Space travel

Discussion in 'Science' started by Nonnie, May 2, 2018.

  1. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If we always doubt the honesty & integrity of other nations, then we'll always be stuck in fear & pursue policies based on that fear. Somehow, we must move beyond that if we ever hope for a better world.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  2. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm sorry. You're going to have to tell me something about "space exploration" that requires a human to be present.

    Science studies stuff where humans are not present ALL THE TIME. And, our robotics capabilities are increasing rapidly.

    NO, I do NOT think we'll have "starship troopers". The point is that humans on the moon in 2028 won't be able to do ANYTHING that robots on the moon can't do. Plus, there isn't any serious reason to believe that humans on the moon is the best approach to future missions of any kind - manned or unmanned.

    Your "under one command" thing is just wrong. First, we're talking about science here, not war. Just as fundamentally, each branch of our military has its own space assets and plans because their needs aren't identical and are best managed under direct control.

    Men on the moon is a vanity mission costing tens of billions of dollars as currently estimated by NASA, but highly unlikely to be that cheap according to many in the field who know what they're talking about. For example, we don't have a need for SLS outside of this moon adventure, and by the time it is needed, there is no reason to believe that private enterprise won't have a solution. So, the moon landing should accrue the entire bill for SLS - which NASA has to build because it is a law passed by congress.

    This moonman vanity trip is set to suck gigantic dollars AWAY from science, including in education and the long ongoing study and monitoring of Earth, which is producing information that agriculture is using.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  3. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, first of all 10 years is 10 years better than 0 years.

    Second, there is no reason to believe that progress on negotiated solutions would cease and that nothing would be in place after 10 years.

    Today, we have the US (Trump) threatening Iran and screwing up the deal that our allies worked with us to obtain - a deal that affects all.

    We have taken a GIGANTIC step backward with the issue of Iran.

    ===> Not only did we kill this deal, but we PROVED that dealing with America is a waste of time, because we don't stand behind our deals.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  4. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope.

    Simply look at the debris we have recovered from the largest items to ever return to Earth.

    Skylab was one of the biggest, and the largest piece that did not burn up was the size of a water heater.

    Small satellites pretty much burn up on reentry. Larger ones tumble and break up in the upper atmosphere, and the majority of the pieces burn up.

    Yet another large item to break up, the Columbia. The largest piece recovered was the nose wheel assembly.

    Larger items do not just return to the surface as they are. They break up and scatter over tens of thousands of square miles, generally not much bigger than a toaster oven.

    A damned inefficient way to even attempt to kill somebody.
     
  5. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    North Korea was in 1985, but then withdrew in 2003.

    Iran was, but was still caught in violation of the treaty in 2003.
     
  6. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You see, that is the very problem.

    It was not a treaty!

    This is actually spelled out clearly in the Constitution. I present to you Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:

    Was this ever presented to the Senate, and did it get the 2/3 majority needed to make it a treaty?

    No, it did not. Therefore it is not a treaty. In fact, it was not even attempted, the President simply made it an Executive Order. And that only has effect so long as it is not later rescinded.

    Sorry, big time fail here for legal reasons.
     
    Lil Mike likes this.
  7. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, by large I mean they would have to have more mass. Space stations are made to be hollow and as light as possible. My main point is that it wouldn't absolutely have to have any kind of explosive.

    However, objects the size of a bolt can do serious damage to other objects in spce. They don't necessarily require explosives or a form of accelleration (such as a gun).
     
  8. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Right. Republicans killed it.

    The question is why. That agreeemnt was superior to any other direction that ANYONE could propose.

    And, WE set out to kill it!!

    By the way, other nations have honored this 8 party agreement.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  9. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    An area being bombarded by 10's of 1000's of 'toaster ovens' will be burnt toast...
     
  10. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    [​IMG]

    Oh yes, we certainly saw that in Australia when Skylab fell on them. Or over Texas and most of the central US when Challenger came down. Thousands killed, entire states burned to cinders. Massive property damage.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  11. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A cogent argument regarding the cost benefit of venturing to the moon. I recall the exact same ones used after JFK's challenge to go the first time. OTOH, the level of scientific and technological advancement that venture contributed was the real payoff. Wholly unanticipated application of the solutions developed to conquer such a complex dangerous mission were the foundation of the digital revolution.

