Artemis: Nasa ready to launch new era of Moon exploration

[jerry mcmasters]

I think it's pointless and wasteful. It's the moon, been there done that. We can put unmanned probes on the moon and take samples and dig as deep as we wish. It's probably more institutional and bureaucratic than purely political; have budget, must spend- or risk losing the budget.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think it's pointless and wasteful.  It's the moon, been there done that.  We can put unmanned probes on the moon and take samples and dig as deep as we wish.  It's probably more institutional and bureaucratic than purely political; have budget, must spend- or risk losing the budget.

There may be a little bit of "China's about to do this" thrown in. I'm not complaining, I like seeing the guys and gals showing the Right Stuff, but that is China's take on this matter according to the Hill.

[jerry mcmasters]

I think it's pointless and wasteful.  It's the moon, been there done that.  We can put unmanned probes on the moon and take samples and dig as deep as we wish.  It's probably more institutional and bureaucratic than purely political; have budget, must spend- or risk losing the budget.

There may be a little bit of "China's about to do this" thrown in. I'm not complaining, I like seeing the guys and gals showing the Right Stuff, but that is China's take on this matter according to [url=https://thehill.com/opinion/international/3625065-why-china-is-fuming-over-nasas-artemis-program/]the Hill.[/i]

Probably so but to me it's so sad that has to be part of the consideration.  The proper attitude from a society of confidence and self-regard should be something like "Hey, you guys go for it, hope you learn something!"  And then if it looks like there is some great gain they are making in some economic, technical, (etc) way, we can follow.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Probably so but to me it's so sad that has to be part of the consideration.  The proper attitude from a society of confidence and self-regard should be something like "Hey, you guys go for it, hope you learn something!"  And then if it looks like there is some great gain they are making in some economic, technical, (etc) way, we can follow.

Setting aside the geopolitical-optics angle of it, competition has generally spurred humans to go "better ... stronger .... faster". What's sad to me is not the competition but the antagonistic approach to it. But if it lights some American asses on fire, good. We need the kick in the ass.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think it's pointless and wasteful.  It's the moon, been there done that.  We can put unmanned probes on the moon and take samples and dig as deep as we wish.  It's probably more institutional and bureaucratic than purely political; have budget, must spend- or risk losing the budget.

We can launch explorations from the Moon easier than from Earth. The more we know, the less we blow.

[skyking]

I'm happy they are using mature and even recycled space shuttle engines too. Every last part and component gets overhauled, but it makes sense to me to stick with a proven product.

[Cavebear]

Practicing for a Mars mission is useful. We are going there someday and you have to start somewhere.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Practicing for a Mars mission is useful. We are going there someday and you have to start somewhere.

And we would have to boost the fuel into space from Earth, just beat the Lunar gravity well and off it goes.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Practicing for a Mars mission is useful. We are going there someday and you have to start somewhere.

And we would have to boost the fuel into space from Earth, just beat the Lunar gravity well and off it goes.  

If the fuel is coming from earth, the cost of boosting is not going to be very different.

[Minimalist]

If we're going to Mars it is for bragging rights.  No way is that economically viable.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If we're going to Mars it is for bragging rights.  No way is that economically viable.

The science doesn't do it for you?

[Cavebear]

Practicing for a Mars mission is useful. We are going there someday and you have to start somewhere.

And we would have to boost the fuel into space from Earth, just beat the Lunar gravity well and off it goes.  

Rocket fuel is basically separated water. And there is water on the moon. And if not enough, it is sure safer to launch water than people. Or manipulate an icy comet/asteroid to the backside of the moon. The possibilities are endless.

[Minimalist]

If you think that the corporate criminals who run this country would do anything for "science" without expecting a big payoff I have a bridge in Brooklyn that you might like to buy.

[Cavebear]

If we're going to Mars it is for bragging rights.  No way is that economically viable.

The science doesn't do it for you?

NASA gave us Teflon pans. That's good enough for me.

[Minimalist]

And Tang?

