Slashdot Mirror
Forget Mars. Should We Go To The Moon?
me98411 writes "We have discussed earlier about the President's Commission on Moon, Mars and Beyond and about how a direct trip to Mars is the way to go (or way not to). In a BBC article, the division in the astronomers and space geeks community about the use of the Moon as a base to develop ways to travel to Mars is highlighted. Now, Nature is asking: Should we go back to the moon? Is a manned mission to the moon even necessary?"
This story brings up a good point... I think we should go to the moon... Learn a lot more with todays science applied there.
Just me
You're old school? I beta tested the motherf***ing abacus!
Doesn't this, in a way, come down to an issue of long-term goals for space exploration? The costs of putting up a station of sorts on the moon would no doubt be immensely costly. If we just plan to run a few missions to Mars, it really doesn't seem very cost-effective. If someone has solid numbers I'd like to see how the distance moon/Earth would be to further planets such as Jupiter or Neptune. Also how big of a factor is the gravity difference in the long run for travel. If we could turn a station on the moon into a pseudo-colony, I think that would have some nice potential for space travel and perhaps even more affordable space tourism.
( o ) one could say I'm rather baked
Should we go to the moon: No. It is expensive and dangerous.
A more realistic question should be will we go back to the moon: Yes we will eventually.
People like to explore. Many people died colonizing the Americas, but we kept at it until it stuck. The moon is just the next step in this process. We, as humans, want to learn and explore. We want to go to the moon and to Mars. Because we want to we will eventually.
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
It makes sense to test the technology that will be used for more advanced Mars missions. Also, if there is a problem, the chances of being rescued are much greater.
If we go back to the Moon, there's more chance that we can go to stay. Supplying a Moon base will be expensive, but not ridiculously so. It's something that could reasonably be done now, without year-long flight times and teradollar budgets.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Should we go back to the moon?
Only if they can use the old sets. I don't think we should spend any money on new movie sets.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Yes, going to the moon would be nice and if we mine it for hydrogen-3 it will also be profitable.
The Moon should be off limits. We all know that The Watcher lives there....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
Let's go to the beach and have a beer.
....done that, or have we?
"Many people died colonizing the Americas, but we kept at it until it stuck"
Back when the Americas were colinized death was acceptable where today just 1 death can derail projects. Death is no longer seen as an acceptable loss so safety is something to be taken into high consideration.
"We, as humans, want to learn and explore."
We humans do want to explore but shouldn't we explore what's in our own back yard. This would help us not only learn but let us test our methods before we take a long trek to another planet.
Evolution or ID?
The moon needs a regime change. They are hoarding all the cheese!
Send orbiters, probes, robots. Make them bigger and more sophisticated as you go along. Send things that take samples and come back. Do this often enough and eventually you reach the limits of what unmanned technology can accomplish, but by then the launching and recovery systems should be so proven and capable that sending a person becomes little more complicated than sending a couple of big packages of instrumentation.
Gradually work towards sending a person and bringing them back by sending lots of expendable things, and bringing them back with stuff for us to study here. Scale up as we go along instead of having one immediate big push. Isn't that sensible?
Humanity was made to live on the ground as dirt worshiping filthy feudal serfs. All this flying around in space disrupts the natural order. Think of all the people who are not evolved for a high tech world who are falling more and more behind. Some people just can't cope going faster than a brisk walk behind a plow dragging mule team.
It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)
.. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.
Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors
Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!
Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
To the moon and soon. I want to have humans back there before I die.
It makes the most sense. Anything you will use on mars can be tested on the moon or in getting to the moon.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
I imagine a scenario were unmanned ships send a lot of bits on successive low cost missions, and then astronauts go to set up and service the kit.
I'm ignorant on these matters, but it would appear to be to be much easier to set up kit on the moon than it is floating in space on a shuttle lifeline.
And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)
I can't see any point, but people keep telling me it is of great political importants. I can't see why, so I suppose that is why I'm not a politician.
The article is talking about using the Moon as a base for travelling to Mars. If this would help efforts to go to Mars (Which is a Good Thing), then, yes, sure, using the Moon like that would be great.
Other points it raise show that some scientists think it is useless (Quote: "In short, we should ask whether dirt and gravity offer any general value to astronomy. The answer, I believe, is no."). This is countered, in the article by saying that we will to do tests on The Moon without interference from things from the earth.
Well, I think I've been converted. There is a point!
- Jax
As in, should another taxpayer funded voyage be made? No. If private industry wants to start, go for it. Want your money to go towards it, buy stock. Let's get the US Government's budget under control and regain the ability to pay for the things we've promised (Social Security for one) before we start talking about funding flights to the moon.
At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun.
Alan Greenspan
My personal suspicion is that the moon holds little or no lure for politicians looking to strike awe in media and the public.
Spending billions on a trip to mars sounds new and cool to anyone. While on the other hand spending money on "going back" to the moon might not win any points in the approval ratings.
I might be more cynical than most people, but I still hope that the plans are made with long term thinking, and sciense as motivation rather than just popularity.
I say: to the moon Alice!!!
OK not that funny...
I'd like both, but if I had to pick one, I'd have to go with Mars.
Looking at the long-term, the only useful thing on the moon is Helium-3, which will only be useful when commercial fusion reactors come to fruition, and that's been 'just round the corner' since my parents were born.
At least on Mars there is a whole bunch of science to do.
NO, actually it was the 60's when we first when, you historical plebe.
As far as materials for the construction of colonisation fleets are concerned, the moon is always going to be the obvious choice, since why build hundreds of ships on earth in high gravity when you can build the ships in the no-atmosphere low-gravity nearby, materials-rich moon.
It's sitting there, just waiting for us to make it a resource.
Bring on improvements in nanite materials science, control and design.
Gravity is less of a problem is there is less mass to the lens. The University of Kansas is working on making lenses out of carbon fiber.
The Tao that can be spoken is not the one eternal Tao
I keep saying this, but nobody listens. Antarctica -- an entire continent is empty. The conditions are a lot more hospitable. And it is "Global Warming"-proof :-)
Why not colonize it properly first? I think, Chili and Argentina tried (to claim the territory) to pay their citizens to live there, but the settlements waned...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I'd much rather have my tax dollars going for something like space exploration than into some Ponzi scheme like "Social Security" that I'll never see a dime from.
If the government is going to flush my $$ down the toilet, at least do it on something that will be in the history books millenia from now.
What the hell do you think people a few thousand years from now are going to be reading about in their history books? About how Al Gore really won the 2000 election? About how George Bush lied about WMD? Hardly, despite all the self-absorbed carping from the positive-reinforcement-left-wing lunatics of US politics.
Folks thousands of years from now won't know about the late 20th century as the time when two superpowers engaged in a cold war - they'll know it as the time Neil Armstrong was the first human to set foot on another celestial body.
Everything else is just noise.
http://www.rathergood.com/moon_song/
But what about that property I bought on the moon. The sooner we get there the sooner I can start building on it.
Evolution or ID?
They're also near so called peaks of eternal light where solar power would be extremely effective. Let's send a probe there on the cheap, and find out if there really is water there or not. That could make the decision really easy.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
A journey of more than 34.65 million miles starts with a single step. For a trip that long, the Moon seems like a good first step to me.
"The problem with internet quotations is that many are not genuine" -Abraham Lincoln
The moon is an interesting place to visit and should be thought of as an orbiting industrial park; lots of minerals, vacuum, solar polar (at least half the time), etc...there's a lot of neat things you can do on the lunar surface. BUT...the environments of Mars and the Moon are so different that the idea of testing equipment meant for Mars on the Moon is ludicrous.
Folks, it's called satire.
Apollo astronaut Harrison Schmitt had a wonderful editorial in Aviation Week and Space Technology a couple of weeks ago, which is similar to this testimony before Congress. In it he laid out an arguably sound economic case for mounting a large-scale mission to the moon to mine Helium 3.
Helium 3 is present in abundance on the moon, and on a per-pound basis could be one of the most valuable substances there is. Assuming that one really could catalyze nuclear fusion in power reactors using Helium 3, it could have profound implications -- allowing us to move beyond hydrocarbon fossil fuels (although, ironically, you'd still need those fuels to power the rockets to the moon.)
I'd seen pie-eyed schemes for going to the moon for the Helium 3 before, but Schmitt really tries to nail it down, and answer most obvious criticisms. It's definitely worth a read.
Thad Beier
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
the question that should be asked is 'Do we need to go to the moon?
Obviously if we are just going to go back there and plant another flag then hell NO, wo shouldn't go back.
