pockybot
Suicidesoldier#1
Notice how you didn't add cancelling the moon mission to that.
sad
Ok now that's a tough one. Im a life long sci fi and astronomy nerd. But I also get how massively expensive it is. Maybe one more trip to the moon would be cool, though a lot of NASA now seems tied to defense technology.
What's your take on NASA spending and future projects? I dont really have a solid opinion on it. I thought we as a planet would be further along in space exploration
Well most the spending goes into scientific research- very little goes into space. The Constellation space project was contreversial becuase it would cost about 250 billion dollars and "we've already been to the moon".
rolleyes
The issue was going there to study more, set up a moon base, collect things like titanium, helium 3, and other such things for testing to see if they would be easy enough to collect- Helium 3 might be good for future power sources.
In theory we'd only need about 4 tons of Helium 3 to power the world, but some estimates have put it at 20 tons- we have considerably less than that on the planet in any case, except in the earth's core, and testing on it is insanely expensive as a result. It's 1000 times more powerful than uranium, is non-radioactive, and apparently produces no nuclear waste. We believe the moon used to be a part of the earth and that it's an exposed portion of the earth's crust, and with solar radiation there is probably a lot more helium 3- but we don't really know, becuase we haven't been there enough and had the kind of technology we need to study the moon was made until recently, or after the 1970's. What we do know is that it's present in huge amounts on the moon, enormously more than earth, at around 1 to 50 parts per billion. On the surface, and is easily attainable. If we had processing plants on the moon in theory we could bring back 189 tons per mission. That would pay for itself no problems.
As well the whole project would cost 250 billion dollars- money has already spent we are never going to get back, and even if it was all spent over the next 30 years that only adds up to about 8.3 billion dollars per year, probably less than what we spend on pens and ink in all the government courts and congress and whatnot- Obama's job bill was 900 pages and hundreds of thousands of copies were made. We also have to account for projected inflation, and what might happen if electricity costs plummet.
And the helium 3 and titanium brought back would easily make the mission pay for itself even if they got it from cheap government auctions, or we simply used it in government funded research facilities and whatnot. But the research would be invaluable.
The atmosphere outside earth blocks even the hubble space telescope. Hydrogen is vented into space which messes up the "vacuum of space" even at orbital levels above earth. The Moon has 1/6th the gravity of earth but can still hold satellites into orbit. We could have telescopes orbiting the moon that could get WAY clearer images and wouldn't need as much fuel and energy to maintain orbit, something like 36 times less sense it's based on a square root law.
It has comparatively like no atmosphere compared to earth and is well outside the venting range but would still orbit earth (man made satellites don't have enough mass to) so telescopes and all kinds of projects that are impossible on earth could be made.
If regular trips were made a moon base could be a reality. It's important for a lot of reasons, including research- if we could find a way to live on the moon's surface we may be able to set up virtual space labs of thousands. Astronauts have a hard time surviving in space but on the moon they could create their own oxygen source from the iron oxide, from sparse liquid water, all kinds of things. Maybe we could find some good places to live for future colonization. We really won't know until we get there, which we have never really been up there sense the 1970's and that wasn't really to do anything but more or less just to be there to be there.
PLUS! The moon would be a good launching point. Again, the gravity for take off is 1/6th BUT escape velocity is 1/36th the range SO we can take off and leave with WAY less fuel. Considering that usually it is just oxygen + hydrogen we already have dah oxygen we need in space. Maybe we could create it on the moon if things got going with our thousand people moon base. I mean it's a small price to pay for progress.
We have no idea what living on a planet will be like in space, there may be all kinds of things we don't know about. Veteran members could be used on mars missions or to help on other projects. Sense the moon is close to earth and offers a bounty of resources as well we could do all kinds othings. Studies and whatnot would be invaluable. Just staring at the sun taught us about fusion, radiation, all kinds of things. Imagine actually being on another planet! It could be amazing. Talk about a vantage point. Not just good for telescopes for availability but for stability. We could create massive installations with workers and things but have the advantage, really, of being better than in the earth's orbital period. It would be fantastic for a lot of reasons.
And titanium- our shortage isn't just price but actual availability. Like there is only so much gold on earth. It's heavy so it seeps down to the core. On the moon it's on the surface, several times her one earth. It isn't about cost but being able to use it. Titanium is great for medical applications- literally latches on to bone, so wolverine bones sure, BUT great for joint replacement. Screw pricing, if we just got it we could use it on medical stuff no probs. 40 tons let's say, of titanium, you know how many 3 pound elbows that would replace- amazing. Think of it as subsidized.
Plus Helium 3 could replace coal and just be subsidized so to speak, just be the cost of the mission and the reactors (very few, sense we would only need a couple, 6.75 billion tons of coal, 20 at max with this stuff). Let's just say that electricity is 10 times cheaper. Gold could be made from mercury at the regular cost of gold. But what if it was 100 times cheaper, or 1000, or 10,000 like it probably would be given the tons of coal and their cost? Inconceivably cheap. A common price of satellite is the gold wiring that won't corrode in space and that they use for the body of electrons for particle drive thingies. It's really great for space stuff.
I mean and carbon fiber to replace car bodies so they'd be like 5 times lighter weight but safer than steel. Break them up into tiles so it's easier to replace certain parts of the body instead of trying to get a brand new carbon fiber door (but it would be cheaper). Gasoline is 5 times cheaper, blam. Depending on your interior though only 3 times cheaper. With that in mind even as of now we could destroy our dependence on foreign oil and make our reserves last longer. It would really be pretty awesome.
IMO the cost is worth it, even just for the research. Figuring out how the universe works is important.
Plus, we could have at least had 5 missions, sense we already had those paid for. THAT WAS THE ENTIRE 1970'S MOON RACE! And we'll never get the money back. At the very least, Obama could have just gone into space for the hell of it. Why throw away a mercedes benz, if you are never going to get the money back? He did it for political reasons imo, so people would say he wasn't spending in a deficit, even though the money could never be gotten back. And he cancelled it 3 months before take off of the first mission. Just absolutely ridiculous. It was in planning for 25 years and some guy been in office for 2 cancels it- dafuq? This stuff just makes no sense to me, darn politicians.
100
200
300
200
200
200