Izack
Non sequitur
Good point, though I think they've at least shown that they're serious when they talk about such things.
Moon One?
- Thread starter Lord Wasteland
- Start date
Codz
NEA Scout Wrencher
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2011
- Messages
- 3,594
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 63
- Location
- Huntsville, AL
- Preferred Pronouns
- He/Him
I certainly hope that they do carry through with their claims. I am however, still somewhat skeptical.
It isn't like NASA's pockets are particularly deep- their shallowness is a very relevant issue.
The problem arises when contracting structures and development attitudes reach into those pockets with all the finess of a dolphin trying to pick up a thumbtack while being tazed.
SpaceNut said nothing about manned or unmanned launches. An unmanned launch is anyway, a few technicalities and a historical milestone aside, not all that different from a manned launch (save for some technical precautions involved in human-rating, but these too can fly on an unmanned vehicle).
I've noticed a particularly interesting trend... people are pretty skeptical of SpaceX. Not just of their ramblings about vertical landings and boost-back reusability and Mars missions (which people rightly should be skeptical of) or their advertised launch prices (also understandable), but just of their feats in general.
If another organisation- say Arianespace, or Lockheed, or NASA, or even Orbital Sciences completed similar feats, there would be considerably less skepticism. NASA can announce a concept with a planned launch date over half a decade in the future, and it can still recieve less criticism than SpaceX does for a spacecraft that has already flown to orbit.
Then the question arises of why this skepticism exists. The reasons do not look particularly good to me: technically, SpaceX is doing nothing extraordinary (yet). Falcon 9 and Dragon are fairly simple, mundane systems (that also benefit from the decades of experience that agencies like NASA lacked during their first ventures into spaceflight).
Being the 'new guys' must be the reason for such criticism, and for the hero-worship that SpaceX sometimes recieves (there are two sides to the coin). But it's not a particularly good reason. There is no more or less 'magic' holding SpaceX down on the ground, or lifting them up into the heavens, than there is with other organisations.
Last edited:
The Moon certainly is interesting to visit. But quite boring compared to Mars. Mars has by far a more beautiful desert and "landscapes" plus it has got an atmosphere which does not only make look the surface of the Mars nicer.
In my opinion it would be a waste of money to build a base on the Moon. We should push forward to Mars. And I don't see why the Moon should be a good sandbox for training, as some people claim. It is only 2 days away and it has no atmosphere. It has not a lot to do with going to Mars.
We've been to the Moon, and we know we can do it for decades. No need to return, except for geological/astronomical research. But is it really worth the money for manned missions? We've done far more sophisticated things meanwhile, like building the ISS. Instead of the Moon, I would be more excited to see humans visiting an asteroid. Not only that it would be awesome pictures. But it really would be real a gain of deep space experience other than the Moon, which is only 2 days of travel and ~1.3 seconds of data transmission away.
In my opinion it would be a waste of money to build a base on the Moon. We should push forward to Mars. And I don't see why the Moon should be a good sandbox for training, as some people claim. It is only 2 days away and it has no atmosphere. It has not a lot to do with going to Mars.
We've been to the Moon, and we know we can do it for decades. No need to return, except for geological/astronomical research. But is it really worth the money for manned missions? We've done far more sophisticated things meanwhile, like building the ISS. Instead of the Moon, I would be more excited to see humans visiting an asteroid. Not only that it would be awesome pictures. But it really would be real a gain of deep space experience other than the Moon, which is only 2 days of travel and ~1.3 seconds of data transmission away.
sorindafabico
New member
Codz
NEA Scout Wrencher
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2011
- Messages
- 3,594
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 63
- Location
- Huntsville, AL
- Preferred Pronouns
- He/Him
Aren't "bags of water that outgas" the only reason they're there?
sorindafabico
New member
There aren't functional rovers on the surface of the Moon since 1976. LRO and GRAIL are doing an amazing job, but they have the natural limitations of orbiters.
