and with no atmosphere the temp changes and radiation makes it harder than on mars.
-
Anything space related is definitely a step in the right direction.
But i'm with Elon, Mars Mars Mars.
Nope, dumb idea, unless the entire country pays for it as part of a space race like Apollo.
A base on the moon only really makes sense if you're there to mine something valuable and bring it home to fund the trip.
There really isn't anything useful or interesting to do on the moon and with no atmosphere the temp changes and radiation makes it harder than on mars.
A moon base can pay for itself with tourism. Seriously. Mars cannot.
-
Do you think tourism would bring in enough money to cover costs
You'd have to make it affordable to get the volume of people needed, and that would require a massive moon base to hold that many people.
But yes, if someone can pull off profitable moon tourism then i'm all for it.
Mars is just so much more interesting, and easier in quite a few ways once you're there.
Obviously getting to mars is the hard part compared to the moon.
And yes, with the trip taking ~12 months tourism isn't going to work for mars unless we can figure out a way to get to/from mars in under a week or so,
Personally i think the push towards space that's currently happening will result in much better propulsion technology sooner than we expect. They have already vastly improved ion thrusters in the last few years. NASA is quite slow at testing new tech in space, private industry is not.
-
Do you think tourism would bring in enough money to cover costs?
For the trips, yes. For the NRE, hard to say the payback time. Start with a research base on the far side. Tons of cool research can be done without the earth being the way.
But kick some numbers around. Let's a say $1M for the early trips, you'll easily get thousands of well heeled people up front. That's a few billion. Once there is a critical mass of successful trips and it's seen as a fairly safe form of "adventure tourism" then more will pile on. Countless baby boomer retirees who want the adventure of a lifetime can easily afford it.
I think the base would need to be quite large for that to work.
But yes, if someone can pull off profitable moon tourism then i'm all for it.
No need for big at the start. Heck, just slingshot trips around the moon would sell like hot cakes. Pay more for a landing and roam around for the day.
Mars is just so much more interesting, and easier in quite a few ways once you're there.
Maybe to a scientist, but to a tourist, not really. People would have much more fun bouncing around on the moon, and you get the killer feature of being able to see the earth and put your thumb up to cover it. That is impossible to beat. Mars is as boring at bat poo in comparison. Sucks even more if you get stuck in a 6 month dust storm. The moon is forever guaranteed a perfect trip.
Read Andy Weirs new book Artemis (and moving coming)
Obviously getting to mars is the hard part compared to the moon.
And yes, with the trip taking ~12 months tourism isn't going to work for mars unless we figure out a way to get to/from mars in under a week or so
Yep, not going to happen.
-
From the Moon I can see an Earth-rise, or just fool around jumping as a kangaroo at 1/6 of my usual weight, while I might still get WiFi to post videos of silly cats jumping completely disoriented in the Moon gravity, and almost put themselves into orbit if scared with a cucumber. :-DD
From Mars, only a desolated brown and hostile desert. I won't go in a trip to Mars even if it would be possible to get there in only one day and for free.
-
From Mars, only a desolated brown and hostile desert. I won't go in a trip to Mars even if it wold be possible to get there in only one day and for free.
Of course you would!
But yeah, odds are it won't like The Martian
-
For the trips, yes. For the NRE, hard to say the payback time. Start with a research base on the far side. Tons of cool research can be done without the earth being the way.
But kick some numbers around. Let's a say $1M for the early trips, you'll easily get thousands of well heeled people up front. That's a few billion. Once there is a critical mass of successful trips and it's seen as a fairly safe form of "adventure tourism" then more will pile on. Countless baby boomer retirees who want the adventure of a lifetime can easily afford it.
Yeah, fair call.
Maybe to a scientist, but to a tourist, not really. People would have much more fun bouncing around on the moon, and you get the killer feature of being able to see the earth and put your thumb up to cover it. That is impossible to beat. Mars is as boring at bat poo in comparison. Sucks even more if you get stuck in a 6 month dust storm. The moon is forever guaranteed a perfect trip.
Read Andy Weirs new book Artemis (and moving coming)
The image of earth would definitely be an attraction, as well as the low gravity.
but the moon landscape is very boring compared to mars. The contrast of dark and super bright makes it hard to see clearly. Any shadowed areas look like a totally blank void. You would have to view everything through heavily tinted glass/plastic so you don't get eye damage from the sun.
Photographs taken on the moon don't turn out very good. You need ridiculously high dynamic range equipment. Or i guess you could do composite shots.
Compare that to mars and you have much better lighting conditions, not to mention the landscape and environment is way more interesting. caves, wind, sandstorms, dunes, massive valleys, massive mountains, different types of rocks and sediment layers, proper sunsets, ice, etc.
And the sun isn't going to instantly burn your retinas.
