"Fly me to the moon" would you go?

[Velocity]

@RTFirefly

And really, the only moderately compelling reason I can think of for anyone to have gone back relatively recently, or to go back sometime soon, would be if a rising power (China, maybe?) wanted to show off their technological chops.

Even if so, why the Moon?

If China wants to go to the Moon, let the USA go to Mars.

[jaycat]

I’m not going anywhere. My feet are planted firmly on the ground, as Robert Morley said in Beat The Devil.

[Clothahump]

@Shodan

I’ll wait until I can actually step onto the moon.

Unfortunately, like Clothahump (welcome back, and Illegitimi Non Carborundum)

Thank you. And I don’t plan to.

[AtomicDog]

I’d report for training tomorrow.

[JRDelirious]

TBH, deep in my heart I’d say if I knew the world would not want for my loss, I’d kiss my mom and sister and set off if the offer were to be able to put a footprint on that grey dust… for I’d be eight years old again for a glorious moment.

But then the grownup brain takes over again… shyte…

@jz78817

that’s not really it. the entire motivation for the Apollo program was “get to the moon before those goddamned Reds do!” and we achieved that.

we haven’t gone back to the moon since 1972 because we haven’t had a compelling reason to spend the money to do so.

Right. The manly endowment of the American Capitalist system was proven larger than that of the Russian Commies, mission accomplished.

@bump

The main reason they’ve been using the Soyuz rockets out of Russia for ISS missions is because the Russians have them available, they’re relatively cheap, and the US didn’t have a man-rated rocket after the Shuttle. I’m sure that we could have tweaked the Delta IV Heavy or Atlas 5 to be man-rated, but that probably would have cost more than just paying the Russians to launch them into LEO, which is something the Soyuz can do without an issue, even though it’s a 60 year old design.

That hasn’t killed a crew since 1971 (though it has had some… *exciting… *reentries and aborts)

@jz78817

in reality, such a ship would be much more like a submarine. small, cramped, smelly, dark.

I doubt any living facilities on the moon or Mars would be anywhere nearly as nice and spacious as even the research facilities we have on Antarctica.

In space, *Thou Shalt Not Waste *-- surface area that must be sheielded, volume that must be heated/cooled/occupied by gear and supplies, mass of vessel and contents that must be transported. Anything this side of the sub in Das Boot would be luxurious.

You go to one of the space museums and have a look at an Apollo Command Module and realize that’s the living space three men had for a trip to the Moon and back. And the new generation crew modules are not that much bigger. Or look at a Gemini capsule and think of Lovell and Borman spending 13 and a half days in one. Smelly doesn’t cover the half of it.

[Aeschines]

@jz78817

that’s not really it. the entire motivation for the Apollo program was “get to the moon before those goddamned Reds do!” and we achieved that. After that, public interest waned and there wasn’t much justification to spend that much money on further missions.

I agree.

and the technological hurdles today are minor compared to back then…

we haven’t gone back to the moon since 1972 because we haven’t had a compelling reason to spend the money to do so.

I don’t really disagree with that. It’s also risky and technologically challenging to keep people alive, which we’ve failed to do with two space shuttles.

More advanced knowledge doesn’t only make things easier; it also makes them harder. For example, the Apollo astronauts were seeing flashes in their eyesight due to cosmic ray particles hitting their retinas. We were ignorant in the 1960s that this type of protection was needed. We aren’t now, so that technology requires R&D and money as well (I assume it’s been figured out by now, but I don’t know if it was ever implemented on Apollo missions).

I am an advertising writer who has done a lot of work in the automotive industry. The safety features on cars now take up quite a bit of weight. So when people wonder why, say, Honda can’t put out a car like the Acura Integra in the “good old days,” something that was light and drove like a dream, well, it’s so that people don’t get killed. The same principle would apply to moon missions now. The technology hasn’t been continuously updated since 1972, so we would have to replicate and greatly approve upon the original designs all at once.

[Aeschines]

@bump

Try two to four.