But say theres an experiment or a whole list of experiments that we need to carry out there then why not?
Soemthing about need being the mother of all things..
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
Let's go. Or let's return to the trees and let the bears have a go!
...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
Maybe that's where the WMDs are hid.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
A long term Lunar presence, either a permanent station or colony, is probably unworkable. The largest obstacle, apart from the supply chain, is the Lunar regolith, which is very sharp and abrasive stuff... without weathering, it's more like ground up, pwdered glass than dust or dirt.
Lagrange point space stations are a better plan, and a non-permanent station on the moon for science and exploration. Mars would be more workable, once the supply chain problems are licked... and Lagrange point space habitats are a great step in that direction.
SoupIsGood Food
Actually, conditions being what they are on the two bodies, and technology being what it is today, it's actually *easier* to get to the surface of Mars than the surface of the Moon (from LEO, it's 4.5 km/s Delta-V for Mars vs. 6.0 km/s for the Moon), and Mars is a safer place once you're there.
Just a shameless plug really, since I wrote it, but everyone here ought to check out The Mars Society FAQ. Lots of good info on this topic, verified by Dr. Robert Zubrin himself.
How To Get Humans To Mars
Going to the moon, and then using it as a launch pad to mars is total bunk. It would be similar to doing a trip 100 miles away by taking the first leg of the trip 3000 miles away and then coming back. The hard part about going to Luna or Mars is getting off this rock. If we use Luna as a launch pad, we will still have to launch from here to there with just about everything, then re-launch it again. Totally F.U.
OTH, it does make sense to use luna for a test bed to build an automated system for building a colony. In particular, we need to build rockets to launch large loads. Likewise, we should send automated systems ahead to carve out a home/cave in the ground for us. Colorado School of Mines was recently given a lasar for drilling in the ground (via the US military). This could be used to literally build several holes in the ground for living in. From there, we can expand easily enough.
Once this is perfected, then send a number of teams to Mars to live out their natural lives. They should be going to colonize the planet rather than plan on going there and coming back. And yes, there are plenty of bright people who would be willing to risk it all for a chance to settle on a new planet.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If we can use a scramjet, space elevator or whatever to get to space cheaper we could build a multipurpose interplanetary vessel that we could use for manned missions to Mars, Venus, Europa, Io, the Moon or where ever they decide to send it to explore. In relative safety and comfort instead of a limited cobbled together single use vessel.
You can legislate morally you can't legislate morality
...WE haven't promised anything. Politicians looking to coerce votes make these promises on our behalf. Personally, I think a scientific expedition has far more potential to benefit humanity as whole than a bankrupt taxpayer-funded wealth-redistribution ponzi scheme.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
It is important for humanity to colonize other worlds for several reasons. First, it gives a degree of protection from disasters of the sort that killed off the dinosaurs. Right now, we have all our eggs in one basket, ripe for extinction. Second, we can't stay on this planet forever, eventually (in a long long time) the sun will die, with it the capacity to support life on this planet. We may have to leave sooner if, as seems likely, we exhaust the natural resources of our lonely planet. Anything that is inevitable has to be faced, the sooner the better.
The moon is important because it will give us valuable experience in colonizing other worlds, and do so fairly cheaply compared to Mars, Europa, etc. Even if the Moon is a bad site to put telescopes, the knowledge gained by inhabiting another world is irreplaceable. There probably exist problems of colonization that haven't been forseen yet, and the only way to discover these problems is to try to do it. We may lose lives in the process, but that is a small price to pay for the continued survival of the species. I don't think they would have any problems finding volunteers to go, I know I would go in a heartbeat.
I dream of the day when we have colonized all the habitable planets and moons in this solar system, and the debate rages about whether it's worthwhile to invest in colonizing others. Same debate, same short-sighted folks complaining that it's too much money for too little gain.
Personally, while I would love to see mankind returning to the moon and then to Mars, I question the motivation of GWB (aka Chimp Face)
;-)
Maybe I'm just cynical, but to me it's just another huge pork-barrel into which to dump the US taxpayers money to feed greedy defense/military contractors.
Gotta keep the old economy moving
__
Sigs are like arse-holes, everybody has one
It would be better to start getting a sustainable foothold in space, opening up the opportunity to start scooting around the rest of the solar system
We need a small fleet of reusable modular spaceships that can be used for a mission and then can be parked in orbit and replenished to be sent out on future missions. The landing component for Mars and other planets should be the only throwaway component.
The Moon can be a source of materials that are cheaper solely because you don't have boosting the mass into earth orbit.
In the same way, in the long term, a manned subsurface base on Moon is a cheaper option for maintaining the engineering crews and astronauts themselves, between missions.
The low gravity and vacuum in space provides some opportunities for new manufacturing processes, which could also provide a source of revenue for the entire space program.
Asteroids have the potential for providing sources of material for both the new manufacturing processes, creating orbital stations and even new space ships.
Just because a robot or satellite could do the job, I do think it's a far better thing to send a human once some semblance of a safety guarantee is established, even though the word guarantee is subject to things like the disasters that occurred with our two space shuttles. To allow someone to see the moon up close, or to see mars up close puts a whole new human light on things and sparks something that they could share with the world. A robot doesnt care, doesnt get excited, doesn't marvel at how we did it, or wonder if we're going to go back again. I think part of the thrill of space travel is the unknown element and then making it back in spite of it. I think Star Trek was successful for two very important reasons, namely the curiosity about space and what the universe is composed of (other life perhaps) and the thrill of 'boldy going where no one has gone before'. I think that at any cost, there is a need to go. Maybe waiting a few years for the technology to get less expensive, but going at some point none-the-less.
1. Scientifically, the Moon as a stepping stone was figurative, not literal. We go to the moon a few times to test the Crew Exploration Vehicle/What Not, to work out the bugs and train astronauts. Then that same rig goes to Mars on the back of Prometheus. The notion of going to the Moon and then launching to Mars with the Moon as a waystation is somewhat implausable, perhaps dumb, imho.
2. We should return to the Moon, and put an outpost there. It will be very, very important in Cold War II.
kulakovich
the only name on every lander, right @ the top, on multiple monuments that will outlast the pyramids, is
richard milhouse nixon
if that doesn't motivate liberals to go back, nothing will;-)
Moon vs. Mars: Come on! Moon is mostly about geology but Mars takes astronomy into our back yard: It's about Life itself. Let's not forget that Mars is our best chance of finding ET life. That's not just cool, but will learn us about the creation and maintenance of life, which is darn important.
Manned vs. unmanned: why not take unmanned to the limits (that we haven't reached yet, it seems) before we go manned?
I though slashdot was a place for minds? the moon?
sure let go back, lets set up camp.
THE MORE THE MERRIER.
but remember studying Venus? anyone still into that?
CNN has lots on mars, think of your bank balance?
omigod, like slashdot moddas have no heds.
A base on the moon would be a lab to try out all things nesessary for a functional base anywhere else. Just to test shielding and life support in a different environment from the ISS and improve reliability. This would be reasonably close for safety and replenishment/repair. This is a good idea. No one has any experience colonizing another planet yet and taking baby syeps is a better idea. The launch site idea can be delt with later, but the cost of moving everything to the moon seems prohibative.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Mars is more like the Earth, in that it has atmosphere (and so weather) and would be a better model for eventual off-world colonisation in other solar systems, should that ever be possible.
If a choice had to be made, I would prefer a permanent base on the Moon to a brief visit to Mars. After all, if its turns out that there are enough resources on the Moon to exploit, possibly we could make mass drivers to boost these into Lunar orbit for manufacture of space industries or vessels without the fuel cost of lifting things from the Earth. How about a test space elevator made on the Moon? (I can see the headlines: elevator from nowhere to nowhere!)
Also, what happens if we find life on Mars - even of the simplest form? Could we then exploit the planet in any way that would avoid destroying this?
Yes, I have read a lot of science fiction :-)
Don't go to a brothel if you want to buy broth
Colony, colonize, colonial state, ...
I hope your English teacher colinizes your ass fuckwad!
-=tinfoil hat on=-
We have to go to Mars first. How else will the spaceyards at Utopia Planetia ever get built? Then, 1700 Naval Construction Contracts have to be issued before the big one.
-=tinfoil hat off=-
Why?
To discover the things that we don't know about living in extraterrestrial environments - BEFORE we strand a group of humans 2 years away from earth.
For example, we have little to no data about the effects of radiation on humans beyond the earth's magnetosphere. This is one of the biggest concerns especially considering most of the proposed trips to mars exceed one year of travel each way. Creating a base on the moon will give us a better idea of the concentrations, and the long term effects of solar radiation on humans.