    Going to the moon again is not a boondoggle. It will be expensive because all kinds of new technologies will be required to solve the myriad problems and issues that must be confronted. But solving those problems will result in remarkable new commercial markets not to mention multiple industrially transformative ones.
     
    tecoyah and XploreR like this.
  12. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    True.

    However, one big difference between then and now is that then we were stupendously excited about men in space. Today, we are not. We've had men in space for 20 years. We're used to movies that are FAR ahead of anything we can do in the next 100 years. Remember that even Apollo 11, the first man on the moon got ignored through much of its flight. Spending huge numbers of billions of dollars on men in space will spur that market segment, but I do not believe it will cause a surge in the number of kids hell bent to get engineering degrees like it did in the 1960's in the era of the red scare, Sputnik, Cuban missiles and the total novelty of it.

    I see this 2024/2028 thing as a total boondoggle, as there is NO part of it that relates to scientific exploration. It hits me as a stupendously expensive vanity project. At best, there could be some remnents that are usable - such as a lasting lunar orbiter that supplies a location off earth and not deep into the lunar gravity well.

    I would prefer to see that money spent on science.
     
  13. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think you are being entirely short sighted about this "vanity project". If we can learn how to be successful on the moon, it will empower us to be successful on mars and various other moons. Again, providing the foundations of harvesting the resources of our system. I'd even argue that the benefits of a moon base would outweigh the costs of being at the bottom of the lunar gravity well. As for the variety of hard sciences that would be conducted at such a base, there are dozens of scientific disciplines that would love to be able to conduct low gravity experimentation. And it has all kinds of bennies as a astronomical observation platform.

    I guess we are going to have to disagree as to the extent of the benefits of establishing a lunar colony.
     
    tecoyah likes this.
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When there is an actual need for humans in space I think the place they will be needed is in space rather than deep inside a gravity well.

    Space has asteroids and other stuff that could be of significant value in what we do in space as well as being of interest on earth. The cost of a retrieval mission that includes landing on the moon and carrying something back is going to be gigantic. So, the value of what's on the moon is likley to be limited to the value of the regolith for local construction plus ice for fuel. Of course, being on the moon is going to require fuel just to survive. Resupply and emergency missions are far easier for space stations than they are when they have to include landing on the moon and then launching back off.

    The thing about space is that there are asteroids of various compositions and values that can be used in space to build structures that will not have to blast off the lunar surface to be of value.

    As for science, anything on the moon could be observed and analyzed robotically. For the cost of men on the moon we could do MASSIVE amounts of science, because sending men to the moon requires huge expense that is not required for science. Withont the need for moonmen, we probably wouldn't even need the SLS program. The manned missions are not being designed for science. They are being designed for men on the moon.

    I just don't see this as more than a vanity project. There aren't any objectives other than landing an astronaught on the moon.

    Over the last few decades every admininstration flips NASA's objectives. And, NASA can not keep up with that. In my opinion, NASA should stick to science and let Musk and the others do the men in space thing.

    If NASA finds valuable resources in space, then various projects can take advantage of them.
     
  15. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What does "being successful" mean? What is the objective? What is the reason for that to BE the objective?

    Yeah, that's three questions and it looks like I'm on a tear or something. I'm not. Clearly a whole lot of people agree with you. And, at least they're building launch capability.

    I do have real concerns that this 2024 project will eat the science budget for lunch, as NASA has not asked for adequate funding and they have't gotten what they've asked for. The 2024 project is likely to be a directive that NASA must follow (like the SLS program is not a NASA decision). And, sciece projects tend NOT to be the same kind of direct orders..
     
  16. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Being "successful" would be to establish and maintain a productive lunar base.
    The objective is to learn and build the necessary technologies to "take possession" and exploit the resources of our solar system. Baby steps.

    The reasons for the objective are many as would befit such a complex undertaking. One motivation is an aspect of the human spirit. Mallory when asked in 1923 why he wanted to climb Mt Everest responded - "because its there". Vision quest is a universal human concept.
     
  17. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would agree that's about what is claimed.

    I'm just not excited about that. I don't know what a "productive" lunar base would be doing - or producing. I know it wouldn't have people walking around outside very much, as spacesuits aren't going to stop cosmic radiation. And, the cost of launching anything off the moon and landing it on earth would be stupendously expensive - making one wonder if we shouldn't first study the moon to see what could possibly be so valuable. So far, lunar regolith isn't exciting.

