President Trump signs directive ordering NASA to return to the moon and beyond

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: dragonridr

Yea, but that is meant to go past the moon, and being designed specifically for that purpose. That said, I can't wait for the test launch!

I do think in regards to moon travel, space x is the way to go for now as far as LEO/GTO orbit. Once the materials/supplies/people are in space, it becomes a lot easier to trek further out without all that pesky gravity.

I posted it for you see above.

a reply to: Vector99

I never said it couldn't be done. It has been done before.

I said from the very beginning is that it is too damn expensive with current technology. Until materials can be produced to bring about something like a space elevator such an endeavor to the moon is wasting money and resources. Like NASAs estimate of 104 billion for a one time run to the moon.

Currently, graphene materials haven't been developed far enough build a space elevator. Instead of wasting money on old rocket tech they should be spending it on RND to make space exploration affordable. If they can fix the problem with graphene tech they estimate building a space elevator to cost between 20 to 40 billion.

a reply to: ErrorErrorError

Yeah i noticed buzz aldrin looked like he was going to cry during the video or had to pee not sure?

a reply to: Grimpachi

A space elevator is much more unrealistic than a moon base.

Everything has an expense, however this is one that eventually could pay for itself with moon mining operations. Not to mention, if it wasn't a worthwhile venture, private entities wouldn't be getting involved in the space game. With the privatization of space travel, costs will decrease in every aspect.

Plain and simple, the only way in our feasible future to explore space is through rockets, and with technology advancing, and multiple endeavors entering the privatized space industry, we will see nothing but breakthroughs in new, more efficient tech.

Falcon heavy is going to have a max payload of 140,000 pounds at a launch price of $90 million, and this is just the beginning of the privatized space evolution.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Vector99

I never said it couldn't be done. It has been done before.

I said from the very beginning is that it is too damn expensive with current technology. Until materials can be produced to bring about something like a space elevator such an endeavor to the moon is wasting money and resources. Like NASAs estimate of 104 billion for a one time run to the moon.

Currently, graphene materials haven't been developed far enough build a space elevator. Instead of wasting money on old rocket tech they should be spending it on RND to make space exploration affordable. If they can fix the problem with graphene tech they estimate building a space elevator to cost between 20 to 40 billion.

Wow where did you get 104 billion so far with building and testiing orion has spent about 16 billion. That expense is done did that by not launching shuttles which cost about 3 billion a year. So they have the rocket and the space craft now its just coming up with expenses for training and fuel. Nasa administrator is trying to keep that below 2 billion a year according to an interview he just had. Also explained cancelling constalation spacecraft.said they decided to developonespace craft that could doeverything.

a reply to: Vector99

Mining what? 3He? Yeah, cool stuff. If we had fusion reactors which could use it.

Private enterprise has a long view. Is Musk looking at the Moon?

I agree with you though, space elevators are good for when we start to colonize LEO, not so much for exploration.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99

Mining what? 3He? Yeah, cool stuff. If we had fusion reactors which could use it.

Private enterprise has a long view. Is Musk looking at the Moon?

I agree with you though, space elevators are good for when we start to colonize LEO, not so much for exploration.

Better would be a moon base that will be the start of solar exploration

a reply to: dragonridr

Phobos is a moon.


And there is a monolith there.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: dragonridr

Phobos is a moon.


And there is a monolith there.

Maybe or could just be a rock.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

a reply to: dragonridr

I'm glad you got my Aldrin reference.

He don't want to go to the Moon. His marketing pitch (the monolith) certainly did create interest.

a reply to: Phage

One thing that was obvious watching him in the speach his rocket isnt making it to orbit anymore. He literally looked crazy,

a reply to: dragonridr

He's a smart guy but he is getting on in years.

I'm ambivalent, to say the least, about a Lunar base. It really is not necessary if the goal is exploration.

a reply to: Phage

Mining what?

Besides he3, there are large deposits of titanium ore.

Private enterprise has a long view. Is Musk looking at the Moon?

It seems he is, he has a payload calculator including the cost of services to the moon and mars on his site.
space x

I agree with you though, space elevators are good for when we start to colonize LEO, not so much for exploration.

Imagine all the flat earth nutters when they hardly see a curve at the top of the elevator and can go party like its 1999 claiming elevator distortions.

a reply to: Vector99

Besides he3, there are large deposits of titanium ore.

Really? Would it cost less to recover on the Moon than it does on Earth?

It seems he is, he has a payload calculator including the cost of services to the moon and mars on his site.

Your link shows payload capacities for LEO, GTO, and Mars.
No moon.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99

Besides he3, there are large deposits of titanium ore.

Really? Would it cost less to recover on the Moon than it does on Earth?

I don't know, how much does it cost to extract titanium ore from the moon?

a reply to: Vector99

Dollar three eighty.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99

Besides he3, there are large deposits of titanium ore.

Really? Would it cost less to recover on the Moon than it does on Earth?

It seems he is, he has a payload calculator including the cost of services to the moon and mars on his site.

Your link shows payload capacities for LEO, GTO, and Mars.
No moon.

Dont think it would unless you automated it using robots. But still the expense of sending back down to earth i dont think unless you built things on the moon wouldnt be practical.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99

Dollar three eighty.

In that case will probably be over budget

So we are finally gone try go to the moon for real.