-
IMO the Moon would rather be interesting for tourists, while Mars for permanent settlers.
For scientists, both are very interesting. :-DMM
-
In case of emergency on Mars, you're stuck waiting for a launch window, which are not all too common. You also need substantial supplies for the trip itself that lasts at least 6-14 months depending on how the planets are aligned (honestly, this sounds like astrology BS).
In case of emergency on Moon you can board a spaceship and launch at any time. There are no launch windows, you don't even need particular amount of supplies, other than oxygen. The trip takes three days, so a few liters of water will keep you alive (losing weight is beneficial for space travel anyway).
From the Moon I can see an Earth-rise,
Not quite. The Earth always hovers in the sky (if you're on the near side, which is more than likely to be the case), nearly motionless. It doesn't rise or set. There is very little apparent movement due to libration, but not much.
Quite a view, I imagine, regardless.
On Mars, if there's a storm, the night sky view is crap.
-
In terms of space, going to the Moon is like a weekend ski trip to the Alps. Going to Mars is like a 6 month stint at an Antarctic research base.
However, I think this another empty policy announcement from NASA. Lacking anywhere is a statement on what the purposes are. It's not enough to blah blah about pioneer spirit and exploration for the good of mankind, we know that was a PR front for the goal of "beating the Russians". The next President will probably say "this is a waste of money, do something else".
NASA's "architecture" is based on SLS, Orion, LOP-G, which are all pork enterprises. Any sensible commercial enterprise will bypass all that inefficiency. IF SpaceX is successful with Starship, it will be able to land anywhere including the Moon.
There are really only two things to do on the Moon
a) scientific research, usually funded by governments
b) tourism, to be funded by wealthy individuals.
I'm not sure a permanent base makes sense for either of those purposes, it's not like you can connect up to the local water, power, oxygen supply... A "base" is basically going to be a space habitat, just anchored to the surface.
-
i wonder how much money you would get from a worldwide crowdsourcing campaign for a mars or moon base with 24/7 streaming video :)
Or a patreon style thing, You'd get a lot of people willing it put in $5/month
-
The image of earth would definitely be an attraction, as well as the low gravity.
but the moon landscape is very boring compared to mars. The contrast of dark and super bright makes it hard to see clearly. Any shadowed areas look like a totally blank void. You would have to view everything through heavily tinted glass/plastic so you don't get eye damage from the sun.
Ah, but therein lies the attraction. "Magnificent Desolation" vs just "Familiar Desolation"
Photographs taken on the moon don't turn out very good. You need ridiculously high dynamic range equipment. Or i guess you could do composite shots.
The punters won't be using their cellphones.
Compare that to mars and you have much better lighting conditions, not to mention the landscape and environment is way more interesting. caves, wind, sandstorms, dunes, massive valleys, massive mountains, different types of rocks and sediment layers, proper sunsets, ice, etc.
And the sun isn't going to instantly burn your retinas.
All true, but a couple of orders of magnitude longer trip time doing SFA. The moon is almost instant gratification compared to that. Also, the older generation won't be able to hack a trip like that. Exercising for several hours a day and other medical issues on a several year long trip. And no guarantee of anything when you get there. Like I said, months long sand storms are common. So you spend 12+ months inside a tin without nothing to see, and you could end up on the planet for 6 months in another tin can on the surface maybe not being able to see much at all. It's just not going to happen for tourism, no contest.
Let's just assume the Moon and Mars are equally viable. The only ones who are going to want to spend two years going to mars are the keen adventurous young adults (how mostly can't afford it) and public purse scientists. But anyone with the money and moderate health can hack a 1-2 week moon flight.
-
i wonder how much money you would get from a worldwide crowdsourcing campaign for a mars or moon base with 24/7 streaming video :)
If it involves three boobs, you have a winner.
-
I'm not sure a permanent base makes sense for either of those purposes, it's not like you can connect up to the local water, power, oxygen supply... A "base" is basically going to be a space habitat, just anchored to the surface.
Yeah, but it's only a few days flight ago for cargo. Mars on the other hand sucks. And for those who think you can make a self sufficient colony there, go ahead and try it and see how far you get.
You might be able to survive, if nothing major goes wrong, but that's about it. You basically have to rely on cargo just like the moon, but it's vastly more expensive to send. And the moon has the advantage of needing far less fuel to get home in case of any issues. Heck, there are places on the earth that take much longer to get home in case of trouble than the moon.
-
Not quite. The Earth always hovers in the sky (if you're on the near side, which is more than likely to be the case), nearly motionless. It doesn't rise or set. There is very little apparent movement due to libration, but not much.
Quite a view, I imagine, regardless.
Wait until the first people go back and send their social media pics "pushing" on the Earth like they do the Eiffel Tower, the waiting list for a ticket will be a mile long. Seriously, you'll have to beat them off with a stick. People will pay a premium to be bumped up the list.
