• Welcome to ResetEra 2.0! Guests should now be able to save their dark or light theme preferences, found on the left sidebar.

NASA: We are going to the Moon. To stay, so we can go beyond. To MARS, and further

Nov 1, 2017
899
0
#55
Wherever they want to go, they need to make sure, they can simulate gravitiy acurately. Human bodies get absolutely destroyed when there is no gravitational force around them.
 
#58
You're thinking of this as a fiscal problem when the person you're talking to is referring to solving a physics problem.
I think that's about the size of it. Setting aside the remote prospect of one day having reliable raw material refineries and factories on the moon, the lunar surface is relatively promising as a staging area.

People would have to live underground most of the time to protect themselves from solar wind, CME events and plain old galactic cosmic rays, but there is decent gravity so the bone and muscle wastage that comes from low earth orbit would be less of a problem for long term occupants.

The overall cost of getting stuff into lunar orbit (from which it's an easy step to get it to the surface safely) is still quite high, but once you've assembled your ship on the lunar surface it'll be much more massive than would ever be feasible to launch from Earth. You only need to cope with the gravity well of the a moon on the outward voyage. Current plans foresee automatically landing a booster stage for the lift-off from Mars, and this plan would work just as well with a lunar base.

Such a plan would undoubtedly be slower and more expensive than a mission from Earth, but the scope could be much bigger and would enable a regular schedule of missions.
 
Oct 28, 2017
646
0
#62
NASA stopped the Apollo missions for a reason. They've been airbrushing photos of the lunar surface for decades. It's a common topic online, especially since the advent of YouTube has allowed people to see these images. A few people have come forward to share their own testimonies about what saw in the labs, where the original photos were processed.

mod edit: removed conspiracy theory video.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oct 28, 2017
1,101
0
#63
Wherever they want to go, they need to make sure, they can simulate gravitiy acurately. Human bodies get absolutely destroyed when there is no gravitational force around them.
We know that zero/micro gravity is bad, but we actually have no idea how much gravity we need. While the Moon has less gravity than Earth, it still has some, and that could be enough to reduce or eliminate the health problems we see in zero-g
 
OP
OP
Greigor the FellHand
Oct 26, 2017
5,768
0
#64
NASA stopped the Apollo missions for a reason. They've been airbrushing photos of the lunar surface for decades. It's a common topic online, especially since the advent of YouTube has allowed people to see these images. A few people have come forward to share their own testimonies about what saw in the labs, where the original photos were processed.

mod edit: removed conspiracy theory video.
There's the door with your conspiracy theory bullshit, don't let it hit you on your ass.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cyanity

Banned
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,907
0
#65
If the goal is Mars, then let’s go to Mars. The moon as a “hopping off point” is just a distraction (or a delaying tactic, depending on your cynicism).
Nah, moon base would pay off in the long run

NASA stopped the Apollo missions for a reason. They've been airbrushing photos of the lunar surface for decades. It's a common topic online, especially since the advent of YouTube has allowed people to see these images. A few people have come forward to share their own testimonies about what saw in the labs, where the original photos were processed.

mod edit: removed conspiracy theory video.
You're about to get dunked on massively, and you deserve it lmfao
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Geist

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,464
0
#66
This is so exciting, I'm fucking jumping up and down with joy.

NASA stopped the Apollo missions for a reason. They've been airbrushing photos of the lunar surface for decades. It's a common topic online, especially since the advent of YouTube has allowed people to see these images. A few people have come forward to share their own testimonies about what saw in the labs, where the original photos were processed.

mod edit: removed conspiracy theory video.
I hope you're joking.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oct 25, 2017
3,812
0
#67
Moon is the farthest place from Earth it would make sense to send people there. The elephant in the room space agencies are trying not to properly communicate is that the costs for sending people to Mars are way too high without providing any additional scientific output.

It's also way too early too contaminate Mars with organism from Earth.
 

StrapOnFetus

Banned
Member
Oct 27, 2017
760
0
TX
#71
As great as this is. NASA needs to take a hard look at some of its programs. The lunar gateway station needs to be bigger instead of a small orbital depot built for 3 to 4 people.

NASA's current new rocket is a extreme waste of resources. Look at BFR or Bezos designs. Reusability is the future, as long as Congress and the Senate have there hands on Nasa I'll defer to public space companies. Still excited though as I expect them to play a huge roll in our future.
 
Oct 25, 2017
726
0
#74
This whole 'put humans on planets just to say we did' is a huge waste of money just for dumb publicity stunts. Rovers do their job well, and can explore planets for a fraction of the cost, which means more exploration done.
 
Oct 27, 2017
4,329
0
Chicago
#75
NASA stopped the Apollo missions for a reason. They've been airbrushing photos of the lunar surface for decades. It's a common topic online, especially since the advent of YouTube has allowed people to see these images. A few people have come forward to share their own testimonies about what saw in the labs, where the original photos were processed.

mod edit: removed conspiracy theory video.
GTFO of here. This should be bannable.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,812
0
#76
This whole 'put humans on planets just to say we did' is a huge waste of money just for dumb publicity stunts. Rovers do their job well, and can explore planets for a fraction of the cost, which means more exploration done.
NASA is generally rather wasteful with its budget. China is running circles around everyone in the world regarding moon missions with basically a fraction of the NASA budget.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/china-about-visit-uncharted-territory-moon
 
Oct 30, 2017
2,170
0
San Diego
#79
NASA stopped the Apollo missions for a reason. They've been airbrushing photos of the lunar surface for decades. It's a common topic online, especially since the advent of YouTube has allowed people to see these images. A few people have come forward to share their own testimonies about what saw in the labs, where the original photos were processed.

mod edit: removed conspiracy theory video.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,409
0
#80
Didn't they announce this before or am i confusing this with the "We found water on Mars" thing? Which i'm pretty sure was announced more than once through the years and makes me not want to believe anything NASA says until they actually do it.
 
