Space Exploration - Do You Support It?

JupiterKid

It's almost 60 years since the little satellite Sputnik 1 was launched and this ushered in the space age. Since then humans have gone into space themselves, walked on the Moon and currently there is a huge International Space Station orbiting Earth.

The next big step is the human exploration of Mars. This will be a very difficult goal but it is achievable if the money and political will is there. Meanwhile, unmanned probes have flown past all the planets, photographing them close up and Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn have had orbiter missions. Unmanned spacecraft have landed on Venus, Mars, a couple of asteroids and Titan, Saturn's largest moon sending back reams of data.

Mars has seen a number of lander and rover missions and beautiful pictures are sent back to Earth daily - Mars has become not just a distant planet but a place. The Voyager and Pioneer probes have now left our solar system, destined to coast for countless millennia among the stars.
But is space exploration really worth all the effort and cost? In a world with huge inequality, disease and abject poverty would the money going into space exploration be better spent elsewhere? Is space just a frivolous waste of time? Should we be focusing on Earthly issues rather than sending rockets to Mars?

Captain Chaos

Yes fully, the Earth will not last forever, even for conditions for life to be sustainable. If we don't learn to get off this rock we will die out and become extinct sooner rather than later.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL4yYHdDSWs

tomwaterford

No....I seen the first half of the film Mars attack as a young enough kid and freaked the fcuk outta me at the time....so againest it since

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

Ah i give what i can, yknow, but i won't sign up for the direct debit

kierank01

Space exploration is OK...in recent years it has united the world, the iss being a fantastic example...

Regarding the earthly inequalities, if you look at how much money is spent on wars, and spent that in poverty, the world would be in a better place...

How do you end war? You unite the world under a common goal...is that space exploration? Maybe...

endacl

tomwaterford wrote: »

No....I seen the first half of the film Mars attack as a young enough kid and freaked the fcuk outta me at the time....so againest it since

The documentary 'Mars Attacks'? Feck. Jurassic Park, Predator, and Home Alone must have you hiding under the bed.

Atlantic Dawn

It's been good for the Sky Sports and the Sat Nav so far.

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

endacl

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

It's been good for the Sky Sports and the Sat Nav so far.

https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html

Also LED diodes, IR ear thermometers, robotic prostheses....

Junkyard Tom

Yes. If you went far enough out into space you could meet God and then you wouldn't need to explore any more because he'd have all the answers.

endacl

If I went far enough, I'd eventually meet myself....

Therefore....

Oh.

Right. What's your question?

tomwaterford

endacl wrote: »

The documentary 'Mars Attacks'? Feck. Jurassic Park, Predator, and Home Alone must have you hiding under the bed.

I only seen like the first half and the sisters told me that it was a film based on real events...


The parents came in then and switched channels to watch like news or something and I was freaked as fcuk out

Yeah it's worth it. The money is so little in the grand scheme of the things, there's no reason not to.

Nasa's budget is about 20 billion dollars which I imagine is the biggest national expenditure. In 2005, Nasa's budget was 0.8% of government spending while 19% was for the military.

Now, their new fighter plane will cost a trillion dollars over it's life time. Money is a moot point in space exploration.

bnt

There's an important psychological side to space exploration too. We need to know that there's a new horizon and new things to learn.

kneemos

Not really.Apart from pretty pictures what have we gained?
There's nothing on The Moon or Mars,to say we can live there is a fantasy.
Space telescopes have proven to be about the only useful bit of exploration we've done.

namloc1980

Humans need to explore, it's in our nature. In any case relatively little is spent on space exploration. NASA has an annual budget of $20bn, the US military annual budget is $600bn - 30 times greater! The situation in Europe is even more stark. EU states spend €200bn every year on military expenditure, and €4.5bn on the European Space Agency - 44 times more.

Also there aren't crate loads of cash being loaded onto rockets and blasted into space. No money is spent in space, it's all spent on Earth where it provides jobs, high tech research, and above all hope and inspiration.