-
I think there is rather limited use for a maned base on moon or mars. Today essentially all could be done remote operated or with local computer control on mars. Having humans around mainly increases the costs by a large factor.
Even the ISS is very questionable - and it is much easier there still inside the magnetic field of the earth.
The cost's for a trip would be way higher than $1 M - so like currently to the ISS it would be only a very few very rich people to pay 10s of millions (could well be 100s millions ) for such a trip.
There are few interesting scientific observations from the back side of the moon, with the moon shielding from the earth. Still no real need to have an operator around. It would be more like having something like radio telescope. Due to the gravity on the moon - there may be alternative places in free space (e.g. half the way to mars), far away from the earth that might be just as good.
Going to mars is something for the time after the global warming and over-population problems are solved, it's not an alternative path.
-
i wonder how much money you would get from a worldwide crowdsourcing campaign for a mars or moon base with 24/7 streaming video :)
If it involves three boobs, you have a winner.
I'd also pay to see Kuato. Either or.
-
It costs $80mil to get a single astronaut to ISS by Russian rocket.
And that is just a cost of travel there and back.
So a trip to Moon and back will cost a happy tourist a few billion USD, I would guess.
-
Not necessarily.
Government paid stuff is always more expensive than commercial.
Also economies of scale play a role. SpaceX BFR (or is it Spaceship now?) is stated to be capable of carrying 100 people. That significantly lowers the cost per individual.
-
It costs $80mil to get a single astronaut to ISS by Russian rocket.
And that is just a cost of travel there and back.
So a trip to Moon and back will cost a happy tourist a few billion USD, I would guess.
Isn't that the current price for a full rocket shipment to the ISS, not just one person. Sending a rocket to the moon won't be much more expensive than that because it's getting out of the atmosphere that is difficult, going from ISS to the moon is peanuts in comparison.
EDIT: This article (https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-rocket-cargo-price-by-weight-2016-6?r=US&IR=T&IR=T) says it cost about $22000 per kg to send things to ISS using the space shuttle, so an 80 kg astronaut would cost about 2 millions.
Going to mars is a different ball game though. For example: "Mars Express cost approximately 300 million Euro. This includes the launch, the spacecraft, the scientific payload (including the lander) and operations. Together with Rosetta and Venus Express, Mars Express forms a family of missions where costs are shared." source (https://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMTV8374OD_0_spk.html)
-
There seems to be a lot of interest in the moon, all the big space agencies seems intent on building a research base, at the very least, so it's seems like it's more a matter of when than if now.
There are many things that, taken together, could make a moon colony pay for itself, especially in the long run. It's just difficult to get the ball rolling. There's lots of scientific reasons to go to the moon, it will teach us much about not only the moon but about the earth as well, and there are huge benefits for doing radio astronomy on the dark side. It might also eventually be profitable to mine the moon for resources. To begin with, not for shipping materials back to earth perhaps, but a simple thing like producing rocket fuel on the moon makes a lot of sense. If it was possible to refuel at the moon, probes and ships going further into the solar system wouldn't have to bring all that fuel with them up from earth. If, in the future, you can build some part (the heavy stuff) of a satellite on the moon, it might become cheaper to get a satellite into orbit. If we ever decide on trying to build a permanent settlement on mars then having a moon base in place first is almost a requirement, it would make shipping things to mars a lot easier and cheaper. It would also make sense to use the moon as a test bed to see what is required and what works for a long time stay on another celestial body before going as far as to e.g. mars.
-
And for those who think you can make a self sufficient colony there, go ahead and try it and see how far you get.
You might be able to survive, if nothing major goes wrong, but that's about it. You basically have to rely on cargo just like the moon, but it's vastly more expensive to send. And the moon has the advantage of needing far less fuel to get home in case of any issues. Heck, there are places on the earth that take much longer to get home in case of trouble than the moon.
I bet the first colony is expected to survive 15 years, but only lasts 90 days.
I think the money would be more effective if spent on domestic programs.
-
I bet the first colony is expected to survive 15 years, but only lasts 90 days.
I think the money would be more effective if spent on domestic programs.
15 years and 90 days are just speculation. Same way, I can bet it would last 90 generations. :D
About the money better spent here, I'm not so sure.
We are already billions. With such big numbers there will always be something to fix, so the space exploration will be postponed forever.
Then, there is the hard question: What's the final goal of spending all the money here? More comfort? Or more wealth? Or longer life? Or, maybe free everything for everyone?
Apparently all the above are good things, but only in the short run. If we look back in history, all civilizations that accumulated too much didn't end well.
Humans need to have dreams and goals to chase at all time, or else, if we'll already achieve all we need, with nothing else to go for, we'll simply decay, or we will start messing with each other for irrelevant causes.
It's the journey that counts, and not the destination.
