2018 Moon Launch? 104 Billion. Wow!!

It just comes down to exploration, some people want to explore and others dont. Obviously Frosty is one who doesn't like to...but most of us do. We want to become a space fairing nation, and to expand the human reach.

Frosty...Your logic baffles me, none of your equations add up, there based on what you think, and not real facts. You cant possibly think someone will take you seriously with those kind of facts.

Were you talking about a moon launch facility??

Originally posted by Murcielago
It just comes down to exploration, some people want to explore and others dont. Obviously Frosty is one who doesn't like to...but most of us do. We want to become a space fairing nation, and to expand the human reach.

Frosty...Your logic baffles me, none of your equations add up, there based on what you think, and not real facts. You cant possibly think someone will take you seriously with those kind of facts.

Were you talking about a moon launch facility??

Ok. This is just a flame on your part. I never said I was against exploration. I said I am against going back to a barren rock. Re-read my post if you are not satisfied.

It will cost more to go to the mars than the moon. It will take more rockets to launch a rocket from the moon than it would to just launch one rocket from earth. There is nothing on the moon of any value.

Please, I ask again: what is on the moon that is so important that it takes a 4 man mission costing $100+ billion to accomplish?

For you helium-3 fanatics (as I am sure there may be some), there is helium-3 here on earth found within mantle rock and basalt. Oodles of it in the ocean. It is also attainable through tritium decay.

The question arose because the rocks of ocean islands like Hawaii contain relatively large amounts of helium-3
www.physorg.com...

Tritium is an anthropogenic tracer produced by atmospheric nuclear bomb tests which enters the ocean at the surface. It differs for other anthropogenic gases (e.g., the chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs) in two ways: tritium is not stable, but decays into helium-3 (half-life 12.43 years)
www.met.ed.ac.uk...

Here are some maps of where to find it: www-pord.ucsd.edu...

It is also interesting to note that the ignition temperature of a helium-3 reactor is about 10 times hotter than a conventional fusion reactor, making it harder to fuse. This means it is only a potential power source. The amount of helium-3 underneath the upper layer of regolith has not been determined, so there is no way to know if mining this would be economical at all and to place on top of that the fact a helium-3 reactor may never be built.
en.wikipedia.org...

Other links: www.nature.com...
stommel.tamu.edu...

Originally posted by Frosty
It will cost more to go to the mars than the moon. It will take more rockets to launch a rocket from the moon than it would to just launch one rocket from earth. There is nothing on the moon of any value.

Please, I ask again: what is on the moon that is so important that it takes a 4 man mission costing $100+ billion to accomplish?

ahh, now I see what your saying. But no, we wont launch the Mars mission rockets from the moon, they will be launched from earth, and likely be joined in space, possibly using the ISS for this. A lot of R&D will be done for the moon missions, and that tech will roll over to also be used in the Mars missions...and beyond.

Dont you want the human race to start taking baby steps out into space?

and to answer your question...Knowledge, learning everything there is to know about the moon, we have more detailed maps of Mars then our very own moon.!

There should be a concerted international program to take the next step and build ISS-2..a habitable reasearch lab beneath the lunar surface...and from there, launch the next generation of deep-space missions...as lunar gravity is 1/6th of earths, it would take considerable less energy to escape orbit thus saving fuel for the return leg...an ISS-2 would also give us the opportunity to test fusion-reactor theory and technology in an environment where, if it all goes horribly wrong, you dont risk vapourizing a large chunk of mother earth...there could also be the option of using a hybrid mag-lev/rail-gun system as the out-bound launch system...reduced gravity, plus zero wind-resistance on the projectile would reduce the amount of energy input required and allow a faster launch speed from the surface...makes sense to me

Yikes! Are there still people out there thinking this is about science and not a national prestige job program?
If so, give me 5 Billion instead of 104 over the same period and here's what I'd do:
1. Contract for 10 Zenit/Sea Launch flights.
2. Build remotely operated rovers. Sort of "Spirit and Opportunity on steroids."
3. Fly them to the moon and let 4000 researchers explore instead of 4. Don't say it's not as good as a human being there, because with machines we could use multispectral and sensor capabilities beyond the senses of astronauts.
Human viability in space may be possible in spite of radiation and low gravity effects, but the REAL science of space travel beyond the solar
system would have a lot to do with if the Oort cloud or Kuiper belt can be penetrated, or if Proxima Centauri has a orbiting planet.
These are the things I'd like to know IN MY LIFETIME instead spending money duplicating a feat accomplished 36 years ago for cold war purposes.

