Return to the moon

Author
Discussion

Beati Dogu

8,862 posts

138 months

Sunday 9th October 2022
quotequote all
That’s cool. We could also do with the Epstein drive from The Expanse. Just put the stop button nearer, so we don’t stroke out because we can’t reach it. eek

annodomini2

6,860 posts

250 months

Sunday 9th October 2022
quotequote all
Beati Dogu said:
That’s cool. We could also do with the Epstein drive from The Expanse. Just put the stop button nearer, so we don’t stroke out because we can’t reach it. eek
There's no limitation in physics in having an engine that for say a 200t ship including cargo that could generate 1G continuous for 1kg/s of propellant.

The problem is you need immense amounts of electrical power to do it.

For the above it's iro 2TW.

Simpo Two

85,147 posts

264 months

Sunday 9th October 2022
quotequote all
It seems that with the nuclear engine, as it won't shift anything off the ground, we have an answer to a problem we haven't got.

eharding

13,598 posts

283 months

Monday 10th October 2022
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
It seems that with the nuclear engine, as it won't shift anything off the ground, we have an answer to a problem we haven't got.
That's rather like arguing there's no point in having a six-speed gearbox because you can't pull away from stationary in top gear.


Edited by eharding on Monday 10th October 13:24

Simpo Two

85,147 posts

264 months

Monday 10th October 2022
quotequote all
eharding said:
Simpo Two said:
It seems that with the nuclear engine, as it won't shift anything off the ground, we have an answer to a problem we haven't got.
That's rather like arguing there's no point in having a six-speed gearbox because you can't pull away from stationary in top gear.
Quite so, you need some lower gears before you can get to top smile

And in this case, 10+ years of unbroken political will.

annodomini2

6,860 posts

250 months

Monday 10th October 2022
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
It seems that with the nuclear engine, as it won't shift anything off the ground, we have an answer to a problem we haven't got.
They're not intended for use on the ground, but once in orbit.

You could build them to get you to orbit, but the contamination would be very high.

Their main advantage is high ISP (~800secs), with high thrust compared to a chemical engine. So for a manned mission to Mars they make a lot of sense.

Simpo Two

85,147 posts

264 months

Monday 10th October 2022
quotequote all
annodomini2 said:
Simpo Two said:
It seems that with the nuclear engine, as it won't shift anything off the ground, we have an answer to a problem we haven't got.
They're not intended for use on the ground, but once in orbit.
That is my point. We're not exactly all loaded up at some fantastic space station with lots of gear and astronauts ready to set off to Mars.

annodomini2 said:
Their main advantage is high ISP (~800secs), with high thrust compared to a chemical engine. So for a manned mission to Mars they make a lot of sense.
Do we have any planned missions to Mars? Although we got to "Level 2: The Moon" 50 years ago, we're now back at "Level 1: Earth Orbit", which we did 61 years ago.

Ash_

5,929 posts

189 months

Tuesday 11th October 2022
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
annodomini2 said:
Simpo Two said:
It seems that with the nuclear engine, as it won't shift anything off the ground, we have an answer to a problem we haven't got.
They're not intended for use on the ground, but once in orbit.
That is my point. We're not exactly all loaded up at some fantastic space station with lots of gear and astronauts ready to set off to Mars.

annodomini2 said:
Their main advantage is high ISP (~800secs), with high thrust compared to a chemical engine. So for a manned mission to Mars they make a lot of sense.
Do we have any planned missions to Mars? Although we got to "Level 2: The Moon" 50 years ago, we're now back at "Level 1: Earth Orbit", which we did 61 years ago.
You've heard of SpaceX I take it, they may not have a date, but they have a plan which they're continually working to and refining.

Fundoreen

4,180 posts

82 months

Sunday 4th December 2022
quotequote all
When we see people regularly visiting the moon and living there for months on end I may pay attention to some manned mission to mars news.
People and musk have a habit of blurring fantasy and reality.

anonymous-user

53 months

Sunday 4th December 2022
quotequote all
Fundoreen said:
When we see people regularly visiting the moon and living there for months on end I may pay attention to some manned mission to mars news.
People and musk have a habit of blurring fantasy and reality.
There’s never any reality without people dreaming.

In 20 short years the fantasists at SpaceX have dared to dream the impossible and changed everything we thought was possible.

Long may it continue.


ridds

8,191 posts

243 months

Sunday 4th December 2022
quotequote all
We stopped going to the moon as there is nothing there we can't now explore with Rovers, even then there is little there to be interested in.

JFK sent us there thankfully in a tech battle with the USSR. The later actually had some other far more successful missions to other places.

Musk is purely on a Tech sale / Mining adventure (or tbh his completely deranged view of establishing a base on Mars).

The pure logistics of getting a person to Mars, even before you think about establishing any kind of base there is simply staggering.

If you think spending all that time and money is worthwhile, that's fine. I personally don't and Musk has a long history of dazzling people with nonsense.

SLS has had a bashing from the general public yet they have knocked together a brand new craft and launched it to the moon on the first attempt (this time round). But everyone is sat on YouTube watching SpaceX fry their launch complex for the 3rd time in a row.

Still, one more static fire and then they are going for a Orbital launch..... biglaugh Yeah, OK.

Zero Fuchs

962 posts

17 months

Monday 5th December 2022
quotequote all
Fundoreen said:
When we see people regularly visiting the moon and living there for months on end I may pay attention to some manned mission to mars news.
People and musk have a habit of blurring fantasy and reality.
I think you're talking about stuff that's possibly beyond our lifetimes, despite people staying on the space station for prolonged periods. Progress is relatively slow and given it currently takes about six months to travel to Mars, a lot of work needs to be done.