-
Going to mars is something for the time after the global warming and over-population problems are solved, it's not an alternative path.
And if earth gets an extinction level event before then and the human race ends?
It's going to take us a very long time to build a massive sustainable mars base that could survive if help from earth stopped forever, so it's important to get started asap.
Putting off a mars base isn't a good idea when the stakes are so high.
-
I bet the first colony is expected to survive 15 years, but only lasts 90 days.
I think the money would be more effective if spent on domestic programs.
15 years and 90 days are just speculation. Same way, I can bet it would last 90 generations. :D
About the money better spent here, I'm not so sure.
We are already billions. With such big numbers there will always be something to fix, so the space exploration will be postponed forever.
Then, there is the hard question: What's the final goal of spending all the money here? More comfort? Or more wealth? Or longer life? Or, maybe free everything for everyone?
Apparently all the above are good things, but only in the short run. If we look back in history, all civilizations that accumulated too much didn't end well.
Humans need to have dreams and goals to chase at all time, or else, if we'll already achieve all we need, with nothing else to go for, we'll simply decay, or we will start messing with each other for irrelevant causes.
It's the journey that counts, and not the destination.
I switched the Mars Rover Opportunity times. I thought the rover was literally designed (expected?) to last 90 days.
I'll give you that journey, it's about all we have, but not everyone agrees on the route. There are some idealistic philosophies that get in the way there too. I'm not a historian so cannot cite any reasons for civilization collapses. I suspect most were environmentally related, or at the hands of a superior civilization. Everyone has their version of what sort of Utopia they'd want to build. I think we should work to building a more homogeneous civilization rather than one that wants to build walls and nukes pointing at each other. Perhaps we can further technology to solve some of the environmental concerns we now face? Perhaps better health and understanding of how our planet really works and what we actually have here. These are just off the cuff thoughts.
We are running this planet at redline, like we stole it, and expect to hit the eject button to save our asses? Maybe we should launch some limos out into space, cuz that's cool!
-
Going to mars is something for the time after the global warming and over-population problems are solved, it's not an alternative path.
And if earth gets an extinction level event before then and the human race ends?
It's going to take us a very long time to build a massive sustainable mars base that could survive if help from earth stopped forever, so it's important to get started asap.
Putting off a mars base isn't a good idea when the stakes are so high.
I believe Earth's next extinction level event is most likely to be caused by humans. I may have to consider that a bit. Yes, perhaps we do need to run from ourselves.
But, what will we bring with us? The same outcome only somewhere else?
-
I bet the first colony is expected to survive 15 years, but only lasts 90 days.
I think the money would be more effective if spent on domestic programs.
15 years and 90 days are just speculation. Same way, I can bet it would last 90 generations. :D
A colony with current technology is practically guaranteed to die out without resupplies from earth.
Think about everything in a habitat and what keeps it going, and then think about the mind bogglingly massive mining, manufacturing and transport infrastructures on earth required to makes the countless thousands of items that would make a Mars colony survive.
Unless you duplicate those systems on Mars, the colony will die out as the technology ages and cannot be replaced.
-
Wait until the first people go back and send their social media pics "pushing" on the Earth like they do the Eiffel Tower, the waiting list for a ticket will be a mile long. Seriously, you'll have to beat them off with a stick. People will pay a premium to be bumped up the list.
MY money is on a pose like this:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/race-for-the-moon-again-(for-an-enhabited-lunar-base)/?action=dlattach;attach=653619;image)
.... and then I'm sure we will have some "creative" ideas.
-
I bet the first colony is expected to survive 15 years, but only lasts 90 days.
I think the money would be more effective if spent on domestic programs.
15 years and 90 days are just speculation. Same way, I can bet it would last 90 generations. :D
A colony with current technology is practically guaranteed to die out without resupplies from earth.
Think about everything in a habitat and what keeps it going, and then think about the mind bogglingly massive mining, manufacturing and transport infrastructures on earth required to makes the countless thousands of items that would make a Mars colony survive.
Unless you duplicate those systems on Mars, the colony will die out as the technology ages and cannot be replaced.
Besides the reality in DJs comment, and the money pit corporate suicide factor ::)
in a few wars time, and or pollution/hunger semi-obliteration on Earth
the iRadiated surviving punters 6000 years from now, will be surfing on a revived ancient popular electronics internet forum :-+
tipping on a winner for the "8019 Moon Cup Race'... :clap:
See you there guys, hopefully we can upload our brain content to some satellite based Cloud Server in a few years,
and get it pumped back into some cloned zombie at a later time. 8) :-\
Hopefully a zombie without piercings, dreadlocks and tattoo addiction, I can't afford that stuff and put maccas on the table as it is now :scared:
-
Wait until the first people go back and send their social media pics "pushing" on the Earth like they do the Eiffel Tower, the waiting list for a ticket will be a mile long. Seriously, you'll have to beat them off with a stick. People will pay a premium to be bumped up the list.