Originally posted by Realist05
2. Build remotely operated rovers. Sort of "Spirit and Opportunity on steroids."
3. Fly them to the moon and let 4000 researchers explore instead of 4. Don't say it's not as good as a human being there, because with machines we could use multispectral and sensor capabilities beyond the senses of astronauts.
[snip]
These are the things I'd like to know IN MY LIFETIME instead spending money duplicating a feat accomplished 36 years ago for cold war purposes.

Your approach is certainly the most efficent, except we don't just want to know what out there, we (the human race "we") want to go out there and live. Robots can go and look, but can robots design and build? It's not about what's in space, it's about humans eventually living in space. Every attempt we make, every manhour spent in space teaches us something. If "all that out there" is ever to be of any use to us as a species, we have to get out there with it. No, it's not as efficent and probably not even as quick, but for those who dream of space, this way is a lot more meaningful.

I'd go up in the shuttle tomorrow if they would let me.

I want us to go back to the Moon...I'm old enough to remember watching the Apollo missions and it was very exciting...BUT...Aren't we having a little bit of trouble just putting people back into Earth orbit at the moment?

Why 2018?...The Chinese will be on the Moon before that, I'm sure.

Originally posted by Ambient Sound

Originally posted by Realist05
2. Build remotely operated rovers. Sort of "Spirit and Opportunity on steroids."
3. Fly them to the moon and let 4000 researchers explore instead of 4. Don't say it's not as good as a human being there, because with machines we could use multispectral and sensor capabilities beyond the senses of astronauts.
[snip]
These are the things I'd like to know IN MY LIFETIME instead spending money duplicating a feat accomplished 36 years ago for cold war purposes.

Your approach is certainly the most efficent, except we don't just want to know what out there, we (the human race "we") want to go out there and live. Robots can go and look, but can robots design and build? It's not about what's in space, it's about humans eventually living in space. Every attempt we make, every manhour spent in space teaches us something. If "all that out there" is ever to be of any use to us as a species, we have to get out there with it. No, it's not as efficent and probably not even as quick, but for those who dream of space, this way is a lot more meaningful.

I'd go up in the shuttle tomorrow if they would let me.

But why would we want to design and build? There is no point, nothing on the moon. We can launch rockets from here on earth. Probes and rovers cost less to put in orbit and take up less cargo space so more instruments can be sent out.

So say if we have a base on the moon, now what? We have people, probably a half dozen, living on the moon at a cost of billions per year for what?

Originally posted by Frosty
So say if we have a base on the moon, now what? We have people, probably a half dozen, living on the moon at a cost of billions per year for what?

Because it is mankind's inherant curiosity to see what's round the next corner...

The cost for any project in a wholly new scientific field has always been expensive...the cost (in today's terms) for Magellan's global circumnavigation fleet would have been similarly vastly expensive to the Portugese...they could have equally said "sail round the world....for what??"

...but they did anyway!

Originally posted by Frosty


So say if we have a base on the moon, now what? We have people, probably a half dozen, living on the moon at a cost of billions per year for what?

Well besides He3 which we all know your against for whatever reason. There are many other benefits to a lunar base. A lunar base would have access to the materials and resources of the Moon. Metals can be extracted from the lunar soil. More importantly, significant deposits of water have recently been found on the Moon. NASA's Clementine Lunar Explorer found between 110 million to 1.1 billion tons of water ice at the lunar poles.

