@bradstevens One way to get to Mars is through the moon. The moon has water in ice at the south pole. That water can be converted to hydrogen and oxygen, meaning not nearly as much needs lifted out of our much larger gravity. This is where the space race comes in, the laws regarding space exploration are nonexistent. That means there is a certain race with China to get to that ice first. Look up the book "A City on Mars: Can We Settle Space, Should We Settle Space, and Have We Really Thought This Through?" by Zach Weinersmith. He details the problems getting to Mars and how the moon solves some of them.
This time the moon isn't the final destination.
Besides, without going to the moon, Space 1999 cannot happen... :>).
The best reason to go to the moon is to see If that American flag is really there or not.
The reality is that the flags left there are likely very bleached out by uv radiation. Lunar satellites from other countries have shown the landing modules and even tracks/footprints.
Exciting day. Watched the launch outside.
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
Good golly, Molly. What a depressing, pessimistic view of mankind you’ve set out here. We are at our absolute, fvcking best when we explore, stretch and expand our knowledge beyond our little, “oh-we-might-get-expelled” uber-caution chickeny shit.
We progressed from the Wright Brothers to the moon in just a few seconds, in the overall scheme of time and humanity. We’ll get to the stars. Book it.
Can anyone here play this game?
1. Again, why, other than 4?Why go back?Looks like a successful launch. Anyone have any grand thoughts about going back to the moon?
I think it depends whom you ask. Some people think it will reinvigorate the American space program. Some people think it will be a stepping stone to Mars. Some people think it serve as a unifying catalyst in an internationally polarized world. Some people probably just like rockets.
2. So, other than 4?
3. LOL.
4. Bingo. And if that's all it is, it's not worth it.
The fact is, we are never going to realistically live on any of these places. Our best bet is to engineer the Earth for better living, not another planet.
BTW, the reason I think it's awesome is that it's technologically and operationally magnificent. An example of human achievement beyond most other endeavors our species has undertaken. I would rank the ability to visit the moon as among the top two greatest human accomplishments, along with eradicating smallpox. Going back might lack the novelty of the first venture, but it's still impressive and exciting.
1. Again, why, other than 4?Why go back?Looks like a successful launch. Anyone have any grand thoughts about going back to the moon?
I think it depends whom you ask. Some people think it will reinvigorate the American space program. Some people think it will be a stepping stone to Mars. Some people think it serve as a unifying catalyst in an internationally polarized world. Some people probably just like rockets.
2. So, other than 4?
3. LOL.
4. Bingo. And if that's all it is, it's not worth it.
The fact is, we are never going to realistically live on any of these places. Our best bet is to engineer the Earth for better living, not another planet.
BTW, the reason I think it's awesome is that it's technologically and operationally magnificent. An example of human achievement beyond most other endeavors our species has undertaken. I would rank the ability to visit the moon as among the top two greatest human accomplishments, along with eradicating smallpox. Going back might lack the novelty of the first venture, but it's still impressive and exciting.
Since we destroyed our last Saturn 5, humans haven't had the ability to leave near-earth orbit. This is like humans being a kid and grounded for a month over summer break. This is our first trip back out. You bet it is impressive and exciting.
Looks like a successful launch. Anyone have any grand thoughts about going back to the moon?
Great moment for the country
1. Again, why, other than 4?Why go back?Looks like a successful launch. Anyone have any grand thoughts about going back to the moon?
I think it depends whom you ask. Some people think it will reinvigorate the American space program. Some people think it will be a stepping stone to Mars. Some people think it serve as a unifying catalyst in an internationally polarized world. Some people probably just like rockets.
2. So, other than 4?
3. LOL.
4. Bingo. And if that's all it is, it's not worth it.
The fact is, we are never going to realistically live on any of these places. Our best bet is to engineer the Earth for better living, not another planet.
.
Technologically and operationally are interesting criteria. Getting humans to the moon and back alive is incomprehensible. The discovery of a vaccine (immunology) and using it to prevent hundreds of millions of deaths also profound. I would add alternating current, which not only prevents death but also enables life to say nothing of building the modern world.1. Again, why, other than 4?Why go back?Looks like a successful launch. Anyone have any grand thoughts about going back to the moon?
I think it depends whom you ask. Some people think it will reinvigorate the American space program. Some people think it will be a stepping stone to Mars. Some people think it serve as a unifying catalyst in an internationally polarized world. Some people probably just like rockets.
2. So, other than 4?
3. LOL.
4. Bingo. And if that's all it is, it's not worth it.
The fact is, we are never going to realistically live on any of these places. Our best bet is to engineer the Earth for better living, not another planet.
BTW, the reason I think it's awesome is that it's technologically and operationally magnificent. An example of human achievement beyond most other endeavors our species has undertaken. I would rank the ability to visit the moon as among the top two greatest human accomplishments, along with eradicating smallpox. Going back might lack the novelty of the first venture, but it's still impressive and exciting.
Inspiration, innovation, problem solving, achievement, the kinds of things I think are important for humans.