MY money is on a pose like this:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/race-for-the-moon-again-(for-an-enhabited-lunar-base)/?action=dlattach;attach=653619;image)
.... and then I'm sure we will have some "creative" ideas.
Sadly it's likely not going to be that good:
(https://static.scientificamerican.com/sciam/cache/file/7D956DAF-D100-43A3-9AA3F588C7EDC7C1_source.jpg?w=590&h=800&2F738226-7A5C-4F16-84F267F2BF10CBC3) (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Astronaut_Harrison_%27Jack%27_Schmitt%2C_American_Flag%2C_and_Earth_%28Apollo_17_EVA-1%29.jpg/591px-Astronaut_Harrison_%27Jack%27_Schmitt%2C_American_Flag%2C_and_Earth_%28Apollo_17_EVA-1%29.jpg)
Maybe with a big arse telephoto lens you can do a bit better.
My money would be on a middle finger with the earth balancing on top
And I've met the man who took the photo:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7894/46397806304_f4f163cec0.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2dG1TkE)Dave with Gene Cernan (https://flic.kr/p/2dG1TkE) by Dave Jones (https://www.flickr.com/photos/eevblog/), on Flickr
-
Maybe with a big arse telephoto lens you can do a bit better.
That's what I was thinking, but I hadn't done the math to work out what separation and lens you would need.
Might be an interesting exercise, but we could scale up "Atlas" a bit more - to better match some of the other artistic renditions.
-
Back of the envelope calculations would have the camera about 54m back from the human. For a standard 35mm frame size, a 400mm telephoto in portrait orientation should give you a nice tight shot.
I'd call that doable.
-
"It's important that we get back to the moon as fast as possible," said Bridenstine in a meeting at NASA's Washington headquarters, adding he hoped to have astronauts back there by 2028.
Am I the only one that thinks eight years is not all that fast? After all, the US went from no space program at all to a landing on the Moon in only twelve years the first time around. Okay, I guess I'll cut them some slack for doing it in a "sustainable" way this time.
-
"We are going"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl6jn-DdafM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl6jn-DdafM)
What do you think of the propaganda? Do you like it?
-
I think the money would be more effective if spent on domestic programs.
Like many, you seem to be under the illusion that money spent on such advanced projects is vanishing from the face of earth. It isn't. It pays salaries and countless technology companies, all of whom pay taxes, keep the money flowing within the economy and contribute to technological advancements.
And its better if that money goes towards space exploration, not overbloated militaries that produce no positive effects whatsoever, as is currently the case.
-
Only two things to do on the moon? Science and tourism? Not much imagination in that. While I can think of very few things that the moon is the best place for, there are a whole lot of possibilities for things that can be done there, possibly profitably. n Many have been explored in science fiction.
One of the more intriguing is geriatric care facilities. It might turn out that people can live a long, long time in reduced gravity. And there are a lot of rich old people. This is a simple extension of space tourism.
Mining of Helium 3 is another.
High power radio devices. Think giant vacuum tubes that don't require filament heaters during the lunar day.
Commercial scale mass spectroscopy. Being able to have a free path length in the hundreds or thousands of meters makes this a much easier problem. Whether that ease compensates for the difficulty of the location is not really known or even examined.
There are hundreds of others of others. The economics may or may not work out. Something like tourism might be the thing that builds enough scale and infrastructure to make some of the other ideas viable when they wouldn't stand alone.
I strongly support spending some fraction of the worlds wealth on exploring these possibilities. The argument that we should spend that money fixing the problems at home has always been with us, and is fatally flawed. The money spent studying solid state physics, or genetics, or .... could also have been spent on extent problems but fortunately was not. The only valid argument is not whether or not to spend in any direction, but how much is appropriate.
-
While I love the idea of moon missions for scientific research and to foster international cooperation, I cringe at the thought of moon tourism. We have people already reducing their jet travel because they are worried about air pollution. How much does a typical moon-capable rocket pollute the atmosphere? What about stuff left behind in orbit along the way? Will any of the components be recoverable? Is there not a better way to get rich people to spend their money here on Earth actually doing something good for the planet? Or do we need to offer up moon missions at let's say $1,000,000 a pop (as mentioned earlier in the thread) to extract their cash?
If the mission is already planned for a scientific purpose and a rich person wants to sponsor it and maybe come along for the ride, that is another thing. Let's make it cost them enough that the money also covers some doing good here on Earth. Let's start by adding an environmental cost to the mission so they cover the pollution they will generate by their inclusion (say, spent on planting enough trees to sequester the carbon they will be producing as a result of their arse and everything else required for them to live on the rocket). But to have moon-shots just for the purpose of slinging rich tourists around the moon every month or week (nevermind landing and taking off which is even more fuel, cost and risk), I just don't know. There has to be a better strategy to moon usage. I agree with the previous posting in that regard.
