Luna 27 - new lunar mision
Discussion
Simpo Two said:
There could easily have been a permament lunar colony by now, and a big rotating space station - if any Government had really wanted to do it.
In the 1990s NASA spent as much money as it did in the 1960s, but did not send people below low earth orbit, it developed no new technologies to speak of, flew only about ten planetary probes, created no important new centres of research, and hardly inspired anyone. In 2002 NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe said 'NASA should not be destination-driven'. And so we have gone nowhere. Gene Krantz famously declared 'Failure is not an option'. In the rudderless modern NASA it might be said 'failure is not a problem'.
(partially quoted from 'Mars on Earth' by Robert Zubrin)
Possibly, but the complexities of Humans politics and economics is a powerful mix if the return on investment is big enough, an example is how can a government justify landing a man on the moon when austerity policies are implemented? In the 1990s NASA spent as much money as it did in the 1960s, but did not send people below low earth orbit, it developed no new technologies to speak of, flew only about ten planetary probes, created no important new centres of research, and hardly inspired anyone. In 2002 NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe said 'NASA should not be destination-driven'. And so we have gone nowhere. Gene Krantz famously declared 'Failure is not an option'. In the rudderless modern NASA it might be said 'failure is not a problem'.
(partially quoted from 'Mars on Earth' by Robert Zubrin)
Edited by Simpo Two on Thursday 22 October 23:53
Technologically it should be easier the knowledge gained by having done it before the miniaturisation of technology the computing power now available. Adding to that the real science that is with far more highly educated scientists and engineers it may make the whole enterprise a lot easier however it still wouldn't be easy.
Another question is where is the R&D budget being spent and being planned here is one such document.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/298362/igs-action-plan.pdf
So as an individual outside of the scientific and political circle a stated assumption of 'I certainly expected a permanent lunar colony by now.' may be an erroneous one as there may be bigger and more immediate needs for the R&D funds to be spent on by those who are involved with the large but limited budgets to get a return on an investment.
Which the point I was making. Technologically there COULD have been a Moon colony now, there COULD have been a man on Mars, but there's no will to do it. 'What about setting up a moon colony?' 'Ah but what about the Syrian refugees/flood victims/Ebola victims/earthquake victims/starving Africans/AIDS victims/cancer victims/neglected children/whales/badgers' (delete as applicable).
Which is we fanny about with small things that don't upset anyone too much, and get us frankly nowhere.
Which is we fanny about with small things that don't upset anyone too much, and get us frankly nowhere.
Simpo Two said:
Which the point I was making. Technologically there COULD have been a Moon colony now, there COULD have been a man on Mars, but there's no will to do it. 'What about setting up a moon colony?' 'Ah but what about the Syrian refugees/flood victims/Ebola victims/earthquake victims/starving Africans/AIDS victims/cancer victims/neglected children/whales/badgers' (delete as applicable).
Which is we fanny about with small things that don't upset anyone too much, and get us frankly nowhere.
I agree that we could do it, with great effort and cost, not sure about the small things because if we do not support the small things then our planetery eco system is fWhich is we fanny about with small things that don't upset anyone too much, and get us frankly nowhere.
ked and we would all be in trouble if we cant look after our own planet.Toaster said:
I agree that we could do it, with great effort and cost, not sure about the small things because if we do not support the small things then our planetery eco system is fked and we would all be in trouble if we cant look after our own planet.
The world will never be fixed. It wasn't when the Vikings found Greenland, or when Columbus set sail for America, or when Franklin tried to find the north west passage, or when Apollo 11 blasted off.ked and we would all be in trouble if we cant look after our own planet.Doubtless if the USA had had a limp liberal as President rather than JFK, we'd still be thinking the moon was made of cheese. If you try to fix the world before doing anything else, you will never achieve anything else. The sooner the impossibility of that is realised and accepted, the sooner we can crack on.
(sorry Eric!)
Eric Mc said:
Simpo - Toaster delights in trying to shoot down any comments I make. Don't humour him.
