- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Proposed Moon Mission Offers Little Value at Astronomical Cost
Posted on 2/5/18 at 4:27 pm
Posted on 2/5/18 at 4:27 pm
LINK
Until we find an affordable way to put mass in orbit then manned spaceflight makes zero sense, and like mentioned above makes less and less sense every year as computer/robotic tech increases. I'm 100% for a very well funded NASA (with hopefully a legitimate direction) but we could accomplish so much more with our resources if we gave up the idea that a human has to be there - at least until we develop better propulsion tech.
I've made the argument before on here that unmanned needs to be our primary focus at the moment - probes and space satellites and the like - but most seem to be against that without having any real reason other than they don't find it to be interesting/inspiring. There's very little reason to send a man back to the moon, especially given the opportunity cost and what could be accomplished otherwise if we just focused on unmanned.
quote:
WHEN IT COMES to space policy, reliving the glory days too often means pouring billions of taxpayer dollars into black holes. Preliminary budget plans suggest that the Trump Administration will provide funding for Space Policy Directive 1, which tasks NASA with getting humans back to the moon for the first time in over 45 years.
quote:
Regardless of disagreements over destination between so-called Martians (advocates for Mars exploration) and Lunatics (advocates for lunar exploration), there seems to be a consensus among lawmakers and NASA top brass that manned missions to somewhere else are worthy of billions of dollars in funding. This sentiment is even shared by fiscal hawks on Capitol Hill who would otherwise be critical of an agency that regularly experiences overruns with costs and schedule.
quote:
Lunar analysis, along with countless other scientific ventures, can be done at a fraction of the cost via unmanned missions to other worlds. Cambridge Cosmology and astrophysics professor and astronomer royal Martin Rees rightly criticizes current manned proposals, pointing out, “the practical case [for human spaceflight] gets weaker and weaker with every advance in robotics and miniaturization.”
Until we find an affordable way to put mass in orbit then manned spaceflight makes zero sense, and like mentioned above makes less and less sense every year as computer/robotic tech increases. I'm 100% for a very well funded NASA (with hopefully a legitimate direction) but we could accomplish so much more with our resources if we gave up the idea that a human has to be there - at least until we develop better propulsion tech.
I've made the argument before on here that unmanned needs to be our primary focus at the moment - probes and space satellites and the like - but most seem to be against that without having any real reason other than they don't find it to be interesting/inspiring. There's very little reason to send a man back to the moon, especially given the opportunity cost and what could be accomplished otherwise if we just focused on unmanned.
28
Posted on 2/5/18 at 4:29 pm to DavidTheGnome
Did you steal this from reddit too?
Posted on 2/5/18 at 4:29 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
pouring billions of taxpayer dollars into black holes
ladeeeeeedaaaaaa
Posted on 2/5/18 at 4:33 pm to DavidTheGnome
I just watched Armageddon a few weeks ago so as far as I'm concerned Billy Bob Thornton and his baws can have 100% of the federal budget.
Posted on 2/5/18 at 4:33 pm to DavidTheGnome
your puns sure are getting weird...
Posted on 2/5/18 at 4:33 pm to jlovel7
Posted on 2/5/18 at 4:34 pm to DavidTheGnome
We have discussed this. Moving meat through space is counter productive and wasteful. But the FB crowd can scream USA.
Posted on 2/5/18 at 4:35 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
WHEN IT COMES to space policy, reliving the glory days too often means pouring billions of taxpayer dollars into black holes.
Absolute nonsense. It's estimated that for every dollar spent on NASA that there is an $8.00 to $10.00 return: Source
quote:
Until we find an affordable way to put mass in orbit then manned spaceflight makes zero sense, and like mentioned above makes less and less sense every year as computer/robotic tech increases.
