- 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
re: We need to launch another Saturn V to the Moon ASAP
Posted on 5/16/20 at 7:45 am to OMLandshark
Posted on 5/16/20 at 7:45 am to OMLandshark
We have never stepped on the Moon....Ask the Red Hot Chili Peppers...
0
Posted on 5/16/20 at 7:46 am to OMLandshark
quote:
It’s fricking pathetic we haven’t stepped foot on the Moon since 1972.
Did you leave your phone behind on the last visit, or something?
Posted on 5/16/20 at 7:55 am to OMLandshark
I don't understand the "launch base to Mars saves money" issue. Everything that goes to the moon has to be launched from earth. Therefore, there is nothing launched from the moon that hadn't already been launched from earth. Why not just launch to Mars in the first place?
Posted on 5/16/20 at 8:13 am to jeffsdad
quote:
I don't understand the "launch base to Mars saves money" issue. Everything that goes to the moon has to be launched from earth. Therefore, there is nothing launched from the moon that hadn't already been launched from earth. Why not just launch to Mars in the first place?
One of the reasons is fuel. Water at the lunar poles can be broken down into liquid oxygen, which can then be used as fuel. No need to transport it from Earth.
Posted on 5/16/20 at 8:13 am to OMLandshark
If you drive along I-10E over the Pearl River and look to the NE you can see SLS's core stage in its test stand at Stennis Space Center.
Plan is to test fire all RS25 engines early fall '20. Should make for some good noise.
SLS is not a well run program but it's progressing.
Plan is to test fire all RS25 engines early fall '20. Should make for some good noise.
SLS is not a well run program but it's progressing.
Posted on 5/16/20 at 8:23 am to gumbo2176
Would I be misinterpreting you to say your primary concern is cost? The cost of space flight is driven by weight. Weight of the craft, weight of water, food, and primarily fuel. During the shuttle missions, for example, fuel made up 96% of the weight at an average cost of $10,000 per pound into LEO. The great news is, thanks to private industry, we’ve made huge leaps into making leaving Earth cheaper.
Are you wrong to say a moon base would be a titanic endeavor? No, but to say it wouldn’t be worth the cost is short-sighted. Mars is not the final frontier, nor is Titan or our solar system for that matter. However, the tech to get to those places in manned craft exists today. In a future where we’re exploring our solar system, our space craft would likely never come back to Earth. Astronauts would return to the moon and be sent back to earth in lighter weight shuttles.
Engineering in space is also different. The spacecraft we could assemble in a vacuum would be far more suited to interplanetary travel than one that has to enter and leave earth’s gravity. Remember, there’s infinitely more drag between Florida and the exosphere as there is between the exosphere and mars.
You’re still correct in saying there are gigantic logistical hurdles in getting all this equipment into space in the first place. Coincidentally I’m currently sitting in Port Canaveral at the rocket launch viewing area hoping the X37 launch can make the next launch window. That unmanned craft may be a game changer in getting equipment to the moon thanks to its use of solar power for space flight and it’s reusability.
FWIW I didn’t downvote you either.
Are you wrong to say a moon base would be a titanic endeavor? No, but to say it wouldn’t be worth the cost is short-sighted. Mars is not the final frontier, nor is Titan or our solar system for that matter. However, the tech to get to those places in manned craft exists today. In a future where we’re exploring our solar system, our space craft would likely never come back to Earth. Astronauts would return to the moon and be sent back to earth in lighter weight shuttles.
Engineering in space is also different. The spacecraft we could assemble in a vacuum would be far more suited to interplanetary travel than one that has to enter and leave earth’s gravity. Remember, there’s infinitely more drag between Florida and the exosphere as there is between the exosphere and mars.
You’re still correct in saying there are gigantic logistical hurdles in getting all this equipment into space in the first place. Coincidentally I’m currently sitting in Port Canaveral at the rocket launch viewing area hoping the X37 launch can make the next launch window. That unmanned craft may be a game changer in getting equipment to the moon thanks to its use of solar power for space flight and it’s reusability.
FWIW I didn’t downvote you either.
Posted on 5/16/20 at 8:48 am to OMLandshark
quote:
The Saturn V was an ongoing project throughout the entire program. The truth is they do not have plans for many of the parts used in the rocket. It would be impossible to build the thing now without starting completely over.
Much was done from the hip and on the fly. Many parts and components were made. Not bought. It was a different time. A lot of the designs were just written on note pads.
Those were F1 engines on the Saturn, I believe. The current engines that Rocketdyne built for the SLS are derived from the F1 engines. But now with less complexity and more tuner friendly
This post was edited on 5/16/20 at 8:50 am
Posted on 5/16/20 at 9:12 am to Snazzmeister
quote:
Would I be misinterpreting you to say your primary concern is cost?
Cost is a huge factor in any space travel. To make enough missions to the moon just to set up some sort of base camp and then start building facilities to be able to do the things you are proposing is astronomical----just in missions back and forth to the moon much less all the structures, life support, water, fuel, etc. to have on hand to launch from the moon.
How long did it take NASA to set up Cape Canaveral in Florida? Now try to duplicate something like that even on a much smaller scale on the moon and think about how exponentially more time consuming, difficult and costly that would be.
Let's just say I'm very skeptical about the relative ease some of the posters are, in my opinion, mistakenly thinking this can happen.
Posted on 5/16/20 at 9:28 am to jeffsdad
quote:
launch base to Mars saves money
Strictly in terms of how much tonnage you can launch at once. A given rocket can put something like 80% more weight into oribit launching from the moon than it could from earth.