Thats water could be used to sustain thousands of people for several centuries without recycling. Or even better that water could be turned into Rocket fuel.

The Moon could then be turned into a "gas station" for future missions to the outer planets. Having fuel and water already up in space could vastly lower the cost of a mission since you have a much lower launch weight when leaving earth.

The Moon would also provide a stable platform on which to build any structures. In space, everything must be done in zero gravity under perilous conditions. On the surface, engineers can dig foundations for added support, and could work in relative safety. Buildings on the surface can also be expanded very easily, allowing room for future growth.

Then there is always the benefits we cant predict yet as we learn more about the moon. We have found out alot about the moon since we landed (water) chances are theres much more we dont know.

Originally posted by timski

Originally posted by Frosty
So say if we have a base on the moon, now what? We have people, probably a half dozen, living on the moon at a cost of billions per year for what?

Because it is mankind's inherant curiosity to see what's round the next corner...

The cost for any project in a wholly new scientific field has always been expensive...the cost (in today's terms) for Magellan's global circumnavigation fleet would have been similarly vastly expensive to the Portugese...they could have equally said "sail round the world....for what??"

...but they did anyway!

We already know what's on the moon, that is the only problem with this arguement. We can send probes and rovers to discover at a much cheaper cost what men could do.

This isn't even new, we went to the moon 36 years ago.

If Magellan and the Portugese were able to send out unmanned boats at a much cheaper cost they most certainly would have done this.

Setting up a base on the moon is a stationary tactic, not exploritary.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by Frosty


So say if we have a base on the moon, now what? We have people, probably a half dozen, living on the moon at a cost of billions per year for what?

Well besides He3 which we all know your against for whatever reason. There are many other benefits to a lunar base. A lunar base would have access to the materials and resources of the Moon. Metals can be extracted from the lunar soil. More importantly, significant deposits of water have recently been found on the Moon. NASA's Clementine Lunar Explorer found between 110 million to 1.1 billion tons of water ice at the lunar poles.

Thats water could be used to sustain thousands of people for several centuries without recycling. Or even better that water could be turned into Rocket fuel.

The Moon could then be turned into a "gas station" for future missions to the outer planets. Having fuel and water already up in space could vastly lower the cost of a mission since you have a much lower launch weight when leaving earth.

The Moon would also provide a stable platform on which to build any structures. In space, everything must be done in zero gravity under perilous conditions. On the surface, engineers can dig foundations for added support, and could work in relative safety. Buildings on the surface can also be expanded very easily, allowing room for future growth.

Then there is always the benefits we cant predict yet as we learn more about the moon. We have found out alot about the moon since we landed (water) chances are theres much more we dont know.

I am not against helium-3, I just can't see the fascination with it as there are no current fusion reactors using helium-3! Besides in my above post I made mention that there are oodles of this stuff in our oceans and if we can find an economical process to decay tritium in or out of a fusion reactor we will have the helium-3 we need. But what's the point when there aren't any He-3 reactors? I at least can't find any links saying there are any.

We can use water here on earth and make our own rocket propellants here on earth, we don't need to go to the moon to do this. There are also other forms of space propulsion that could potential put this trillion dollar project out of business such as nuclear, laser, plasma or microwave.

Originally posted by Frosty


We can use water here on earth and make our own rocket propellants here on earth, we don't need to go to the moon to do this. There are also other forms of space propulsion that could potential put this trillion dollar project out of business such as nuclear, laser, plasma or microwave.

Thats not the point about the water of course we could make it on earth but then we have to pay vast amounts of money to lift it off the earth. If water and fuel was already up there then the craft could have a much lower lift off weight.

As for future tech sure It could be way better then Rockets but I wouldnt bet on Nuclear with all the anti-nuclear people that protest its use even though its much better then any chemical fuel. People make a big stink about NASA using nuclear batteries. Just imagine if they used a controled nuclear explosions or a nuclear reactor. In project N.E.R.V.A nuclear rockets proved to be very very dirty radioactive wise.

