probe to the moon........why?

originally posted by: sparky31
a reply to: AreUKiddingMe and sending a probe helps that why?

In case you missed that when reading the article:

Lunar Mission One aims to survey the Moon's south pole to see if a human base can be set up in the future.

It makes sense to explore the Moon closer robotically before we send people and resources to try to establish colonies there.

Sending humans to the Moon (or any other space body) is dangerous and hugely expensive. Apollo was part of the Space Race, and since then the governments and space agencies luckily wisened up and concentrated on establishing space stations and exploring the beyond-orbit space robotically.

But of course, you think you know better than the experts and scientists.

We can either go to the moon colonize and mine it or watch China do it. Who ever does it will eventually rule the Earth.

a reply to: Xeven

We can either go to the moon colonize and mine it or watch China do it. Who ever does it will eventually rule the Earth.

Just sending humans there is a status symbol for their home country.
But even China knows that there is nothing on the Moon that we need down here.
Any Moon colony will nothing more than a welfare colony beholding to the Earth for survival.

Why?
So when we have blown ourselves up aliens can take our dna and make us live again and the best thing is most of us will be british

Why now?
Why did they wait for almost 50 years to just now start thinking about making a moon base?

WE have been told that they stopped going to the moon because it`s a waste of money,there is nothing there and they already have all the moon rocks that they want, so why are they even thinking about making a moon base?

Why would you make a manned base on a space rock that isn`t even worth sending manned visits too anymore?
Something seems fishy to me.

originally posted by: Tardacus
Why now?
Why did they wait for almost 50 years to just now start thinking about making a moon base?

Technology has moved on.

We are getting closer and closer to it being viable.

50 years ago they were lucky the Apollo missions did not end up as a humiliating disaster not to mention the cost.

In fact I do believe they looked at the cost of a moon out post back then and the cost would have been in the trillions....

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: southbeach

And you have a couple trillion dollars laying around to fund a colony, right?

The Indians could do it cheaper, take a look at their Mars probe costs.

a reply to: pikestaff

And probes always cost less than manned missions, and long term manned missions will cost 10 times as much as a short term mission.

a reply to: Tardacus

There was talk in the 60s of manned bases, but the technology wasn't there.

If they built a Moon colony, it would soon be obvious to the residents that they could see no stars, or planets, (except Earth) and then there would be some embarasing questions asked, which would lead to the realisation that there is something very wrong with the present astronomical models. This is also why they don't want private, passenger carrying space flights, as it would be obvious the the passengers too. NASA even made the private contractors supplying the ISS block the portholes on the delivery vehicles. If any more experimental private space flight vehicles explode, I doubt there may ever be any customers, ever.

originally posted by: GaryN
NASA even made the private contractors supplying the ISS block the portholes on the delivery vehicles.

Of course they did. Got anything resembling proof of that?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: sparky31

Finding landing areas, high resolution mapping, long term radiation readings, and a lot of other data that is better to know BEFORE you land there planning to stay for months at a time. Data that Apollo didn't need, and wasn't able to collect.

[A reply to everyone else]

Zaphod here nails it - the reasons for wanting more data, at least. We can get a lot more done in a much shorter period of time with a probe/satellite than a few dudes walking around with cameras can.

As for why we aren't sending people up - the moon is far from habitable, and to maintain life support systems for [a multitude?] of people on the moon is far more expensive and risky than just sending a metal box.

a reply to: DigitalJedi805

exactly, so again I ask why are they interested in putting forth the expense and risk of building a moon base on a barren rock that we stopped sending manned missions to over 40 years ago because it was a barren rock not worth the expense of visiting anymore?

They couldn`t justify the expense and risk of continuing to send manned missions to a barren rock so how can they justify the huge risk and expense of building a manned base on the same barren rock?