- Height: The Saturn V was taller at 363 ft (111 m), while the Artemis II SLS (Block 1) is 322 ft (98 m).
- Thrust: The Artemis II SLS produces 8.8 million pounds of thrust at liftoff, compared to the 7.6 million pounds produced by the Saturn V.
- Payload to Orbit: The Saturn V could lift ~118-140 tonnes to Low Earth Orbit (LEO). The current Artemis II SLS is designed to lift over 95 tonnes to LEO, but is optimized for translating heavier payloads directly to the Moon.
- Weight on Pad: The Saturn V was heavier at 6.5 million lbs (2.9M kg), while the SLS is lighter at 5.75 million lbs (2.6M kg).
- Engines: Saturn V used five kerosene-fueled F-1 engines. The SLS uses four liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen RS-25 engines (derived from the Space Shuttle) and two large solid rocket boosters. [1, 2, 3, 4]
- Power: SLS is more powerful, using modern, efficient, and partly reusable components (RS-25 engines and solid boosters) to achieve higher liftoff thrust.
- Design & Diameter: The SLS core stage is narrower (27.6 ft) than the Saturn V (33 ft), derived directly from the Shuttle's External Tank design.
- Mission Goal: Saturn V was dedicated to rapid lunar surface landings, whereas Artemis II focuses on crewed lunar orbital testing, establishing long-term infrastructure, and paving the way to Mars.
- Cost: While costs differ based on budget years, SLS is considered significantly more expensive per launch compared to the mass-produced Saturn V flights of the 1960s-70s. [1, 2, 3, 4]
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/moon-new-crater-nasa-orbiter
Just read this, which I thought was pretty cool. Super excited for another trip to the moon. I think it'll be cool for school kids.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/moon-new-crater-nasa-orbiter
Just read this, which I thought was pretty cool. Super excited for another trip to the moon. I think it'll be cool for school kids.
.
@bradstevens One way to get to Mars is through the moon. The moon has water in ice at the south pole. That water can be converted to hydrogen and oxygen, meaning not nearly as much needs lifted out of our much larger gravity. This is where the space race comes in, the laws regarding space exploration are nonexistent. That means there is a certain race with China to get to that ice first. Look up the book "A City on Mars: Can We Settle Space, Should We Settle Space, and Have We Really Thought This Through?" by Zach Weinersmith. He details the problems getting to Mars and how the moon solves some of them.
This time the moon isn't the final destination.
Besides, without going to the moon, Space 1999 cannot happen... :>).
Was listening to a podcast with I think Neil deGrasse Tyson who said all this talk of putting life on Mars isn't going to work.
He said that we'd all have cancer in a matter of years because of Mars with no real atmosphere that protects us from the rays of the sun. He also said if the movie Martian had really happened, Mark Watney would have been dead from a couple different ways...
1- he would have gotten really no relief from the constant rays up there, which would have given him cancer, which he would have died, but before that, 2- the Mars soil is toxic so he wouldn't have been able to grow anything he could have eaten. If Mar's soil is toxic, that's a pretty big issue if we were to try and grow food up there.
Interesting stuff honestly.
@bradstevens One way to get to Mars is through the moon. The moon has water in ice at the south pole. That water can be converted to hydrogen and oxygen, meaning not nearly as much needs lifted out of our much larger gravity. This is where the space race comes in, the laws regarding space exploration are nonexistent. That means there is a certain race with China to get to that ice first. Look up the book "A City on Mars: Can We Settle Space, Should We Settle Space, and Have We Really Thought This Through?" by Zach Weinersmith. He details the problems getting to Mars and how the moon solves some of them.
This time the moon isn't the final destination.
Besides, without going to the moon, Space 1999 cannot happen... :>).
Was listening to a podcast with I think Neil deGrasse Tyson who said all this talk of putting life on Mars isn't going to work.
He said that we'd all have cancer in a matter of years because of Mars with no real atmosphere that protects us from the rays of the sun. He also said if the movie Martian had really happened, Mark Watney would have been dead from a couple different ways...
1- he would have gotten really no relief from the constant rays up there, which would have given him cancer, which he would have died, but before that, 2- the Mars soil is toxic so he wouldn't have been able to grow anything he could have eaten. If Mar's soil is toxic, that's a pretty big issue if we were to try and grow food up there.
Interesting stuff honestly.
The book I mentioned was written to rebut Musk's crazy idealism on getting a settlement on Mars, 2055. They point out all the things we have to do and suggest there is no way we can do it
But they also say it is wrong to suggest we can never do it. What I really like is as we research ways to get to Mars, we will find products that will improve our life here. We saw it with Apollo.
I was at an IT conference IU put on maybe 10 years ago. One of the keynote speakers discussed sending up a robot. The robot would inject the ground with a strong epoxy and wait for it to dry. After it dries, cut it into cubes and form it into an igloo. Coat igloo with said epoxy to make air tight. He didn't mention a set of double doors, I assume that is to be provided at some point. And the astronauts land with pre made housing.
Just thinking like that will create technologies for us.