The moon's low gravity also makes it easier to access. Less fuel is needed to land, and take off.
I think though that the biggest reason for going to the moon first is an old saying "walk before you run". In terms of distance the moon is on average 240,000 miles away from the earth. Nothing really, in the grand scheme of things. If for some reason something went horribly wrong, there would at least be a chance to rectify it, or help. A moon base would be a stones throw away, and with the proper planning the crew of that base could be very safe.
From a scientific perspective examining the individuals that do staff the base will provide vital information about what living in the solar environment is like and how if affects the body. Also, the moon has 17% of the earths gravity, with mars at 38% the moon makes a good environment for training for low gravity.
All in all, I think that we cannot afford NOT to go to the moon first. The moon gives us an opportunity to learn about living in space without the risks of being completly isolated from humanity.
Make no mistake - the moon must be the beginning - and not the end of our future in space!
first of it's nice that a person with
:)
:P
/
...
the "power" acctually thinks about exploration
(and not just votes, considering that there
are matters more pressing right here on this
planet, but never the less...)
the question is, is there a major experiment
that we need to do off this planet or are we
planning on colonication?
for science experiments the moon would be a
decent place, but for colonialisation prolly
not. a planet most surely has far more
resources then a moon, and prolly feels
more like "home" methinks.
so it's the moon for science and mars for
economy/colonialisation.
for mars to work, peoples really have to
believe that there's "stuff" out there
and that we (humans) can reach it, that
it is possible. plus add some excitement.
else it will just boil down to another
plant the flag mission
also we have to take into cosideration
continuity. how much hands-on knowledge
has been lost after the last apollo flight.
how many people working on the apollo mission
woke up one day with a "apollo-hangover"?
if we go to other planets/moons/etc. it
shouldn't be like going to the tip of
mount everest, but acctually building
a five-star hotel on the tip of it
space exploration has to become an industry
(with returns hopefully / this is not really
a requirement since alot of economy on this
planet at this time is a farce. meaning
for example we have just submitted to the
fact that talking to somebody 20 kilometers
away on a mobile phone for a minute
costs 100 times more then sitting in a
air-conditioned room for an hour
also before complaining about
space exploration being a waste of money
think about how our economy is acctually
working at the moment and where "new value"
acctually comes from (99% consumption?))
also me thinks that any NEW perspective by
any human can help excel other humans.
it is well known that sailors knew that
the planet was round some 100 years before
philosophers/scientists even were pondering
that question.
for space exploration to work we need "hands-
on" philsophy, working together, and dedication
over many many years
also maybe we should try making a small
"artifical earth" that we can move to
anywhere we want to go to explore, rather
then a "go there come back" one-way space
ship. a mother ship so to speak, something
moveable like the ISS, a interplanetary
"super-tanker" maybe.
i hope i'll still be alive to witness this!
To hook up to the next topic, have you got ANY idea how much havoc a rebellion by skinny humans on the moon could cause just by "throwing stones" back at earth?
We might actually -need- Reagan/Bush' StarWars laserbeamies by then.
"/Dread"
The sailers of old did indeed think people fell off the edge of the world after all. Hundreds upon hundreds were lost exploring the seas. If they stopped at the loss of life, we'd all be in Asia/Africa/Europe now - possibly /.'ing by carrier pidgeon.
when you don't quit.
What would you say the feasability of a Mach 3 aircraft that weighs as much as a locomotive is?
Would it surprise you to know the engine was actually built and tested? 500 Megawatt nuclear engine. I believe the kids have a phrase for that kind of thing today. "Damn skippy."
One of the reasons the Russians beat the US into space was we wanted to do something when we got there. They threw up a little ball. We threw up a satellite with a high resolution camera that craped pictures. We have Hubble, SOHO and other toys, they have a front row seat. Even Hubble was a little over ambitious? Remember that the damn mirror was made on earth, and required some specticals.
I say, see about building a bigger Sealaunch and reusable nuclear boosters to go with it.
Lift some gear up there. Maybe enough to make a little foundry, or some automated tools that can make a lunar verision of cement. Put a flag on it, and sign Ferris Buller up as fry cook trainee first class.
The only future for humans in space, until we can live there, is to run experiments that require resperation, fingers, or the repair of complicated machines. I bet you could make silicon waffers like 3 or 4 feet across with the moons gravity. No enviroment to worry about. Lots of Titanium for new lightweight super-alloys that we might find very inventable without an atmosphere of 20% oxygen. Giant mirrors for space telescopes might be not only easier to lift to orbit but easier to make obscenely large. Or we could just make a giant space laser with which to extort money from Tim Robbins.
Nikoli Tesla dreamed big. Didn't achive a lot of what he hoped he might, but the innovations he left in his wake are part of the foundation of our world.
So we:
A) Put the base underground
B) Even if it is sharp, we can deal with that. Show me the last time dust or dirt that wasn't moving harmed steel.
C) It would be easier to use the Moon's materials to build the stations that Earth materials due to the gravity wells.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
I don't care as much about Mars as the idea of a permanent moon base. I want to go to the moon sometime in my lifetime, and setting-up a permanent base would be the first step towards being able to allow tourism.
I see a lot of "gripping human drama" but it's the sand in the information desert, and it's a long time between clouds let alone raindrops.
Even stuff like Frontline, Nightline, and yes you trans-atlantic cannibal hippies, the BBC, are all about the emotional appeal. Why you should be sad, affraid, or a little less upset about that little girl's head that was found rolling down the hill today, and how you can protect your children after this.
As much as I'd like to blame the newscasters, or news directors, or journalism teachers, I know it's my own damn fault. I respond to those pleas. They sucessful grab and occasionally hold my attention. As long as they do that, I can only expect more people choking back tears, bellowing with indignation, or driving down the LA highway, as opposed to insightful (not to be confused with inciteful) commentary from people who know, or clearly illustraighted explainations. After all are the French a collection of rich an varied individuals shaped by their history, traditions, events they see, and local concerns, or are they "cheese-eating surrender monkeys." Pragmatic and boring, or funny and inflamitory?
Arbitrary Actor: You know Chris, I can't but think that this whole idea of yours is expensive and dangerous.
Christopher Columbus: Yeah, you're right actually. Sod this, let's go for a pint,
And millions of Native Americans sigh in relief.
-Colin
Do our [US] ground based missles still represent a nuclear deterent when compared to missle delivery from the moon? Are our detection systems (radar, etc.) capable of detecting a missle coming from the moon with enough time to keep up our end of MAD (mutually assured destruction)? Again, answer in terms of political and strategic consequences.
I ask you now, should we go to the moon?
I don't advocate moving nukes up there ourselves, but we should be capable of preventing other nations from doing so. While my personal loyalty to the space program stems from the spirit of exploration, we all must realize that we have a space program for military as well as scientific purposes.The meek shall inherit the earth, in 3 by 6 plots. - Lazerus Long
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17011
by Steven Weinberg
it's TEACH us! but yeah, you're right.
"Death is no longer seen as an acceptable loss so safety is something to be taken into high consideration"
This is why NASA is going to lose America the space race. Safety above all. Nothing safer than a straight jacket and a nice padded cell.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
It the equivalent of, "Hey, why don't we add 'In God We Trust' to the money!" "Hey, why don't we add 'Under God' awkwardly to the 'Pledge of Allegiance'!" "Why don't we make a Susan B Anthony dollar that's almost exactly a quarter and has a picture of the moon landing on it!" "Why not send senator John Glenn in to space, if he dies we can bury him there like on Star Trek. I've checked and Shatner is free to do the eulogy over the duration of the mission." "Hey Public! Look! Shiney!"
Low gravity makes for some interesting industrial applications. More over it's near zero gravity, and has no enviroment to pollute, and not much in the way of atmospheric pressure. The trick is getting industry up there. Lifting it, expensive in the extreme. Reinventing it there via remote control, there's a whole alphabet of missing steps.
We could just send the boybands and the jackass crew up there. If they figure out how to survive, great, if not, it was worth a shot.
Ok, just had an idea. Next April Fool's day, I'm going to release a faked photo of the moon that has what appears to be a lunar mosque on it to Arabic websites, with links to whatever news stories I can find about infadel regimes going to the moon. With the low thresholds they have for conspiracy theories, who knows?!
"We'll still be able to get all of the same information as the manned voyage"
A human being is infintely more flexible than a robot. The amount of exploration which takes days or weeks with the mars explorers could be performed in minutes or hours by a human being.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
GHWB also had a problem with the "vision thing" and came up with similar smoke and mirrors about Mars before his own doomed election effort in 1992. As an indication of his insincerity, he put Dan Quayle in charge of the effort.
