• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Return to the Moon?

Should we go back to the Moon?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 31 75.6%

  • No.

    Votes: 10 24.4%
  • Total voters
    41
Two points.
Yes those technologies would have most likely have been created regardless of the space program, but as with many technologies common applications are not twhat was originally intended - ie kevlar.
Now for maned space travel, today indeed, seemingly there's very little need for it. However, manned space flight is the exploration of space. Indeed sending a robot over and sending a human over is extreemly different. I don't think that it can be argued that aside from finances any aspect of the space program is useless science.
 
jfuh said:
Two points.
Yes those technologies would have most likely have been created regardless of the space program, but as with many technologies common applications are not twhat was originally intended - ie kevlar.
Click to expand...

It's true that the uses for some products are not what they're originally intended. But I don't think the combined value of Kevlar, Velcro, Tang, et al, minus the "intended use" value of those things, comes anywhere close to recovering the cost of the space program.


I disagree. It's much cheaper to send a robot, they can do basically anything a human astronaut can do (and getting better every year), and require much less "life support" than a human.

In summary:

Voyager + Spirit/Opportunity + Cassini/Huygens + New Horizons = Valuable research and noteworthy achievements.
Manned moon journey + Manned Mars journey + International Space Station = Waste of money.
 
Wastes of Money:

Social Security. Name the fool that would voluntarily give up 15.4% o his wages for a 1% return forty years later if he could invest the same amount in stocks and bonds and wind up a millionaire, with his own money, mind you, at the end of that time?

Welfare. Trillions of dollars wasted, no movement on the poverty scene since 1967. Trillions.

International aid...and the Palestinians still hate the Jews, and everyone still hates the US.

Public Education...hundreds of billions wasted, and still over 20% of Los Angeles Unified School Districts high school seniors can't pass an eigth grade level comprehensive test.

Mariner/Pioneer/Voyager/Magellan/ = welfare for scientists. Name the commercial products developed from the data returned that make the trips profitable.

Men on the moon...sure it was a show. It was a Cold War. We proved to the world that we were the technological leaders, without having to turn Moscow into radioactive sunsets. Not to mention that Jack Schmidt was a geologist on the lunar ground, which, if you're talking about science, is the best way to get good data.

Robots can only do so much. If it's science you want, eventually you have to put a man's eyes at the site. Since the speed of light is limited, that rules out cameras outside the orbit of the moon.

Another reason to inhabit the rest of the solar system: the earth's resources are limited. The only other place to get fresh stuff is up there.

However, I don't see why government's have to pay to create the openings for businesses. If it's profitable, let them figure a way to do it. And that means overturning that stupid socialist UN Space Treaty Nixon signed tha made the solar system the property of "the human race" instead of the property of the men that can exploit it.
 
jfuh said:
I think the more relevence is of the reliability of such launches. Where you nearly always have the "emergency" back up plan available for moon launches, you do not have such an option with mars.
Click to expand...
And what may that backup plan be? How would the Apollo astronauts have been
rescued if the LEM engine had failed? Answer: there was no backup plan.

Reliability is an issue, but not in the sense you suggest. In a Mars mission, by
reducing the lift-off weight you simplify the launch vehicle and make it more
reliable. You can send several return vehicles to Mars. Once they get there
you have the reassurance that they have survived the landing and are
undamaged. They can generate their own fuel and (including oxygen), so
astronauts know there is a relatively safe haven waiting.
 


What? You wanted a backup to to a backup plan?

Okay. If the LM lander engine failed, they'd've had to consider ditching the lander module and tried to get home on the ascent engine.

On a trip to Mars, triple redundancy is almost a certainty given the phobia about killing astronauts in flight.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
What? You wanted a backup to to a backup plan?
Click to expand...
Who said anything about a backup to a backup?

Once the astronauts were on the moon there was no backup plan at all. If the
ascent engine failed they would have been left to die. There was no other
option.
 
