The goal also is not to get to Mars, but to get mankind into Space, not just on a few short excursions, but for good.
Let's start with a few short excursions, and maybe then people will realize it's a waste of time. That would save a lot of effort compared to building a moon base.
It doesn't really make sense to start with a factory on the Moon to produce things that we don't need yet. Let's start at the other end, and actually demonstrate a need for stuff in space. We can launch everything from Earth, until we need such large quantities that it becomes cost effective to produce them on the Moon. I expect we'll never reach that point.
Then why is the US the only one to have ever made this "bigger rocket" (Saturn V and Shuttle). And currently doesn't make it?
Because there's not much need for lifting giant payloads right now. But *if* we wanted to go back to the Moon, it would make sense to build another one.
Meanwhile we have a fair number of countries who have assembled things in orbit (US, Russia, China, all separately and the ISS group).
I never said you couldn't build stuff in orbit. it just adds extra complexities and cost.
What, exactly, is the purpose of hanging in the clouds of Venus ? You might as well live in a cave here on Earth and paint the walls white. Or in a big submarine in the ocean. I'm not exactly seeing volunteers for that.
The Falcon Heavy will be able to put 55 tonnes into LEO. If you can split the Apollo hardware into three approximately equal bits, three FH launches could put them into orbit,
It's easier to make a bigger rocket than to assemble stuff in LEO.
Most people will, as soon as they see that it's safer than driving themselves. Plus they get to play on their phones the whole trip, instead of just 80% of the time.
If you're generating water on the Moon ten times more expensively than what it costs to send it from Earth, you're probably doing something wrong.
That calculation depends on the total amount of water, but for the fixed costs of building a water plant on the moon, you can launch a whole lot of water from the Earth.
And even discounting those, the fixed costs will be huge. If you really want to send people to Mars, then let's do it directly for a couple of times, save a bunch of money, and then quietly abandon the program after people get bored with it.
..nothing you humans do can be considered particularly intelligent. You poison your sources of sustenance. You kill each other for unknowable reasons you are completely certain about. You put yourselves through hell every day of your life to make sure a very select few of you get everything they could ever want and more than they could ever use.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if you're forced to do assembly, it's better to have a big rocket to take up large pieces instead of messing around with many small bits.
The goal also is not to get to Mars, but to get mankind into Space, not just on a few short excursions, but for good.
Let's start with a few short excursions, and maybe then people will realize it's a waste of time. That would save a lot of effort compared to building a moon base.
Big rockets might be a little less complex, but they are more expensive due to the terrible launch frequency
Presumably, we'd launch more of them, *if* we wanted to go back to the Moon.
It doesn't really make sense to start with a factory on the Moon to produce things that we don't need yet. Let's start at the other end, and actually demonstrate a need for stuff in space. We can launch everything from Earth, until we need such large quantities that it becomes cost effective to produce them on the Moon. I expect we'll never reach that point.
Then why is the US the only one to have ever made this "bigger rocket" (Saturn V and Shuttle). And currently doesn't make it?
Because there's not much need for lifting giant payloads right now. But *if* we wanted to go back to the Moon, it would make sense to build another one.
Meanwhile we have a fair number of countries who have assembled things in orbit (US, Russia, China, all separately and the ISS group).
I never said you couldn't build stuff in orbit. it just adds extra complexities and cost.
That requires the design of bits that are dockable, which greatly restricts your design freedom, as well as add extra mass for the docking ports.
What, exactly, is the purpose of hanging in the clouds of Venus ? You might as well live in a cave here on Earth and paint the walls white. Or in a big submarine in the ocean. I'm not exactly seeing volunteers for that.
Ideally, you would only have to transport people to the moon, and everything else could be built and launched from the moon.
You're proposing an entire industrial base to be build on the moon, starting empty handed ? And you think this would be "relatively cheap" ?
The Falcon Heavy will be able to put 55 tonnes into LEO. If you can split the Apollo hardware into three approximately equal bits, three FH launches could put them into orbit,
It's easier to make a bigger rocket than to assemble stuff in LEO.
Not at all, but it's Elon's plan and he's using his own rockets, so more power to him.
You could build a ground based weapon on the far side of the moon that always faces away from Earth
That's not very useful when all our enemies are here on Earth.
But good luck getting Elon Musk to focus on the practical and eminently desirable target of the Moon. He isn't interested. It's only Mars for Elon.
There's nothing practical about the Moon. It's a dead dusty rock in a vacuum.
Roof space may be free, but it's not unlimited.
Most people will, as soon as they see that it's safer than driving themselves. Plus they get to play on their phones the whole trip, instead of just 80% of the time.
On muggy cloudy or hazy days, I doubt it would work
Even if the cloud absorbs the IR, it's already out of the building you want to cool, so it has already served its purpose.
We want self driving electric cars.
99% accuracy means 5-6 errors per page - randomly distributed so you have to proof-read everything you have just so breezily dictated
How many humans can take real time dictations with a lower error rate ?
"This isn't right. It's not even wrong"
If you're generating water on the Moon ten times more expensively than what it costs to send it from Earth, you're probably doing something wrong.
That calculation depends on the total amount of water, but for the fixed costs of building a water plant on the moon, you can launch a whole lot of water from the Earth.
How much water do you think we need ?
And even discounting those, the fixed costs will be huge. If you really want to send people to Mars, then let's do it directly for a couple of times, save a bunch of money, and then quietly abandon the program after people get bored with it.
..nothing you humans do can be considered particularly intelligent. You poison your sources of sustenance. You kill each other for unknowable reasons you are completely certain about. You put yourselves through hell every day of your life to make sure a very select few of you get everything they could ever want and more than they could ever use.
Doesn't sound like it's worth saving, eh ?
It's not a fixed cost, because it will need constant resupply of consumables and spare parts.
Extinction events happen with certainty and regularity on this big blue orb.
Our early ancestors survived every single one of them. We'll have better chances here than on the Moon.
Maybe, but NASA is doing it now, and moving the exact same operation to NOAA would only waste money.
On the other hand, most of the really shitty jobs are done by men.