Bush, a chip off the old block, is a proven liar and doesn't deserve a second chance. Twelve more soldiers killed today. He should be indicted.
"The main cost is boosting mass out of Earth's gravity well which you have to do in both cases."
They happen to do the boosting, but others can do it for a fraction of the cost.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
It was great. Your mother also went and we spent the whole trip having 0-g anal sex.
Every year, tidal damage costs earthlings trillions of dollars in damage. The only choice is to teach those mooners a lesson and blow them out of the sky. I suggest that we redirect and asteroid and shatter them to pieces. Or conquor and enslave the population to make it a giant steakfruit farm.
Good morning to yourself, FAILURE!
Sorry to sound like a cynic -but I believe the whole 'exploration' Bush proposal to be disingenuous from the start.
He knows good and well that the House and Senate are not going to support it in any way, shape or form. Especially in the current economic climate.
But this allows the shuttle to be grounded and manned space program to be dismantled on the sly without taking the direct political heat.
The bizarre canceling of the Hubble servicing mission it telling. Because of 'safety concerns?' Oh, please.
Servicing the Hubble is too risky -so, like, we're going to go set up less risky bases on the moon and Mars instead?!? Yeh, riiight....
Sorry folks, the shuttle will be grounded after our space station commitment is over. The Bush initiative won't be funded.
The result: Bush can say it wasn't his fault, the shuttle will be canceled (a shuttle follow-on won't be funded either, btw) -and the responsibility for supporting the remaining years of the space station will be shoved onto the Russians.
It's sad -but I fear the days of manned space flight are drawing to an end.
for a new (quasi-immortal) body before I explore space. Once I have a virtual reality to immerse myself in and some universal constructors I'm getting off this planet and forming a new colony and government. Now who is with me?
Posthuman since 2001.
What about scientific progress you say? Well, as it has been pointed out many many times, we can explore the Solar System in a cheaper fashion by sending unmanned probes.
This whole "we need to explore like Columbus and Magellan" bit really smacks of religious zealotry. IMHO of course.
I say screw Mars until we can make it on the moon first. Robots can keep going to Mars. If we had ancient technology when we first whent to the Moon, how hard would it be to go back now? We get ISS finished, use it as a springboard for trips to the moon, and store extra fuel and such on the moon(or process it there). Not to mention the kind of imagery we could get if we had a telescope planted on the dark side of the moon, both at the sun when it faces it, and into the expanse of the universe when its dark!
Back? What do you mean back?
What do the Space Station, the Sea and the Gaza Strip all have in common to answering a desire for a Moon/Mars base?
Well the Space Station is a good example of cost.
If we can't even get it together in orbit at a reasonable price, than why attempt other more distant places?
The Sea is a vast region unexplored.
Take a Google for Palm Island.
If we are not building out into the sea than we certainly have plenty of space to build under it.
Sea Cities should be attempted before Space Cities.
Much of the same problems can be worked out in the ocean and indeed NASA does a lot of practice in water tanks before going live in space.
The Gaza Strip looks a lot like Mars.
Lots of rocks to throw around at each other anyway. My point here is that unless we fix our geo political problems, Mars will become just another sandbox to behave badly in.
The Mars Society is testing out mission concepts by mucking around in deserts, in Nevada and up above the Arctic circle. Going to the moon would not help. While it might be worthwhile in its own right, it is not a stepping stone and should not be represented as such.
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
I was lucky enough to see a debate on this topic this past Saturday between Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye (yes, the Science Guy) at the National Science Teachers Assn. conference. Dr. Tyson is on the GWB commission, so he was pushing manned exploration, and Nye was pushing for expanded robotic exploration.
They both made excellent points for their own side, I really came out on Nye's side... we had a "compelling reason" for going to the moon - to beat the "Godless Commies." As much as we like to think of our species as explorers, we don't generally take the physical or financial risk unless there is equal profit from it. Until we have something that will give us gain equal to the risk, there will never be the political will (driven by the will of voters) that we need to support it.
What are compelling reasons? Someone already brought up He3 - but if fusion becomes a reality and an economy forms that runs on the stuff, NASA won't need to go to the Moon to get it, the energy companies will on their own. For Mars - the discovery of current or past life would likely be a good enough reason. Nye points out that our best chance of making that initial discovery is with robots. Send people to do the more complex work that will come later.
While I disagreed with Dr. Tyson and the commission's plan, I walked away with new respect for the man (who I haven't really liked due to the whole Pluto thing). He made his case well and is fighting passionately for it. He admitted that the commission has had to so some "smoothing over" of things in GWB's speach that were "physically impossible," specifically the part about the benefits of landing on the Moon on the way to Mars. I like the idea of moving money from the shuttle towards a "space plane" or the like, but I don't like how pure science will suffer in the meantime.
After 50 years of worshipping the heroes of Science in spirit and, more importantly, in taxes, I am calling "bullshit". I will no longer support the use of public money on projects that do not directly improve the living conditions of, at least, one person ( just one, that's all I ask) who is not directly nor indirectly involved in the financing, planning or execution of the project. So, unless the reason for going to the Moon (or anywhere else) is based on expediency or economy, I am no longer buying arguments of the Scientific Bureaucratic Family. (That being the Fellowship of American University and Federal Scientists who, without projects like going to the Moon, etc., would actually have to do work that solves a real problem. Seriously,
cragen
ps. NSF Budget + NASA budget = ~$20billion+. That does not count any other Department's or Agency's Research Budget.
The Moon is a gravity well. To fall into the well, you must then climb back out. You effectivly need to bring with you fuel to:
a) leave earth orbit - which accounts for over 75% of current lift-off mass of space shuttle (even more for Saturn V)
b) Burn fuel for a safe landing on the moon
c) Burn more fuel to leave Moon orbit
d) Burn still more fuel for a safe landing on Mars
e) Burn yet still more fuel to leave Mars orbit
f) Burn yet still again more fuel to slow down for a safe landing on Earth
The Saturn V was a "cockroach strapped to a gas can" to begin with. And that was for a Lunar trip that crashed into the Earth. You want to do this 3 times you say?
What, is George Bush's science advisor the same science advisor as Lost In Space, An American Werewolf in Paris, or Armageddon?
...to defend us from the Space Monkeys? Or the Mole People? Or even the Green Slime? These threats are REAL!
Tell me, why are you writing about American investors, and not about investors in general? The moon isn't American property, so why shouldn't non-American investores be part of moon-based business operations?
Also, there are serious doubts as to just how useful those Helium 3 deposits actually are. They are believed to be present in the part-per-billion concentrations. Finding methods to extract useful amounts of the stuff are still hypothetical.
I do not know about you, but I really do not want to pay for yet another safari. We went to the moon, fought in Vietnam and made two trips to Iraq. I still do not see how that affects me, a regular tax payer. Our government pisses through our money, creates enormous deficits, and instead of solving the problems that we have right here right now, we want to solve the problems that we do not even have. What_the_fuck?
Do not get me wrong, I am a big fan of physics and astronomy; I would love if we could afford to spend money on space programs. However, there are millions of Americans without health insurance. Our kids are dying in the desert, and this country is turning into a clusterfuck. Why not spend money on where it counts and then see if we have enough for a space program. Drive across the country and you will see that there is a lot of stuff that we can improve. Inner cities, impoverished rural schools, roads. If you really want to make my life better, please spend money on traffic management and alternative sources of power.
Let's provide health and childcare for those who cannot afford it. How about tuition-free state schools for good students? We lost some jobs due to off-shoring, why not retrain the professionals and move on? I bet this is hard to swallow for the guys in Washington. Lockheed Martin and Boeing can survive without more government contracts.
Finally, let people vote on it. If people want to vote on same-sex marriage, I do not see why people can't vote when it comes on spending billons of tax dollars on pretty pictures from Mars.
What for? Ice mining?
The moon has all sorts of unique economic advantages. There's the low gravity, the vaccuum, the un-filtered solar energy, the raw surface soaked in high-quality fusion fuel...
Antartica is just like every other continent only miserably cold, getting very little sunlight, with the worst weather and practically everything under a sheet of ice.
Make no mistake: we could easily live on Antartica. However, commercial exploitation is forbidden by treaty. Anyway, it's not anything new and uniquely valuable, it's just more of the same only worse. I can think of a hundred reasons to live on the moon, and none to live on Antartica except to get away from everybody else.
