5 ms·

This would be so great - a "changing of the guard" of sorts ... If only Apollo hadn't lost momentum ...

ToucanLoucan 1y ago
I mean it's not so much that they lost momentum as there's just... not a ton of good reasons to go to the moon. It's a long, incredibly dangerous trip and there's just not much there. Same reason we've never sent people to Mars, it's even more complicated, magnitudes more dangerous, and what exactly are we accomplishing in doing so...? Nothin there.
- snozolli 1y ago
  George W. Bush called for a permanent moon base back in '04. The primary motivator, from what I recall, was as a launching point for Mars exploration. https://www.npr.org/2004/01/15/1597182/bush-calls-for-manned-base-on-the-moon https://www.npr.org/2004/01/15/1597182/bush-calls-for-manned... The timeline is pretty entertaining and a bit depressing, if you wanted to see the plan succeed: ... By 2014: The first manned mission for the Crew Exploration Vehicle. By 2015: Astronauts will land on the moon using the Crew Exploration Vehicle. By 2020: The United States will have established an extended human presence on the moon, using it as a launching pad for other manned exploration missions. As for why, 1) to ensure the survival of humanity, 2) to drive scientific development and 3) because it's there.
  - JKCalhoun 1y ago
    I like the optimism of 1970: https://i0.wp.com/newspaceeconomy.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/19700026519-103-1.jpg?resize=1024%2C780&quality=89&ssl=1 https://i0.wp.com/newspaceeconomy.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024... https://i0.wp.com/newspaceeconomy.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/19700026519-105-1.jpg?resize=1024%2C780&quality=89&ssl=1 https://i0.wp.com/newspaceeconomy.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024...
  - bruce511 1y ago
    1) no base on the moon (or mars) has the potential to be earth independent. If earth loses the ability to resupply the base dies. 2) science on earth drives scientific development. The fields of science best done on the moon are insanely narrow. All of the scientific advancements from Apollo etc were from building stuff to get there, not being there. Yes we could collect, and study, more moon rocks. But outside of that theres not much to study (that can't be better studied on earth or in LEO). The cost of study on the moon is a few orders of magnitude higher than LEO which in turn is a few extra zeros from study on earth. I'll add that right now budgets for study on earth have been slashed. There's a lot more value to be gained spending that moon money here. 3) this argument is irrefutable. It's also pretty weak when appropriations are discussed. Apollo got killed because "been there, done that" with next to no reoccurring value. Space has given us huge value. Mostly in LEO. GPS, Weather, Communications, satellite TV. Plus further out, Hubble, James Web, and probes like Voyager et al feed us data. This is the legacy of Apollo. Moon bases? Mars Bases? They make no scientific or financial sense.
    - wafflemaker 1y ago
      Check out dV by Daniel Suarez (actually the sequel, Critical Mass, is about a Lunar Base). SPOILERS AHEAD ### ### ### To say it briefly, a base on the moon could solve the climate and energy crisises. Longer version. Think of Earth's gravity well. It's the obstacle to any significant space infrastructure. Anything of matter can't be built on LEO, with resources shot from , because it would destroy Earth's atmosphere. Unlike resources in Lunar regolith (sand on moon). Moons gravity is much lower and there is no atmosphere. Harder to land than on Earth, It's just that we would need a significant amount of mass to jumpstart Moon excavation.
    - snozolli 1y ago
      no base on the moon (or mars) has the potential to be earth independent. I see no reason that a Mars base couldn't eventually be entirely self-sustaining. More importantly, the challenges drive the innovation necessary to make humanity a spacefaring species, which is necessary to ensure the survival of humanity. The fields of science best done on the moon are insanely narrow. Nobody said anything about science on the moon. Again, the challenge drives innovation. All of the scientific advancements from Apollo etc were from building stuff to get there, not being there. So you already understood the point I was making, yet you decided to argue against a complete straw man instead?! The point of a moon base as a stepping stone to Mars habitation -- again, from 20 year old memories of articles -- is in studying the real-world, long-term effects on humans of living off-Earth, as well as a low-gravity environment in which to assemble the sort of large ship required to move humans such a long distance.
- Larrikin 1y ago
  There are multiple seasons of a really good show called For All Mankind that basically has a rebuttal to your argument for every single decade in history since the first moon landing. You should check it out as it is really well written.
- bregma 1y ago
  "We choose NOT to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."