Oct 27, 2017
54
0
UK
#81
Great video! really hope NASA can make good on it, and nice shout out to working with others in the form of the SpaceX clip. The thought of seeing humanity on Mars in my lifetime still feels incredibly ambitious.
 
#82
Didn't they announce this before or am i confusing this with the "We found water on Mars" thing? Which i'm pretty sure was announced more than once through the years and makes me not want to believe anything NASA says until they actually do it.
There are literally million of cubic km of verified water on Mars. There may also be water in deep subsurface deposits beyond the reach of available sensors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars

The moon has water, too.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water
 
Oct 27, 2017
9,308
0
#83
Sure, if the moon is actually your starting point... But everything we send to Mars is going to start on Earth, and Earth->Moon->Mars is FAR FAR FAR more difficult than straight Earth->Mars, both in terms of delta-v (propellant) requirements and mission complexity.
I mean provided there is a base over there it wouldn't be that much harder because they would already need to send supplies for the people on the base.

Add to the fact it would take less fuel to launch ships from there and you get a much less expansive way.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,409
0
#84
#85
I'm not saying there is no water on mars but NASA has announced this several times. What are we supposed to be amazed that they found water on mars again? How is it news exactly?
They keep finding more water, and more about the water that's there. As they're a publicly funded agency they wouldn't be allowed to stop announcing these findings even if they wanted to. It would also be dumb to stop talking about mineralogical findings on the planets because they have to justify their spending.
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,586
0
#90
If the goal is Mars, then let’s go to Mars. The moon as a “hopping off point” is just a distraction (or a delaying tactic, depending on your cynicism).
Launching a hypothetical rocket from the Moon actually has advantages... Much lower escape velocity needed, for one.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,409
0
#91
They keep finding more water, and more about the water that's there. As they're a publicly funded agency they wouldn't be allowed to stop announcing these findings even if they wanted to. It would also be dumb to stop talking about mineralogical findings on the planets because they have to justify their spending.
Cool but that does not make me exactly have much faith in this announcement. What's stopping them from not going to the Moon and then announcing it again that they are "going to the moon" again in a few years?

Also i found this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_discoveries_of_water_on_Mars

It just makes me lose a bit faith in these announcements that would normally sound exciting, that's all.
 
Feb 28, 2018
105
0
#92
Sure NASA, sure.

Maybe in 50 years when the world is crumbling will politicians have more desperation to fund this.

Looking through developments, everything is an upgrade of apollo stuff......I don't see new ideas for space flight.

Then again, lots of engineers back then were prisoners of war and refuge scientists... so maybe they need more foreigners to help... don't tell trump tho. Maga, right? Jus saying.
 
#93
Cool but that does not make me exactly have much faith in this announcement. What's stopping them from not going to the Moon and then announcing it again that they are "going to the moon" again in a few years?
This happens a lot to NASA objectives. It's subject to the changing whims of Congress and the policy priorities of the White House.

Also i found this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_discoveries_of_water_on_Mars

It just makes me lose a bit faith in these announcements that would normally sound exciting, that's all.
What is it about that fascinating article that dents your faith in NASA?
 
Oct 27, 2017
4,491
0
#95
Launching a hypothetical rocket from the Moon actually has advantages... Much lower escape velocity needed, for one.
That’s fine and everything, but how long and how much money would it take to be in a position where both rocket manufacture and launch capability is possible on the moon?

A lunar launch facility makes some sense if you are fulfilling highly regular interplanetary missions, but we are hundreds of years from that.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,812
0
#96
That’s fine and everything, but how long and how much money would it take to be in a position where both rocket manufacture and launch capability is possible on the moon?

A lunar launch facility makes some sense if you are fulfilling highly regular interplanetary missions, but we are hundreds of years from that.
There is actually research possible for humans on Moon instead of deploying most of their time of barely staying alive on Mars while using robots for actually research missions.

So any meaningful research expedition will just cut off the human part in the future.
 
Oct 28, 2017
1,101
0
#99
I mean provided there is a base over there it wouldn't be that much harder because they would already need to send supplies for the people on the base.

Add to the fact it would take less fuel to launch ships from there and you get a much less expansive way.
From the surface of the Moon, let's say you might be able to do a Mars landing and return mission with a rocket in the ballpark of the size of an Atlas V, which is 335 metric tons. A Saturn V (the US moon rocket, largest rocket ever successfully launched) could land about 20 tons on the Moon. So it would take 16-17 Saturn V launches to put all the parts and fuel on the lunar surface to construct an Atlas V.

Instead if you start from low Earth orbit, you would need a slightly bigger rocket. Let's go overboard and say you would need one twice the size, at 770 tons. A Saturn V could put 140 tons into low Earth orbit, so it would only take 5-6 launches.

That comparison doesn't even factor in the increased overhead and complexity of landing and launching from the surface, like the need for landing gear and higher thrust than what you'd need with a rocket built in orbit.


The only way that launching interplanetary missions from the Moon would make any sense is if you have mining and manufacturing facilities on the Moon to actually create the rocket and propellant there from local resources.