-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
NASA: We are going to the Moon. To stay, so we can go beyond. To MARS, and further
- Thread starter Greigor the FellHand
- Start date
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.
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.
Basey McBaseface will be written about in the history books.
This is one of the biggest reasons to moonbase, if they can truly make this into an incredibly dense fuel source :
https://m.esa.int/Our_Activities/Pr...h/Energy/Helium-3_mining_on_the_lunar_surface
https://m.esa.int/Our_Activities/Pr...h/Energy/Helium-3_mining_on_the_lunar_surface
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.
mod edit: removed conspiracy theory video.
Last edited by a moderator:
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
There's the door with your conspiracy theory bullshit, don't let it hit you on your ass.
Last edited by a moderator:
Nah, moon base would pay off in the long run
You're about to get dunked on massively, and you deserve it lmfao
Last edited by a moderator:
This is so exciting, I'm fucking jumping up and down with joy.
I hope you're joking.
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
It's also way too early too contaminate Mars with organism from Earth.
"We're going to the Moon. To stay. We're sick of the shit here on Earth. We're going to start again on Mars, if you're not invited -- good luck to you on Earth."
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.
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.
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
Damn, always one wacko with conspiracy BS in a positive science thread. smh at people like this guy
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
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.
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.
Does NASA do anything that's not an employment drive? The next thing is for michael bay to start shoehorning nasa employees and equipment into his movies to hook the kids.
Launching a hypothetical rocket from the Moon actually has advantages... Much lower escape velocity needed, for one.
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.
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.
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.
This happens a lot to NASA objectives. It's subject to the changing whims of Congress and the policy priorities of the White House.
What is it about that fascinating article that dents your faith in NASA?
I hope to live long enough to witness mans first steps on Mars
But I suppose I can settle for a Moon base and space tourism
But I suppose I can settle for a Moon base and space tourism
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.
I know, I'm just saying it's better to wait on things like this before making definitve statements.
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.
Also, let's not give people healthcare, or job opportunities, or a decent standard of living, or fix our own goddamned planet, cause its too expensive.