As a crude comparison, we have people offering up huge amounts of money to go on these African hunting expeditions to bag a wild animal trophy. While it sounds barbaric, if the costs are appropriately valued, that rich person looking for their "adventure of a lifetime" can pay the salaries of a whole conservationist army to patrol and protect a region from poachers. It's sad that it had to come to this, but that is the only option to save these animals. How ironic.
Plenty of rich retirees that would love to play a round of moon golf. Just sayin'. :-DD
-
Let's not overlook the most important application - making love in low gravity! :-DD
-
Let's not overlook the most important application - making love in low gravity! :-DD
Yes, it seems to have caught the fancy of quite a few imaginations. I present to you this famous scene from a well known movie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA0y1_AZytc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA0y1_AZytc)
-
"We are going"
What do you think of the propaganda? Do you like it?
The finest propaganda America produces :) However, the full tag line is "we are going to spend billions of dollars on pork programs".
It makes no sense to use a lunar gateway as a staging post for Mars or elsewhere. They've spent $18 billion on SLS, yet to launch once. When it does, it's $2 billion a pop. If anyone is going to the Moon, SLS is not the method. Mining stuff on the Moon to get usable amounts of material is decades away.
If they said "we are spending billions going back to do decades of basic research which may never come to fruition" they would be closer to the mark.
-
Many have been explored in science fiction.
And that is where they will stay, like flying cars, teleporting, time travel, matter replicators etc.
The economics may or may not work out.
They won't, and that is the No. 1 problem.
I did actually miss one other thing, souvenirs. People will pay thousands for a few grams of Moon rock, far more than it's mineral value.
I think the problem is people just don't realise how cheap stuff is on Earth. A tonne of iron ore is worth $93. After refining, it's maybe worth $2000-4000. Transporting that back to Earth would cost $millions. Even if you had a stack of gold bars on the Moon waiting to be picked up, it would still not be worth bringing back.
So the only thing of value on the Moon must be non-commodity items, you literally can't get anywhere else. That leaves only two things you need to be on the Moon for: tourism and science.
-
I think we should get to the moon and mars both. maybe not 'as fast as possible' but as practice as possible. Build a couple more 'space stations' that can go back and forth to the moon and mars autonomously. Think like a train/subway, let the worlds's .gov's set those up like public transportation. Then you can start ferry'ing people/cargo back and forth. Then make ISS's around both the moon and mars utilizing parts such as spent fuel tanks like they did skylab.
Establish the basic infrastructure of an orbiting station and regular ferry's to/form each
-
"We are going"
What do you think of the propaganda? Do you like it?
The finest propaganda America produces :) However, the full tag line is "we are going to spend billions of dollars on pork programs".
It makes no sense to use a lunar gateway as a staging post for Mars or elsewhere. They've spent $18 billion on SLS, yet to launch once. When it does, it's $2 billion a pop. If anyone is going to the Moon, SLS is not the method. Mining stuff on the Moon to get usable amounts of material is decades away.
If they said "we are spending billions going back to do decades of basic research which may never come to fruition" they would be closer to the mark.
But we can't not do it. Space is obviously our destiny and we have to accept it.
-
But we can't not do it. Space is obviously our destiny and we have to accept it.
Why?
Countless species have come and gone in the time since life first formed on our planet, the human race has been around only a tiny fraction of that and like all things it will eventually come to an end. Spreading out into space is unlikely to work out, even under ideal circumstances we could only get a small handful of humans off the earth and then statistically how many of those will survive to colonize other planets even if we had other planets to colonize? Mars is not habitable and never will be, not within reason. It's our best bet in this solar system but the most livable parts of Mars are far more hostile to life than the least livable parts of earth.
-
But we can't not do it. Space is obviously our destiny and we have to accept it.
Why?
Countless species have come and gone in the time since life first formed on our planet, the human race has been around only a tiny fraction of that and like all things it will eventually come to an end. Spreading out into space is unlikely to work out, even under ideal circumstances we could only get a small handful of humans off the earth and then statistically how many of those will survive to colonize other planets even if we had other planets to colonize? Mars is not habitable and never will be, not within reason. It's our best bet in this solar system but the most livable parts of Mars are far more hostile to life than the least livable parts of earth.
If we don't sack up and master our immediate environment (e.g. our solar system, at least), we make our eventual extinction more probable. We have to get to the point of being able to divert incoming asteroids etc. which we know have impacted Earth in the past. And don't forget about low gravity love making.
-
Dr. Ballard vs. Buzz Aldrin :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjmNV1F8aZ0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjmNV1F8aZ0)
-
Many have been explored in science fiction.
