Page 3 of 3 [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

16 May 2013, 5:57 pm

Jono wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
Mars is very far away, and if you look at all that's gone wrong on other manned missions, then you don't need to be a genious to see that you'll probably get some kind of mechanical or electrical error with disasterous consequences if you were to send a spaceship to Mars in 2018. Almost every advanced digital technological invention today, had a primitive ancestor in 1969 as well; "rocket science" hasn't changed that much in the last 40 years.

Furthermore, we do not know the effects of long-term deprivation of gravity yet, let alone if someone can survive it for the one and a half years a two-way trip to Mars would require.

Lastly, NASA has an extremely tight budget. If they have to choose between something of great scientific value (eg. unmanned probes on Europa or the search for more exoplanets) or something that's merely cool, but of no great scientific value (building a hotel on the moon, a manned mission to mars, etc.), they'll chose the former. In the 1960's, they were under great pressure to land on the moon as quickly as possible because of a promise John F. Kennedy made to the American people, and because the USSR was also aiming for the moon.

The "deadline" for when man will walk on Mars has been pushed back several times; in 1969, they said the year 2000; in 2000, they said 2020; now they're saying 2050. Don't be dissapointed if it never happens in our lifetime.


A manned mission to Mars is like controlled nuclear fusion. Always 20-30 years in the future.

ruveyn


So is returning to the Moon. At least landing a man on the Moon was done once though.


What scientific value does a moon landing have in 2013? Why spend billions of dollars on sending a man there today when NASA has an incredibly tight budget?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

17 May 2013, 2:53 pm

1. The moon may large amounts of helium three which is the only chance we have of getting controlled nuclear fusion.
2. The moon is a shallow gravity well. It is a logical place to build large non-aerodynamic space craft for further exploration of the solar system
3. The dark side of the moon is the best place to put telescopes utilizing all electro-magnetic frequency spectra. There is no atmosphere on the moon to spoil viewing.
4. The moon is the logical place to learn how to construct and maintain off-world habitats. It is a logical first step before attempting projects like mining the asteroids for their metallic wealth. The moon is close enough to be supported from the ground and sufficiently hostile to learn how to live off world.
5. The moon is the logical place to attempt low-g manufacturing.
6. We can build solar collectors on the moon unclouded by an atmosphere, generate electricity there and beam it down in the form of microwave radiation using a narrow columated beam to receivers on on earth.
7. The moon is the "high ground". Whoever controls it can literally throw rocks at the earth by using mass drivers. It is a military asset to whoever controls the moon.

When we go back to the moon it should be to build habitats and communities there.

ruveyn