One Step Closer......
-
@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.
Hardley foolish, there was so much tech that we enjoy today that came from those missions and that period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies -
@scottalanmiller said:
@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.
A few modern economic stimuluses did the same thing....burned up money for nothing. Jjust saying.
-
@Bill-Kindle said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@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.
A few modern economic stimuluses did the same thing....burned up money for nothing. Jjust saying.
Ain't that the truth...lol
-
@ajstringham said:
@g.jacobse said:
@ajstringham
In some regard Earth has become uninhabitable...The moon is uninhabitable, space is uninhabitable.. and yet - there we are.. There are resources that are there that we would be able to harvest for the next step.
Mount Everest is uninhabitable, and yet thousands of people clammer up it's slopes - risking death or serious injury for the glory, the adventure, and the curiosity..
True. But consider this: satellites orbit earth from space, and the moon is only something like 3 days away. Mars is supposed to be something like 8 months away. I get that going to Mars would be amazing, but the expression "long ways from home" doesn't even begin to cover it. If something goes wrong, well, you're on your own.
And climbing Everest is cool but foolish IMHO.
It is very much an 'argument' that could go both ways... Climbing Everest or exploring space (inner or outer) - It's cool, It's neat, It's exciting, It's dangerous, it's pointless, its,..
If we do not venture into space, we are limiting our species to a slow painful death because we would stagnate. The human mind is mapped for exploration, excitement, and finding new things. Our minds would shut down if we didn't go.
Not to mention - We are just but a small speck in the Galactic Ocean of Space - If would be such a waste to NOT go. Think of Christopher Columbus and discovery of the New World.. Where would we Americans be had he not ventured into the unknown and the dangerous waters of monsters and myth.
-
@Bill-Kindle said:
Hardley foolish, there was so much tech that we enjoy today that came from those missions and that period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologiesResulting in "something" doesn't stop something being foolish. We wasted a fortune for what we got. We could have gotten the same returns cheaper and more safely. The moon flights were nothing more than hubris. Or fear that we were so far behind the Russians.
-
@Bill-Kindle said:
A few modern economic stimuluses did the same thing....burned up money for nothing. Jjust saying.
You never know what they are burned up for. The economy still exists. We could claim that the economy only works today because of the stimuli in the same way that we say that lunar flight technologies were only invested because of that program. There is no way to know if the program did it, or just coincided.
-
@g.jacobse said:
@ajstringham said:
@g.jacobse said:
@ajstringham
In some regard Earth has become uninhabitable...The moon is uninhabitable, space is uninhabitable.. and yet - there we are.. There are resources that are there that we would be able to harvest for the next step.
Mount Everest is uninhabitable, and yet thousands of people clammer up it's slopes - risking death or serious injury for the glory, the adventure, and the curiosity..
True. But consider this: satellites orbit earth from space, and the moon is only something like 3 days away. Mars is supposed to be something like 8 months away. I get that going to Mars would be amazing, but the expression "long ways from home" doesn't even begin to cover it. If something goes wrong, well, you're on your own.
And climbing Everest is cool but foolish IMHO.
It is very much an 'argument' that could go both ways... Climbing Everest or exploring space (inner or outer) - It's cool, It's neat, It's exciting, It's dangerous, it's pointless, its,..
If we do not venture into space, we are limiting our species to a slow painful death because we would stagnate. The human mind is mapped for exploration, excitement, and finding new things. Our minds would shut down if we didn't go.
Not to mention - We are just but a small speck in the Galactic Ocean of Space - If would be such a waste to NOT go. Think of Christopher Columbus and discovery of the New World.. Where would we Americans be had he not ventured into the unknown and the dangerous waters of monsters and myth.
Ummm...Christopher Columbus didn't discover the New World. In all technicality, the Vikings did. But in any case...
Earth alone won't stagnate the growth of the human race. They are looking to explore deep space but there is still a huge portion of the earth that is completely foreign to mankind. They haven't completed one task before moving on to another.
-
@g.jacobse said:
Think of Christopher Columbus and discovery of the New World.. Where would we Americans be had he not ventured into the unknown and the dangerous waters of monsters and myth.
