The Moon

[Eric Mc]

If anyone is listening to Radio 4 this morning, Melvyn Bragg's "In Our Time" is all about the moon. Starts immediately after the 9.00 am news headlines.

[Pints]

Thanks. I'll listen online.

[PaulG40]

I wonder if we'll ever go back to the moon as a manned mission? Im somewhat doubtful, budgets and all that, now that the 'go there because we can' has been fulfilled. There's no real reason anymore especially that robots couldn't do.

[Eric Mc]

PaulG40 said:

I wonder if we'll ever go back to the moon as a manned mission? Im somewhat doubtful, budgets and all that, now that the 'go there because we can' has been fulfilled. There's no real reason anymore especially that robots couldn't do.

Of course we'll be back. Just don't know for sure.

And there is plenty that robots still can't do.

The next human on the moon will probably be Chinese.

[Zad]

I suspect that as soon as the Chinese look like getting close to a Moon mission, the USA will come up with a "reason" to go back. Possibly the excuse of kick-starting the US economy through technological research and development, which at least has a ring of truth about it.

I imagine that the big problem is the heavy lift rocket, which is at least being worked on. Beyond that they have a lot of proven technology to get to the moon itself (and back), with the advantage of modern lightweight fast computer and comms systems.

[Eric Mc]

I hope you are being facetious.

The programme was actually about the moon itself so can we stick to the topic of the moon and the programme rather than making idiotic Lounge type comments?

[Simpo Two]

PW said:

Apollo - $24bn - 100hrs
MER-A & B - $1bn - 132,816hrs and counting...

Still though... sending people is much more important because, you know... robots suck at golf and can't salute a flag properly.

So you think robots can do what humans do? A Tonka toy with a little scoop that will probably break the fist time you use it? Can a robot do your washing up? Can a robot tidy your garden? No, a robot cannot even do these simple tasks. A human can do 1,000x as much, and make decisions on the spot.

Better to do nothing than send toys, and give the money to the starving Africans. I mean, we only have 7Bn people.

[Eric Mc]

Robot explorers have their uses - but they should serve as pioneers, advance guards for the humans to follow.

Look at the two Martian rovers. They have been fantastic and have given us great new insights into that planet. But in 7 years of exploring they have covered just over 20 kiloneters each. The Apollo astronauts covered 30 kilometers in a few hours in their Lunar Rover.

[Eric Mc]

Bedazzled said:

I think robotic explorers are the way to go, not humans. Imagine if they put the same money into building an advanced robotic explorer, as they did into Apollo. With a heavy-lift rocket, they could send something quite rugged which could explore the entire surface of the moon. It would be vastly superior to the little Rovers they sent to Mars.

Why send man back to the moon, other than to show we can (still) do it? I think there are much more interesting targets in the solar system.

The moon is as interesting as anywhere else and its close. It is an ideal place to learn how to explore other planetary bodies "on foot" and its only three days away.

We have barely begun to explore the moon. The Apollo missions only explored six sites, all near the equator. They are no more typical of the entire moon as six sites in the Sahara would be of earth. It's still worthwhile going there - and, of course, the real benefits of going to the moon will be those derived from the unexpected discoveries. And these are often the most likely types of discoveries to be found by on the spot humans. Robots are great, but they can only look for what they have been programmed to look for.

Sadly, the thread is yet again descending into a man v' robot argument - which is not why I started it. I wanted to talk about the moon, not about the technology to explore it.

[jmorgan]

On a slightly related note, the Chinese docked for the first time the other day. One of the steps required...

[Mojocvh]

jmorgan said:

On a slightly related note, the Chinese docked for the first time the other day. One of the steps required...

Wow I missed that news, has it been kept "low" key?

[Odie]

I watched appollo 18 lastnight, cant believe some people actually thinks its real footage lol.

I also thought the news about the airship that got upto 95000ft was an interesting step forward.

[cal216610]

Cost aside, would it not be more suitable to have a moon base from which to launch space missions etc than from earth.

[Eric Mc]

PW said:

Eric Mc said:

I wanted to talk about the moon

Yes, It is fascinating. It would be great if we knew a lot about it.

But

Eric Mc said:

We have barely begun to explore the moon.

Because

Eric Mc said:

The Apollo missions only explored six sites, all near the equator.

As I said - $24bn for 100hrs of exploration.

And then no one bothered to even look for decades afterwards, then when we sent some probes - the interesting and potentially useful discoveries came flooding in....

The point about the $24 buillion is a bit specious. That money had essentially been spent and further missions could have been carried out for relatively little addition to that amount. Each Apollo mission cost around $400 million in 1972 terms so another ten missions would have cost $4 billion. The bulk of the $24 billion was spent on the constructioon of the infrastructure - a large chunk of which remained in use until last July - and no doubt will be used again.

[jmorgan]

Mojocvh said:

jmorgan said:

On a slightly related note, the Chinese docked for the first time the other day. One of the steps required...

Wow I missed that news, has it been kept "low" key?

All over their news apparently and live on TV.

Edit. In China of course. Maybe Greece is nabbing all the journos.

[jmorgan]

cal216610 said:

Cost aside, would it not be more suitable to have a moon base from which to launch space missions etc than from earth.

Always though that the Moon offers a sand pit to test, close to home, ish, and an environment to long term test. Lava tubes seem a good place to build habitation. Benefits from this can also be brought back to Earth for help here.

Not sure about launching though, unless you mine the fuel there? You still have to loft a lot of gear.

[Hugo a Gogo]

cal216610 said:

Cost aside, would it not be more suitable to have a moon base from which to launch space missions etc than from earth.

no point putting it on the moon, better to have it in 'open space' rather than on a planet, a Lagrange point between Earth and Moon would be best

[cal216610]

Ok they have done the ISS bit, and have heard of future stuff like space lift/elevator as an idea but i thought having a solid base like in the typical movies would be more suitable for future exploring and expanding.

[Hugo a Gogo]

cal216610 said:

Ok they have done the ISS bit, and have heard of future stuff like space lift/elevator as an idea but i thought having a solid base like in the typical movies would be more suitable for future exploring and expanding.

just remember, the ISS is only just over 200 miles up, all that effort with launches just to get there

moon has less gravity, but it still has it, and a ship has to stand up and lift off from there

[jmorgan]

Learning to live in harsh environments, so food and shelter, the learning of which could aid us back here. Use it as the driver for experimentation if you like. The tubes for solar flares and other radiation on long stays but can get to the surface, and exciting golf courses.