Current interest in the moon was mentioned by a pp but is a prerequisite to Martian exploration. Currently NASA and ESA are looking at water. So are the Russians with Lunar 27 but this has stalled somewhat with the war. The next phase will be oxygen but mostly science based analytical missions where we are ultimately looking at resource exploitation. You can't do anything without the science so there's a lot going into research currently.

Although one aspect I don't see much discussion about is regulation and I wonder how the superpowers are going to divvy up the resources if we find the ability to use any water/oxygen we find (or any other resources for that matter) to help power us further into space. It will naturally be of huge value and the moon could be the wild west revisited, if nations don't work it out (given no-one owns the moon by treaty).



Edited by Zero Fuchs on Monday 5th December 10:22

dukeboy749r

2,538 posts

209 months

Monday 5th December 2022
quotequote all
garyhun said:
Fundoreen said:
When we see people regularly visiting the moon and living there for months on end I may pay attention to some manned mission to mars news.
People and musk have a habit of blurring fantasy and reality.
There’s never any reality without people dreaming.

In 20 short years the fantasists at SpaceX have dared to dream the impossible and changed everything we thought was possible.

Long may it continue.
Reusable spacecraft is laudable, but not 'impossible' nor was it ever thought 'impossible'. Someone, with NASA funding, came up with it. That's progress.

Aside from the order of magnitude difference in distance, Musk saying things will be like X is a huge clue that he has ignored the detail. Radiation, for one. Travel time and sustaining a human in a healthy enough condition to be useful, would be another.

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 4th January 2023
quotequote all
dibbers006 said:
I can't wait to see it in my lifetime in full HD live stream.
Bring the discussion back down to a simpleton level, this is what I'm most looking forward to as well!

How we get back and what we do once on the moon can be left to the experts, just take come decent cameras with you.

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 5th January 11:09

SpudLink

5,669 posts

191 months

Wednesday 4th January 2023
quotequote all
JESTER_ST1 said:
Bring the discussion back down to a simpleton level, this is what I'm most looking forward to as well!

How we get back and what we don't once on the moon can be left to the experts, just take come decent cameras with you.
Although I was only a child at the time, I remember looking up at the Moon and being amazed that there were people up there.
I’d be happy just being able to do that again, and know this time it’s going to lead to a manned base.

Eric Mc

121,775 posts

264 months

Wednesday 4th January 2023
quotequote all
JESTER_ST1 said:
Bring the discussion back down to a simpleton level, this is what I'm most looking forward to as well!

How we get back and what we don't once on the moon can be left to the experts, just take come decent cameras with you.
They had the best cameras technology could provide back in the late 1960s/early 1970s. In fact, they had to invent some of the technolgy specifically for the missions - especially the colour TV cameras.

I am still impressed with the TV images they sent back from Apollos 16 and 17.



anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 5th January 2023
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
They had the best cameras technology could provide back in the late 1960s/early 1970s. In fact, they had to invent some of the technolgy specifically for the missions - especially the colour TV cameras.

I am still impressed with the TV images they sent back from Apollos 16 and 17.
I don't doubt that and the stills are very impressive but I still want to see some amazing 4k footage of man (or woman) walking around on the moon in my time.

Eric Mc

121,775 posts

264 months

Thursday 5th January 2023
quotequote all
So do I. We've had a hint of what modern images will look like through more recent images, such as with the Changi Chinese landers.

JuniorD

8,616 posts

222 months

Thursday 2nd February 2023
quotequote all
There's a lot of talk about using the moon as a stop off point on the way to Mars. Now the moon is very inhospitable, and the most mankind has managed to do up there is fart about for a few days and plant a flag and leave some abandoned kit. It strikes me that building a space port on the moon for a future Mars expedition and all the associated infrastructure and equipment would be a nigh on infeasible, perilous distraction? Surely the handiest way for a mission to Mars is a direct flight?

SBF

216 posts

44 months

Thursday 2nd February 2023
quotequote all
JuniorD said:
There's a lot of talk about using the moon as a stop off point on the way to Mars. Now the moon is very inhospitable, and the most mankind has managed to do up there is fart about for a few days and plant a flag and leave some abandoned kit. It strikes me that building a space port on the moon for a future Mars expedition and all the associated infrastructure and equipment would be a nigh on infeasible, perilous distraction? Surely the handiest way for a mission to Mars is a direct flight?
Part of the difficulty of longer distance space travel is the amount of fuel required.

Getting to Mars requires more thrust and therefore more fuel than going to the moon.

More fuel equals more weight, therefore more thrust and more fuel again.

If you have the option to leave Earth with a lighter fuel load, stop at the moon for fuel, then liftoff from the Moon (where there is also less gravity to overcome, so weight is less of an issue) it’s something worth exploring.

SpaceX have also suggested the possibility of setting up Tanker versions of the Starship architecture in orbit to allow orbital refuelling of normal Starships (again, liftoff with less fuel weight / higher payload capacity, refuel, then be on your way).


Sure, sounds far fetched and complex, pointless or impossible to some people, but in the last couple of years we’ve had Rockets landing themselves out at sea, rockets landing themselves in pairs side by side on land, and a crew of 4 normal members of the public sent into orbit on a 3 day mission aboard a recycled booster, so I’m going to let them get on with it and enjoy the process and potentially see some amazing things in my lifetime, rather than st on and ridicule the thousands of people working hard day in day out trying to do cool stuff.