Space In General

Why were people talking about going to the Moon [when they should NOT be] anyway? Do you suppose this had something to do with it?

The paragraph beginning “Set far-reaching exploration milestones” is deleted and replaced with the following:

“Lead an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities. Beginning with missions beyond low-Earth orbit, the United States will lead the return of humans to the Moon for long-term exploration and utilization, followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations;”.
Click to expand...
 


NASA put this video out a few weeks ago. Honestlythe confience in this prospect brings a tear to my eye. I can understand now how people seeing the first rockets go to space would drop to their knees in awe
 
DesertPenguin


NASA put this video out a few weeks ago. Honestlythe confience in this prospect brings a tear to my eye. I can understand now how people seeing the first rockets go to space would drop to their knees in awe
Click to expand...

Going back to the Moon is all very well, but some are skeptical it can be done by 2024. The various bits and pieces are behind schedule and over budget. Has a real challenge been laid down and accepted? Or is it more about posturing and bluffing? Does a string of highly successful Lunar missions by the Chinese sting Trump's ego?
 
Dotini
Going back to the Moon is all very well, but some are skeptical it can be done by 2024. The various bits and pieces are behind schedule and over budget. Has a real challenge been laid down and accepted? Or is it more about posturing and bluffing? Does a string of highly successful Lunar missions by the Chinese sting Trump's ego?
Click to expand...
I mean. Ego and nukes drove us there in the first place. I am curious if this will lead to another race to colonize not unlike when Europe first found out about the America's.
 
Rallywagon
I am curious if this will lead to another race to colonize not unlike when Europe first found out about the America's.
Click to expand...
I would bet money not, as the costs and risks of human colonization of the Moon and especially Mars would IMO exceed the benefits, from any viewpoint other than military superiority. Automated mining of asteroids sounds like a better commercial risk to me.
 
Dotini
I would bet money not, as the costs and risks of human colonization of the Moon and especially Mars would IMO exceed the benefits, from any viewpoint other than military superiority. Automated mining of asteroids sounds like a better commercial risk to me.
Click to expand...

Everywhere you look in history the rise of military states has been in response to a need to protect manpower, territory and resources from third parties who would destroy manpower, occupy workable territory and profit from the resources themselves.

Why would space be any different?
 
Dotini
I would bet money not, as the costs and risks of human colonization of the Moon and especially Mars would IMO exceed the benefits, from any viewpoint other than military superiority. Automated mining of asteroids sounds like a better commercial risk to me.
Click to expand...
If resources on earth weren't finite, I might agree. Hell, if humans weren't humans I might agree. But eventually we will want/need to populate the space around our planet, to include the moon, for more than just science.
 
Rallywagon
If resources on earth weren't finite, I might agree. Hell, if humans weren't humans I might agree. But eventually we will want/need to populate the space around our planet, to include the moon, for more than just science.
Click to expand...
Don't you think it might be easier to live under the ocean or deep in tunnels, caves and caverns in preference to living in outer space??

@TenEightyOne Yes, I think military uses of space are justified. But just as in exploration and mining, I think automated systems would be preferable to humans trying to live and work in space.
 
Dotini
@TenEightyOne Yes, I think military uses of space are justified. But just as in exploration and mining, I think automated systems would be preferable to humans trying to live and work in space.
Click to expand...

That's not what I'm saying, I'm pointing out that military states grow around trade, industry and the protection thereof.
 
TenEightyOne
That's not what I'm saying, I'm pointing out that military states grow around trade, industry and the protection thereof.
Click to expand...
The military protects trade routes, like the Strait of Malacca, the Strait of Hormuz and undersea cables. With Chinese, Russian and Indian satellites in orbit and on the moon with the capability of disrupting our satellites in orbit and potentially on the Moon, we must safeguard trade routes in outer space like any other. With apologies to Dr. Strangelove, we must defend against a Moonbase gap. :rolleyes:





https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...NziAhVh0FQKHaIpAy0QMwhDKAEwAQ&iact=mrc&uact=8
 
Dotini
I would bet money not, as the costs and risks of human colonization of the Moon and especially Mars would IMO exceed the benefits, from any viewpoint other than military superiority. Automated mining of asteroids sounds like a better commercial risk to me.
Click to expand...
SpaceX will beat everyone to Mars and military superiority means nothing to them.
 
