One Step Closer......
-
@scottalanmiller said:
The moon lacks the necessary gravity for a long term colony. We don't have the technology to make people live on the moon, not in the same way. Mars is a viable long term colony location for which we are ready to live on today. The only issue with Mars is getting there, not living on it.
Not entirely true, a VERY recent study (it was on Facebook, so it has to be true) said that with today's equipment failure rates current plans to inhabit Mars would fail. But as a stretch goal it's fantastic, and as Elon Musk once noted it shouldn't be a national priority, but we ought to at least spend as much money on it as we do lipstick research (which is in the hundreds of millions).
-
Asteroid mining can be a fraction of the distance and a fraction of the fuel. Might be feasible.
-
@Martin9700 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
The moon lacks the necessary gravity for a long term colony. We don't have the technology to make people live on the moon, not in the same way. Mars is a viable long term colony location for which we are ready to live on today. The only issue with Mars is getting there, not living on it.
Not entirely true, a VERY recent study (it was on Facebook, so it has to be true) said that with today's equipment failure rates current plans to inhabit Mars would fail. But as a stretch goal it's fantastic, and as Elon Musk once noted it shouldn't be a national priority, but we ought to at least spend as much money on it as we do lipstick research (which is in the hundreds of millions).
Are they saying that things like the oxygen scrubbers would be unmaintainable over a long enough time to be replenished from earth? What failure rates are of primary concern?
I agree that it should not be a priority. I love space travel but even feel that the lunar landings in the 1960s were completely foolish.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Martin9700 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
The moon lacks the necessary gravity for a long term colony. We don't have the technology to make people live on the moon, not in the same way. Mars is a viable long term colony location for which we are ready to live on today. The only issue with Mars is getting there, not living on it.
Not entirely true, a VERY recent study (it was on Facebook, so it has to be true) said that with today's equipment failure rates current plans to inhabit Mars would fail. But as a stretch goal it's fantastic, and as Elon Musk once noted it shouldn't be a national priority, but we ought to at least spend as much money on it as we do lipstick research (which is in the hundreds of millions).
Are they saying that things like the oxygen scrubbers would be unmaintainable over a long enough time to be replenished from earth? What failure rates are of primary concern?
I agree that it should not be a priority. I love space travel but even feel that the lunar landings in the 1960s were completely foolish.
Going to the moon was more of a "my stick is bigger than your stick" thing between Russia and the US. However, it's been proven that the technology breakthroughs and the stimulus to the economy made that a very worthwhile venture.
-
@ajstringham said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Martin9700 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
The moon lacks the necessary gravity for a long term colony. We don't have the technology to make people live on the moon, not in the same way. Mars is a viable long term colony location for which we are ready to live on today. The only issue with Mars is getting there, not living on it.
Not entirely true, a VERY recent study (it was on Facebook, so it has to be true) said that with today's equipment failure rates current plans to inhabit Mars would fail. But as a stretch goal it's fantastic, and as Elon Musk once noted it shouldn't be a national priority, but we ought to at least spend as much money on it as we do lipstick research (which is in the hundreds of millions).
Are they saying that things like the oxygen scrubbers would be unmaintainable over a long enough time to be replenished from earth? What failure rates are of primary concern?
I agree that it should not be a priority. I love space travel but even feel that the lunar landings in the 1960s were completely foolish.
Going to the moon was more of a "my stick is bigger than your stick" thing between Russia and the US. However, it's been proven that the technology breakthroughs and the stimulus to the economy made that a very worthwhile venture.
I was about to say the same thing. You just need to look at the technologies introduced by NASA around that time and decades later to know it was worth it.
Actually found a list by NASA (http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html).
-
@coliver said:
I was about to say the same thing. You just need to look at the technologies introduced by NASA around that time and decades later to know it was worth it.
Actually found a list by NASA (http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html).
NASA didn't need to go to the moon to develop good tech. They could have developed all of the same, at lower cost, without going.
And more important is the cost of lost opportunity - what did we not develop because we were focused on those things instead?
