Moonshot

I watched the YouTube recording of the "live" flyby of the moon. I spent most of the video fast forwarding through the same, indistinct still shot of a still very distant moon. The commentary was beyond dull. There were multiple ways the deadtime in the video could have been filled with fun facts about this mission or other details about NASA's ongoing projects but that didn't happen. I hope NASA gets more out of this voyage than I have. Right now, it seems a terrific waste of taxpayer dollars to me. I'd like to be proven wrong, but in the current environment I fear the return on taxpayer's investment will be nill. Nothing about this trip seems to have advanced the knowledge we built during the Apollo program - it simply appears nothing more than an effort to recreate something we did 50 years ago.
 
Flyhound said:
I watched the YouTube recording of the "live" flyby of the moon. I spent most of the video fast forwarding through the same, indistinct still shot of a still very distant moon. The commentary was beyond dull. There were multiple ways the deadtime in the video could have been filled with fun facts about this mission or other details about NASA's ongoing projects but that didn't happen. I hope NASA gets more out of this voyage than I have. Right now, it seems a terrific waste of taxpayer dollars to me. I'd like to be proven wrong, but in the current environment I fear the return on taxpayer's investment will be nill. Nothing about this trip seems to have advanced the knowledge we built during the Apollo program - it simply appears nothing more than an effort to recreate something we did 50 years ago.
Click to expand...
I may be wrong, but I very much disagree with you. Not about the Youtube video being boring, but about the value and the technical merits of the current space program.
 
Lindberg said:
That's really cool. It looks like the majority are unnamed. So I just named one "Bob."
Click to expand...
Yeah, I guess it’s like naming a star and getting a certificate of authenticity from the “naming a star” website.

I think it’s a different process if you want it officially mapped.
 
Flyhound said:
I watched the YouTube recording of the "live" flyby of the moon. I spent most of the video fast forwarding through the same, indistinct still shot of a still very distant moon. The commentary was beyond dull. There were multiple ways the deadtime in the video could have been filled with fun facts about this mission or other details about NASA's ongoing projects but that didn't happen. I hope NASA gets more out of this voyage than I have. Right now, it seems a terrific waste of taxpayer dollars to me. I'd like to be proven wrong, but in the current environment I fear the return on taxpayer's investment will be nill. Nothing about this trip seems to have advanced the knowledge we built during the Apollo program - it simply appears nothing more than an effort to recreate something we did 50 years ago.
Click to expand...
Yup. Agree. The artemis program (all the missions) are about $110B.

For that we could instead have had dozens of robotic programs of different flavors and sizes.

We could have had 11 projects of the scale of JWST.

We could have had 20 missions to Europa.

We could have had a 100 martian rovers.

We could have had 1000 Martian Moons eXploration (MMX) missions, scheduled to launch in 2026 to study Phobos and Deimos and return samples to earth.

Instead we go to a moon we've already been to, using old technology, and already know isn't interesting scientifically nor as a target for a space outpost.

You could convince me that $110b is worth it to get people excited about space again, but it's not doing that in a meaningful way either. In fact, the presidents budget proposal calls for a 23% cut.
 
Hell, we could covered (just) over a month's interest on our national debt.
 
172andyou said:
...

You could convince me that $110b is worth it to get people excited about space again, but it's not doing that in a meaningful way either.
Click to expand...

interesting strawman.

bottomline: there are way too many people without vision and foresight. No amount of marketing and glitz will get them to look up from their smartphones.
 
172andyou said:
Yup. Agree. The artemis program (all the missions) are about $110B.

For that we could instead have had dozens of robotic programs of different flavors and sizes.

We could have had 11 projects of the scale of JWST.

We could have had 20 missions to Europa.

We could have had a 100 martian rovers.

We could have had 1000 Martian Moons eXploration (MMX) missions, scheduled to launch in 2026 to study Phobos and Deimos and return samples to earth.

Instead we go to a moon we've already been to, using old technology, and already know isn't interesting scientifically nor as a target for a space outpost.

You could convince me that $110b is worth it to get people excited about space again, but it's not doing that in a meaningful way either. In fact, the presidents budget proposal calls for a 23% cut.
Click to expand...
There’s a doc called “Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control”. It’s a pretty odd collection of people, doing what they do.

One guy is/was at MIT building autonomous robots. One of his comments was about sending probes to other planets or the moon. You can spend billions to send one expensive probe or the same amount to send a whole bunch of cheap mini-probes.

 
Bob Noel said:
interesting strawman.

bottomline: there are way too many people without vision and foresight. No amount of marketing and glitz will get them to look up from their smartphones.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but I see us as technologically limited by propulsion. Until we develop something better than chemical rockets, I don't think going beyond the moon is viable because of the time, physical atrophy, and radiation issues. Until we deal with those, seems to me that a trip back to the moon (as practice for bigger things) is pretty unrewarding. And even at that, this isn't the hardware (the command module) that would take us to Mars anyway.

So I ask "What's the point of sending people back to the moon at this time with this technology?"
 
Someone tell me what is "visionary" about going back to the moon.

Again.

The whataboutism of the cost of the trip is misdirected. Rather than spend it and increase debt, lets not spend it at all and pay down debt. Or, better yet tell private equity the moon is fair game. Get there, stay if u want, open a hotel, mine elements, build affordable housing, put in a gas station for flights to Mars, whatev.

Get the Chinese and Japanese and India to invest and make it a global consortium. If I wasnt retired, I might seek VC for that from the Big Players. If the US wants to invest in the project, that depends on the investor prospectus.
 
It's not the "same old thing we did 50 years ago"; it's testing new hardware for a different mission. Apollo was a stunt, get there before the Russians, little more. This is about building a permanent base on the Moon to support a Mars mission. The hardware is much more advanced. And learning to work in deep space. Long term, being able to work in deep space, not just low Earth orbit, is vital to humanity's long term survival.

And even though Apollo was a stunt, the benefit to the economy was far, far, in excess of what the program cost. I'm not talking about mundane things like Tang and non stick flying pans.

I have mixed feelings about NASA doing it, though. On one hand, building roads (which is essentially what this is) is the job the government. OTOH, Musk or Bezos or Branson or somebody could probably do it more efficiently. Instead of spending $110B, the government could have offered a prize: $100B (or whatever number) for the first company to build a moon base and keep astronauts alive there for a year and a day. No payment if it's not successful.
 
172andyou said:
Yup. Agree. The artemis program (all the missions) are about $110B.

For that we could instead have had dozens of robotic programs of different flavors and sizes.

We could have had 11 projects of the scale of JWST.

We could have had 20 missions to Europa.

We could have had a 100 martian rovers.

We could have had 1000 Martian Moons eXploration (MMX) missions, scheduled to launch in 2026 to study Phobos and Deimos and return samples to earth.

Instead we go to a moon we've already been to, using old technology, and already know isn't interesting scientifically nor as a target for a space outpost.

You could convince me that $110b is worth it to get people excited about space again, but it's not doing that in a meaningful way either. In fact, the presidents budget proposal calls for a 23% cut.
Click to expand...
Please see post #118

Exploring the outer planets does NOTHING to advance the long term survivability of the human race. I'd ditch all the planetary explorations of any planet beyond mars. I'd keep exploration of the asteroids because we need them for resources.

Ditto more Martian rovers. Nothing to advance the survivability of humanity.

I don't care about sample return missions from Mars' moons. Again does not advance our survivability.

There are a number of programs that make astrophysicists and physicist wet themselves, because they provide no advancement of human survival.
Corin said:
...
It is important for planners to take the thoughts of people with boots on the ground(or in this case the air) into perspective, but there’s a reason pilots don't set doctrine. It is not you, your cousin, or my full time job to plan for the future Air Force. The Air Force has collectively decided that the A-10 is worth retiring, and I trust there judgment.
Click to expand...
What percentage of grunts on the ground are Air Force personnel? The A-10 was built to kill tanks and protect Marines and Army grunts.
 
Domenick said:
Exploring the outer planets does NOTHING to advance the long term survivability of the human race. I'd ditch all the planetary explorations of any planet beyond mars. I'd keep exploration of the asteroids because we need them for resources.
Click to expand...
Well, I'll agree that exploring the asteroids is more useful than exploring the outer planets, but the hardware is similar... and selling a Mars mission to the public is easier than an asteroid mission when most of the public doesn't know what an asteroid is. But even exploring the planets just for abstract knowledge is useful, the thing about abstract knowledge is that you never know when you'll need it.
 
Domenick said:
Exploring the outer planets does NOTHING to advance the long term survivability of the human race. I'd ditch all the planetary explorations of any planet beyond mars. I'd keep exploration of the asteroids because we need them for resources.
Click to expand...
I don't accept the axiom that the only purpose of a space program is human survivability beyond earth.