Maybe I'll draw the ire of some people by saying it, but there's no point in going to either of the places at the moment. The first Moon mission served a second person- proving to the USSR that we had ICBM capability and would dominate space. Going to the Moon or Mars does not prove any new strategic capability.
I think the main motivating factor for the Bush administration pushing this (in words, at least, if not with their money) is to give the appearance of having "vision". They think it will give them the same "visionary appeal" that Kennedy got for going to the Moon the first time.
The problem is that visionaries don't COPY others. This makes Bush the visionary equivalent of Bill Gates. I think if he were a true visionary, he'd push a big artificial intelligence or robotics program. I look at the amazing things coming out of Japan and wonder where the US will be in a few more years of not keeping up with Japan's progress. I think it is to the US's advantage that Japan has disavowed military aggression, because who knows what their robots will be capable of soon. Regardless, the US economy will be SCREWED if they develop artificial intelligence or fully automated robotic production before we do.
And Japan is getting to this point because they have the vision to see that this is worth investing in, even though it may not reap rewards in the short-term.
There are lots of good reasons to want to go to the Moon/Mars. To quote others here:
1. "We want to go to the moon and to Mars. Because we want to we will eventually." To fulfill the promise of the Apollo astronauts. Bacause its there, we can see it in our sky every day of our lives and it will inspire every human.
2. Build towards space colonies and the survival of humans. "a degree of protection from disasters of the sort that killed off the dinosaurs."
3. Launching point to other destinations. "great place for testing technologies needed for exploring/ exploiting asteroids." "Large-scale mission to the moon to mine Helium 3."
4. "To discover the things that we don't know about living in extraterrestrial environments - BEFORE we strand a group of humans 2 years away from earth."
Let's say it will cost some humongous amount X of money to arrive at Mars in 20 years. This amount X won't be able to be used for other purposes in medicine, agriculture, science, deficit reduction, etc.
IF you compare the cost to achieve this NOW vs. the rate of growth of scientific knowledge and technology application in the last 100 years, the practical answer would be to wait 20 years, see some amazing breakthrough which would allow us to pay 10% of X and most likely arrive at the destination in the same time frame. I have faith in humanity's ability to find answers to problems and come up with new solutions, and the only risk we take is that something catastrophic will happen during the next 20 years. If it did, we would be no worse off, since any progress made now won't significantly change the effect of the catastrophe then.
-- Gary Goldberg KA3ZYW 301/249-6501 AIM:OgGreeb Digital Marketing Inc., Bowie, MD
One useful thing that could be done on the moon is fossil hunting. Not from any Moon organisms, but stuff from Earth!
When big enough meteors hit Earth, material is thrown into space. Some of that will land on the moon. We have found several pieces of Mars rock on Earth that came that route.
There is of course no shortage of Earth rock on Earth itself, but it's been exposed to the environment for billions of years, and a lot of the interesting stuff has been destroyed. Anything that's spent the same time on the Moon would be in almost pristine condition. Even if it's only minerals it would be very interesting, but there should also be vegetation, bacteria, insects and maybe ever bigger organisms there, all freeze dried and vacuum preserved!
These are very good points, why hasn't slashdot given jafac(1449) +5 insightful?
We should go "coz it is close to us" - moon song rathergood.com
Should "we" go to the moon? Say WHAT?
Go ahead. Be my guest. Go to the moon, the stars, mars, wherever you like. Just don't force ME to pay for it. I'm having enough trouble making ends meet without being forced to pay for another program those fools in Congress decide is a good idea.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
The "use the money to feed the poor" argument is foolisness. Feed the poor and they are just hungy again tomorrow. They are an expense. Arguably a necessary and important expense but an expense.
Space exploration is an investment. A risky investment and a long term investment, but it isn't an expense.
They are not the same thing. In your personal life, if you short change your investments to fund your expenses (like most fools do) you will end up penniless. I don't want to be that 70 year old greeter ar Wal-Mart and I don't want the world to be whatever the equivalent is. Actually that equivalant is probably simple extinction. This planet is not going to support us forever (reminder - forever is a very long time).
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
The Chinese are threatening to put a base on the moon, and Bush wants to pre-empt them by establishing a military presence there first. Of course, this would be controversial, so why not claim that it's a testing ground for a trip to Mars that will never be funded? If the moon base actually happens (at a cost of 400 times or more the meager $1 Billion Bush pledged so he could claim to be for going to Mars), they can always claim the money ran out and call off the Mars thing later.
We should put an American on Mars before anyone else does, for the tech, the glory, the territorial claims, and because we might meet a little green man. But just once. Our incomparable Moon experience shows followup missions have vastly less "bang for the buck", although the science is valuable - and published globally. Riding the wave of bragging rights flying behind the "first man on another planet" achievement, the American government should develop a Moon industry, with at least a few Americans staffing mining, solar energy collection communications, and research institutions. Once we've reaped some benefit from our closest neighbor, we can use it to launch industrial programs to Mars. Unless the little green men object, and have a death ray.
--
make install -not war
I've said it before; probes can't colonise. And I think colonising planets is a survival advantage which is important enough to keep funding human exploration alongside robotic-exploration.
Saying 'but let's wait untill things get cheaper' is a non-argument: one can ALWAYS say that, because, even if hardware becomes a hundredfold cheaper, it STILL will be more expensive to send humans, and by that time, robots will be so flexible that they rival or surpass humans.
But that's not the point; unless we send self-replicating intelligent robots that we consider to be our heirs, and sit back and die out as a species ourselves, we STILL have to continue exploring and colonising planets.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
... on why we plan to go there in the first place. If all we really want to do on the Moon (or Mars) is pick up some rocks and leave behind some footprints, that's fine, but remember that we could just as well use robots to the science part. The footprints would make some of us feel proud for a while, but are otherwise pointless in the grand scheme of things. Plus, those footprints are hideously expensive.
As a boy, I watched the Moon landings and fully expected us to get to Mars before the year 2000. Alas, things didn't pan out that way, but that's not just because it's so expensive; it's also because no government has ever given their space agency the order (and the budget) to actually *colonize* space. The people with the money have never given us a real reason to send anybody up there. Therefore, any such project is subject to budget cuts and even termination as soon as the politicians think their constituents might be getting bored with the whole idea.
IMHO, if we ever do decide to start spending gigabucks on a Moon or Mars-base project, then we should do it *ultimately* for the only reason that will ever make a difference: to set up a permanent, self-sufficient, self-sustaining colony there so that the human race will no longer have to live with all of it's eggs in the same basket. We should go there to stay, to grow, to make money, for science, for tourism, for fun... whatever: as long as we intend to stay there. 'Here we stand and here we'll stay!' -- that kind of attitude. Only such a plan can ensure that people -- and businesses -- back on Earth will remain interested long enough to start investing their money in the colony and everything around it. This way also, after a while, the politicians will no longer be able to pull the plug on the whole show.
The statement "what if it can't be done?" is absurd all around. Nothing "can't be done" it's just that some things are harder to do than others. What if ther's no water on the moon? Maybe we'd have to harvest oxygen and hydrogen from other minerals on the moon then. Or are you implying that there is no oxygen or hydrogen on the moon at all?
And what is this about "There is no chance to make an Antarctic colony", there are Antarctic colonies! Sure they're not self-sustaining, but they certinally could be given enough R&D. I mean, if the earth is a self sustaining biosphere, and it's neerly a closed system, than it is definatly possible (not that I did not say easy) to make self sustaining systems in a man-made closed biosphere as well.
When people say it's impossible to colonize other planets, what they really mean is that it's hard. Well, somethings we have do things that are hard (well, maybe you don't). No one ever learned anything by saying "well, we could try somehting new, but it will be difficult, and what we try might not work, so I guess we'd better jsut stick to doing things the old way. If everyine thoght that way we'd still be swingning form trees.
For a bunch of geeks, /. is certainly full of shortsighted dimwittedness when it comes to space travel:
"It's too expensive. There's nothing to do there. We haven't solved the problems on earth. What if it doesn't work. The shuttle doesn't run Linux. Embedded sattelite OSs aren't aren't licensed under the GPL, etc."
Put your high-tech baby bottles away, quit whining, and look at the situation:
0) There is a vast universe out there, which we have not even scratched the surface of in terms of discovery.
1) We used to have the capability to _land another human being on a heavely body_. Mankind has dreamt about this for millenia. We have LOST it due to disuse and lack of further vision.
2) Someone (whatever you might feel about him on other issues) has actually put forth the vision and the resources to take us beyond our planet.
3) Just as any software needs a userbase to mature, the capability to move beyond our planet needs to have _real_ users (i.e., people living on the closest place to get to) if it has any chance of being developed.
