Started By
Message
0
Posted on 5/17/20 at 11:25 am to thatguy45
As a NASA contractor, the answer is easy.
We went to the moon the first time BECAUSE WE COULD. And in a related reason, because we needed to beat the Russians there. Now that we have been there, we already know that... there's not much there. At all. Certainly nothing for economic reasons, and not really even for space related reasons. It is far easier to stage future solar system and other space exploration from an orbiting platform instead of having to fight an additional gravity well of the moon.
Along the same lines, in the 70's and 80's, we realized as new technology was coming to fruition just exactly how valuable satellites and low earth science missions actually were. These - with the International Space Station as the shining star of research - were far better suited to space shuttle type of missions instead of moon shots. It was actually quite a step forward to shift this paradigm and not a step back at all.
Now, having said that, we need to look at NASA's mission. It is not to provide the only vehicle to get satellites up and supplies to the space station - that's why SpaceX and other launch companies would not be in existence today if not for NASA's funding and being an ongoing customer.
The bottom line is that NASA is transferring some of the ongoing, repeatable missions in order to concentrate on missions that have a much lower opportunity for success, and things that no commercial return is probable. There are simply some tasks that only governments can accomplish in scope, scale, and purpose.
Now, the question that most citizens actually want to ask is... is what we are spending in taxpayer dollars worth it? The answer is unequivocally YES. Without NASA research and drive, we would be far behind where we are today as a nation technologically. I'm not even going to bother to list the items and processes we use on a daily basis as the result of NASA, this is easy enough to look up and research. Rest assured that it is an incredible list.
Citizens need to realize that with NASA, the overall benefit is not what we achieve or where we go... it is what we learn along the way to attempt those things. Mission to Mars? I am incredibly skeptical that it will happen in our lifetime, and perhaps not even in the next generation. But we need to try and see what it takes - because of what we will learn about metals, composites, fuel, solar energy, etc etc etc - even how to internationally cooperate better - as we make the attempt.
Finally, I leave you with this - a nun in the poorest of African nations once wrote NASA and asked what the money was going for. Von Braun's deputy administrator responded with a letter - it is one of the finest responses of such nature that you will ever read. Please take a moment to do so. It is life-enriching.
Why Explore Space?
We went to the moon the first time BECAUSE WE COULD. And in a related reason, because we needed to beat the Russians there. Now that we have been there, we already know that... there's not much there. At all. Certainly nothing for economic reasons, and not really even for space related reasons. It is far easier to stage future solar system and other space exploration from an orbiting platform instead of having to fight an additional gravity well of the moon.
Along the same lines, in the 70's and 80's, we realized as new technology was coming to fruition just exactly how valuable satellites and low earth science missions actually were. These - with the International Space Station as the shining star of research - were far better suited to space shuttle type of missions instead of moon shots. It was actually quite a step forward to shift this paradigm and not a step back at all.
Now, having said that, we need to look at NASA's mission. It is not to provide the only vehicle to get satellites up and supplies to the space station - that's why SpaceX and other launch companies would not be in existence today if not for NASA's funding and being an ongoing customer.
The bottom line is that NASA is transferring some of the ongoing, repeatable missions in order to concentrate on missions that have a much lower opportunity for success, and things that no commercial return is probable. There are simply some tasks that only governments can accomplish in scope, scale, and purpose.
Now, the question that most citizens actually want to ask is... is what we are spending in taxpayer dollars worth it? The answer is unequivocally YES. Without NASA research and drive, we would be far behind where we are today as a nation technologically. I'm not even going to bother to list the items and processes we use on a daily basis as the result of NASA, this is easy enough to look up and research. Rest assured that it is an incredible list.
Citizens need to realize that with NASA, the overall benefit is not what we achieve or where we go... it is what we learn along the way to attempt those things. Mission to Mars? I am incredibly skeptical that it will happen in our lifetime, and perhaps not even in the next generation. But we need to try and see what it takes - because of what we will learn about metals, composites, fuel, solar energy, etc etc etc - even how to internationally cooperate better - as we make the attempt.