We've discovered that water is not only abundant in our Solar system, but Jupiter's moon Europa actually has more water than there is on Earth....to me that's mind blowing! Saturn's moon Titan has lakes and seas of liquid methane, with methane rain and methane snow falling from methane clouds. And this is only through barely scratching the surface of these places.

If you say space exploration isn't worth it then you might as well say science isn't worth it.

fergiesfolly

I have no problems with the billions being spent. It's not a huge amount in the grand scheme and there's more being wasted in other areas.
What gets me though is India, Pakistan and the likes having space and nuclear weapons programmes, while most of their nations live below the poverty lines in horrific conditions with little or no hope of ever climbing out of it.
I know other, more prosperous nations have a lot of work to do, to make a more equal society, but these third world countries building rockets while not being able to house and feed their own people (and not making any attempt to), really sickens me.

MRnotlob606

No, Aliens are going to think we're retards if we ever meet them

Wibbs

kneemos wrote: »

Not really.Apart from pretty pictures what have we gained?

Shedloads of new technology and that kinda useful thing; knowledge.

There's nothing on The Moon or Mars,to say we can live there is a fantasy.

Mars is currently a fantasy, but we could with today's tech establish a base and live on the Moon and could get a fair way towards it being pretty self sufficient with it. Doing that for a generation of learning and tech advances and then Mars wouldn't be such a fantasy. Though exponentially more difficult.

Mars looks easier on the surface of it(if we ignore the transit times involved), but it is just as alien and harsh a world as the Moon. It looks nice. It looks like a desert on Earth. But it isn't. The atmosphere is so thin it may as well not be there. 1% of Earths. If I could stand six feet behind you and scream at the top of my lungs you wouldn't hear me. A two hundred mile an hour wind would barely ruffle your arm hair. The radiation at the surface is as strong as it is on the moon, or as close to dammit for humans. If you were to design a planet that looked OK, but was a surefire way to sterilise all life then Mars would be near letter perfect for the purpose. Even the great photos sent back by the rovers disguise the realities. It looks bright and sunny right? The sunlight at noon on Mars is like dusk here on earth(which also means solar power would need far larger panels compared to the Moon).

The main advantages would be that gravity is closer to ours(though still under half). The days are about the same length and temperatures while much colder generally(though can hit 30 odd c at times), don't have as big extremes as the Moon. there are potentially more natural resources, though many are spread out, underground and far apart.

IrishCule

There seems to be a huge trickle down affect of technology discovered in pushing space exploration back to our everyday lives, if I had my way the military budgets and NASA/ESA budgets would be swapped.

lawlolawl

IrishCule wrote: »

There seems to be a huge trickle down affect of technology discovered in pushing space exploration back to our everyday lives, if I had my way the military budgets and NASA/ESA budgets would be swapped.

Miltary research benefits us by producing a lot of everyday technology as well though.

The Internet was originally developed for military use.

IrishCule

lawlolawl wrote: »

Miltary research benefits us by producing a lot of everyday technology as well though.

The Internet was originally developed for military use.

I'm thinking of a more direct correlation though. Military research is first and foremost about finding better ways to kill eachother with the occasional "oh we could use these death rays to cook food, here's a microwave" while the research for space exploration could be more direct.....we need to find a way to make food in space, that will also make it easier to make food in a desert in Africa. That kind of thinking at least.

LordSutch

JupiterKid wrote: »

Space Exploration - Do You Support It?

Yes, I support it.

If SpaceX is anything to go by, we are entering into a future where space travel is going to not only get cheaper, but won't be constrained by a nation's spending. Privatizing it is absolutely the way forward.

manonboard

JupiterKid wrote: »

OP post

Yeah OP I support it. It's a wonderful goal of humanity. Whilst money could be spent on helping people here, its not in any way correlated. Stripping space exploration doesn't link to money in other projects. It's not really a matter of priority because of the way the money system works. Money is often created for other things, and if short, is raised in different ways.

bnt wrote: »

There's an important psychological side to space exploration too. We need to know that there's a new horizon and new things to learn.