4) Projects of this magnitude are the _ONLY_ way certain things we take for granted today can come into existence (sattelite communications, cell phones, digital watches, etc.) Even if the first colony were to fail, think about all the neat/useful stuff that MUST come out of such an endevaour. Otherwise, we're stuck waiting for the next generation PDA or graphics card as "innovation"
5) Without a base on the moon and the vision to go further, the same resources to be spent on this would be spent on buying staplers for some bureaucrat's office and reorganizing visionless initiatives.
AND YOU PEOPLE ARE STILL ASKING "WHY ARE WE DOING THIS?" You should be the ones helping spearhead the technology to make it possible...
Geeks of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your requirements telecons...
Fundamentally, we will have to colonize other planets. This is not an "if" it is a when. We will. Beyond the trivial concerns of our daily lives one thing is certain, the Earth will eventually be destroyed.
Since it is neccessary, it deserves a much larger portion of resources than tax breaks to hockey leagues, or increasing the output of munitions factory. It's even more important than ensuring in our old age we get that extra large condo in south eastern california.
We MUST colonize, and WE WILL. Why not do it now, and why not do both (Mars and the Moon). This is not a choice between the two.
IIRC, it was Clarke that said "Once you're in orbit, you're halfway to anywhere."
Where to go becomes a variable once you have a good solid footing in orbit. Chesley Bonestall's artwork of vonBraun's ideas are still some of the best instant presentations of the best possibilities; multistage lift and transfer vehicles and wheel design space station, all for building craft to anyplace.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Of course we shouldn't go back to the moon. It's too expensive.
It's really too expensive to advance civilization. It's too expensive to search out scientific truth and to inspire entire populations. It costs far too much to invent new technology, and to work together to achieve a common goal.
It's also way too risky. What if we fail? What if our new technology doesn't work? What if we spend too much in the budget?
What if all these questions had prevented the great accomplishments of history? What kind of a sad, pathetic, hopeless world would we inhabit if we allowed bean-counters and pessimists to limit the yearning of the human spirit?
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
Especially in the current economic climate.
You mean the one with eight quarters of growth, the best job numbers in 20 years, the Dow up 20% and the NASDAQ up 50%? That economic climate?
There ain't no recession no more.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
Since one of the biggest worries about going to mars is all the things that go wrong with your body, why don't we do a year long test flight in a very large orbit around the earth-moon system for a year or so. Close enough so if something goes wrong the crew can return to earth within days.
Perhaps at the end of 6 months they would land on the moon, do some science/exploring, then with the obiter now orbiting the moon only, return to it, and once again simulate the 6 month flight back to earth by going around in a huge orbit.
The orbit would be far enough out to have no protection from earth's magnetic field.
>you mean the one with eight quarters of growth, the best job numbers in 20 years In India you mean. I'm a Systems Engineer with a masters degree -and I've been unable to find work for 2 years. I know dozens of professionals that have just given up looking.
Look at it this way,
;)
The sooner we go to mars (skipping stops at the moon), the sooner we can begin to mine Tribinium. The sooner we begin mining, the sooner people will immigrate to mars to work as miners.
A large influx if miners will require cheap, affordable housing, IE; Domes.
The sooner we start building the cheap domes, the sooner the UV and poor living conditions will spark genetic mutations in the nativly born (martians!) population.
The sooner the mutation occur, the sooner I can go visit a martian brothel and get laid by a babe with 3 tits!
And really, isn't *that* why man wants to explore outer space?
To meet alien women and have sex with them?
Just once, I'd like it if someone called me "Sir".
Without adding, "You're creating a scene."
Everyone I know would be willing to risk their lives to go to another planet, and I only know basement geeks. NASA is adverse to risks because it knows that if someone dies the media and the politicians will make a big deal out of it. The astronauts know the risks and are willing to take them.
The only thing that's likely to motivate anyone is if we find an indigent "heathen" population and we have a race to mass drop holy re-education centers on for their own good.
Yeah, I'd love for us to get off this rock too but considering the fact that every president since Kennedy who claimed he cared about the space program was lying through his teeth, I have little hope of it becoming a reality. It's easy to say you have a long range plan when you know your administration is leaving in four years and someone else will do the budget cuts. Rolling and bouncing around in a cluster of beach balls was hardly NASA's first choice for a mars landing.
Ironically, it's very likely the space community itself will aid in shooting itself in the foot by failing to speak in a single voice. Go to the planets, go to the moon, L5? Then will come the intellectual debate and corprorate battle as to how to get there.
But the largest issue people fail to see is the tangible benefits that having a space program really means for the country. Nobody wants what this country produces anymore. Nobody wants our cars, TV's, electronics or appliances anymore. Microcomputers were a direct result of the space program. That created giants like, IBM, HP, TI and Microsoft.
Now, computers are manufactured in Asia and programming jobs are being outsourced to India. There will be very little to keep this nation from slipping into economic decline. The rest of the world is learning that world powers aren't made and toppled with bombs but dollars, money that is only earned by technology.
A space program allows us to keep a technological edge and a financial one. Without continuing to innovate we become as short-sighted as the RIAA that we blast so often for defending its antiquated financial model. Without jobs that require higher educatation there is little reason to pursue it. It's small wonder that the money from major U.S. corporation is now going overseas, wherever technology is growing fastest is where the money is.
To hell with Mars, we have unfinished business on the Moon.
Should we go to the moon ? is there some scientific knowledge that we will gain ? will something new come up ? nope. Instead, we should focus our trials on cracking the big mysteries of the universe, namely gravity/anti-gravity, faster-than-light travel, zero-point energy and the theory of everything. There are already numerous clues that all these are possible.
If we crack the above, it would become a non-issue to which place in the universe we will travel. Then, the true space age will begin.
Forget large-scale chemical rocketships, use a Space Elevator.
Edwards told SPACE.com that he's been wrapped up in space elevator work for some three years, supported by grants from NASA's Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) program. "I'm convinced that the space elevator is practical and doable. In 12 years, we could be launching tons of payload every three days, at just a little over a couple hundred dollars a pound," he said.
As to the cost of getting the program off the ground,
"If budget estimates are correct, we could do it for under $10 billion."
Transfer the money that would be spent using chemical rockets to lift materials from Earth to designing better safety systems and living quarters, or wherever else it could be better spent.
"...CMU-RI creating the robots today to fight the aliens tomorrow."
o bonaut/r obonaut.html
o rker/e stle/
-RI T-shirt
But seriously, "dangerous and costly" means more than what you get on face value.
Danger should be minimized. Experiments on underground bio-domes should continue here on earth while robots perform experiments on the moon. They will eventually build our bases before we arrive. I'm talking tele-presence here, so intelligent autonomy can take its sweet time getting developed.
Here is an example of what I'm talking about:
http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er_er/html/r
Here is another:
http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/projects/skyw
and
http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/projects/tr
"Costly" is another matter. Hopefully the cost of launch vehicles will go down. This will happen eventually. The cheapest way to go to space is to send robot, and make them do the job on their own. Luckily, rather than getting a microwave and some nice space-age materials, this modern day Space Race will create something far more interesting: intelligent, useful robots.
The applications are everywhere.
So, yes it will cost $10-40B over 20 years. BUT, I can name dozens of different robotics applications which will yield multi-billion dollar profits.
The point: the money is going somewhere, so let's make it go to something we can use on earth!
Robo-Blogs of the world: UNITE!
As time goes by, aren't we supposed to solve tougher problems??
Yes: setting up a Moon base presents problems that are several dimensions/magnitudes removed from the Columbus voyage. That does not mean it cannot be done.
However _does_ it need to be done is a question that needs to be answered. Same with Antarctic colony - if there were {insert_favourite_pot_of_gold_here} in the Antarctic, some one would have done the legwork to settle there.
Once we as a species realise that our destiny is in space, we will colonise Mars/Moon. If we somehow get what we want with unmanned missions, then that too will be done.
Should we skip a moon base and go right to Mars? I don't think so. While launch costs may be about the same and landing on Mars more conservative of fuel, the Mars orbit is such that there long stretches of time where the distance between Earth and Mars is greater than the distance to the Sun. The delay in communications and the worse delay in potential resupply or rescue missions would be critical, especially at our current technology level. Even at its closest, it takes on the order of months to get to Mars, while travel to the moon is on the order of days. Of course, all this is based on a hypothetical question of sending humans to build a base on either.
... that oughta work just peachy. Some of us would rather have our tax dollars fund an effort to establish a Moon or Mars base than increase the welfare dole or pay farmer's to not grow crops. (Besides, creating jobs is much more successful in handling poverty and hunger than increasing payouts.)