Thinker said:
And what may that backup plan be? How would the Apollo astronauts have been rescued if the LEM engine had failed? Answer: there was no backup plan.
Click to expand...
I don't know what it is that you are reading, but who said anything about a back up for a backup? Don't try to put words in my mouth.
Not to mention the current topic is should we return to the moon as in present tense/future tense. Back then the moon was as far away as Mars would be today. However if astronauts today were indeed stranded on the moon because of engine failure or somthing, it is much more likely to be able to send another "rescue" vehicle then would be possible for mars.

I'm sorry, but please answer your own point. How do you reduce take off weight?
 
Kevlar alone has many times over paid for it's intended uses.
But if you don't think of such, very well, you're entitled to your own opions.

Thinker said:
I disagree. It's much cheaper to send a robot, they can do basically anything a human astronaut can do (and getting better every year), and require much less "life support" than a human.
Click to expand...
Agreed, it is most definitive that robotic missions are billions of dollars cheaper than any manned mission can ever be. However that's exactly the issue. Robots, till this day, can only do exactly what they were programed to do. Humans with our innate curiosity do much more than simply what's on the mission protocols. A single astronaut gazing through his suit can be inspired can truly explore and appreciate the surrounding alien world. Once returned to Earth they could then inspire/motivate the dreams of others to reach for the stars.
This isn't a really good analogy, but think of it this way. Had Magellen, Columbus, Hook and other great explorers of the day not existed and the technology existed to send automated machines, the impact of going around the world or seeing the "new world" would be completely different. Seeing a few images or gathering data is very impersonal. Having another person going out into the unknown and come back to tell of the expereince, now that's life changing. That's the real point of manned space exploration.

Thinker said:
In summary:

Voyager + Spirit/Opportunity + Cassini/Huygens + New Horizons = Valuable research and noteworthy achievements.
Manned moon journey + Manned Mars journey + International Space Station = Waste of money.
Click to expand...
It's illogical to talk of a manned martian journey as there has been none yet. I completely agree the ISS is a complete waste of money, a cold war relic that was started merely for the purpose of saying yeah we can beat you Soviets at anything.
Moon missions, no, they had lots of real application, not to mention inspiring an entire generation to persue math and sciences, the cornerstone of any great society. Even though it was a publicity stunt mainly, just to say hey, screw you bulgarians, but nevertheless people the world over were captivated by the concept of reaching the moon. That's truely what space exploration is. Today's shuttle flights going to no where..... yeah pretty much just a waste of $$$.
 


You must not have been alive during the Apollo program. First off back then the moon was a 3 day trip one way. Is it your contention that we can send a manned spacecraft to Mars in three days now?

Had there been on engine failed on the LM during the Apollo program the astronauts would have died. We had not back up craft assembled and ready to go, not to mention that even if we had they would have lacked the consumable (air, food water) to wait for the rescue. The LM carried the bare minimum for its job. No way the CM could have landed to help them or drop off more either, nor did it carry air in a way to drop it if that had even been possible.

To reduce take off weight on a Mars mission you launch robotic ships with consumables and fuel in a chain from the Earth to Mars to intercept. That takes untold tons of cargo off the main ship.
 
Vandeervecken said:
You must not have been alive during the Apollo program. First off back then the moon was a 3 day trip one way. Is it your contention that we can send a manned spacecraft to Mars in three days now?
Click to expand...
I don't believe anywhere have I mentioned that a trip to Mars takes 3 days. Have you been reading what I've said? or only bits and pieces?


Please read what I've posted as opposed to putting words in my mouth and stating the obvious. This is not what I've been talking about at all.

Vandeervecken said:
To reduce take off weight on a Mars mission you launch robotic ships with consumables and fuel in a chain from the Earth to Mars to intercept. That takes untold tons of cargo off the main ship.
Click to expand...
The same could not be done for a moon trip? The overall take off weights of a martian Journey are far beyond that of any lunar journey. If you had said to launch a platform into orbit that then was assembled there or on the moon to perform electrolosis of lunar ice then yes you have a significant less take off weight not to mention less gravity to deal with and thus the allowance of more fuel and so on for a Martian Journey.
 
jfuh said:
I don't believe anywhere have I mentioned that a trip to Mars takes 3 days. Have you been reading what I've said? or only bits and pieces?
Click to expand...