All those other tech would still require a rocket to escape earth orbit in the first place anyway. No laser,ion drive whatever will allow a craft to achieve escape velocity. Those techs are away off so its pointless why not forget about them and wait till anti-matter rockets are made Or forget about anti-matter and wait for a Gravity drive system.

104 billion dollars.. to drive around on a big rock we've already driven on.. Wow.

What a waste

Meanwhile, back on Planet Reality, people are starving, people are dying to diseases, and every school in the nation is running in the red..

Originally posted by QuietSoul

What a waste

Meanwhile, back on Planet Reality, people are starving, people are dying to diseases, and every school in the nation is running in the red..

Yeah lets try to solve all of earths problems before we go into space, feed everyone, cure all sickness stop all war.

We will have a nice eutopia about the time the sun goes super nova or when Andromeda crashes into the Milky way which ever comes first.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by QuietSoul

What a waste

Meanwhile, back on Planet Reality, people are starving, people are dying to diseases, and every school in the nation is running in the red..

Yeah lets try to solve all of earths problems before we go into space, feed everyone, cure all sickness stop all war.

We will have a nice eutopia about the time the sun goes super nova or when Andromeda crashes into the Milky way which ever comes first.

I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read that.. Please tell me you don't seriously think the sun is going to explode, or the 2 galaxies are going to "crash together" anytime soon.. like.. anytime within the next several million years.. LMFAO

[edit on 9/21/2005 by QuietSoul]

I never said anytime soon but thats about the time scale you will need to solve all of earth problems.

Besides a asteroid will likely kill everybody on earth long before that

[edit on 21-9-2005 by ShadowXIX]

Originally posted by GEORGE
Why 2018?...The Chinese will be on the Moon before that, I'm sure.

Actually since the Chinese have no concrete plan to go to the Moon, the very earliest it is believed they would go is 2020. But a more realistic date is 2025.

I'm all for going back to the Moon. It may cost a lot now and the short term benifits will be minimal, but if we want to start getting out into space and doing more manned space exploration, this is how you start it. It will be rough, basic and cost a lot of money, but the more we do it, the better and cheaper it will become.

I also really hate the "been there done that" attitude. Yes we've been there and we should continue to go there for as long as we can. Start building an infrastructure to allow future projects to develop there. Once their is an infrastructure, i'm sure more corperations would find it easier to set up industries on the moon (and in space in general). One could have all sorts of mining operations going on (and not just for He-3), you could also set up refineries right there as well. One could even eventually have factories on the moon building spaceships or at least spaceship parts. Also, setting up telescopes on the far side of the moon would be great. You'd get a much better picture from there than anything you could get from on Earth or in orbit.

Frosty: You want better rocket engines? Well i'm very sure better engines would be developed sooner and faster, if space travel were to become much more common. Their would be a much higher demand for something better and more efficient. Their isn't an urgent need for something better, yes it would be nice of course, but there just isn't a strong need/demand for it at the moment.

Originally posted by QuietSoul
104 billion dollars.. to drive around on a big rock we've already driven on.. Wow.

What a waste

Meanwhile, back on Planet Reality, people are starving, people are dying to diseases, and every school in the nation is running in the red..

Yes, world peice where everyones happy and everything is fine. It's a nice fantasy and a very unrealistic one. As ShadowXIX implied,(which I think you missed), it would take forever to solve all of the worlds problems.

If you really want try and solve a lot of those problems. Why not take the money from the War budget, use that to feed and shelter the poor and give them a better education so that they can get jobs to support themselves? Why kill an industry and already employs many thousands of people already? (Not just NASA, but all the companies that get contracts through NASA to develop things for NASA).

All the money that is spent on war seems like much more of a waste. It would seem to be much more logical to take from that then from NASA, but that's never going to happen either.

JRA: Take just a little of your own money to try and reform an addicted person and tell me how it works for you. Been though it with 2 relatives and have nothing to show; spend the money on science and let's get a better handle on the universe an the big questions in life, maybe that will payback in ways we don't yet know.