We'd be living in Europe without the weight of the guilt of exploration through genocide
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Bill-Kindle said:
Hardley foolish, there was so much tech that we enjoy today that came from those missions and that period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologiesResulting in "something" doesn't stop something being foolish. We wasted a fortune for what we got. We could have gotten the same returns cheaper and more safely. The moon flights were nothing more than hubris. Or fear that we were so far behind the Russians.
I'm sure the same was said about the transcontinental railroad or prepping ships for the new world. Not saying that the cold war wasn't also a driver here but Space exploration is the final frontier.
-
@g.jacobse said:
@ajstringham said:
@g.jacobse said:
@ajstringham
In some regard Earth has become uninhabitable...The moon is uninhabitable, space is uninhabitable.. and yet - there we are.. There are resources that are there that we would be able to harvest for the next step.
Mount Everest is uninhabitable, and yet thousands of people clammer up it's slopes - risking death or serious injury for the glory, the adventure, and the curiosity..
True. But consider this: satellites orbit earth from space, and the moon is only something like 3 days away. Mars is supposed to be something like 8 months away. I get that going to Mars would be amazing, but the expression "long ways from home" doesn't even begin to cover it. If something goes wrong, well, you're on your own.
And climbing Everest is cool but foolish IMHO.
It is very much an 'argument' that could go both ways... Climbing Everest or exploring space (inner or outer) - It's cool, It's neat, It's exciting, It's dangerous, it's pointless, its,..
If we do not venture into space, we are limiting our species to a slow painful death because we would stagnate. The human mind is mapped for exploration, excitement, and finding new things. Our minds would shut down if we didn't go.
Not to mention - We are just but a small speck in the Galactic Ocean of Space - If would be such a waste to NOT go. Think of Christopher Columbus and discovery of the New World.. Where would we Americans be had he not ventured into the unknown and the dangerous waters of monsters and myth.
Christopher Columbus probably isn't the best example... just saying.
-
@coliver said:
@g.jacobse said:
@ajstringham said:
@g.jacobse said:
@ajstringham
In some regard Earth has become uninhabitable...The moon is uninhabitable, space is uninhabitable.. and yet - there we are.. There are resources that are there that we would be able to harvest for the next step.
Mount Everest is uninhabitable, and yet thousands of people clammer up it's slopes - risking death or serious injury for the glory, the adventure, and the curiosity..
True. But consider this: satellites orbit earth from space, and the moon is only something like 3 days away. Mars is supposed to be something like 8 months away. I get that going to Mars would be amazing, but the expression "long ways from home" doesn't even begin to cover it. If something goes wrong, well, you're on your own.
And climbing Everest is cool but foolish IMHO.
It is very much an 'argument' that could go both ways... Climbing Everest or exploring space (inner or outer) - It's cool, It's neat, It's exciting, It's dangerous, it's pointless, its,..
If we do not venture into space, we are limiting our species to a slow painful death because we would stagnate. The human mind is mapped for exploration, excitement, and finding new things. Our minds would shut down if we didn't go.
Not to mention - We are just but a small speck in the Galactic Ocean of Space - If would be such a waste to NOT go. Think of Christopher Columbus and discovery of the New World.. Where would we Americans be had he not ventured into the unknown and the dangerous waters of monsters and myth.
Christopher Columbus probably isn't the best example... just saying.
Exactly my point.
-
@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?
Could NASA have developed those items and a lower cost? Sure,..It wasn't and still isn't going to happen the minute you say Living Cargo. The moment you state that you going to launch a human your risks and your cost jump exponentially ,....
-
@g.jacobse said:
@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?
Could NASA have developed those items and a lower cost? Sure,..It wasn't and still isn't going to happen the minute you say Living Cargo. The moment you state that you going to launch a human your risks and your cost jump exponentially ,....
Some things also have to be invented. Things that do not yet exist. So yeah, it takes money time and resources.
-
@ajstringham said:
@g.jacobse said:
@ajstringham said:
@g.jacobse said:
@ajstringham
In some regard Earth has become uninhabitable...The moon is uninhabitable, space is uninhabitable.. and yet - there we are.. There are resources that are there that we would be able to harvest for the next step.