You said that Mars today is the same distance as the Moon was then. Now I assumed you are smart enough to realize that actualy distance in miles is not differnet meaningfully, so I am left with the fact it can only mean you think travkle time has changed that much. Let us look at your words:


What else could this mean other than you think travle time?

jfuh said:
Please read what I've posted as opposed to putting words in my mouth and stating the obvious. This is not what I've been talking about at all.
Click to expand...

I put no words in your mouth as my direct quote of your post abouve shows.


Sure it could be done for a moon trip, it would need to be done for a long stay on the moon certainly.
 
Thinker said:
Who said anything about a backup to a backup?

Once the astronauts were on the moon there was no backup plan at all. If the
ascent engine failed they would have been left to die. There was no other
option.
Click to expand...

The men designing the LM at Grumman included an extra margin of O2 and fuel because they could. Yep, everyone knew that once they left the moon, they were abandoning their lifeboat before reaching port. Was a chance taken, one of the many corners cut to win the race.

We ain't racing nobody to Mars. Any mission will be a fully international mission and no such corner cutting will be permitted. The mission will be fully redundant, with most likely two ships, each capable of returning with the full complement of both crews, with redundant critical systems on each vessel.

Engineering it would be fun, but paying for it will be a bitch, especially when the benefits are found to be far far less.

Oh. And what happens when they finally discover a living germ on Mars?
 
Billo_Really said:
Should we go back to the Moon for a lunar landing?
Click to expand...

I think we should build a city on the moon, as kinda like a testing ground for the future founding of cities on other planets/moons. We can also send Democrats to the moon, cuz they're a bit spacey anyways. LOL
 
jfuh said:
I don't know what it is that you are reading, but who said anything about a back up for a backup? Don't try to put words in my mouth.
Click to expand...
In message #55, Scarecrow Akhbar quoted my message and said "What? You
wanted a backup to to a backup plan?". My message #56 quoted that.

In my reply #54 to your message #44 there was no mention of a "backup to
a backup".

So, why do you quote me and write "I don't know what it is that you are
reading, but who said anything about a back up for a backup? Don't try to
put words in my mouth."? What words am I trying to put into your mouth?

While on that subject, I note that you do the very thing for which you are
berating me. In your message #58 you quote me twice with words I did not
write. Both quotes are actually from message #52 by Kandahar.

I'm sorry, but please answer your own point. How do you reduce take off weight?
Click to expand...

You reduce take-off weight by not including fuel for the return journey; you
send an unfueled return vehicle. That vehicle, when safely landed on Mars
can generate the fuel needed for the return. For details, read "The Case for
Mars" by Robert Zubrin (ISBN: 0684835509).
 
Kandahar said:
We absolutely, positively landed on the moon. These ideas to the contrary are exactly what you described them as: conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

how do you know? Were you there....
 
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
Only if we go there to build a permanent structure like an observatory.
Click to expand...
Any idea how much it would cost to send frequent missions with tanks full of
water and oxygen to keep people alive in such a permanent structure?
 
Thinker said:
Any idea how much it would cost to send frequent missions with tanks full of water and oxygen to keep people alive in such a permanent structure?
Click to expand...

Quite a bit I would imagine however the observatory doesn't have to be manned.
 
Thinker said:
Any idea how much it would cost to send frequent missions with tanks full of
water and oxygen to keep people alive in such a permanent structure?
Click to expand...

If we build a rail-gun type launcher on the Earth less than you'd think. That is the cheap way to orbit, and send out beyond most payloads. We should build one on the moon for deep space travel. No need for a rocket, or rocket fuel with that.

Plus it seems there is ice at the moons poles, we can get both from that, we can also crack moon rocks in a reactor to release oxygen. We can also catalytically clean the air so it lasts much longer. Are you familiar with how an underwater "re-breather" unit works?

The fact is there are two types of thing in the universe. That which is growing, and that which is dying. We must explore, it is a part of human nature. Time to move out of home and start making our way in the universe.