Finally, I leave you with this - a nun in the poorest of African nations once wrote NASA and asked what the money was going for. Von Braun's deputy administrator responded with a letter - it is one of the finest responses of such nature that you will ever read. Please take a moment to do so. It is life-enriching.
Why Explore Space?
Posted on 5/17/20 at 12:00 pm to iglass
How long would it take a space shuttle to travel to Mars?
Posted on 5/17/20 at 12:33 pm to Hailstate15
quote:
We have more money and more technology than we ever did and have yet to touch the moon.
I am 23. Strong conservative and think something is fishy about the moon landing
There isn't much reason to go to the moon other than curiosity. It's very expensive and there isn't anything to gain.
Posted on 5/17/20 at 12:45 pm to thatguy45
quote:
Why not pursue mining of asteroids though if the goal is resource gathering, and not exploration/colonization? Send probes, find an asteroid with valuables and send equipment up to mine it
Because the costs of mining that stuff FAR outweighs any profit that can come of it.
You have to design the equipment, build the equipment, find a way to get the equipment into space. Do the mining, and then send the mined stuff back to earth. And how are you going to slow it down on the way back to earth? You gonna come back with only a single train boxcar sized load? Put parachutes on something that weighs hundreds of tons? Spend all that money and come back with a trash can of ore?
The bottom line is that while those rockets are enough to get to the moon, to do more than that we have to have a much much cheaper and better propulsion systems.
I personally doubt we will ever mine asteroids and such. Good for sci-fi and that's about it.
Posted on 5/17/20 at 1:12 pm to PrattvilleTiger
quote:
PrattvilleTiger
How long would it take a space shuttle to travel to Mars?
Forever and a day, because that ain't happening. There are no more shuttles and many companies who made parts are long since gone.
The biggest logistics problem with a trip to Mars is not only the fuel, food, air, water, etc. - all the stuff you have to take with you... but rather the trajectories.
That is, if you launched towards Mars today, you have to aim where Mars is going to be - WHEN YOU NEED TO GET THERE based on your speed and trip duration. The problem with that is that Mars and the Earth revolve around the Sun at far different rates. This means that there are only so many launch windows that make sense. And these aren't "if something goes wrong, we'll launch during the next launch window next week" sort of thing. It's more like months or years apart.
Compound that with the RETURN launch window. When you launch back from Mars, you have to go to where the Earth is going to be in the future. That can't be on the other side of the Sun. We could literally land on Mars and have to wait six months before we could head back. And so forth. i can't recall the actual numbers, but it's not gonna be traveling for 18 montns to get there, stay a week and explore, and then head back. It just doesn't work that way.
So to recap, fuel is a huge component and the foremost/most considered logistical problem along with life sciences. But just as important is the ability to survive for a long duration, up to and including manufacturing and survival based on local resources. A trip to Mars is not just a neighborhood jaunt where you need a big air tank.
Posted on 5/17/20 at 5:01 pm to Hailstate15
quote:
We have more money and more technology than we ever did and have yet to touch the moon.
Good fricking lord. And you're allowed to vote.
Posted on 5/17/20 at 5:52 pm to Hailstate15
quote:
We have more money and more technology than we ever did and have yet to touch the moon.
I am 23. Strong conservative and think something is fishy about the moon landing
Posted on 5/17/20 at 6:56 pm to reedus23
quote:
reedus23
triggered
Posted on 5/17/20 at 7:20 pm to MoarKilometers
quote:
trans-lunar injection.
Posted on 5/17/20 at 10:20 pm to thatguy45
The moon missions showed us that putting biologicals into space is expensive, dangerous and impractical. No other countries have shown any interest in following our lead, based upon these findings.
Rather, the exploration of space will require the development of A.I. Only a species that has been designed for space travel can endure the radiation dangers, the extremely long distances and the time needed to travel to even our closest stellar neighbors.
Rather, the exploration of space will require the development of A.I. Only a species that has been designed for space travel can endure the radiation dangers, the extremely long distances and the time needed to travel to even our closest stellar neighbors.