Two unmanned launches (that were completely successful) is a pretty good start, especially when you consider the second one completed what was to be two separate launches.
I think part of the beauty of the whole thing is that SpaceX isn't using some magical new technology. What they're doing has been doable for 40 or 50 years now... what is magical is Musk's business model. That's what is enabling them to have the success they've seen so far, and I think it will carry them alot further.
I'm not saying Falcon 9/Dragon is completely vetted and proven, but the last mission really over the top completing two separate missions in one launch instead of two.
As far as Moon or Mars goes... I don't see any reason why we can't do both now that we have much cheaper access to space. A good reason to go back to the moon is gravity, or the lack there of. If we put a base on the moon, we could ultimately shoot for rocket / spacecraft manufacturing on the moon, and getting into orbit from the moon is even cheaper yet. The way to get this done would be to industrialize the moon to the point where these items would be manufactured on the Moon using the Moon's resources. This can be done, and it can be done eventually on Mars as well. Continuous resupply missions from Earth to Moon or Mars is not particularly sustainable over time, even with cheaper launch systems. Remember, SpaceX's long term goal is for man to become a multi-planetary species.... and a Moon base that serves as a train station to the stars makes alot of sense.
Not worth it. The extensive industry present on Earth is not present on the Moon (or anywhere else), which means you have to essentially start from scratch there- build every single thing- or import from Earth (which would be pretty expensive). On Earth, you can buy a lot of components off-the-shelf, and do the same with a lot of your manufacturing hardware. On the Moon, everything is custom. In addition, transport and accomodation, as well as training for the workforce will most likely be more costly.
Sure, industry on the Moon is possible- and it can be cheaper, if you're based on the Moon. But humanity is based on Earth, and dedication to the establishment of lunar industry at the cost of developing better means of accessing space is an undesirable detour.
Rather develop the technology to access space cheaply and routinely, and study possibilities for exploiting the space environment and the resources therein, and let people waste their own money to follow through if they wish.
Well the idea would be to get the moon to the point where it's pretty much self sustaining. Your right in saying that getting to that point would be a large task, but if the right people and the right tools were sent to the moon, the rest could be manufactured there. I think it's possible there, and I think it's possible on Mars as well. Just going to Mars to visit and come home never to return to me seems a waste unless we plan to stay on Mars. People are amazingly resourceful, especially when pressed for their existence, and industrializing a place isn't has huge a job as you seem to think it is. Once the proper tools are in place, it would just be a matter of time before it grew to a state where supply missions from Earth would be no longer needed.
SpaceNut: considering the large investment necessary to complete such an objective, the value of the outcome must be realised.
The problem here is that;
1. Earth has developed industry, but is more expensive to launch from.
2. Luna has (currently) no industry whatsoever, but it is (theoretically) cheaper to launch from.
To create an industry on the Moon, you have to spend a huge amount of money to build and/or land things that are already ubiquitous on Earth. To make it possible you would also have to greatly reduce the cost of launching hardware from Earth- which would make the supposed purpose of this Moon industry, being able to launch hardware into space at a cheaper rate, superfluous.
In short, the Moon's total lack of infrastructure outweighs its relative lack of gravity.
It is true that a great amount of effort or money (mostly money) could make such a thing possible- but it is quite unlikely to happen without the proper motivation.
The problem here is that;
1. Earth has developed industry, but is more expensive to launch from.
2. Luna has (currently) no industry whatsoever, but it is (theoretically) cheaper to launch from.
To create an industry on the Moon, you have to spend a huge amount of money to build and/or land things that are already ubiquitous on Earth. To make it possible you would also have to greatly reduce the cost of launching hardware from Earth- which would make the supposed purpose of this Moon industry, being able to launch hardware into space at a cheaper rate, superfluous.
In short, the Moon's total lack of infrastructure outweighs its relative lack of gravity.
It is true that a great amount of effort or money (mostly money) could make such a thing possible- but it is quite unlikely to happen without the proper motivation.
