One Step Closer......
-
@coliver said:
It would also be a proving ground for said technologies, especially with the resources that are readily available on the moon for us to exploit (Helium3?)Is anyone seriously looking at colonial mining? I find that unlikely. The cost of getting resources to and from Earth would be, excuse the pun, astronomic. We should be able to produce anything on earth for a fraction of the price of mining it in space.
-
@scottalanmiller Not when those substances are extremely rare on earth.
I agree though without further advances in technology it would be prohibitively expensive to do any colonial mining (although I believe that NASA/Private Companies have been seriously looking at near impact asteroid mining). Although getting things off of the moon would be much easier/less expensive then getting them off of the Earth or Mars.
-
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller Not when those substances are extremely rare on earth.
Is that true? My understanding is that there is no rarity that would make up for the cost of transport.
-
@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?