Yeah I think the unifying factor it creates is a wonderful advantage to it. Commonly uniting people and making us feel apart of a peaceful bigger picture is a huge advantage and community driver. It encourages us to set our goals at things way beyond limiting ourselves. Removes the feeling of helplessness. Inspires. Motivates. It's so exciting.

kneemos wrote: »

Not really.Apart from pretty pictures what have we gained?
There's nothing on The Moon or Mars,to say we can live there is a fantasy.
Space telescopes have proven to be about the only useful bit of exploration we've done.

Satellites and information we have gained from them, have allowed us to set up the large communication and monitoring array around our planet.
Massive technological improvements come from space exploration. Including the benefit of eradicating things like being the center of the universe, and earth being some godly miracle for narcissistic egos to revel in. I think it allows us to form a more realistic view of the universe, and awareness of reality is always a much needed resource for our species.

namloc1980 wrote: »

Humans need to explore, it's in our nature. In any case relatively little is spent on space exploration. NASA has an annual budget of $20bn, the US military annual budget is $600bn - 30 times greater! The situation in Europe is even more stark. EU states spend €200bn every year on military expenditure, and €4.5bn on the European Space Agency - 44 times more.

Also there aren't crate loads of cash being loaded onto rockets and blasted into space. No money is spent in space, it's all spent on Earth where it provides jobs, high tech research, and above all hope and inspiration.

You make some very good points. If we could turn peoples minds and profit making interests towards space exploration instead of military, it would allow all those death machines to become exploration machines.
Humans need a focus. To be idle is to invite rampant carnage with our current level of understanding/skills at peace.

lawlolawl wrote: »

Miltary research benefits us by producing a lot of everyday technology as well though.

The Internet was originally developed for military use.

Very true, but it also brings massive death and destruction. Space exploration doesn't. Not that I am implying you think otherwise. I think once military starts moving into space, we will have another arms race

harry Bailey esq

Yeah definitely,I've been slippin' backhanders to a drinking associate in my local tavern who works for nasa.All very hush-hush so I cant say too much about it,he does it all under the guise of being a hopeless alcoholic,a genius. We know something that the rest of yiz don't though, watch this space

RobertKK

Yes, I pay my taxes.

Junkyard Tom

Deleted User wrote: »

If SpaceX is anything to go by, we are entering into a future where space travel is going to not only get cheaper, but won't be constrained by a nation's spending. Privatizing it is absolutely the way forward.

Space X wouldn't exist only for public money. Delivering supplies to the ISS is Space X's bread-and-butter; you'll note that the $100Bn ISS wasn't paid for by The Hilton or Premier Inn hotel groups.

manonboard

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Space X wouldn't exist only for public money. Delivering supplies to the ISS is Space X's bread-and-butter; you'll note that the $100Bn ISS wasn't paid for by The Hilton or Premier Inn hotel groups.

No private enterprise would exist without public money creating the infrastructure which created the opening for a private enterprise to then take a further step on.

CINCLANTFLT

There's a star man, waiting in the sky. He'd like to come and meet us, he's such a groovy guy. Oh, let the children hear us, let the star man teach us... or something like that?!?!@!!

Fox_In_Socks

I support some of it. Putting people into space and having them doing very little while there, is not what I support. I mean the ISS is a waste of time, it will be defunct by the 2020s so what's the purpose of it? To get different nationalities into space and experience weightlessness? He's a nice guy but that man Chris Hadfield, the Canadian astronaut, he spent his time blogging, taking pictures of the earth and doing stuff that schoolchildren were webcam-asking him to do, like squeezing water out of a paper towel. Inflaming young imaginations, no doubt, but a waste of money imo.

The money used for that could have been spent in actually doing something useful like sending many more probes and devices all over the solar system, instead of life supporting people who are 400km away from us.

Turtwig

I'm huge fan of space exploration. I'm not as big a fan of manned exploration though. It's easier to land on Mars than it is to land on the moon. The same can be said for many interplanetary missions. Probes and rovers just achieve way more for a much cheaper cost. Planning a return to earth in a reasonable transit time is just silly imo. That said I fcking loved the shuttle it was an amazing piece of engineering. Even if it ultimately proved single stage to orbits are very likely a pipe dream. It had to be tried.

SpaceX is awesome. The James Webb telescope gives me tingles just thinking about its planned mission. I'm terrified something will go wrong (so many things could). ESA's philae and Rosetta mission was amazing - even if it did ultimately fail. In fact, some of space explorations greatest missions have been the failures. They're just amazing and we still learned so much! The only distasteful failures in space exploration are the manned ones because of the loss of life.

The only manned mission I want to see in the near future is an asteroid/comet redirection just to prove we can do it should one bastard ever decide to put us in its crosshairs.

Fox_In_Socks

Fox_In_Socks wrote: »

I support some of it. Putting people into space and having them doing very little while there, is not what I support. I mean the ISS is a waste of time, it will be defunct by the 2020s so what's the purpose of it? To get different nationalities into space and experience weightlessness? He's a nice guy but that man Chris Hadfield, the Canadian astronaut, he spent his time blogging, taking pictures of the earth and doing stuff that schoolchildren were webcam-asking him to do, like squeezing water out of a paper towel. Inflaming young imaginations, no doubt, but a waste of money imo.

The money used for that could have been spent in actually doing something useful like sending many more probes and devices all over the solar system, instead of life supporting people who are 400km away from us.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_research_on_the_International_Space_Station

No-one can "work" 24/7. Some of the astronauts will do more "useful" stuff than others but it's has to be looked at holistically rather than asking why someone isn't spending all their time doing useful things. Publicity and PR are unfortunately hugely important as well.

Capt'n Midnight

endacl wrote: »

https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html

Also LED diodes, IR ear thermometers, robotic prostheses....

That is the lamest list of spin-offs ever. The Shuttle and ISS are pretty much just bottomless money pits.
In many cases, NASA did not invent the technology itself, but just pushed it along,


NASA are are building the Orion service module. They are re-inventing the moon rocket they had back in the 1960's , yip real innovation right there. Except they aren't, the service module is actually European. It's the Automated Transfer Vehicle which was flight proven back in 2008 when it delivered supplies to the ISS.

Meanwhile India has been broadcasting Agriculture , health and education via satellite TV since 1976 to areas off the grid. Satellite is the cheapest way to survey the sub-continent and provide TV. India got to Mars for $74 million. That's about 7c per capita. The other argument is that the satellite market is worth something like $255 Bn by 2024 and being the first to get to Mars on the first attempt is a nice bit of advertising.


Shoemaker Levy 9 collided with Jupiter in 1994. The plume from the first impact reached 6,000Km. Had this hit Earth with our lower gravity the plume could have been 15,000Km which is greater than earth's diameter. Twenty two more large fragments hit , the biggest was 600 times worse than all the Hydrogen bombs we have.

Space exploration is the only way our species could survive something like that. And make no mistake it's only a matter of time before we get hit. Again.

SEPT 23 1989

I suppose it gives people hope like religion used to

This exploration is a bit like trying to cross the Atlantic on a beach lilo

JupiterKid

I personally think that space exploration is not only desirable, but critical for the long- term survival of the human race. We humans have a deep seated yearning to explore. Space is the frontier in our modern age just as The Americas/Australia was in centuries past.

Just having the exploration for the increased knowledge alone is well worth it. We will eventually move off the Earth and space exploration is key to that step. We have learned far more about our solar system in the past 50 years than we learned since the dawn of human civilisation. And our solar system is a remarkably diverse place.

Just seeing our planet Earth as a beautiful blue/green/white marble in the vastness of black space has made humanity appreciate the fragility of our environment and our planet, currently the only place we call home.

Ruu

Have we learned nothing from Doom!??!!

Wibbs

Turtwig wrote: »

It's easier to land on Mars than it is to land on the moon.

What now? Stop the lights. How do you figure that? The only way I can see Mars being easier is you can use what atmosphere there is to slow a probe descent with parachutes, though one could argue that this is offset by the need to heat protect the craft when it hits said atmosphere at high speed. You've also higher gravity on Mars to deal with(about half of Earth, compared to the one sixth of Earth of the Moon). More gravity, heavier impacts and higher energy required to land softly. It's also harder to get off Mars if you're planning a return trip as the escape velocity is double that of the Moon. The Moon is a lot closer too. Which helps. I seem to recall that nigh on half of all attempted missions to Mars have failed.

Maybe this idea comes from the post Apollo history of Moon exploration? After Apollo ended, interest in the place waned and the financing dropped off a cliff, whereas Mars was the new thing and more cash and expertise was thrown at it. I would bet anything that if there was the will to land something like the Spirit and Opportunity Mars rovers on the moon, it would be much easier to do and at a far lower cost.

And as for manned missions to either, the Moon is significantly easier. Well when I say easier… It's still one helluva step up from low Earth orbit. LEO is akin to paddling at the beach, socks off, with your trousers rolled up to the knees(do people even do this anymore? I'm old). Going to the moon is like swimming in the sea a hundred yards out and going to mars is like swimming out of sight of land.

Capt'n Midnight

Wibbs wrote: »

What now? Stop the lights. How do you figure that? The only way I can see Mars being easier is you can use what atmosphere there is to slow a probe descent with parachutes, though one could argue that this is offset by the need to heat protect the craft when it hits said atmosphere at high speed. You've also higher gravity on Mars to deal with(about half of Earth, compared to the one sixth of Earth of the Moon). More gravity, heavier impacts and higher energy required to land softly.

Getting from Earth Orbit to Mars isn't all that much extra delta-v to landing on the moon. To land on the moon half your mass is propellant to slow you down. (Same applies when taking off, this is why they left most of the LEM behind when departing.)

It's possible to land on Mars with mostly aero-breaking to kill most of the momentum. The last 1km is the hard bit.

Of course returning from Mars is waaaayyyy harder than getting off the moon. Even if it's possible to manufacture rocket fuel on site.

From an economics point of view there is no reason to return astronauts from Mars because the economic cost of doing so could prevent far more deaths if spent down here. Being stranded on the moon is a death sentence for a saving of only 10 tonnes on the LEM descent stage. 10 tonnes of supplies and habitation modules won't keep you alive long , never mind self sufficient on the Moon. And it was only 20% of the Saturn V translunar payload.

Haven't checked the figures but Mars needs roughly three times the delta V of the moon so an ascent rocket would have to mass in the order of 100 tonnes. (not even using the back of an envelope) And that sort of payload could get you a habitat and enough tech to be self sufficient on Mars. And the second crew could use it too.


There is the niggle that the most energy efficient transfer orbits to Mars only occur every 25 months compared to the moon which pretty much stays in the same orbit relative to us.

Maybe this idea comes from the post Apollo history of Moon exploration? After Apollo ended, interest in the place waned and the financing dropped off a cliff

Can't remember the exact quote but going to the moon for the Americans was like a dog chasing a parking car. Now that the dog has marked his territory he has no more interest in it.

And as for manned missions to either, the Moon is significantly easier. Well when I say easier… It's still one helluva step up from low Earth orbit. LEO is akin to paddling at the beach, socks off, with your trousers rolled up to the knees(do people even do this anymore? I'm old). Going to the moon is like swimming in the sea a hundred yards out and going to mars is like swimming out of sight of land.

More like comparing floating on a lilo at the beach to rafting across the Pacific. They are essentially the same.

Half the energy of going to the Moon or Mars is getting into Low Earth Orbit.

beach_walker

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Half the energy of going to the Moon or Mars is getting into Low Earth Orbit.

"Once you're in orbit, you're halfway to anywhere." - Robert Heinlein

Joey Jo-Jo Junior

Absolutely. I didn't realise that there were people who were against exploration!

Captain Chaos

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Shoemaker Levy 9 collided with Jupiter in 1994. The plume from the first impact reached 6,000Km. Had this hit Earth with our lower gravity the plume could have been 15,000Km which is greater than earth's diameter. Twenty two more large fragments hit , the biggest was 600 times worse than all the Hydrogen bombs we have.

Space exploration is the only way our species could survive something like that. And make no mistake it's only a matter of time before we get hit. Again.

This is a quote from a recent BBC article on the topic and I think sums it up perfectly.

"This is something for which the natural risk is very low, compared to tsunamis and such. But it's the only one for which we can do something."

We can potentially right now with a few years warning save the planet from the only natural disaster we can do something about. Just need to speed up that mission of asteroid redirection with more funding.

ScumLord

I definitely support people colonising our solar system. I think we need to abandon this traditional idea that we'll go around colonising the planets of the Galaxy though. It's unlikely we'll come across too many planets that can support human life and the ones that can will likely have life on them. That life could be harmful to us but we would sure as sugar be harmful to them. Setting foot on another living planet could causes irreversible damage to it. So I think we'll be spending most of our time studying planets like that from orbit to avoid contamination. So the only reason to leave our solar system is curiosity and resources.

But our own solar system has a bounty of resources and we can build ships/cities that have the ideal conditions for humans. The problem is our current economy just wouldn't work in space. Resources are abundant, once we started mining asteroids just about every rare element could become worthless. Makes it hard for the people with the money to justify spending it on space mining.


I think the big incentive for us to move into the solar system is climate change. Not the minor changes humans are causing but another ice age could hit at any time and make a lot of Europeans homeless. The current climate is a temporary thing. It may stay like this for a thousand years, a hundred years, or decades. But it will change.

Turtwig

Wibbs wrote: »

What now? Stop the lights. How do you figure that? The only way I can see Mars being easier is you can use what atmosphere there is to slow a probe descent with parachutes, though one could argue that this is offset by the need to heat protect the craft when it hits said atmosphere at high speed. You've also higher gravity on Mars to deal with(about half of Earth, compared to the one sixth of Earth of the Moon). More gravity, heavier impacts and higher energy required to land softly. It's also harder to get off Mars if you're planning a return trip as the escape velocity is double that of the Moon. The Moon is a lot closer too. Which helps. I seem to recall that nigh on half of all attempted missions to Mars have failed.

Maybe this idea comes from the post Apollo history of Moon exploration? After Apollo ended, interest in the place waned and the financing dropped off a cliff, whereas Mars was the new thing and more cash and expertise was thrown at it. I would bet anything that if there was the will to land something like the Spirit and Opportunity Mars rovers on the moon, it would be much easier to do and at a far lower cost.

And as for manned missions to either, the Moon is significantly easier. Well when I say easier… It's still one helluva step up from low Earth orbit. LEO is akin to paddling at the beach, socks off, with your trousers rolled up to the knees(do people even do this anymore? I'm old). Going to the moon is like swimming in the sea a hundred yards out and going to mars is like swimming out of sight of land.

What's the difference between trying to stop a train moving at 40 km/h and a car moving at 40km/h? The lighter the vehicle is the easier it is to change it's velocity. In space this is crucial. Tiny tiny tiny! differences in the final dry mass (i.e not fuel) can make huge differences in the amount of Delta V the craft has available to it. The larger the craft's inertia the more fuel that must be burnt to accelerate it. This in turns means you need to get this fuel into orbit in the first place which means even more demanding rocket payload lifter requirements.

Mass also plays a huge roll in landing. The larger the mass on your landing craft the greater the acceleration due to gravity from the body you're landing on will be - and if there's no atmosphere - the more DV you're gonna need to offset against that gravitational pull. The lighter your craft in an atmosphere landing the easier it is to slow your descent. Manned missions will invariably always have more dry mass than an unmanned ones. Add this with the need for return trips and you've just exponentially increased expenses all around the shop!

My point in relation to Mars landing as opposed to the moon was in the sense of a just the landing profile itself. Mars has an atmosphere, albeit a very thin one. SpaceX's dragon capsule is designed to operate as a wing on its descent to generate lift and maximise drag to slow it's descent for landing. Such a thing is just not possible on the moon. Landing requires a greater deal more finesse and DV expense. Taking off from the moon again though is obviously easier.

ScumLord

I never would have thought getting to the moon would be that comparable with getting to Mars. If we did put some sort of base on the moon would there be any way of using it to help slow down craft coming from earth, using lasers or something?

I always assumed the moon was easily accessible we just had no interest in it anymore. It never made sense to me that we'd over look the moon completely for these Mars missions. I thought that the dark side of the moon would be an ideal base for some astronomy labs.

Mellor

ScumLord wrote: »

So the only reason to leave our solar system is curiosity and resources.

Those are hardly the only reasons when you consider that the sun is a ticking timebomb with will most likely destroy the planet in the future. And also the fact that the currently increasing solar energy will move the habitable zone of our solar system a long way past earth. We have to leave or die.

Turtwig

ScumLord wrote: »

I never would have thought getting to the moon would be that comparable with getting to Mars. If we did put some sort of base on the moon would there be any way of using it to help slow down craft coming from earth, using lasers or something?

I always assumed the moon was easily accessible we just had no interest in it anymore. It never made sense to me that we'd over look the moon completely for these Mars missions. I thought that the dark side of the moon would be an ideal base for some astronomy labs.

Whatever we put there would have to decelerate the craft by over1,000 m/s (3600 km/h).

The "dark side" of the moon isn't actually dark. The moon rotation is just periodically locked with the earth so we always see the same face.

silverharp

the superpower arms race turned it into a p1ssing against the wall competition. there was far to much resources put into getting a man to the moon with dubious returns for the "investment" . the unmanned stuff seems to have given a better return for a reasonable cost. let the commercial companies develop the near earth stuff for tourism. Maybe in fifty or a hundred years or so start sending robots out to extract resources from the asteroid belt.

ScumLord

Turtwig wrote: »

Whatever we put there would have to decelerate the craft by over1,000 m/s (3600 km/h).

The "dark side" of the moon isn't actually dark. The moon rotation is just periodically locked with the earth so we always see the same face.

Oh ya. But from the point of view of having a base shielded from the brightness of the sun, and the reflection off earth.. But I suppose it's probably as easy to build an orbiting station rather than deal with the gravity of such a large object.

I wonder would it be possible to put a station orbiting the sun trailing earth's orbit? Or would that station basically be unaccessible to the current crop of spaceships? Are we basically stuck going to planets? Are they pretty essential for getting around the solar system? In the sense that without using their gravity for a sling shot we can't really get around?

Turtwig

ScumLord wrote: »

Oh ya. But from the point of view of having a base shielded from the brightness of the sun, and the reflection off earth.. But I suppose it's probably as easy to build an orbiting station rather than deal with the gravity of such a large object.

I wonder would it be possible to put a station orbiting the sun trailing earth's orbit? Or would that station basically be unaccessible to the current crop of spaceships? Are we basically stuck going to planets? Are they pretty essential for getting around the solar system? In the sense that without using their gravity for a sling shot we can't really get around?

One of the big problems with an orbital moon station is the lack of stability low lunar orbits of the moon have. Perturbations exist in all manner of guises that would require frequent course corrections by the station. The problem with higher orbits is that'd defeat the purpose of being a station for assisting lunar landings.

A station trailing Earth's orbit is possible but ultimately a waste. Rendezvous would be a nightmare to plot. Let alone an efficient one. It would likely be a process of years from launch to the meet. Launch windows would be few an far between too.
Another reason why such a thing would be impractical is that planets and the earth all of their various orbital inclinations. Simply put if you're going to Mars as opposed to Saturn then the angle at which you launch and leave earth (relative to the sun) from will be markedly different. The most efficienct route to Mars would likely never ever see the station.

The exception to rule here are lagrange points. But as these points are so specific it's debatable whether they could be used as fuelling outpost for interplanetary missions. They are super useful for comms and setting up weak boundary transfers that take are fuel efficient but they also take a looooooooooong time. Something not really suited to carrying a human.

I'm not sure what you mean by being stuck to going to planets. We can go anywhere as long as have enough DV to get there. A planets gravitational pull can be used to provide "free" acceleration to a craft. Thus letting the craft keep more of its on board DV.