Report says return to moon isn’t ‘viable’

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

Or maybe they just went along with it in order to justify massive space & defense spending

Who did they have to justify it to?

[EpyonXero]

Just one more long term goal that will never become reality because the US government and people cant sustain the effort or attention. Manned space exploration goes the same way as other mythical ideas like health care reform and energy independence.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by EpyonXero

Just one more long term goal that will never become reality because the US government and people cant sustain the effort or attention. Manned space exploration goes the same way as other mythical ideas like health care reform and energy independence.

Manned space exploration isn't ending, just going back to the moon again. It is a long term goal we achieved 40 years ago. Why would we spend billions of dollars to redo something when it could be better spent on health care reform or energy independence?

[Papa_Complex]

Going to the moon is economically viable. It simply isn't economically viable BY ITSELF. If manned exploration of space is to continue, then the moon is the best place to launch from. Gravity is 1/8 of Earth's, so the amount of thrust necessary for launch is smaller. There is some gravity, which makes logistics more simple. It's a solid base making construction and maintenance easier than with a satellite, like the ISS. It has the potential to produce many, if not all of the raw materials needed in order to construct the necessary craft.

Getting back there just makes too much sense NOT to go.

[Kaneman]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Going to the moon is economically viable. It simply isn't economically viable BY ITSELF. If manned exploration of space is to continue, then the moon is the best place to launch from. Gravity is 1/8 of Earth's, so the amount of thrust necessary for launch is smaller. There is some gravity, which makes logistics more simple. It's a solid base making construction and maintenance easier than with a satellite, like the ISS. It has the potential to produce many, if not all of the raw materials needed in order to construct the necessary craft.

Getting back there just makes too much sense NOT to go.

So why don't you guys go on up and get 'er cozy for us?

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Going to the moon is economically viable. It simply isn't economically viable BY ITSELF. If manned exploration of space is to continue, then the moon is the best place to launch from. Gravity is 1/8 of Earth's, so the amount of thrust necessary for launch is smaller. There is some gravity, which makes logistics more simple. It's a solid base making construction and maintenance easier than with a satellite, like the ISS. It has the potential to produce many, if not all of the raw materials needed in order to construct the necessary craft.

Getting back there just makes too much sense NOT to go.

We aren't going any deeper in to space anytime soon. That being the case, why take the risk and spend the money to set up the logistics required for something we have no plan of currently pursuing?

Maybe someday we will set up a base capable of building vehicles on the moon but I doubt I will see it in my lifetime. It is difficult enough on earth, in an oxygen environment, with hundreds to thousands of people working on it, to safely build an extremely complex spacecraft. Just supporting the number of people required on the moon for a project of this scale with oxygen, water, and food would require an exponential increase in the space program. Building and supporting a manufacturing facility would require investment of a scale never seen before.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Kaneman

So why don't you guys go on up and get 'er cozy for us?

No kidding, why does America have to be the water carrier for space?

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Kaneman

So why don't you guys go on up and get 'er cozy for us?

As usual, an American fails to not that there are already Canadians who are taking part in the effort.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

We aren't going any deeper in to space anytime soon. That being the case, why take the risk and spend the money to set up the logistics required for something we have no plan of currently pursuing?

Maybe someday we will set up a base capable of building vehicles on the moon but I doubt I will see it in my lifetime. It is difficult enough on earth, in an oxygen environment, with hundreds to thousands of people working on it, to safely build an extremely complex spacecraft. Just supporting the number of people required on the moon for a project of this scale with oxygen, water, and food would require an exponential increase in the space program. Building and supporting a manufacturing facility would require investment of a scale never seen before.

This discounts two things; automation and telepresence.

It should be an easy sell to the enviro-weenies. "We could move some industrial operations to the airless void, helping us to keep Earth clean."

[karl_1052]

Originally Posted by goof2

We aren't going any deeper in to space anytime soon. That being the case, why take the risk and spend the money to set up the logistics required for something we have no plan of currently pursuing?

Maybe someday we will set up a base capable of building vehicles on the moon but I doubt I will see it in my lifetime. It is difficult enough on earth, in an oxygen environment, with hundreds to thousands of people working on it, to safely build an extremely complex spacecraft. Just supporting the number of people required on the moon for a project of this scale with oxygen, water, and food would require an exponential increase in the space program. Building and supporting a manufacturing facility would require investment of a scale never seen before.

That is probably what everyone said about going to the moon in 1949.