As others have rightly pointed out - we don't even have semi-self-supporting bases in Antarctica, under the ocean, or on a orbital space station. (By semi-self-supporting I mean one that can provide enough food, air, water, activity, comfort, etc. to support humans for long enough to counter resupply failures and unexpected disasters.) The last few "life-bubble" experiments ended unsuccessfully. Until we can show - under extreme conditions - that a base is feasible, we shouldn't be sending people to Mars (or even the moon). In fact, for a Mars base it would make more sense to ship raw materials and "robots" first and have the base (or, better yet, multiple bases) built and operating long before humans ever set foot on the planet.
I understand the desire to get out there - I personally would be part of an extra-terrestrial base (or colony) in a heartbeat. Just to experience it vicariously through others is an exciting thought.
Christopher Columbus didn't sail on a raft or in a canoe. He had data that told him the earth was round and he could keep sailing west to reach India. He sailed with 3 well-equipped ships. We have much more precise data on the locations of the moon and Mars than he had on India and are obtaining data on their composition. The biggest thing that pushed him doesn't exist here - potential profits from a new trade route with an existing known trade partner. We don't have that. Having astronauts to throw their lives away just to say "We landed a man on Mars" or "We set up a base on the Moon" is foolhardy and more likely to shift public opinion into the negative on space exploration..
BTW - Every time space exploration comes up, the same old arguments and counter-arguments are brought out of the dustbin. It's expensive and we could better use the money to help feed people on earth. It's dangerous and people can easily die. It's all fake anyways. It will never have any useful purpose. Man wasn't meant to leave earth. And so on.
Yes, it is definitely expensive. But the idea that funnelling those millions spent on space exploration into human welfare projects misses the fact that billions are ALREADY pouring in that direction with little effect. Pouring water down the drain isn't filling the bathtub, so we want to run the sink's faucet into the bathtub as well. Really clever
Yes, it is certainly dangerous. For that matter, living is dangerous. How many of us avoid showers or baths since that is the MOST dangerous activity in the home (according to some statistics)? Hey, no fair raising your hand if UT2004 is the real reason you haven't bathed. (War is dangerous too, but that is nearly always troll-bait rather than serious.) Anyway I'm willing to wager that there is not a single astronaut who is unaware of the many potential dangers of his or her career. Like other dangerous careers - firefighting, race car driving, soldier - there are known dangers and unknown dangers. I can say with certainty that there will not be a single space venture in my lifetime that involves an individual who didn't want to take that risk.
All the rest is simply opinion - and we all know that opinions are like a particular somethin because everyone has one.
I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
She didn't kill him. She only cut off his cock and balls. I believe it.
welp,
After blowing the 'heck' out of Iraq, and congress wanting US taxpayers to pay or ante up $86 Billion to re-build it. I vote NO to all space travel.
Even our commitment to 'help' with the international space station is almost up, so no need for more shuttles being built or flights after commitment is over.
To build something significant on the moon, I presume they will be using materials from earth. How will this affect the orbit of the moon? I hope they make sure not to "over do it" or anything. Once the moon's mass is changed beyond a certain threshold, I suspect it will either escape or crash into the earth. How much does "one base" weigh?
"he drew his sword Ringil that glittered like ice... and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds..."
No, we haven't. Get real!
Antarctica has the following things that neither mars nor the moon have:
1) Breathable atmosphere.
2) More hospitable climate (cosmic rays)
3) Readily available water just sitting on the surface. No mining required.
4) Seasonal game (penguins and seals).
5) Transportation and refuel costs are about 100,000 times less.
6) A functional airport.
7) Return trip (once people are excessively miserable on a barren (though less barren than the moon and mars) is only about $1000 or so.
The notion of a moon-station or mars mission is just money wasted. Space exploration should be left to life-long career professionals
BTW, if a big asteroid comes to destroy Earth, we can just dig some deep holes and store enough food to last a couple of decades. It would be far cheaper and more reliable than attempting to return barely self-sustaining mars colonists to earth.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
In the future, unemployed people who can't afford to live on Earth could be sent there!
e rg er/servan.htm
There is an historical precedent, it's us..
It's all supply and demand!
See
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1601-1650/mittelb
The asteroid belt. Mine the damn things, and a few comets too, and pay for all the rest of the exploration you'd ever want, manned or unmanned anywhere in the freaking solar system and beyond. The net energy cost to get to the asteroid belt is actually less than for Mars because you wouldn't have a large gravity well that you'd have to climb back out of to return to Earth. And on the return trip, you'd have more than just a bunch of science experiments with you--you'd have raw materials that can be used in industry. The comets may very well have compounds that are unknown on Earth, the asteroids may have precious metals. And if not, at least you'd have a large supply of iron and nickel that can be mined without destroying anymore of the Earth's biosphere. And the whole living in space thing can be worked out just as easily heading out to the asteroids as it can be going to Mars.
Although there are techniques for safely testing nuclear rockets on earth and some nuclear rocket testing going on, space researchers are still a bit too timid to go ahead with a nuclear rocket program. The advantages of nuclear rockets over conventional rockets include massive reduction in rocket mass and increase in specific impulse. Testing of nuclear rockets on the Moon (which is already highly radioactive due to constant bombardment from the solar wind) will prepare us for a fast journey to Mars, i.e., weeks not years. Then we can make multiple trips and build massive ships for journeys to the outer planets.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Sure we could colonize Antarctica. Though it would be prohibitively expensive. Plus, no one would really want to live their permanently. They'd have a TERRIBLE life.
Even with the prohibitive costs associated with colonizing Antarctica, it would be 3 or for orders of magnitude CHEAPER than colonizing either Mars or the Moon.
Of course, Colonizers for Mars and the Moon would face FAR MORE hostile conditions in addition to being millions of miles farther away from re-supply and ESCAPE!!!!!
Antarctica has a breathable atmosphere.
Antarctica has an abundant, readily available supply of water.
Antarctica has native fauna (seals, penguins) that can be eaten.
Antarctica has less WAY less deadly cosmic rays.
The average temperature in Antarctica is actually HIGHER than either Mars OR the Moon. It also experiences less overall fluctuation in temperature.
So by all means, lets colonize Antarctica before we consider an Lunar or Martian effort. It will be cheaper and the fleeing families will be back to better climates much sooner.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
I for one am glad to see the Chinese wasting money on manned space exploration. It will divert their focus from things that are TRULY important.
If they want to blow half their GDP on a moon-base, I encourage them. That way, I don't have to worry about them building nuclear submarines.
BTW, Europeans are too smart to waste money with manned moon missions.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Because it has no possibility of an ecosystem to be screwed up - we can test our stuff without concern for destroying existing alien life.
Another thing I have noticed is that since people have less money, they want to spend it on cheaper crap, so we will have a bunch of crappier jobs running around to produce and distribute this cheap crap. In other words, there might be more jobs, but they're not jobs that you can support a family on. Remember, gas prices are up, food prices are up recently... It's a hard time to be poor, and it's hard to find a job that pays well at the moment - Not just in the computer field. Remember, all those computer professionals (and unwashed, untrained technical support masses) have had to get other jobs now, too :)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
A POINT!!!!!!
Beyond the Huzzah and "Climb every mountain" bullshit, you'll find the moon a barren rock. Any resource that can be found their can be found on Earth for 10,000x cheaper.
All the technologies that people bring up "from the moon" seem to all be directed at manned space exploration. "We need to go to the moon at great expense, because THEN we'll be able to go their CHEAPER".
Manned space exploration will feed, clothe, and shelter NO ONE. It will cure NO diseases.
The ONLY people who's input we should consider on extra-terran base/colonization are submariners. That's basically what your life would be like. You'd live in a submarine, expect it would be on the Moon.
Submariners aren't exactly "psyched" to go out on a 6 month cruise under the ocean without access to the outside. Ask a submariner if they'd do that for TWO YEARS straight and see what they'd tell you. Would it really matter if their submarine was going to Mars?????
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
We could probably build a colossus of George Bush that stood twice the size of Lady Liberty. The question is
Similarly, I have no question that we could create a Moon or Mars station. The point is WHY??? What benefit does it provide for society???
Yeah, I know what the benefit would be for YOU. It's cool. Yeah, I think it's kinda cool too. But I realize that it's a LOT of time effort and resources to put into something that does not HELP society.
We have rotting schools, dilapidated hospitals, and people without access to ANY form of healthcare. I would raze the entirety of NASA in return for universal health care and a teacher for every 15 students.