I said a few years, maybe 10, so I don’t think we disagree all that much. I say no way to two years, however, unless it was a national emergency and the government was giving it complete focus. Maybe four with exceptional dedication and public support.

Like I was saying, it’s not like NASA has been sitting on their hands this entire time. They started work on this in 2011-ish, so it’s been six years thus far, and will be in the 8-10 year time frame when all is said and done, which is right in line with what it took to design that sort of rocket and capsule system the first time around. However, I suspect it took NASA a lot less money (there’s less floating around these days) to do it this time around.

And they are probably doing it much better this time too, building stuff with a superior spec.

I don’t know where you get the idea that NASA has been sitting around doing nothing since 1972;

And I don’t know where you got that I got that idea.

The main reason they’ve been using the Soyuz rockets out of Russia for ISS missions is because the Russians have them available, they’re relatively cheap, and the US didn’t have a man-rated rocket after the Shuttle.

Yep, my point was merely that we have not continuously maintained the tech base for moon missions.

[Martini_Enfield]

@RTFirefly

‘Should’ is doing a lot of work here. Why should we have lunar colonies now, other than that all the SF stories I grew up on 50 years ago assumed we would by now?

It’s easy to make jokes about how we should be living in the Jetsons universe now, but technology marches on and I feel it’s been advancing steadily beyond the point where a lunar colony should exist at least as a “proof of concept” thing.

Personally - and I accept this is just me - I’d rather have lunar colonies than yet another iPhone.

It strikes me as a bit odd that I can literally access the entire sum total of human knowledge from my phone, and we have a space station in orbit, but we can’t get something small established on the moon.

[Tastes_of_Chocolate]

I find it interesting how risk averse we have become. Even when the risk taking is entirely voluntary. I also don’t understand the level of risk aversion for this specifically. No one says “People shouldn’t be allowed to climb mountains” yet there are deaths on Everest all the time. Per Wikipedia, the last year without a known death on Everest was 1977. Formula 1 racing averages a bit less than 1 death a year. These can all be called unnecessary activities. So what is the difference?

Europe sent whole colonies to unknown parts of the US, to make it or not, as they could. Ships sailed around the world, not entirely sure how they were going to get there. Even the folks setting off across the US in covered wagons were taking big risks, often with children with them. How did we get to be so overly cautious about the risks that others are allowed to take? (I should note that I feel lots of the safeguards we have in the US should be removed, and instead signs put up that say “If you get yourself in trouble, we will rescue you, and then hand you the bill for it”.)

[RTFirefly]

@Velocity

Even if so, why the Moon?

Because the moon is accessible. We got there with late 1960s tech, so everyone knows it’s do-able if you’ve got the resources and are willing to invest them. But it’s still a place that only the USA has been to, and nobody’s been there in 44 years. So it would be a demonstration of the extent to which you’d made it as a world power.

If China wants to go to the Moon, let the USA go to Mars.

The only question about human travel to Mars and back is whether it would be just two orders of magnitude more difficult and expensive than the moon, or three.

If I thought that Mars was just 2x or even 5x more challenging and expensive than the moon, I’d say, yeah, let’s do it. But I think that’s a fantasy.

Besides, in terms of being able to get a human’s-eye view of the surface of Mars, Curiosity has already given us plenty of that.

[Velocity]

@Stranger_On_A_Train

Well, I was once referred to by a colleague as “the Indiana Jones of engineers”, which I was not entirely certain to be a compliment, as I do try to not be “making this up as I go along.”.

In seriousness, I have worked in both the government contractor and commercial aerospace industry and on unsolicited proposals for non-profit space advocacy groups. I don’t claim to know everything about space launch systems and space travel (or even everything about my narrower fields of discipline) but I’ve learned a lot from working on various proposals and adjunct studies, and the general lesson I’ve taken away is that the things people think are easy (like just sending satellites to LEO) are hard, the hard things (sending a spacecraft beyond Earth orbit) are extremely difficult, and the extremely difficult (sending anything to another star system) essentially impossible within the current framework of physics as we understand it. Adding people to the mix increases the difficult, complexity, and effort by a couple of ordes of magnitude at a minimum, and of all components in a mission, people (both on the crew and on the ground) are the most prone to error from confusion, fatigue, or miscommunication.