Its certainly nowhere close to cost effective in any way, but it's the only feasible way to get significant weight to Mars.
Posted on 5/16/20 at 9:45 am to jeffsdad
quote:
I don't understand the "launch base to Mars saves money" issue. Everything that goes to the moon has to be launched from earth. Therefore, there is nothing launched from the moon that hadn't already been launched from earth. Why not just launch to Mars in the first place?
Lunar base can process ice on the moon into oxygen and hydrogen, therefore generating on site. But you are right, in the context of Mars the benefits are fairly marginal and there is talk of cutting it entirely. The main benefit of the moon base would be to test ground equipment intended for mars in a low gravity environment
In practice what is likelier to happen is that the Mars launch will stage in lunar orbit in a series of smaller launches building there until finally the crewed launch occurs.
Or barring something that elaborate, a flying fuel tank to top off the tanks before setting off.
Don’t listen to the people talking about He-3. They are living in 100 years in the future. We don’t even have the technology yet to use it on earth, much less in a scaled down form that uses it for thrust.
To be honest the biggest argument for a lunar base is that if we don’t keep pushing our boundaries, we’ll never get out there. And take a moment to look at how small the proposed operations are. It’s analogous to the ISS.
This post was edited on 5/16/20 at 9:48 am
Posted on 5/16/20 at 9:49 am to OMLandshark
So many suckers in this thread who actually believe we went to the moon
Posted on 5/16/20 at 9:56 am to DeafJam73
quote:
Mine the moon for what? What resources does it have
quote:
Elements known to be present on the lunar surface include, among others, are hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), silicon (Si), iron (Fe), magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), aluminium (Al), manganese (Mn) and titanium (Ti).
Wiki Link
I know we have all that here, but it would be nice to get a jump on the rest of the world for when all of it runs out down here.
This post was edited on 5/16/20 at 9:58 am
Posted on 5/16/20 at 9:58 am to OMLandshark
quote:
Seriously, why can’t we rebuild the Saturn V with better hardware and go back to the Moon?
Um, they kinda are.
NASA link
Posted on 5/16/20 at 9:59 am to Volvagia
quote:
the biggest argument for a lunar base is that if we don’t keep pushing our boundaries, we’ll never get out there.
This is the only argument IMO. It's at the base of any other argument, and it's a very valid one. Right now we are sitting here stagnant, no clear vision of what frontier we will conquer next. We have no big boogeyman to beat getting there. We have no common goal. As humans we cannot be content with the status quo. We are fat and lazy. For the first time in human history we have no frontier.
Posted on 5/16/20 at 10:00 am to gumbo2176
quote:
You do realize the average distance from Earth to the Moon is only 239,228 miles, while the average distance from Earth to Mars is over 225,000,000 miles.
The extremely small percentage of travel distance saved by putting a base on the moon certainly doesn't warrant the HUGE outlay of materials, man hours, infrastructure, manning, maintenance, resupplying, etc., etc., etc. of a moon base.
You've not looking at this from a cost effective point of view.
Dude, the vast majority of the fuel needed to get to and back from Mars is consumed leaving Earth’s atmosphere. Earth’s atmosphere is very thick compared to Mars and the Moon and has much higher gravity than either. Launching from the Moon on the other hand and if you can make fuel on the Moon (which is practical), then it serves as a practical port from Earth to the stars. We’re actually looking at it from the cost perspective view.
Posted on 5/16/20 at 10:02 am to Snazzmeister
quote:
It has nothing to do with distance and everything to do with gravity. The moon’s gravity is ~17% that of Earth’s. If we can refuel a rocket on the moon, the distance a rocket can travel is increased exponentially. It also makes space travel safer as the fuel saved by not launching from Earth allows for more maneuvering.
Don’t forget the atmosphere. That’s an even bigger deal than the gravity.
Posted on 5/16/20 at 10:03 am to TBoy
quote:
Did you leave your phone behind on the last visit, or something?
I actually got the phone I’m typing on now from that last visit.
Posted on 5/16/20 at 10:08 am to gumbo2176
quote:
To make enough missions to the moon just to set up some sort of base camp and then start building facilities to be able to do the things you are proposing is astronomical----just in missions back and forth to the moon much less all the structures, life support, water, fuel, etc. to have on hand to launch from the moon.
How long did it take NASA to set up Cape Canaveral in Florida? Now try to duplicate something like that even on a much smaller scale on the moon and think about how exponentially more time consuming, difficult and costly that would be.
Let's just say I'm very skeptical about the relative ease some of the posters are, in my opinion, mistakenly thinking this can happen.
I don’t think anyone is saying it’s going to be easy. People are almost certainly going to die and have died in pursuit of this vision. And JFK has the perfect retort to what you are saying.
Posted on 5/16/20 at 10:08 am to IAmNERD
quote:
Elements known to be present on the lunar surface include, among others, are hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), silicon (Si), iron (Fe), magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), aluminium (Al), manganese (Mn) and titanium (Ti).
Going to have to cause a big uptick in demand for these metals to justify the costs of launch.
Posted on 5/16/20 at 10:12 am to OMLandshark
Relative to our previous human conquests, getting to the moon was ultra safe. How many died during westward expansion? Learning how to fly? Finding the new world? We can account for every death in the apollo program.
We've made great tech advances in the last 50 years but theres been no spectacular accomplishment tied to it. We need to get shite happening on the moon.
We've made great tech advances in the last 50 years but theres been no spectacular accomplishment tied to it. We need to get shite happening on the moon.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News