It wasn`t worth the time, expense and risk of even visiting anymore but, hey lets build a base there!

hhmmmm

a reply to: Tardacus

Because people are starting to realize that we need to get off this rock if the human race is going to survive. We're still years away from even attempting a manned mission again, but it's finally sunk in that space is the future, and we have to go.

a reply to: Tardacus

As time goes on, technology improves and changes. New things come into being that require new things.

How much crud oil was in demand back in 1860? Not much. How about now?

How much need of radioactive materials was there in say, 1920?

Think of electronics and the materials to build them, especially in todays world of flat screen and touch screen monitors/televisions/phones. How much need was there for these materials in 1950?

Room. Earth can't continue to support humans if we stay here and keep adding more billions to our numbers. Eventually there will not be enough of anything. Self sustaining colonies, be they in orbit, the moon, or Mars can help with that, but they need to start soon, because it will take a long time to build, expand and become sustainable.

Practice. Want to put a colony on Mars? Great idea! How much experience do we have with that?

Zero.

Moon is close by, easier to get people and materials to and from it. Disaster strikes and it's even possible to rescue people from it. Not so much with another planet.

Eggs In One Basket. One day something pretty bad could happen to Earth, possibly even scouring all humans from the face of it. With colonies out in space, you no longer have all your eggs in one basket.

Why now? Technology is getting better. Interest in do this has increased. Earth is getting more crowded. Awareness of really bad things that we might not be able to stop is much higher.

50 years ago, a moon base or colony was a pipe dream. Now, after 5 decades of research, science and technology increases, it's no longer just a dream. It's something that can become a reality.

originally posted by: southbeach
a reply to: Zaphod58

I respect your opinion but i find it a little naive or rather a bit too conservative for a conspiracy website.
You do know that technology we see today is around 30 years old

Ah the old tech is 50 years ahead of what we see is the usual figure in that conspiracy cliche!!!

Concorde maiden flight March 2, 1969 so are you claiming we had that in 1915-1935 if so why were Britain & the USA flying aircraft like this in the first world war.

WW 1 Plane

Or this in WW2

WW 2 Plane

If they really had tech 30-50 years ahead why wasn't it used then, just because conspiracy sites say or claim something doesn't means it's true!!!

a reply to: Zaphod58

Got anything resembling proof of that?

No, I can't find the article that mentions the blocking of the porthole, but here is an image. Maybe to protect it before launch, but I can find no images from orbit from Dragon 1. Lots of images and videos of the Dragon from the ISS, but no images of the ISS from Dragon. My 'proof' is only circumstantial, admitted.
images.spaceref.com...

a reply to: GaryN

Any images of it covered while in flight?

Would they not cover it to protect the glass while being worked on?

Why would cargo need a port hole in any case?

a reply to: GaryN

The current Dragon is unmanned, why does it need uncovered windows? It's the same capsule that's going to eventually carry astronauts, which is why it has windows. The manned version is going to be virtually identical to the unmanned version, except the pressurized portion of the capsule will carry astronauts instead of cargo.

Dragon is a free-flying spacecraft designed to deliver both cargo and people to orbiting destinations. Dragon made history in 2012 when it became the first commercial spacecraft in history to deliver cargo to the International Space Station and safely return cargo to Earth, a feat previously achieved only by governments. It is the only spacecraft currently flying that is capable of returning significant amounts of cargo to Earth. Currently Dragon carries cargo to space, but it was designed from the beginning to carry humans. Under an agreement with NASA, SpaceX is now developing the refinements that will enable Dragon to fly crew. Dragon's first manned test flight is expected to take place in 2-3 years.

www.spacex.com...

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: Zaphod58

Got anything resembling proof of that?

No, I can't find the article that mentions the blocking of the porthole, but here is an image. Maybe to protect it before launch, but I can find no images from orbit from Dragon 1. Lots of images and videos of the Dragon from the ISS, but no images of the ISS from Dragon. My 'proof' is only circumstantial, admitted.
images.spaceref.com...

At the time of that photograph Dragon hadn't even been launched.

This article has pictures from when it had been launched.

Through the porthole.

www.universetoday.com...