If we set a requirement to solve poverty, war, disease and unrequited love before embarking on any other major undertaking, we're never going to accomplish much as a species.

The money invested in the space program, even including this particular program, is barely a drop in the bucket compared to what the US already spends on social programs. Dumping this money into them (around $8 billion/yr) would make no appreciable difference.

Shadow
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.

I see your point...and i'm all for ganging up on Frosty (), but your point isn't valid. Are you sure you can launch something for a cheaper price tag if its launched from the moon? The satellite of rover of whatever your planning on lobbing at some planet or moon has to be built, Obviously it will have to be built here on earth, so whats the point to launch it from earth, on a more costly reusable rocket, and somehow land the entire rocket on the moon, only to refuel and blast off again towards its intended target. That sounds way more expensive then just building a bigger rocket here on earth.

Originally posted by Murcielago

Shadow
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.

I see your point...and i'm all for ganging up on Frosty (), but your point isn't valid. Are you sure you can launch something for a cheaper price tag if its launched from the moon? The satellite of rover of whatever your planning on lobbing at some planet or moon has to be built, Obviously it will have to be built here on earth, so whats the point to launch it from earth, on a more costly reusable rocket, and somehow land the entire rocket on the moon, only to refuel and blast off again towards its intended target. That sounds way more expensive then just building a bigger rocket here on earth.

I think when one talks about launching stuff from the Moon, generally I think one assumes it would have been built on the Moon, then launched. That's what I imagine anyway. Doing this would be a long ways off of course though, but i'd think if we eventually get mines, refineries, factories, science facilities etc on the Moon, only then would it become affordable and practical to just build and launch these things from the Moon I would think. But that's some serious long term thinking/planning.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by Murcielago

Shadow
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.

I see your point...and i'm all for ganging up on Frosty (), but your point isn't valid. Are you sure you can launch something for a cheaper price tag if its launched from the moon? The satellite of rover of whatever your planning on lobbing at some planet or moon has to be built, Obviously it will have to be built here on earth, so whats the point to launch it from earth, on a more costly reusable rocket, and somehow land the entire rocket on the moon, only to refuel and blast off again towards its intended target. That sounds way more expensive then just building a bigger rocket here on earth.

I think when one talks about launching stuff from the Moon, generally I think one assumes it would have been built on the Moon, then launched. That's what I imagine anyway. Doing this would be a long ways off of course though, but i'd think if we eventually get mines, refineries, factories, science facilities etc on the Moon, only then would it become affordable and practical to just build and launch these things from the Moon I would think. But that's some serious long term thinking/planning.

But you do realize that in order to make the materials of a rocket on the moon you will need to send up machines and people to make the products such as: butadiene, ethylene, propylene, titanium, aluminum, copper, liquid oxygen, liquid hydrogen, glass, and steel are just some of the materials needed. Chances are there aren't any oil reserves on the moon so scratch making rubbers, foams and plastics from your list. I don't think there is any coke, iron ore or limestone so scratch making steel. There probably aren't any titanium, aluminum or copper deposits so scratch all that.

Chances are you can only make the propellant of a rocket and that will take a massive effort of mapping, mining and refining all the water into the liquid forms of both propellants. But before that you have to figure out a way to get the machinery and the men up there.

How many launches from earth to the moon will this take? 4? 5? 12? More? So now your ratio to maintain this moon base launching one rocket off compared to just launching a rocket from earth could be 8:1 or as high as 12:1. Then to launch every rocket afterward could take a ratio of 3:1.

This to me just is not very good math. Neither is the ratio of test He-3 reactors to number of celestial bodies we know of with He-3, 0:2. Bad math again.

You people are being suckered in by NASA. Going to the moon and building a base does not sound like exploring to me when you could take rovers at a much cheaper cost to do the same exact thing. This sounds like a publicity stunt.

Even sending men there for a week amount of time is ridiculous, we can send rovers there that will last for years!