    I'm far more excited by exploring Enceladus or Titan or one of the other moons. I'd be more excited by examing more asteroids that appear to have stuff that we would see as incredibly valuable while also gaining more understanding of our solar system and testing out ways for encouraging astroids to not hit earth, since there may be a time when we would like that.

    When Mallory said he wanted to climb a mountain, we didn' blow our science budget on helping him do that. Blowing our budget on spacemen means we can't do as much exploration. If some guy like Mallory (or Musk) wants to go to Mars, GREAT! We didn't fund Mallory and we can make wise and independent choices of how to spend our tax dollars today.

    If you want to "take posession" of stuff, how about Psyche 16 - an asteroid that appears to be made of iron, nickle and gold. There are asteroids that seem to suggest that they have diamonds. If you want to loot space, our moon is a ridiculous objective. If you want to search for life, find out more about how our solar system or universe operates or was created, having humans on the moon is an impediment.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2019
  18. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Please justify this statement. Because it makes no sense.
     
  19. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    IMO the objective should be to continue to explore our Solar system...yes in baby steps...but because of the enormous costs associated this should not be a go-it-alone project by the US...I would prefer to see 20-30 nations equitably involved contributing resources. These types of ventures should be about all of mankind...not about the US 'taking possession' or military advantages, etc. And, unless mankind suddenly finds new physics allowing humans to travel at much greater speeds, and somehow money is not an issue, we're talking about 100's of years before we get beyond the Moon and maybe Mars. Humans are not designed well for space travel and life on other planets or moons so robotics must remain a huge portion of our efforts. I can't imagine humans colonizing moons or planets within the next 1000 years...
     
  20. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The NASA budget includes both science and astronauts to the moon.

    Attempts to put a man on the moon will compete for NASA time, dollars and attention. It will take time, dollars and attention from private enterprises, too, making them less available for science missions. In particular, the dollars NASA has requested to be added for a manned mission is bare minimum and optimistic - and it hasn't been granted by congress. Furthermore, sums at least as large and in some cases larger will be required yearly. Beyond that, we have failed to hold to one mission direction across administration changes - an unusual kind of risk beyond the normal risks of projects costing tens of billions of dollars or more.

    On the return side, I don't see anything about a man on the moon that improves science related to exploration of our universe wihin the forseeable future.
     
  21. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Amen.

    One of the most encouraging things about our space progress is the degree to which multiple nations are cooperating in building stuff, transporting stuff to/from space, in sharing information and scientific results.

    There is really no aspect of our relationship with Russia that is more positive than our cooperation on science objectives in space.

    Our contribution to the ESA spacelab was an important step toward the current space lab that includes participation by several nations.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2019
  22. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Science and space exploration don't need to be about politics or win-lose...science can stand alone with all participants agreeing and sharing common goals. All participants share the cost burden of such ventures and all participants share the rewards...such a novel approach!
     
  23. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, this isn't how NASA works. Funding for NASA IS political. It is within the domain of congress and the executive branch. Also, the shifting of NASA priorities comes from direction by congress and the executive branch. Moonmen, the SLS rocket system, and other stuff come at the direction of these political bodies. For example, NASA can not kill the SLS (even though it has limited usefulness, is hidiously expensive, and will be superceded by private enterprise in the near future.

    And, there is one NASA budget. So, when NASA is directed to take on a spectacularly expesive objective and congress doesn't fully fund that addition, then NASA has to kill other stuff.

    Yes, we can look for partners to fund our science, launch multiple missions on one rocket, etc.
     
  24. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is because you are seeing it as an either-pr situation. And it is not.

    Answer me this, is it easier to sail to China from the US by going directly, or by stopping off in Hawaii enroute? Why do you think it was so important during the voyages of Columbus and other explorers to stop off at the Canary Islands first?

    Or to speak more basically, is it easier to leave the immediate orbit of Earth and travel onwards by doing it directly from the surface or LEO, or to instead leave from an assembly point around orbit of another body, say the Moon?

    No, there is a very real reason why the moon is chosen as the first destination for our future Mars missions. We can send multiple shipments there and assemble the vehicle that will be used, and the velocity needed to leave it's orbit is much less than that of the Earth.

    Think of the Moon as the Canary Islands, then you might understand it's role. That is why I asked the challenge, to see if you even understood what it was.
     
  25. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I wasn't commenting about NASA...I was commenting that space exploration, including the enormous costs and complexities, should be undertaken by multiple nations, all with a single goal, sharing the burdens and sharing the rewards...
     

Share This Page