No one gives a shite about robots. I guarantee that 90% of this board couldn't tell me the name of the current Mars rover, or the craft that passed Pluto 2 years ago. Really the plot from the Martian would be the best thing to ever happen to NASA.
quote:
There's very little reason to send a man back to the moon, especially given the opportunity cost and what could be accomplished otherwise if we just focused on unmanned.
It's fricking embarrassing that we don't have a Moon Base. If someone froze themselves in 1969 and woke up today, they'd be ashamed of our country for only returned to the Moon 6 times. Really the best thing that could ever happen is the Chinese landing on the Moon. You can bet your arse someone would be walking on Mars within the decade if that were to occur.
The space race is really nothing more than a glorified dick measuring contest. Really if you scaled down Earth to the size of a basketball, relatively speaking the Moon would be 30 feet across the room. How far have we gone from that basketball since 1972: 3/8 of an inch. So the dick measuring contest currently sits at 3/8 of an inch vs 30 feet. I'd be fricking thrilled if China could get this going again.
Posted on 2/5/18 at 4:36 pm to AUCE05
quote:
We have discussed this. Moving meat through space is counter productive and wasteful. But the FB crowd can scream USA.
This pretty much sums it up
Posted on 2/5/18 at 4:37 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
It's fricking embarrassing that we don't have a Moon Base.
And do what with it?
Posted on 2/5/18 at 4:38 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
And do what with it?
Mine and launch off to other planets and stars. Plenty of shite to do with the Moon and I think it would be very profitable.
Posted on 2/5/18 at 4:38 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:save billions on fuel for interplanetary travel
And do what with it?
Posted on 2/5/18 at 4:39 pm to J Murdah
quote:
save billions on fuel for interplanetary travel
I agree there is fuel there, I disagree that maintaining a moon base to extract it saves us money.
Posted on 2/5/18 at 4:40 pm to DavidTheGnome
Here's the thing, and this will always be true, no one gives a shite about space flight if it doesn't involve a human being. People stop and watch a rocket lifting off into space when there is a human being on board. We connect with and identify with that person. No one really cares when they hear about another unmanned probe sallying forth to take pictures of Jupiter.
Astronauts get NASA funding, unmanned probes put them on the back burner.
Astronauts get NASA funding, unmanned probes put them on the back burner.
Posted on 2/5/18 at 4:41 pm to J Murdah
Ha. The distance from earth to Satarn is basically zero when considering interstellar travel. Building a base on the moon is like building a supply hut in your driveway when you plan on driving to Alaska.
Posted on 2/5/18 at 4:41 pm to DavidTheGnome
That is not what I said.
You save money on fuel because there is only a fraction of Eartha gravity. Space flight is so expensive because you need huge rockets to propel heavy arse ships and equipment to space
You save money on fuel because there is only a fraction of Eartha gravity. Space flight is so expensive because you need huge rockets to propel heavy arse ships and equipment to space
Posted on 2/5/18 at 4:42 pm to AUCE05
quote:you don't get it.
Ha. The distance from earth to Satarn is basically zero when considering interstellar travel. Building a base on the moon is like building a supply hut in your driveway when you plan on driving to Alaska.
Posted on 2/5/18 at 4:43 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
I agree there is fuel there, I disagree that maintaining a moon base to extract it saves us money.
With the Moon, you'd need less than a 1/6 of the fuel needed to launch from there in comparison to the Earth. Logistically speaking, I think it's far more practical to first build a Moon Base, and then launch to Mars from said base.
Posted on 2/5/18 at 4:43 pm to J Murdah
I do. The cost to keep a moon base supplied isn't worth the return.
Posted on 2/5/18 at 4:43 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Absolute nonsense. It's estimated that for every dollar spent on NASA that there is an $8.00 to $10.00 return: Source
Nonsense is right If the return on space exploration were so great, it would all have been done by private enterprise, not the government. The people who showed 8-10 times return are probably the same folks that show film tax credits and paying for stadiums are good 'investments'. There was ZERO return on the investment. Not one dollar came back to the person who spent it.
Page 1 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News