In fact, if I were to accept an axiom, it would be that such a goal is an unattainable folly.

If you believe the former, then trying to get people to hide in bunkers on Mars makes sense. Though I would still wonder about who would want to sign up for such a miserable life. The closest thing we have to self contained life support systems currently are probably nuclear subs. It's not like you see sailors disembarking at the end of a nine month cruise, looking around the city, making a face and going "ugh, gross, I need to get back on the boat". Mars is a life sentence. Not a nine month cruise.

If you believe the latter, then you do your science with robots at a tenth or hundredth of the cost.
 
Favorite Space-Dad Joke:

1. What do you call it when the moon comes between you and the sun?
2. What do you call it when the you come between the sun and the moon?
3. What do you call it when the Earth comes between you and the sun?


1. A solar eclipse
2. A Lunar eclipse
3. Night

Ron Wanttaja
 
Ed Haywood said:
Tang is godawful.
Click to expand...
Many many years ago when our company was setting up an office in Tokyo, a group of us went to breakfast with our Japanese hosts. Everyone ordered Orange Juice. It was quite obvious that all the Japanese at the table were served Tang and all the Americans were served fresh orange juice. Later one of the Japanese hosts told me that serving Tang to Americans was considered an insult.
 
Well, it's a marvelous night for a moondance.
 
Domenick said:
What percentage of grunts on the ground are Air Force personnel? The A-10 was built to kill tanks and protect Marines and Army grunts.
Click to expand...
100% agree with this. Plus, there's no A-10 manufacture's rep buying swimming pools and watches for anyone in the AF. Not that this would ever influence anything. (sarcasm color.)

Domenick said:
Exploring the outer planets does NOTHING to advance the long term survivability of the human race. I'd ditch all the planetary explorations of any planet beyond mars. I'd keep exploration of the asteroids because we need them for resources.
Click to expand...
Disagree with this. To me, the problem with human survivability isn't resources or technology, it's that the number one thing we're best at is destroying everything and anyone we come in contact with. We speed up entropy, we create giant messes that can be seen from space, we burn through resources, and we annoy each other. Every couple of decades lately we get close to wiping ourselves out, all on our own. Like Buffalo going over a cliff, except we're leading ourselves.

So I'm not sure IF it's a great thing we survive, but if we do, I'm thinking the most likely way will be to spread out among different places, and maybe somehow a more peaceful and productive version will pop out of that. In a similar way that things evolved here on Earth, but taken outside the planet.

Plus, going into space outside earth orbit gives people something to strive for and dream about. Those kind of things are good, and the alternative is to feel stuck on the ground forever. Yeah, it's 9 digits or so to the left in terms of cost, but it's still there to do. I don't think we can avoid doing it.

Kinda like the Wright brothers. Once people have the ability to fly they want to do that.
 
Last edited:
Albany Tom said:
I won't argue it, but the alternative is that we just fade away like the Woolly Mammoth. Statistically, that seems to me most likely.
Click to expand...
I started to disagree with you, but as I formulated my argument, and when I thought about the declining birth rate, and how young men are afraid to be MEN (and being accused of being toxic with testosterone), I came to the conclusion that you are right.
 
JOhnH said:
I started to disagree with you, but as I formulated my argument, and when I thought about the declining birth rate, and how young men are afraid to be MEN (and being accused of being toxic with testosterone), I came to the conclusion that you are right.
Click to expand...
This has all been studied extensively already.
 
robin ardoin said:
Only marginally useful to wash down a bite of Space Food Sticks. ;) As a yungun, I though both were nasty; as an adult, my opinion hasn't changed.
Click to expand...

Tang was useful for one thing only as a kid. After drinking a big glass of Tang one could hock up truly world class loogies. My brothers and I would go outside and have loogie contests after drinking that stuff.
 
I'd like to name a crater "Crooked" if we could only locate one that didn't impact the moon perfectly perpendicular. That would be a worthy of a name!
 
Bill said:
Tang was useful for one thing only as a kid. After drinking a big glass of Tang one could hock up truly world class loogies. My brothers and I would go outside and have loogie contests after drinking that stuff.
Click to expand...
Orange ones, at that!
 
Rick A said:
I'd like to name a crater "Crooked" if we could only locate one that didn't impact the moon perfectly perpendicular.
Click to expand...
The vast majority of lunar impacts were not perpendicular. At the speeds/energy involved, craters will be round regardless of impact angle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top