Mount Everest is uninhabitable, and yet thousands of people clammer up it's slopes - risking death or serious injury for the glory, the adventure, and the curiosity..
True. But consider this: satellites orbit earth from space, and the moon is only something like 3 days away. Mars is supposed to be something like 8 months away. I get that going to Mars would be amazing, but the expression "long ways from home" doesn't even begin to cover it. If something goes wrong, well, you're on your own.
And climbing Everest is cool but foolish IMHO.
It is very much an 'argument' that could go both ways... Climbing Everest or exploring space (inner or outer) - It's cool, It's neat, It's exciting, It's dangerous, it's pointless, its,..
If we do not venture into space, we are limiting our species to a slow painful death because we would stagnate. The human mind is mapped for exploration, excitement, and finding new things. Our minds would shut down if we didn't go.
Not to mention - We are just but a small speck in the Galactic Ocean of Space - If would be such a waste to NOT go. Think of Christopher Columbus and discovery of the New World.. Where would we Americans be had he not ventured into the unknown and the dangerous waters of monsters and myth.
Ummm...Christopher Columbus didn't discover the New World. In all technicality, the Vikings did. But in any case...
Earth alone won't stagnate the growth of the human race. They are looking to explore deep space but there is still a huge portion of the earth that is completely foreign to mankind. They haven't completed one task before moving on to another.
Yes yes - quite true. In that regard - splitting hairs
-
@Bill-Kindle said:
I'm sure the same was said about the transcontinental railroad or prepping ships for the new world. Not saying that the cold war wasn't also a driver here but Space exploration is the final frontier.
I agree. But all of those others were done organically when it made economic sense for people to voluntarily invest because they had a predicted return value. Space exploration was forced on us early through a government welfare program which wasted valuable resources at a time when we were not ready for the burdens of space flight. We are only just becoming ready today to go to the moon in a sensible way. We wasted an immense number of resources pushing to do something too early.
-
@g.jacobse said:
Could NASA have developed those items and a lower cost? Sure,..It wasn't and still isn't going to happen the minute you say Living Cargo. The moment you state that you going to launch a human your risks and your cost jump exponentially ,....
But they are saying that for Mars without sending someone. They could have prepared to go to the moon and not actually done it with the same results.
-
@Bill-Kindle said:
Some things also have to be invented. Things that do not yet exist. So yeah, it takes money time and resources.
But they didn't just focus on the invention, they used them in a very expensive, impractical way unnecessarily.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Bill-Kindle said:
Some things also have to be invented. Things that do not yet exist. So yeah, it takes money time and resources.
But they didn't just focus on the invention, they used them in a very expensive, impractical way unnecessarily.
Using them for their intended purpose was impractical? No. They were design for a purpose, and then those items found even more domestic practical applications.
Not to get off subject, but wasn't @Plantronics mics used for communications in the space suits?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Bill-Kindle said:
I'm sure the same was said about the transcontinental railroad or prepping ships for the new world. Not saying that the cold war wasn't also a driver here but Space exploration is the final frontier.
I agree. But all of those others were done organically when it made economic sense for people to voluntarily invest because they had a predicted return value. Space exploration was forced on us early through a government welfare program which wasted valuable resources at a time when we were not ready for the burdens of space flight. We are only just becoming ready today to go to the moon in a sensible way. We wasted an immense number of resources pushing to do something too early.
Look at all the jobs that were created in building up NASA. NASA paved the way for outfits like SpaceX and Virgin Galactic, which are private companies.
-
@Bill-Kindle said:
Using them for their intended purpose was impractical? No. They were design for a purpose, and then those items found even more domestic practical applications.
Absolutely, the intended purpose was wholly impractical. A complete waste of time, money and resources. The only value to them seems to be in the ancillary uses since that time. I think there is no doubt that the lunar landings were impractical, the question is did their ancillary value offset that waste? My answer is no, not in the least. All of their benefit was available without the waste, so yes, the intended uses since they were wasteful, were a waste.