This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t try to do hard or extremely difficult things (and look for ways to reduce “essentially impossible…” to merely “extremely difficult”) but we need to be realistic about risk versus opportunity, including legal, political, and especially financial impacts on future viability, and what can be done to test those assumptions and manage unaboidable risk. And as an engineer who has witnessed the result of unethical or incompetent decisions creating destructive hazards, I’ll say that taking undue and uninformed risk is rarely a worthwhile gamble in any normal environment, often resulting in regret and recrimination over a mistake that could have been easily avoided by an objective critical review or just listening to one’s internal cautionary voice that tells you not to leap over a gaping crevice.

Stranger

Thanks, fascinating stuff.

[Weisshund]

I would go.
I would prefer to land, but an orbit would be cool also

[Folacin]

@Robot_Arm

I’d love to go to space, but I don’t see any great appeal to travelling around the moon. Earth orbit is supposed to be amazing; the storms, the sunrises and sunsets, the familiar landforms from such an unfamilar viewpoint. Landing on the moon would be extraordinary. But just getting a closer look at the moon wouldn’t be my first choice of mission.

I assume you’d get at least one Earth orbit, either on the way or out or the trip back (or likely both).

And, yeah, sign me up. If I had the cash, I would have already paid the Russian’s for a trip on one of their rockets.

[Ike_Witt]

@RTFirefly

Really, this was an incredibly amazing feat: from pre-Sputnik to ‘holy shit, man walks on fucking moon’ in less than a dozen years.

I’m always amazed that it was only about 65 years from heavier than air flight to walking on the moon.

[Magiver]

@Ike_Witt

I’m always amazed that it was only about 65 years from heavier than air flight to walking on the moon.

Consider that in the same year we had the 747 and the Concorde’s first flight.

1969 was quite a year.

[Weisshund]

@BobLibDem

For the same reason why we put rails on the Grand Canyon observation points. Or don’t let you make cars without air bags. When you take unnecessary risks with your own life, you’re gambling with all of our lives. That guy who feels the need to ride a motorcycle without a helmet- all of us pay for his injuries and the demands they place on the health care system. All of us will share the cost of raising children orphaned by the inevitable space mission that ends in tragedy. We don’t exist in isolation from each other, any senseless death hurts all of us.

I don’t need rails on the grand canyon, i am actually capable of NOT jumping off the edge, so were people for over 10,000 years.
It’s amazingly easy

You actually do allow cars with no air bags to be made, might want to check further into that, they can be made.

And my life has 0 affect or tie in to yours, none.
If i die, it has 0 affect on you, less than 0 actually.
It’s so non existent, you would not even know if i died

You don’t get to tell me or anyone else what is pointless or senseless or worthless or unnecessary etc.
We don’t need Mother to coddle us and shelter us, we don’t need you to check out our girlfriends to make sure no one dirty gets through, and we don’t need you to help build the wall.

And i have no children for anyone to worry about taking care of, but many police and fire fighters and soldiers etc have children, and they are a lot more common than space flights, and they die more frequently too.
Hey, we could ban them from having kids, or we could outlaw those professions.
We should probably ban people from flying on airplanes too, because way more airplanes have crashed than space vehicles ever have.

So should someone offer it, i will go for a ride into space thank you very much, i am sure you will get past your emotional attachment to me.

Now, if they would just offer a trip to mars…

[Musicat]

I would go if I could play among the stars.

[kayaker]

@Weisshund

It’s so non existent, you would not even know if i died

No ripple in the force?

[Gatopescado]

Hell No.

[Weisshund]

@kayaker

No ripple in the force?

No midichlorians here, only mitocondrians, i dont think they ripple much