The original moon landings took NASAs budget close to 4% of the US budget at the time. Currently NASA budget is 0.5% and amounts to less than half of the budget NASA had at the height of the Apollo programme.

I can't see them on Mars, or even the moon any time soon.
 
Daz555
The original moon landings took NASAs budget close to 4% of the US budget at the time. Currently NASA budget is 0.5% and amounts to less than half of the budget NASA had at the height of the Apollo programme.

I can't see them on Mars, or even the moon any time soon.
Click to expand...

The US budget is a lot bigger.
 
Danoff
The US budget is a lot bigger.
Click to expand...
Yes, agreed. However even with that taken into account though the absolute amount of money in real terms (mapped to today's $) being invested in Orion etc is waaaay behind what it was for Apollo. It is about half.

It's all talk at the moment. I remember the quote from The Right Stuff: "No bucks, no Buck Rogers."
 
Dotini
I would bet money not, as the costs and risks of human colonization of the Moon and especially Mars would IMO exceed the benefits, from any viewpoint other than military superiority. Automated mining of asteroids sounds like a better commercial risk to me.
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on how we define benefits. Curiosity driven research does not necessarily need to have a $ benefit. Putting a massive telescope on the far side of the moon for example might just make sense from a scientific/engineering perspective rather than a financial one. I'm not saying that we should do that, just using it as an example.
 
Daz555
Yes, agreed. However even with that taken into account though the absolute amount of money in real terms (mapped to today's $) being invested in Orion etc is waaaay behind what it was for Apollo. It is about half.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Orion includes SLS. And if you're going to compare apples to apples you'd need to at least include the costs of Orion and SLS together to match up with Apollo.

wikipedia
Excluded from the prior Orion costs are:

  1. Costs "for production, operations, or sustainment of additional crew capsules, despite plans to use and possibly enhance this capsule after 2021"[32]
  2. Costs of the first service module and spare parts[33] to be provided by the European Space Agency for the test flight of Orion in 2020 (about $1 billion)[34]
  3. Costs to assemble, integrate, prepare and launch the Orion and its launcher (funded under the NASA Ground Operations Project,[35] currently about $400M[36] per year)
  4. Costs of the launcher, the SLS, for the Orion spacecraft
Click to expand...
 
R1600Turbo
Man, all that money spent and they're just going to toss the boosters in the ocean again. Seems like such a waste.
Click to expand...

Historically, reconditioning and re-using launch parts has been a bad move. Is Space X making a good case these days for the financial benefit of recovering boosters? This was a question I had been meaning to ask anyway, you just gave me an excuse.
 
Dotini
I think automated systems would be preferable to humans trying to live and work in space.
Click to expand...
But that leaves out the human exploration factor . A humans sense of adventure . Humans will move off earth if they dont kill each other off first. I have zero doubts of that
 
An intriguing new theory suggests there was no Big Bang singularity, no starting point and points at the possibility that the universe had no beginning.

The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there according to Ahmed Farag Ali at Egypt’s Benha University. Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.


https://dailygalaxy.com/2019/06/big-bang-vanishes-quantum-theory-describes-an-eternal-universe/


Wow , wouldnt that be something if true
 
Another Falcon Heavy launch coming up. Currently slated for Monday the 24th, 11:30pm EDT, 8:30pm PDT, 0330 June 23 UTC. Rocket was put on the pad this morning in preparation for the static fire which should take place sometime today.

D9bHkvdWsAEwWc8.jpg
 
Well the Falcon Heavy launch was *somewhat* successful. Launch was great, side boosters landed perfectly. All satellites were released and are operational. And then there's the center core booster...



Oops. According to Elon, the heat was so intense on the re-entry that it penetrated the engine compartment causing the gimble control on the center engine to fail. It was on the mark to make the landing but the on board computers took over when they recognized the failure. This landing was by far the hardest one they had ever attempted being the furthest down range. Speed was about 20% higher than any other landing.

65050717_10156419679177776_4637457943917232128_n.jpg


65302510_2228528833849365_1603560412584869888_o.jpg
 
Last edited:

Latest Posts

Back