HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Science
Science A place to discuss natural, formal and applied science topics such as chemistry, physics, biology, logic, engineering, etc.

It's been 40 years since the last Moon Mission

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-18-2012, 02:52 PM
  #1
Everlong
JoeyBats
 
Everlong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,537
vCash: 500
It's been 40 years since the last Moon Mission

Why have we not gone there since?

I know it's extremely expensive and lately there have been some problems with the current rocket design, etc, but to not go there in over 4 decades is odd.

Even if we already know all there is to know about the Moon, you'd think we would have had some other projects in the works by now. Be that some sort of base on the surface or at very least some sort of landing dock.

Am I am the only one who really finds this weird?

Everlong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2012, 02:53 PM
  #2
Francesa
Registered User
 
Francesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 176,073
vCash: 500
Going to the moon is expensive.

Francesa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2012, 02:56 PM
  #3
Unaffiliated
Registered User
 
Unaffiliated's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Richmond, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,114
vCash: 50
Why would we even want to go there anymore?

Unaffiliated is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2012, 02:56 PM
  #4
Lee Van Cleef*
 
Lee Van Cleef*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Perth, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,798
vCash: 500
NASA says they plan to send people to Mars by 2037. Hopefully I'll still be alive then.

Lee Van Cleef* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2012, 03:03 PM
  #5
Renbarg
Registered User
 
Renbarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,869
vCash: 500
What would be the point exactly?

Renbarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2012, 03:03 PM
  #6
Canjo
AVA
 
Canjo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: ccc of America
Country: United States
Posts: 760
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tootoo Train View Post
Why have we not gone there since?

I know it's extremely expensive and lately there have been some problems with the current rocket design, etc, but to not go there in over 4 decades is odd.

Even if we already know all there is to know about the Moon, you'd think we would have had some other projects in the works by now. Be that some sort of base on the surface or at very least some sort of landing dock.

Am I am the only one who really finds this weird?


seriously though, I'm a firm believer that space exploration should be a top priority, instead of all the other stupid **** our government spends money on.

Canjo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2012, 03:05 PM
  #7
Unaffiliated
Registered User
 
Unaffiliated's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Richmond, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,114
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canjo View Post
seriously though, I'm a firm believer that space exploration should be a top priority, instead of all the other stupid **** our government spends money on.
Actual spaceborne human beings are not necessary for space exploration.

Unaffiliated is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2012, 03:23 PM
  #8
Everlong
JoeyBats
 
Everlong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,537
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renbarg View Post
What would be the point exactly?
It's well known that modern day rockets use up an extreme amount of fuel to reach outer space because of the gravity it has to battle. I don't know why they haven't started building a launch bad/refueling station on the moon yet. Less gravity, means less fuel wasted, which means you can do longer man-operated missions.

Everlong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2012, 03:24 PM
  #9
tikkanen5rings*
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: in your head!
Posts: 11,686
vCash: 500
Aren't the Chinese planning to go there soon?
USA has been too busy policing the deserts, so no money for NASA.

tikkanen5rings* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2012, 03:26 PM
  #10
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
I think landing on an asteroid or Mars are much more pressing concerns than another moon mission.

guest1467 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2012, 03:28 PM
  #11
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tootoo Train View Post
It's well known that modern day rockets use up an extreme amount of fuel to reach outer space because of the gravity it has to battle. I don't know why they haven't started building a launch bad/refueling station on the moon yet. Less gravity, means less fuel wasted, which means you can do longer man-operated missions.
Because space stations in space are infinitely more feasible and easier to maintain? Not to mention we already have them in place.

guest1467 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2012, 03:41 PM
  #12
Jaqen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,667
vCash: 500


This is why.

And it also explains to some ignorant people why the space program is important and worth pursuing.

Jaqen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2012, 03:41 PM
  #13
Unaffiliated
Registered User
 
Unaffiliated's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Richmond, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,114
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tootoo Train View Post
It's well known that modern day rockets use up an extreme amount of fuel to reach outer space because of the gravity it has to battle. I don't know why they haven't started building a launch bad/refueling station on the moon yet. Less gravity, means less fuel wasted, which means you can do longer man-operated missions.
1. You're aware that overcoming gravity is a problem, so you want to make a refuelling station on the surface of the moon?
2. Why do you want more manned missions?

Unaffiliated is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2012, 03:43 PM
  #14
LatvianTwist
Global Moderator
 
LatvianTwist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Houston
Country: Tibet
Posts: 17,853
vCash: 157
We don't need to be throwing trillions of dollars at our curiosity until the economy is completely back under control.

LatvianTwist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2012, 03:49 PM
  #15
Everlong
JoeyBats
 
Everlong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,537
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unaffiliated View Post
1. You're aware that overcoming gravity is a problem, so you want to make a refuelling station on the surface of the moon?
2. Why do you want more manned missions?
1. Yes. It's roughly 1/6th the gravity on earth making it easier to launch from, albeit slightly more effort required than launching from a space station. The current space station is efficient as is, but for long term outer space research, a Facility on the Moon seems like the more logical choice. It's also more beneficial to the astronauts with the moderate gravity. They don't have to come back to earth as often, and have to undergo rehabilitation which is the case for many after not using their leg muscles for so long.

2. Yes If you're spending an insane amount of money to send a spacecraft to another planet, it only makes sense to me to have humans there to deal with any issues to pop up.

Everlong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2012, 03:49 PM
  #16
tikkanen5rings*
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: in your head!
Posts: 11,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LatvianTwist View Post
We don't need to be throwing trillions of dollars at our curiosity until the economy is completely back under control.
I'd rather throw it at our curiousity than where it's currently going.

tikkanen5rings* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2012, 03:52 PM
  #17
sabresfan129103
Registered User
 
sabresfan129103's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Amherst, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,794
vCash: 500
Mars is the goal now I thought. Probably 20 years from now we might send someone.

sabresfan129103 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2012, 03:54 PM
  #18
MP
Registered User
 
MP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,917
vCash: 500
Water. A hypothetical colony would need a lot of it, but it weighs a ton and so would be very expensive to transport. That's why finding water ice in certain areas on the Moon was a big deal. But you still have to figure out how to get at it, and it doesn't sound like there's even that much to begin with. It's a pretty big hurdle.

Also, more research is coming out about the health effects of prolonged exposure to low gravity, and it's not good news. Along with higher radiation exposure (compared to the Earth's surface) and problems with bone and muscle loss, they're finding, for example, that the back of the eyeball becomes somewhat flattened, which isn't good. Plus, you might fart a lot. That doesn't mean we should give up on manned spaceflight, but it's certainly food for thought.

As for launching platforms for a mission to Mars, there are other possibilities beyond a Moon base. One idea is to put a space station at a LaGrange point, probably L4 or L5. Docking at a station requires less fuel than landing and launching from the Moon, and you don't need to worry about Moonquakes. And the fact that the station is rarely inside Earth's shadow means that you would never, ever have to worry about running out of energy. All you have to do is figure out how to keep the crew from getting irradiated... but it's not like a lunar base would be free of radiation either.

MP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2012, 03:57 PM
  #19
Unaffiliated
Registered User
 
Unaffiliated's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Richmond, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,114
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tootoo Train View Post
1. Yes. It's roughly 1/6th the gravity on earth making it easier to launch from, albeit slightly more effort required than launching from a space station. The current space station is efficient as is, but for long term outer space research, a Facility on the Moon seems like the more logical choice. It's also more beneficial to the astronauts with the moderate gravity. They don't have to come back to earth as often, and have to undergo rehabilitation which is the case for many after not using their leg muscles for so long.
If you want a refuelling station, then you put it on a space station orbiting a celestial body (in this case, the moon). You don't put it on the surface.

To be more exact, you wouldn't even do a geosynchronous orbit.

THIS IS WHAT YOU DO:



Do you have any sort of formal education in the basic rocket equation or Kepler's problem (or basic Lagrangian mechanics)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tootoo Train View Post
2. Yes If you're spending an insane amount of money to send a spacecraft to another planet, it only makes sense to me to have humans there to deal with any issues to pop up.
Humans require water, food, oxygen, sleeping areas, waste management, entertainment, and actual moving space.

Adding all that mass drastically increases the required amount of fuel to burn.


Last edited by Unaffiliated: 03-18-2012 at 04:18 PM. Reason: removed a wiki link that seemed redundant
Unaffiliated is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2012, 04:19 PM
  #20
Renbarg
Registered User
 
Renbarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,869
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tootoo Train View Post
It's well known that modern day rockets use up an extreme amount of fuel to reach outer space because of the gravity it has to battle. I don't know why they haven't started building a launch bad/refueling station on the moon yet. Less gravity, means less fuel wasted, which means you can do longer man-operated missions.
You are insinuating that the Moon would be an awesome spot to set up a mission to Mars. But even getting a man on Mars seems kind of pointless to me. We pretty know exactly what we would find.

Even the moon missions, the greatest good that have come from them have been ancillary and involve the technology discovered to try to get to the Moon.

Renbarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2012, 04:20 PM
  #21
Unaffiliated
Registered User
 
Unaffiliated's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Richmond, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,114
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MP View Post
Water. A hypothetical colony would need a lot of it, but it weighs a ton and so would be very expensive to transport. That's why finding water ice in certain areas on the Moon was a big deal. But you still have to figure out how to get at it, and it doesn't sound like there's even that much to begin with. It's a pretty big hurdle.

Also, more research is coming out about the health effects of prolonged exposure to low gravity, and it's not good news. Along with higher radiation exposure (compared to the Earth's surface) and problems with bone and muscle loss, they're finding, for example, that the back of the eyeball becomes somewhat flattened, which isn't good. Plus, you might fart a lot. That doesn't mean we should give up on manned spaceflight, but it's certainly food for thought.

As for launching platforms for a mission to Mars, there are other possibilities beyond a Moon base. One idea is to put a space station at a LaGrange point, probably L4 or L5. Docking at a station requires less fuel than landing and launching from the Moon, and you don't need to worry about Moonquakes. And the fact that the station is rarely inside Earth's shadow means that you would never, ever have to worry about running out of energy. All you have to do is figure out how to keep the crew from getting irradiated... but it's not like a lunar base would be free of radiation either.
This guy has a clue

The name is Lagrange, though. Not LaGrange.


Unaffiliated is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2012, 04:34 PM
  #22
MP
Registered User
 
MP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,917
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tikkanen5rings View Post
Aren't the Chinese planning to go there soon?
There's the rub. Space programs are prestige projects. Part of the reason NASA's funding shrank so much after Apollo (and admittedly, the Apollo budget was extravagant and unsustainable) was because the manned spaceflight contest, as the government saw it, was over. We'd "won." The Soviets admitted as much when they canceled their own plans for a manned Moon landing. There are several logical reasons for NASA's continued existence, but it's nowhere near the political priority it used to be.

But if China makes some serious progress with a manned lunar program? Or even a manned Mars program? Maybe it's a different story.

MP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2012, 04:42 PM
  #23
Montag DP
Sabres fan in...
 
Montag DP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: ...Atlanta
Country: United States
Posts: 6,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tootoo Train View Post
It's well known that modern day rockets use up an extreme amount of fuel to reach outer space because of the gravity it has to battle. I don't know why they haven't started building a launch bad/refueling station on the moon yet. Less gravity, means less fuel wasted, which means you can do longer man-operated missions.
Actually, it's moreso the fact that Earth has a dense atmosphere and lots of stuff on and near the ground. If not for that fact, we could just launch the rockets basically horizontal to reach escape velocity instead of having to battle gravity so much by flying straight up for however many miles.

Montag DP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2012, 04:50 PM
  #24
Dr John Carlson
Emotional Boys 2001
 
Dr John Carlson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,465
vCash: 50
Have you guys not seen Apollo 18?!?!? Aliens in the moonrocks, man! We don't wanna go back there! That movie was found footage, so it's legit!!!11!!1!

Dr John Carlson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2012, 04:54 PM
  #25
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,363
vCash: 500
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIW2cLOgMl8&feature=fvst

monster_bertuzzi is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:01 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.