Eric thats not true (as usual), you make many comments and I only comment on a small percent of them, a reason I bother to comment is that often you make a statement as fact, yet there is a broader issues going on and more than one perspective which lets face it, if someone doesnt agree with your view doesnt hold any value. There are multiple truths and perspetives you may have expected lunar colonies to exist based on fiction (2001) yet this hasnt happened so why not broaden your mind (how rude of me to suggest this) and explore the multifacited political, economic, social and financial reasons behind it? I know this is a Sudo Science thread but Science does not live in a Vacum
So just to re-cap go to all your posts and see which ones I have commented on I bet its less than 1% it probably just feels like more
How much would a sensible moon base and Mars shot cost I wonder? Many billions I'm sure...
In comparison the US military spending is around $700billion annually (albeit this keeps millions of people employed so its a good thing for America even if its bad for the odd Syrian in the wrong place)
$700billion is (back of napkin maths) more money than NASA has been given in total since it was created, $700billion a year for NASA would probably employ more people than the military and have put a Man on ever solid planet in the solar system since the 60's.
But that's never going to happen obviously, all the worlds space agencies together spend a fraction of their governments budgets, more is spent on flu shots and toilet cleaning.
People see big figures and get upset without understand the context or comparison with other expenses.
We should go to Mars because we can- we should not send Matt Damon, unless we actually intend to leave him there. The Martain was superb but I cannot forgive his previous crimes and we've wasted enough money saving him- Private Ryan, Interstellar etc :-)
In comparison the US military spending is around $700billion annually (albeit this keeps millions of people employed so its a good thing for America even if its bad for the odd Syrian in the wrong place)
$700billion is (back of napkin maths) more money than NASA has been given in total since it was created, $700billion a year for NASA would probably employ more people than the military and have put a Man on ever solid planet in the solar system since the 60's.
But that's never going to happen obviously, all the worlds space agencies together spend a fraction of their governments budgets, more is spent on flu shots and toilet cleaning.
People see big figures and get upset without understand the context or comparison with other expenses.
We should go to Mars because we can- we should not send Matt Damon, unless we actually intend to leave him there. The Martain was superb but I cannot forgive his previous crimes and we've wasted enough money saving him- Private Ryan, Interstellar etc :-)
Simpo Two said:
The world will never be fixed. It wasn't when the Vikings found Greenland, or when Columbus set sail for America, or when Franklin tried to find the north west passage, or when Apollo 11 blasted off.
Doubtless if the USA had had a limp liberal as President rather than JFK, we'd still be thinking the moon was made of cheese. If you try to fix the world before doing anything else, you will never achieve anything else. The sooner the impossibility of that is realised and accepted, the sooner we can crack on.
(sorry Eric!)
Possibly, but each of us can look after our own bit of the world, such as picking a up plastic when we walk a beach, that action my just save a whale, the two hedghogs that wander into my garden every night I make sure there is food and a place they can stay for the winter its the small things each of us can do that helps.Doubtless if the USA had had a limp liberal as President rather than JFK, we'd still be thinking the moon was made of cheese. If you try to fix the world before doing anything else, you will never achieve anything else. The sooner the impossibility of that is realised and accepted, the sooner we can crack on.
(sorry Eric!)
There is a R&D stratergy and budget the link I shared shows a UK aproach would you scrap all that for a man to walk on the moon or Mars? or do you think that this may help contribute to a mission that would go in the future? in the mean time we all benefit from the near Earth space projects.
Toaster said:
Eric thats not true (as usual), you make many comments and I only comment on a small percent of them, a reason I bother to comment is that often you make a statement as fact, yet there is a broader issues going on and more than one perspective which lets face it, if someone doesnt agree with your view doesnt hold any value.
There are multiple truths and perspetives you may have expected lunar colonies to exist based on fiction (2001) yet this hasnt happened so why not broaden your mind (how rude of me to suggest this) and explore the multifacited political, economic, social and financial reasons behind it? I know this is a Sudo Science thread but Science does not live in a Vacum
So just to re-cap go to all your posts and see which ones I have commented on I bet its less than 1% it probably just feels like more
I was 11 years old when I first saw the movie "2001" and assumed that this type of future was ahead of us - so cut me some slack. Almost 50 years on, I know all the reasons why moonbases and manned Mars missions haven't happened.There are multiple truths and perspetives you may have expected lunar colonies to exist based on fiction (2001) yet this hasnt happened so why not broaden your mind (how rude of me to suggest this) and explore the multifacited political, economic, social and financial reasons behind it? I know this is a Sudo Science thread but Science does not live in a Vacum
So just to re-cap go to all your posts and see which ones I have commented on I bet its less than 1% it probably just feels like more
That doesn't mean that I have given up hope that they will happen some day.