-
@coliver said:
@ajstringham said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Martin9700 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
The moon lacks the necessary gravity for a long term colony. We don't have the technology to make people live on the moon, not in the same way. Mars is a viable long term colony location for which we are ready to live on today. The only issue with Mars is getting there, not living on it.
Not entirely true, a VERY recent study (it was on Facebook, so it has to be true) said that with today's equipment failure rates current plans to inhabit Mars would fail. But as a stretch goal it's fantastic, and as Elon Musk once noted it shouldn't be a national priority, but we ought to at least spend as much money on it as we do lipstick research (which is in the hundreds of millions).
Are they saying that things like the oxygen scrubbers would be unmaintainable over a long enough time to be replenished from earth? What failure rates are of primary concern?
I agree that it should not be a priority. I love space travel but even feel that the lunar landings in the 1960s were completely foolish.
Going to the moon was more of a "my stick is bigger than your stick" thing between Russia and the US. However, it's been proven that the technology breakthroughs and the stimulus to the economy made that a very worthwhile venture.
I was about to say the same thing. You just need to look at the technologies introduced by NASA around that time and decades later to know it was worth it.
Actually found a list by NASA (http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html).
Plus when you consider all the jobs in manufacturing, science and engineering that came about as a result of the space race, it was very good towards establishing the US as an even more dominant power in the world.
-
@ajstringham said:
Going to the moon was more of a "my stick is bigger than your stick" thing between Russia and the US. However, it's been proven that the technology breakthroughs and the stimulus to the economy made that a very worthwhile venture.
How does one prove such a thing? How was it worthwhile? Any breakthrough could have happened, and more of them, without going to the moon. Any economic stimulus might have been doubled by not burning up so much money for nothing.
-
@Martin9700 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
The moon lacks the necessary gravity for a long term colony. We don't have the technology to make people live on the moon, not in the same way. Mars is a viable long term colony location for which we are ready to live on today. The only issue with Mars is getting there, not living on it.
Not entirely true, a VERY recent study (it was on Facebook, so it has to be true) said that with today's equipment failure rates current plans to inhabit Mars would fail. But as a stretch goal it's fantastic, and as Elon Musk once noted it shouldn't be a national priority, but we ought to at least spend as much money on it as we do lipstick research (which is in the hundreds of millions).
It was by a team of MIT engineers. I think this is part of the announcement although I haven't found the paper yet. https://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/technical-feasibility-mars-one-1014
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
I was about to say the same thing. You just need to look at the technologies introduced by NASA around that time and decades later to know it was worth it.
Actually found a list by NASA (http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html).
NASA didn't need to go to the moon to develop good tech. They could have developed all of the same, at lower cost, without going.
And more important is the cost of lost opportunity - what did we not develop because we were focused on those things instead?
Yes, but people rarely develop something without an end-goal in mind. Besides, the advancement in space-ready technology advanced things like aircraft, boats, and even cars. Things we use today. While the million-dollar-write-upside-down pen and tang were over-hyped, lots of advancements came about that spawned entirely new projects in automotive engineering, nautical engineering, and aerial engineering. These might have been developed later on in their own time, but this gave people a goal to shoot towards. Also, consider the advancement in computers due to it.
-
@ajstringham said:
Plus when you consider all the jobs in manufacturing, science and engineering that came about as a result of the space race, it was very good towards establishing the US as an even more dominant power in the world.
All jobs paid for by tax dollars. Those same jobs could have been used to make things that were useful rather than just burning energy doing something useless. It lowered our ability to focus on what mattered. It was a huge risk and there is no way to know if it kept us safe or put us in danger.
During the space race era is when we fell behind the Soviet Union. While we were blowing crazy resources they spent fewer and built a much stronger space program and a stronger military as well. The space race did not work out well for us looking at it historically. And the last forty years have left us the laughing stock of the world in terms of space flight cost, usefulness and safety.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@ajstringham said:
Plus when you consider all the jobs in manufacturing, science and engineering that came about as a result of the space race, it was very good towards establishing the US as an even more dominant power in the world.