[edit on 22-9-2005 by Frosty]

rovers can't do everything. the human brain can understand much more when its looking at something. even then the rover has super cams it is nog posible because the software might not understand what it sees and there for concludes its an error and says the images are corrupt.

and what if we have to move from the earth with in a short time frame for some reason we must have the technolegy for humans to life on the moon and in space we as humankind should allready have been on the moon with cities and on mars with cities and exploring space like in star trek.
we have to when we are trying to survive.

Originally posted by Frosty


Even sending men there for a week amount of time is ridiculous, we can send rovers there that will last for years!

[edit on 22-9-2005 by Frosty]

Now I think thats one of your best points in this thread and many people at Nasa Agree , well besides astronauts

Robots are indeed much better suited for space travel in just about every pyhsical way. They are also becoming more capable all the time. There are somethings robots still cant do ''yet'' like tell the difference between a worthless rock and a alien fossil, robots are still pretty dumb. Im sure in time they will be able to do anything we can do better.

I would much rather see a Europa mission as top priority for NASA and having humans on such a mission is pretty much impossible with tech we have now. But machines could do it and the payoff could be huge. On the moon Europa is the best chance for life in our star system. Even if we find something like alien tube worms near under water vents it would be a amazing discovery.

Frosty - Are You against all manned Exploration?

also, China is soon going to launch there second manned rocket, this time with 2 people in it...What do you think about that?

Shadow - Yeah, that would be a sight to behold, if after we drill over a mile thick in ice and find an underwater ocean full of life...That would be amazing.

Rovers do an excellant job, for the price tag, and their durability is much higher then it used to be...But still, what takes them a year to do...humans could accomplish in a couple weeks. They have been on Mars for a couple years, and have traveled a few miles apiece, and if one gets stuck in sand...It takes weeks to get out of...where a person would have no problem.

I've seen some concepts of a Europa mission, and they will either drill down...using the weight of the drill to push it downward until its threw, or to have a capsule that heats up and it would melt its way threw, and when its threw it opens up and a little unmanned Sub goes driving around...but I think having that mission be sucessful is a ways off...like 20 years. I also think we need to devote a Rover to Titan, Cassini recently took some pics of what looks like an ocean, not water of course...but methane (i think), but still worth a look.

If it was up to me Nasa's budget would be doubled, and I would hire high-up execs from Wal-Mart as well...To keep the budget from not going overboard...Since there natorious for penny pinching to get the job done.

Originally posted by Murcielago

I've seen some concepts of a Europa mission, and they will either drill down...using the weight of the drill to push it downward until its threw, or to have a capsule that heats up and it would melt its way threw

Yeah I like the concept of using a nuclear reactor to melt through the ice better because that heat could also be used to sterilize the probe making sure we dont contaminate Europa's oceans with anything from earth. Plus you wouldn't have to worry about a broken drill bit.

Originally posted by Murcielago
Rovers do an excellant job, for the price tag, and their durability is much higher then it used to be...But still, what takes them a year to do...humans could accomplish in a couple weeks. They have been on Mars for a couple years, and have traveled a few miles apiece, and if one gets stuck in sand...It takes weeks to get out of...where a person would have no problem.
up:

I don't agree. Astronauts breathe, eat, sleep, and consume payload.
We already have teleoperation technology to the point where surgeons can manipulate delicate cutting machinery to a high degree of precision from half a world away, the moon is only 1.225 seconds behind in time lag.
Give an unmanned probe the energy it takes to support a human and it will outperform the Mars probes by an equivelent amount, and be on the job 24/7 instead of goofing off.

In reading the posts, one in particular caught my eye. Maybe we should build a moon base first for a number of reasons. In building a base we would learn a number of things.

The ins and outs of building on a foreign turf. Anyone thing about taking a bulldozer into space? How we going to flatten things out assuming we have gravity.

The issues of building structures that are way far away. And once they are built, their extended safety and longevity.

Once things are built on the moon, then....we can stage there for liftoff. The propellant needed to get up to speed would be much less then is needed to leave the earths orbit. The whole design of a machine that gets us to mars, if it leaves the moon, might be allot different.

Now...considering we have a moom base, and we have people living and working there...mining and and doing whatever. Then we have a possible out if the earth was to suffer a major disaster. Maybe not for you as a person, but for mankind as a species.

While there are no viable threats to mankind as a species on the planet, one could show up in the form of a life threatening projectile. Recent posts in other sections about sun spots and the uncharacteristic behavior of our sun leads me to beleive that we do need to be exploreing those options despite the poverty and famine here on earth...

Its seems funny to me that man may not be able to afford to save mankind...

But why do these things cost so much? Specialty engineering and procedures. Its Government. These projects are cash cows. If our lives depended on it, and there was no option, no one would be talking about budgets, wed be building and supplying and communicating as best we could to make sure that a solution was produced post haste.

Think about it. What if we had no choice. Realistically, a moon base would be mans only chance of survival from a catastrophic asteroid or otherwise.
The moon base could serve as a temp location until the earth recovers from that catastrophy....Its a little sci fi for me, but lets face it; it could happen.

Peace

[edit on 22-9-2005 by HIFIGUY]

Current society isn't interested in science and robots..they'd rather watch reality tv...which is why man should go for another moon-shot...it would make the astronauts 'heroes' and get the common joe to look toward the skies and beyond agin....look at the films and comics of the 1950-60's to see what some could fear the worst for....and what other can only hope and dream of ..

The purpose of manned exploration and the purpose of robotic exploration are different. Robotic exploration is pure science research, manned exploration is technological research - learning how to live and work in space. The only way to learn that, is by simply doing it.

Of course, the flexibility of human brains vs. robots (which are staggeringly dumb compared to even primitive living beings) has it's advantages for pure research too. But that's not the point.

We are the only species on this planet that can leave it at will. We are the only lifeform on this planet that can spread life elsewhere. If human life has a purpose in nature's grand scheme, that's as good a purpose as I can think of.

Originally posted by Realist05

Originally posted by Murcielago
Rovers do an excellant job, for the price tag, and their durability is much higher then it used to be...But still, what takes them a year to do...humans could accomplish in a couple weeks. They have been on Mars for a couple years, and have traveled a few miles apiece, and if one gets stuck in sand...It takes weeks to get out of...where a person would have no problem.
up:

I don't agree. Astronauts breathe, eat, sleep, and consume payload.
Give an unmanned probe the energy it takes to support a human and it will outperform the Mars probes by an equivelent amount, and be on the job 24/7 instead of goofing off.

And rovers need sunlight to charge their batteries, making them just sit there over half the day, dust can pile up on the solar cells, making it take longer to gain the amount of electricity it needs to work for the day. and if they break...there broke...The only thing we can mess around with on earth is strictly software based. The rovers arn't roving around 24/7, , currently Spirit is operational every other day, because of everyday wear and tear they take.
and Goofing off??? You mean that nasty little thing called fun!!! OH NO! God forbid we spend billions of dollars and a few lucky men get to go to the moon...and they cant even enjoy themselves. When astraunauts were on the moon, one played a little golf, and they got to go jumping around and stuff, that would be fun to experience. Just because its expensive work and involves a lot of training, doesn't mean you need to act like a robot and be emotionless, and not take in the view and have some fun while your their.

My point was that you put payload into more robust rovers, instead of human consumables. Remember when you dis Spirit and Opportunity that they cost less than 1% of what a manned mission would go for.

I thought Alan Shepard's wedge shot on the Moon was the highlight of the Apollo program, myself.

I look forward to duplicating the feat with a teleoperative Lunar robot someday, and sharing the experience with thousands instead of awarding it to less than a dozen people.

Why does payload destined for a lunar outpost have to be launched on the back of a rocket/shuttle? The cost per launch using the currently avalable delivery-systems make the scenario economically unviable.

A cheaper method would be to fire unmanned guided-payload-projectiles at the lunar surface by basically firing a cargo-pod from a large enough cannon...electo-magnetic propulsion could accelerate the pod to 1000mph plus, and have a small SRB to boost into orbit...a desert site would be ideal for launch control as the elec to power the launch could easily be gathered by a huge solar-array...
we could send all the materials ready for assembly a short while ahead of the manned mission to begin assembly...it would be a matter of a few weeks to build a habitable base-camp.

As for why go there in the first place....the lunar surface would offer great technological advantages....no atmosphere, so can experiment creating new metal alloy hybrids that need a de-oxygenated environment to be forged...the same for the reduction in gravity...larger structures could be build such as a roof span over a crater...although the 'Eden Project' didn't quite work to sustain human life independantlyy, as long as there are scheduled cargo-drops, a small colony could survive until they became self-sustaining...and when that is achieved, we'll head for Mars......as Armstrong said "..a small step for man, and a giant leap for mankind.."

Originally posted by Realist05
My point was that you put payload into more robust rovers, instead of human consumables. Remember when you dis Spirit and Opportunity that they cost less than 1% of what a manned mission would go for

I dodn't diss the Mars rovers...I have said in previous posts that I like them...and rovers in general...I was simply pointing out there numerious flaws.

Timski - That would have to be one big gun, and really wide, and the cargo would be subjected to a tremendous amount of G's.

Originally posted by Murcielago
That would have to be one big gun, and really wide, and the cargo would be subjected to a tremendous amount of G's.

No, I dont think it would, you guys are thinking 'inside the box' in terms of technological advances. The G's sustained would depend wholly on the speed of acceleration from 0 metres/sec to to earth-orbital escape velocity for raw-materials for them to remain integral...humans are far more susceptible to atmospheric/gravitational-drag (G's) therefore the costs in transpotation are higher.....at first....hence the $100billion out-lay

just a 100+ acres of solar-furnace earth-coverage would produce enough elec/maglev power to fire a cargo-pod via rail-gun/maglev combo into low-earth orbit (maybe with an SRB for extra power and vernier thrusters for vector fine-tuning)


....anything other than real sensitive scientific instrumentation would be affected...i'm talking about firing 'pods' on a weekly basis...small payloads at high volume toward the lunar surface...1000kg 2*a week would be far more cost efficient via an in inclined 'mag-lev-plus-SRB-boost system..we've perfected (almost) an air-bag system to brake probes heading for the surface of Mars incoming at 15,000mph...all that stands in the way is political will.....

ps: frosty...why do you have such a downer on the ambitions of mankind? we shall always push the boundaries of the 'final frontier'! it is our collective will to see what we are capable of, and make it come to pass

Live long and prosper......nanu-nanu!

Originally posted by Murcielago
That would have to be one big gun, and really wide, and the cargo would be subjected to a tremendous amount of G's.

No, I dont think it would, you guys are thinking 'inside the box' in terms of technological advances. The G's sustained would depend wholly on the speed of acceleration from 0 metres/sec to to earth-orbital escape velocity for raw-materials for them to remain integral...humans are far more susceptible to atmospheric/gravitational-drag (G's) therefore the costs in transpotation are higher.....at first....hence the $100billion out-lay

just a 100+ acres of solar-furnace earth-coverage would produce enough elec/maglev power to fire a cargo-pod via rail-gun/maglev combo into low-earth orbit (maybe with an SRB for extra power and vernier thrusters for vector fine-tuning)


....anything other than real sensitive scientific instrumentation would be affected...i'm talking about firing 'pods' on a weekly basis...small payloads at high volume toward the lunar surface...1000kg 2*a week would be far more cost efficient via an in inclined 'mag-lev-plus-SRB-boost system..we've perfected (almost) an air-bag system to brake probes heading for the surface of Mars incoming at 15,000mph...all that stands in the way is political will.....

ps: frosty...why do you have such a downer on the ambitions of mankind? we shall always push the boundaries of the 'final frontier'! it is our collective will to see what we are capable of, and make it come to pass

Live long and prosper......nanu-nanu!