Treating all people in America with true compassion is a lot better than doing something "cool".
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
The Shuttle is a launch and recover space station. The shuttle is like driving an RV to the end of your driveway to get the mail.
Nasa's biggest mistake was allowing Skylab to fall from orbit. The "flying washing machines" were far cheaper.
Unfortunately, we're kind of stuck with the shuttle for a while. I definitely think we should scale back the number of missions it does. But it will ALWAYS be needed to do ISS construction and repair missions.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
The idea that Social Security is in trouble is a myth. Social Security collects TWICE as much as it pays out right now.
The reason this is a problem is because the money is being funnelled back into the general budget (the great stealth tax that applies to the lower/middle class).
If you want to fix the federal budget, get rid of all the tax loopholes and force rich folk to pay their taxes (which they are NOT doing right now).
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
A moonbase has little navigational benefit to further Mars exploration - this is purely military. If you think about it in this context, it's the obvious move. Just consider recent /. articles regarding the militarization of space. Learning about other planets is interesting in our spare time. Dominating this one is task #1 and it's not something you get to vote on.
Reasons to go to the Moon (manned and/or unmanned): :)
- Figure out if there's any water at the poles, how much, and in what form
- Learn if 1/6 gee turns bones to jelly like 0 gee does
- See if there's enough K and P in the KREEP rocks to mine as fertilizer
- See if there's enough thorium to mine as reactor fuel
- Low gravity + regolith for shielding + tunnels for waste disposal = good place to experiment with nuclear propulsion
- Test processes for getting iron, titanium, aluminum, and oxygen from rocks and regolith
- Design, build, and test construction robots that can excavate regolith and build a shelter (so human crew, if any, has a shelter waiting when they arrive)
- Lunar robots could be remote-controlled (2.7 sec round-trip lightspeed delay)
- Closer to Earth than Mars; quicker trip home for human crew if there's a problem
- Moon is poor in resources (no H, C, or N) -- if you can make it there, you can live anywhere in the Solar System
- Science (e.g. geology)
- Mine near-Earth asteroids by pushing them into a collision with the Moon first
- Test rockets fuelled with aluminum and oxygen (both derived from lunar rocks)
- Stationary Bussard device to collect hydrogen from solar wind?
- (long-term) Put humans elsewhere in the Solar System to prevent extinction (e.g. terrorist virus attack, large meteor strike)
- (long-term) Mass driver to launch material into orbit for construction
- Look for the Monolith
PS - why does this server probe my system when I try to post?
We should build under the lunar surface. The Moon surface should remain un-spoiled and un-touched! hehehe www.newpath4.com/travel2space.htm
He is the text from my previous post in a different thread which I think addresses your concerns. "It's true that it'd take a lot of energy to do anything in space using rockets, but that's not really the idea is it? The idea is that this kind of R&D will produce technologies capable of doing space travel efficiently. Moreover, they might lead to technologies that make every day life more efficient. You're right that we don't need infinite growth (population wise) as a species. In fact, as nations become industrialized, their birth rate usually drops (perhaps due to chemicals? work related stress? not wanting kids?). Whatever the reason, in maybe a dozen more decades overpopulation probably won't be an issue and the world's population will level out. Japan and (a lot of) Western Europe are already to the point where they no longer replacing their population (except through immigration). The real point is advancement. Perhaps as we develop space travel it will lead to a greater understanding of nature and the universe in general. More over, hopefully it will inspire people to increase their own understanding of the universe. Most important of all, perhaps it will allow people to put all their insignificant problems in perspective, and allow people to work together toward a better human society rather than merely squabbling about petty differences. Sadly these are all just the pipe dreams of a foolish young idealist, but I can dream, can't I?"
Oh no, not the fucking Columbus analogy again. I'm sure you realize the fallacy of this. You simply choose to ignore it.
The Europeans came upon a land rich with just about everything. It was readily available and easy to harvest. They started turning profits VERY quickly.
So you want to make manufacture shit on the moon???? Globalization isn't enough. You want Solarization. No doubt you've found the magic manufacturing pill that will overcome $700/pound to get things into earth orbit and the likely $20k to $100k required to get things to Luna and Mars.
Fuck, it can take a couple hundreds of millions to tool up a factory. Thats with all the machine tools, metal processing and technicians being readily available. Multiply all that equipment by $20,000 per pound and see what you come up with.
The organization with all the EXPERIENCE (NASA) has sent off $300 mil probes that have simply blinked out on the way to Mars. Yeah, shit goes wrong. That was a small, limited purpose device. Your talking about transferring complete segments of economies out of Earth's gravity well and onto extra-terrestrial bodies. And THEN, shipping them back.
Back to the submariners. Economics will determine the size of crew quarters. Smaller is cheaper. Sure you can dig into the surface of the moon and create sub-terranian domes. Of course, you have to get a TBM up their first. Or will you simply manufacture it on site using your lunar fabrication plant, supplied by your lunar steel/titanium/aluminum mill, supplied by your lunar mining operation that has to process tons of rock to get pounds (or ounces) of usable material. Oh and don't forget the armies of robots to staff all these operations. Fuck, we can barely get a little fucking car to work right on Mars.
Oh, or is that preceeded by lunar concrete plants to build domes from native aggregate and 10mil per bag portland cement shipped from Earth.? Of course, water would be derived from mining a ton of rock for every cup.
Seriously, I don't think YOU need to colonize the Moon or Mars. Your mind obviously already dwells there. Perhaps I have no knowledge of engineering. But it's pretty fucking obvious that you have no appreciation for the level of technical challenges that such an operation would require and the trillions it would suck from our economy.
And WHAT would it return?????? Less pollution on Earth???? Is that AFTER processing a couple billion tons of rocket fuel and 5 forests worth of paper to put factories (and jobs) on an extre-terrestrial planet. Couldn't we just put our existing waste in better containers and save the effort????
Seriously, I think you need to go colonize Antarctica since your so dedicated to your ideals. Antarctica has thousands of times the resources as either of those barren rocks PLUS it has a breatheable atmosphere and abundant water which requires NO MINING!!!!!
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
The one thing that robots can't do as well as humans is doing the research necessary to establish a permanent presence on Mars.
And that, after all, is our ultimate goal.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
You seem to be assuming that the only reason to build a base on the Moon is to support an expedition to Mars.
Establishing a Moon base will have many benefits unrelated to its being an intermediate step to Mars.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Parts of some craters at or near the poles may be in perpetual Solar darkness, but the rest of the Moon gets sunlight at approximately 28-(Earth)day intervals (the length of a Lunar day).
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Looks like someone disagreed with you. Of course, here at Slashdot, that /. asshat they got the hell meta-modded out of them.
means you are a troll. You can be comforted in that:
1. It was probably a newb
2. If it was just a regular
So I favor going to the moon and building a lunar mining and industrial complex, not a "moon base".
For more information, go here
Or, we can go to Mars first, get back a few hundred pounds of Mars rocks, a few gigabytes of video, and masters/PhD theses for a couple of generations of science grad students.
The other point is that with going to the Moon, we probably get even more science done. It'll be a lot easier for grad students in related discplines to do experiments in space or on the moon if universities can simply send them commercial and rent housing and lab space for them than if they have to arrange for their experiments to go to space via conventional launch facilities, and if they're around their experiments and something goes wrong, the fix will be a lot cheaper than a satellite payload.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Inaccessible? So was the American West before the railroad. The Space Elevator may be possible depending on what happens with CNT, railgun technology developed for SDI is a reasonable fallback if the Elevator proves unbuildable within a reasonable timefram.
BTW, I just metamoderated you downward, "Insightful" just didn't seem right for your post.
Tech Public Policy stuff
So we have fixed schools, the finest hospitals, and universal health care when the oil runs out. The numbers I've seen say we're 1-2 generations away from that. Will anybody care at that point?
I've addressed the point you think you're making at length here
Catch a clue, there's a reason why progressives have the reputation for being clueless about technology, and you're adding to it.
Tech Public Policy stuff
That was the assumption of the post to which I was replying.
However, it is my opinion that a moon base will have few benefits compared to a Mars base. The benefits would be very different in each case, and judging their relative merits would be rather difficult, but that is my opinion. I'm sure an astronomer, for example, would feel very differently.
In any case, I firmly believe the moon is of almost no value as a "jumping off point" for a Mars base. Even if we had a moon base, it would make a lot more economic sense to go to Mars directly from Earth. It's just too expensive and complicated to make a moon base useful for Mars launches. Going there directly from Earth isn't particularly hard or expensive by comparison.
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005