All jobs paid for by tax dollars. Those same jobs could have been used to make things that were useful rather than just burning energy doing something useless. It lowered our ability to focus on what mattered. It was a huge risk and there is no way to know if it kept us safe or put us in danger.
During the space race era is when we fell behind the Soviet Union. While we were blowing crazy resources they spent fewer and built a much stronger space program and a stronger military as well. The space race did not work out well for us looking at it historically. And the last forty years have left us the laughing stock of the world in terms of space flight cost, usefulness and safety.
That doesn't sound quite right.
-
@ajstringham said:
Yes, but people rarely develop something without an end-goal in mind.
Rarely... because no one gives them a reason. But we could have without wasting so many resources. You are creating "vacuum" alternative scenarios to make the space race look positive. The alternative was not to do nothing, it would have been countless other New Deal style programs.
The space race was really nothing more than a high tech version of FDR's New Deal. What's mind boggling was that in the era of such extreme anti-communism that America turned to such amazingly strong socialist programs without people getting upset. The political marketing engine is an amazing thing.
-
@ajstringham said:
Besides, the advancement in space-ready technology advanced things like aircraft, boats, and even cars. Things we use today.
If you say "besides" like this, it means you didn't understand what I said. I said that we could have created all the same technology, at a fraction of the price, without going to the moon. OR better technologies.
No amount of "we use it today" is valid as an argument in that context. Either we would have the same things OR we would have better things that you aren't considering.
-
@ajstringham said:
These might have been developed later on in their own time, but this gave people a goal to shoot towards.
My point is that they could have been developed SOONER, or at least more cheaply.
-
@ajstringham said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@ajstringham said:
Plus when you consider all the jobs in manufacturing, science and engineering that came about as a result of the space race, it was very good towards establishing the US as an even more dominant power in the world.
All jobs paid for by tax dollars. Those same jobs could have been used to make things that were useful rather than just burning energy doing something useless. It lowered our ability to focus on what mattered. It was a huge risk and there is no way to know if it kept us safe or put us in danger.
During the space race era is when we fell behind the Soviet Union. While we were blowing crazy resources they spent fewer and built a much stronger space program and a stronger military as well. The space race did not work out well for us looking at it historically. And the last forty years have left us the laughing stock of the world in terms of space flight cost, usefulness and safety.
That doesn't sound quite right.
Sadly it kind of is. The Soviets were able to pump a ton of their fledgling dollars into their military, if it came to an all out war (that didn't include nukes) the US and allies would have probably lost. It was being unable to bankroll that military that really killed the Soviets... As much as we like to think that democracy won, if it came to all out battle it probably would have gone the other way.
-
@ajstringham said:
That doesn't sound quite right.
That's an interesting point you have there. Care to expand and provide some details?
-
@coliver said:
Sadly it kind of is. The Soviets were able to pump a ton of their fledgling dollars into their military, if it came to an all out war (that didn't include nukes) the US and allies would have probably lost. It was being unable to bankroll that military that really killed the Soviets... As much as we like to think that democracy won, if it came to all out battle it probably would have gone the other way.
Now that much of the Cold War era stuff is declassified, it is now well known by both sides that the Soviets were significantly ahead of the west in military both traditional and nuclear. We always knew about the nuclear but it showed just how wrong we had been or how much bluffing JFK did to the American people. We acted in the Cold War the way that Japan acted in WW2 - telling its own citizens that it was winning the war all over the world so much so that when the US bombed Tokyo the citizens were completely confused because they thought Japan controlled the entire Pacific.
The Soviet space program has been way ahead of ours since Sputnik. There is a reason that their shuttles save our butts and not the other way around.
-
@scottalanmiller They are looking at Asteroid mining currently - listening to NPR this week reported pending landing of such.
Okay, can't seem to find it,.. IIRC - it should land within the next few months.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@ajstringham said:
Still, Mars is uninhabitable. Why do we care to set foot on there?
Um, to start a colony. The only reason they've ever talked about going there.
Not only that, but to have another launch site for even deeper space exploration.