Not only that but so many of our struggles on this planet are do to the fact we have finite resources, and some of those resources are places we wished they were not. Mining the asteroid belt, which we currently have the technology to do, and would certainly rapidly better that technology as we go, would releave that for many resources. Alloys and materials can be made in low and zero gravity environments we cannot make on earth.

Many people opposed the exploration of the New World a few centuries back because of the high costs, I think we can agree it turns out it was a good idea.

The USA does not want to be the next centuries Portugal. The first to go so many places, but then they went home and faded into planetary irrelevance.
 
Thinker said:
Any idea how much it would cost to send frequent missions with tanks full of
water and oxygen to keep people alive in such a permanent structure?
Click to expand...

Possibly nothing. It's not positive, but I have read about there possibly being ice in craters near the poles of the moon. If this is confirmed, we could make fuel and water on the moon just as we would be able to on mars.
 
Thinker said:
Any idea how much it would cost to send frequent missions with tanks full of
water and oxygen to keep people alive in such a permanent structure?
Click to expand...

Yeah, not much.

Oxygen on the moon is to be had by using solar mirrors to heat the AlO2 in the regolith, capturing the O2 in a bottle, and collecting the Al on a plate for future use in construction. Voila, oxygen and building materials.

In the short term, water must be sent up with every man. But water is recyclable, so it's not like every bottle of vodka distilled up there will require water from the Earth.

In the long term, water can be cheaply collected by mining comets. Cubic miles of water, if we want.

Also, there may be water in the lunar polar regions. That's not confirmed yet, but there's some indications.

But if the moon is to become a re-fueling/re-supply/waystation for the solar system, as it should be, fuel and the raw materials to grow the fresh veggies and the cows and chickens have to be mostly collected elsewhere. But on the list of elsewheres, the Earth is the most expensive place.
 
That is clearly not the intent of my post. It simply means that from a technologically standpoint the close distance of the moon as seen today was as far away then as we see Mars today. Purely a relative perspective. Back then it was unimaginable for many that we'd be able to go to the moon, but the capabilities were indeed there. Today the concept of landing on mars is just as unimaginable, but the ability is also here.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but perhaps then you didn't take the time to read into the basis of my arguments which were all founded on the technology and science of such missions.
 


Thje problem is that such a trip is not even close to unimaginable. We could have gone 30 years ago in fact.

Now what exactly does this mean?
jfuh said:
That is clearly not the intent of my post. It simply means that from a technologically standpoint the close distance of the moon as seen today was as far away then as we see Mars today.
Click to expand...

For the life of me I cannot discern anything other than a sideways re-recitation of your original claim that Mars today is as close as the moon was then. Which is just a silly claim anyway you try and justify it.
 
Vandeervecken said:
Thje problem is that such a trip is not even close to unimaginable. We could have gone 30 years ago in fact.
Click to expand...
There's no problem in that at all. From a realistic perspective a trip to mars was completely unimaginable. Perhaps you are not as solidly grounded in the science and engineering required in such an undertaking thus making such claims.

Vandeervecken said:
Now what exactly does this mean?


For the life of me I cannot discern anything other than a sideways re-recitation of your original claim that Mars today is as close as the moon was then. Which is just a silly claim anyway you try and justify it.
Click to expand...
Not very much a life then. If you can not understand what it means to look at the feasability from a technological and practicality stand point then there's no point in going any further. I suggest you try reading.
Let me re-iterate and make it crystal clear for you.
I'm not saying by any way that the physical distance of Mars is as close as the moon is today. I'm referring to the engineering and technical ability of it makes a martian landing a closer reality then it was yesterday.
If you still can nore understand this then you are purly reacting the way you are just to continue on a non-issue argument souly for the purpose of argument.
 
Last edited:
Vandeervecken said:
The fact is there are two types of thing in the universe. That which is growing, and that which is dying. We must explore, it is a part of human nature. Time to move out of home and start making our way in the universe.
Click to expand...

I completely agree....now if only we could get the government to quit argueing about why Bush sucks maybe we could get something done....


sure we can get to the asteroids and sure we can mine them....but how long will it take to go there and get back? This isn't Star Trek so we can't just zapp across the galaxy at will.....yet....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…