And that is where they will stay, like flying cars, teleporting, time travel, matter replicators etc.
The economics may or may not work out.
They won't, and that is the No. 1 problem.
I did actually miss one other thing, souvenirs. People will pay thousands for a few grams of Moon rock, far more than it's mineral value.
I think the problem is people just don't realise how cheap stuff is on Earth. A tonne of iron ore is worth $93. After refining, it's maybe worth $2000-4000. Transporting that back to Earth would cost $millions. Even if you had a stack of gold bars on the Moon waiting to be picked up, it would still not be worth bringing back.
So the only thing of value on the Moon must be non-commodity items, you literally can't get anywhere else. That leaves only two things you need to be on the Moon for: tourism and science.
Some science fiction standards are drivel. You listed three. The flying car concept still hasn't had a nail put through its heart. And many of the ideas developed in science fiction are not drivel. Most famously the communication satellite, but the list goes on and on.
And economics are not as simple as you appear to believe. In the presence of a viable moon architecture to support tourism, those gold blocks would be very inexpensive to get back to earth. Perhaps as little as a few dollars per pound for the cheapest approach. Now there is still the cost of getting those bars together on the moons surface, which isn't going to be cheap under most circumstances.
Even iron may make sense. There are serious business efforts evaluate bringing a nickel-iron asteroid into earth orbit. These hard nosed business people have not ruled it out. From there delivering to the surface is cheap, though not delivery to Europe. Will have to be someplace that doesn't mind having big pieces of debris splatting down. The Sahara, the Gobi, the great Outback and perhaps some places in North America come to mind. Again the economics are unclear. The cost will be in billions, but the quantities of refines metal are equally enormous. One of the most difficult questions is what the market price would be in the presence of such a large supply.
Any assertion that the economics are either viable or non-viable is based on emotion, limited data, inherent bias or other factors. No one actually currently knows the answer. Prior art is a murky guide here. There have been two major attempts to reduce the cost of space transportation that I am aware of. The Space Shuttle appears to have actually increased the cost by factors, though it may have been less than that for manned flights. SpaceX appears to have reduced the cost by a factor of two or possibly three already. Extrapolating those two data points in any direction is a dangerous game.
-
Not yet, wait another 20years or so. Or perhaps the Russians or the Chinese, Trump is busy starting WWIII with Iran right now :-[
-
If the mission is already planned for a scientific purpose and a rich person wants to sponsor it and maybe come along for the ride, that is another thing.
How does that thinking not extend to an entire moon tourism base and tourism industry?
i.e. the tourism base pays for the science base.
Let's make it cost them enough that the money also covers some doing good here on Earth. Let's start by adding an environmental cost to the mission so they cover the pollution they will generate by their inclusion (say, spent on planting enough trees to sequester the carbon they will be producing as a result of their arse and everything else required for them to live on the rocket). But to have moon-shots just for the purpose of slinging rich tourists around the moon every month or week (nevermind landing and taking off which is even more fuel, cost and risk), I just don't know. There has to be a better strategy to moon usage. I agree with the previous posting in that regard.
The carbon output of such a niche tourism industry is absolutely trivial to what the world produces daily.
If you want to make an argument about the tokenism of it, that's fine, but it's not sensible to argue in absolute practical impact terms.
It's like the 20M trees Youtube thing.
-
Even if you had a stack of gold bars on the Moon waiting to be picked up, it would still not be worth bringing back.
That's an interesting thing to think about. According to Google "cost per weight to launch" stuff off the Earth, we have:
"Between 1970 and 2000, the cost to launch a kilogram to space remained fairly steady, with an average of US$18,500 per kilogram. When the space shuttle was in operation, it could launch a payload of 27,500 kilograms for $1.5 billion, or $54,500 per kilogram"
At the moment, the cost of gold per kg (Google search) is: $49,910.82
So that is if you want to launch stuff into near Earth orbit (satellites, etc). How much would it cost to send something to the moon to bring stuff back? You would need to take along a lot of extra fuel to get there and back, and also get out of moon orbit. So if you had a pile of gold bars just sitting on the surface of the moon, in the most ideal location, already refined and ready to be picked up, how much would it cost to retrieve it?
If costs range from $18,500/kg - $54,500/kg just to launch stuff up from Earth into near orbit, how much more would it cost to bring something to the moon, load it up and fly it back? I would guess it would be at least an order of magnitude greater. Although that would be a good exercise to figure out if we had data from the lunar missions.
The carbon output of such a niche tourism industry is absolutely trivial to what the world produces daily.
If you want to make an argument about the tokenism of it, that's fine, but it's not sensible to argue in absolute practical impact terms. It's like the 20M trees Youtube thing.