[Cavebear]

And Tang?

I always hated Tang. I'm a lemon-lime Gatorade powder user after hard work outside.

[Inkubus]

Rocket fuel is basically separated water.

And table salt is basically combined sodium and chlorine.

And there is water on the moon.  And if not enough, it is sure safer to launch water than people.

Or manipulate an icy comet/asteroid to the backside of the moon. The possibilities are endless.

And the engines on the tugs needed to maneuver this comet into position run on what?

It's very silly to lift a mass out of one gravity well and lower it into another one only to launch it out again later.

[Cavebear]

And we would have to boost the fuel into space from Earth, just beat the Lunar gravity well and off it goes.  

If the fuel is coming from earth, the cost of boosting is not going to be very different.

When Europeans stated exploring the world, the cost of ships was very high. But eventually, they returned a great profit.

[Inkubus]

Mars missions are like nuclear fusion they are always ten years away.
There is no shortage of mission proposals but to date I don't see any actual plans. A reasonable first step is to get working on the suits, and you are going to need some kick ass fucking space suits to work on the surface of Mars.
Just like the pentagon UFO bollocks Mars missions are all about careers and funding. I think it's extremely unlikely humans will ever set foot on Mars.

[Thumpalumpacus]

If we're going to Mars it is for bragging rights.  No way is that economically viable.

Artemis is aimed at the Moon, not Mars. But --Seward's Folly was a thing too. Started out for bragging, but then we found gold, and later, oil.

[Cavebear]

Rocket fuel is basically separated water.

And table salt is basically combined sodium and chlorine.

And there is water on the moon.  And if not enough, it is sure safer to launch water than people.

Or manipulate an icy comet/asteroid to the backside of the moon. The possibilities are endless.

And the engines on the tugs needed to maneuver this comet into position run on what?

It's very silly to lift a mass out of one gravity well and lower it into another one only to launch it out again later.

There are many ideas about that. Minor mass orbiting a larger mass can influence the orbit. Painting one side of a mass can cause sunlight to affect the orbit. If you want to go for force, just smack a damn rocket into one to (very slightly) change the direction and/or speed. A timed booster engine landed on the comet would work.

The problem mostly is that it takes both time and precision. We can handle the precision. Timing is trickier. You have to have enough of it.

But that wasn't exactly your original question. I do apologize; I was thinking more about the mechanics.

First, you want to be in a smaller gravity well. The Moon is a good place to be for that. The fuel comes from Moon water, which is sort of free after you launch/build/land a separator there.

Second, once you have a manufacturing plant on the Moon, it is an easier launch.

I'm not saying to expect that in 10 years but a century seems reasonable.

[skyking]

Our fragile meatbags of water are not suited for space travel. The radiation load of a mars mission is not feasible. That problem has not changed since the first astronaut left the protection of our magnetosphere.
We've known about it for 70 plus years and still don't have a viable answer for it. The robots can handle it with ease.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[quote="Cavebear" pid='374919' dateline='1662429133']
And the engines on the tugs needed to maneuver this comet into position run on what?

It's very silly to lift a mass out of one gravity well and lower it into another one only to launch it out again later.

If you pick your target, far enough from Earth, you can use a very small rocket to divert it. Prior proper planning prevents piss-poor performance.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Our fragile meatbags of water are not suited for space travel. The radiation load of a mars mission is not feasible. That problem has not changed since the first astronaut left the protection of our magnetosphere.
We've known about it for 70 plus years and still don't have a viable answer for it. The robots can handle it with ease.

Okay, stay home. Just don't get in the way.

[Inkubus]

[quote="Cavebear" pid='374919' dateline='1662429133']
And the engines on the tugs needed to maneuver this comet into position run on what?

It's very silly to lift a mass out of one gravity well and lower it into another one only to launch it out again later.

If you pick your target, far enough from Earth, you can use a very small rocket to divert it. Prior proper planning prevents piss-poor performance.

Attach a rocket to a comet? Bullshit!