Posted on 5/17/20 at 11:43 pm to Kentucker
Why did we stop? Because it was a dead end scientifically. A compromise was made in the methodology for lunar flights that rendered them obsolete. Our tame Nazi rocket scientist Von Braun and his cabal were building towards earth orbit launch. Essentially a space station launch platform to allow for craft to be assembled and fueled in space for launch to explore the solar system. A reusable craft to get to the station and you can remove the variable and cost of atmospheric launch.
The Russians killed that with Sputnik and shortcuts were made switching to a single focus lunar orbit launch. With a small “mothership” orbiter and a landing craft. The system worked, which is all that mattered to the powers that be, but it was a dead end. The earth orbiter system would have used the moon as proof of concept and expanded to include unmanned launches in our solar system and later manned missions. But nope we went “cheap” for the sake of speed and picked the wrong methodology
The Russians killed that with Sputnik and shortcuts were made switching to a single focus lunar orbit launch. With a small “mothership” orbiter and a landing craft. The system worked, which is all that mattered to the powers that be, but it was a dead end. The earth orbiter system would have used the moon as proof of concept and expanded to include unmanned launches in our solar system and later manned missions. But nope we went “cheap” for the sake of speed and picked the wrong methodology
Posted on 5/18/20 at 10:39 am to thatguy45
We went. If we hadn't the Russians would have had a field day telling on us. We have found out we can send probes and instruments far cheaper than humans. We went to show the world we are better at technology and our system is better than the Russians and it was better than fighting a war. We will go back and establish bases, and use it as a stepping stone to Mars...and beyond.
"The Earth is just too small and fragile a basket for the human race to keep all its eggs in it."
Robert Heinlein
"The Earth is just too small and fragile a basket for the human race to keep all its eggs in it."
Robert Heinlein
Posted on 5/18/20 at 5:40 pm to thatguy45
It was very expensive. Also we didn't have the technology to stay there and if you are going to go it has to be safe and affordable. That only recently became the case.
Posted on 5/18/20 at 5:42 pm to thatguy45
quote:
Assuming we really did go (I'm of the opinion we did)
Don't say that shite. It's not a matter of opinion. You clearly misunderstand what that word means.
It is an stone-cold fact that we went to the moon multiple times.
LINK
Oh and we stopped because it was stupid fricking expensive and went pretty much for propaganda purposes.
If they had kept the budget once the moon program stopped, and spent it on developing space infrastructure, we might be mining in space by now. But unfortunately the budget nose-dived and we are where we are.
This post was edited on 5/18/20 at 5:46 pm
Posted on 5/19/20 at 12:32 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Only a species that has been designed for space travel can endure the radiation dangers, the extremely long distances and the time needed to travel to even our closest stellar neighbors.
With the technology we have now.
Posted on 5/19/20 at 4:46 pm to MoarKilometers
quote:
trans-lunar injection.
Bad arse piece of music from the Apollo 11 soundtrack.
Posted on 5/20/20 at 6:25 am to Arksulli
quote:
You might not survive that landing since one glitch could cause you to crash, but we can get there.
Broken circuit breaker Apollo 11
or not get back
"As luck would have it, this wasn't just any old switch: it was the switch to the circuit breaker that activated the ascent engine that would lift them off the moon to rendezvous with Mike Collins, who was orbiting overhead in the Columbia. If they couldn't get that breaker pushed back in, they'd have to figure something else out, or there'd be no ascent."
Posted on 5/24/20 at 11:23 am to 3down10
quote:
There isn't much reason to go to the moon other than curiosity. It's very expensive and there isn't anything to gain.
False. There's large supplies of ore and helium 3 which can be used to make powerful rocket fuel.
Posted on 5/24/20 at 8:32 pm to thatguy45
One of the main reasons was we ran out of Saturn 5 rockets and in particular the F-1 rocket engine. They ordered enough for Apollo 19 but wound up using them for the Soyuz/Apollo joint mission and Skylab. Congress stopped funding building the big lifters.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News