Yes, it's more of a token gesture. I know it will make minimal impact environmentally but may improve the "optics" of having a bunch of rich people polluting the planet for their pleasure trips (which is already happening extensively with cruiseship and other such leisure tourism industries). It will also make the people who pay for these trips feel better about it... but I agree it will barely make a dent.
-
Even if you had a stack of gold bars on the Moon waiting to be picked up, it would still not be worth bringing back.
That's an interesting thing to think about. According to Google "cost per weight to launch" stuff off the Earth, we have:
"Between 1970 and 2000, the cost to launch a kilogram to space remained fairly steady, with an average of US$18,500 per kilogram. When the space shuttle was in operation, it could launch a payload of 27,500 kilograms for $1.5 billion, or $54,500 per kilogram"
At the moment, the cost of gold per kg (Google search) is: $49,910.82
So that is if you want to launch stuff into near Earth orbit (satellites, etc). How much would it cost to send something to the moon to bring stuff back? You would need to take along a lot of extra fuel to get there and back, and also get out of moon orbit. So if you had a pile of gold bars just sitting on the surface of the moon, in the most ideal location, already refined and ready to be picked up, how much would it cost to retrieve it?
If costs range from $18,500/kg - $54,500/kg just to launch stuff up from Earth into near orbit, how much more would it cost to bring something to the moon, load it up and fly it back? I would guess it would be at least an order of magnitude greater. Although that would be a good exercise to figure out if we had data from the lunar missions.
The carbon output of such a niche tourism industry is absolutely trivial to what the world produces daily.
If you want to make an argument about the tokenism of it, that's fine, but it's not sensible to argue in absolute practical impact terms. It's like the 20M trees Youtube thing.
Yes, it's more of a token gesture. I know it will make minimal impact environmentally but may improve the "optics" of having a bunch of rich people polluting the planet for their pleasure trips (which is already happening extensively with cruiseship and other such leisure tourism industries). It will also make the people who pay for these trips feel better about it... but I agree it will barely make a dent.
Your analogy is somewhat like including the cost of the highway in shipping costs. If there is a fully developed tourist infrastructure you only pay incremental costs.
Picture this scenario. You install solar cells and a magnetic driver on the moon. There are small amounts of iron available from your gold smelting operations. Magnetic drive to escape velocity is practical in the vacuum of the moon. Gold doesn't require coddling so you put it in an iron box and aim it at a desert on Earth. Assume only a small fraction survives atmospheric re-entry. This kind of system has tiny incremental costs.
But yes, if you use a NASA SLS single shot get the gold approach the costs are astronomical.
-
Here you go...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/tech/japanese-billionaire-moon-intl-hnk-scli-scn/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/tech/japanese-billionaire-moon-intl-hnk-scli-scn/index.html)
Any women on this forum interested in joining this billionaire on a trip 'round the moon? :-DD Is that what they call it these days? :-DD Act fast as the deadline is January 17th to apply!
-
The question of going to the Moon vs to Mars is misleading. Without using Moon as a base to learn and to operate from, going to Mars or to other planets is a non-starter.
We do not yet know how to survive long enough for the trip to get to Mars. Besides our need for certain consumables (food, water, air, etc.) out ability to survive the radiation and other space hazards enroute is questionable. The shielding required (as we understand the issue today) for radiation alone would add significant weight to any space craft we construct. Then there are the micro-asteroids... Space want to kill us and staying there for any extended period is hard.
We need a moon base to learn before we can plan a manned Mars mission with a reasonable degree (>50%) of survival.
-
Do not deprive the Smokin' Musk from his "we go to Mars by... " tweets ! :box:
-
The question of going to the Moon vs to Mars is misleading. Without using Moon as a base to learn and to operate from, going to Mars or to other planets is a non-starter.
We do not yet know how to survive long enough for the trip to get to Mars. Besides our need for certain consumables (food, water, air, etc.) out ability to survive the radiation and other space hazards enroute is questionable. The shielding required (as we understand the issue today) for radiation alone would add significant weight to any space craft we construct. Then there are the micro-asteroids... Space want to kill us and staying there for any extended period is hard.
We need a moon base to learn before we can plan a manned Mars mission with a reasonable degree (>50%) of survival.
I don't doubt we could do it right now and have the crew survive if we had to. a.la Zubrin's Mars Direct approach as a baseline.
Getting humans to survive say 18-24 months in space and mars and surviving the trip isn't that hard in theory, assuming the systems worked as intended. But it would likely be a miserable experience for those involved and they might be physical wrecks when they get back.
Regular mars trips isn't going to happen without a moon base first though, it's just not, we need more experience in space. We haven't been beyond earth orbit since 1972. You can drive your car further in one day on one tank of petrol then humans have been off the earth surface for the last 48 years.
-
[...]
We haven't been beyond earth orbit since 1972. You can drive your car further in one day on one tank of petrol then humans have been off the earth surface for the last 48 years.
To our eternal shame.