As for Luna 27, that looks like it WILL happen so maybe we should talk about that mission, which is what I started the thread for.
Eric Mc said:
I was 11 years old when I first saw the movie "2001" and assumed that this type of future was ahead of us - so cut me some slack. Almost 50 years on, I know all the reasons why moonbases and manned Mars missions haven't happened.
That doesn't mean that I have given up hope that they will happen some day.
As for Luna 27, that looks like it WILL happen so maybe we should talk about that mission, which is what I started the thread for.
Nope it doesnt mean they wont happen but the timescale and technology used may or may not exist yet to be successfull its not black and white and good to get the broad reasons in place as part of the discussion. That doesn't mean that I have given up hope that they will happen some day.
As for Luna 27, that looks like it WILL happen so maybe we should talk about that mission, which is what I started the thread for.
Eric Mc said:
What discussion?
Lunar 27 has eco political as well as technical challenges an example of how a great project was nearly derailed by cultural differences was Concorde, so just the mere interworking of differing cultures will make a difference. It would be interesting how the teams would be knitted together. Eric Mc said:
How does my wishes as an 11 year old relate to the Luna 27 mission?
Eric only you can answer that question, we all have our space dreams Eric Mc said:
If you want to discuss possible destinations for future manned space missions, I'll gladly start another thread to discuss just that.
Im sure you have done that many times before so lets discuss Luna 27 
As promised, I have now actually started another thread for discussing future manned missions.
Regarding the Luna 27 mission, even though joint missions can reveal cultural differences which sometimes do cause problems, I think joint missions serve more to ensure that projects are actually seen through to the end. Concorde is a good example of the latter as well as the former. In the mid 1960s Britain tried to back out of the project but was forced to stay in by the French (who had insisted on a non backing out clause in the agreement because they knew that Britain might try to worm their way out).
"Internationalsiing" a project is a form of insurance as the continuation of the project is not solely at the whim of an incumbent national government and will be locked into an international agreement.
The ESA and the Russians have collaborated on many space projects over the years. Indeed, the first Western European to fly on a Soyuz was Jean-Loup Chrétien, a French man.
In recent years, the ESA has built a launch pad in Kourou, French Guiana, which is designed specifically to accommodate the R7/Soyuz booster and a number of launches have already been made from that site.
I am sure Luna 27 will proceed as intended without too many problems.
Regarding the Luna 27 mission, even though joint missions can reveal cultural differences which sometimes do cause problems, I think joint missions serve more to ensure that projects are actually seen through to the end. Concorde is a good example of the latter as well as the former. In the mid 1960s Britain tried to back out of the project but was forced to stay in by the French (who had insisted on a non backing out clause in the agreement because they knew that Britain might try to worm their way out).
"Internationalsiing" a project is a form of insurance as the continuation of the project is not solely at the whim of an incumbent national government and will be locked into an international agreement.
The ESA and the Russians have collaborated on many space projects over the years. Indeed, the first Western European to fly on a Soyuz was Jean-Loup Chrétien, a French man.
In recent years, the ESA has built a launch pad in Kourou, French Guiana, which is designed specifically to accommodate the R7/Soyuz booster and a number of launches have already been made from that site.
I am sure Luna 27 will proceed as intended without too many problems.
Yeah, quite excited, it's a Q&A thing with Brian 'i'nt space brilliant?!' Cox fielding the questions with a meet n greet / photo thing afterwards.
I went to one a few years back with Buzz Aldrin which was cool but JL was always far more interesting, will see if he'll sign my copy of Lost Moon.
I went to one a few years back with Buzz Aldrin which was cool but JL was always far more interesting, will see if he'll sign my copy of Lost Moon.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff