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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