I mean it's not so much that they lost momentum as there's just... not a ton of good reasons to go to the moon. It's a long, incredibly dangerous trip and there's just not much there. Same reason we've never sent people to Mars, it's even more complicated, magnitudes more dangerous, and what exactly are we accomplishing in doing so...? Nothin there.

snozolli 1y ago
George W. Bush called for a permanent moon base back in '04. The primary motivator, from what I recall, was as a launching point for Mars exploration. https://www.npr.org/2004/01/15/1597182/bush-calls-for-manned-base-on-the-moon https://www.npr.org/2004/01/15/1597182/bush-calls-for-manned... The timeline is pretty entertaining and a bit depressing, if you wanted to see the plan succeed: ... By 2014: The first manned mission for the Crew Exploration Vehicle. By 2015: Astronauts will land on the moon using the Crew Exploration Vehicle. By 2020: The United States will have established an extended human presence on the moon, using it as a launching pad for other manned exploration missions. As for why, 1) to ensure the survival of humanity, 2) to drive scientific development and 3) because it's there.
- JKCalhoun 1y ago
  I like the optimism of 1970: https://i0.wp.com/newspaceeconomy.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/19700026519-103-1.jpg?resize=1024%2C780&quality=89&ssl=1 https://i0.wp.com/newspaceeconomy.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024... https://i0.wp.com/newspaceeconomy.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/19700026519-105-1.jpg?resize=1024%2C780&quality=89&ssl=1 https://i0.wp.com/newspaceeconomy.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024...
- bruce511 1y ago
  1) no base on the moon (or mars) has the potential to be earth independent. If earth loses the ability to resupply the base dies. 2) science on earth drives scientific development. The fields of science best done on the moon are insanely narrow. All of the scientific advancements from Apollo etc were from building stuff to get there, not being there. Yes we could collect, and study, more moon rocks. But outside of that theres not much to study (that can't be better studied on earth or in LEO). The cost of study on the moon is a few orders of magnitude higher than LEO which in turn is a few extra zeros from study on earth. I'll add that right now budgets for study on earth have been slashed. There's a lot more value to be gained spending that moon money here. 3) this argument is irrefutable. It's also pretty weak when appropriations are discussed. Apollo got killed because "been there, done that" with next to no reoccurring value. Space has given us huge value. Mostly in LEO. GPS, Weather, Communications, satellite TV. Plus further out, Hubble, James Web, and probes like Voyager et al feed us data. This is the legacy of Apollo. Moon bases? Mars Bases? They make no scientific or financial sense.
  - wafflemaker 1y ago
    Check out dV by Daniel Suarez (actually the sequel, Critical Mass, is about a Lunar Base). SPOILERS AHEAD ### ### ### To say it briefly, a base on the moon could solve the climate and energy crisises. Longer version. Think of Earth's gravity well. It's the obstacle to any significant space infrastructure. Anything of matter can't be built on LEO, with resources shot from , because it would destroy Earth's atmosphere. Unlike resources in Lunar regolith (sand on moon). Moons gravity is much lower and there is no atmosphere. Harder to land than on Earth, It's just that we would need a significant amount of mass to jumpstart Moon excavation.
  - snozolli 1y ago
    no base on the moon (or mars) has the potential to be earth independent. I see no reason that a Mars base couldn't eventually be entirely self-sustaining. More importantly, the challenges drive the innovation necessary to make humanity a spacefaring species, which is necessary to ensure the survival of humanity. The fields of science best done on the moon are insanely narrow. Nobody said anything about science on the moon. Again, the challenge drives innovation. All of the scientific advancements from Apollo etc were from building stuff to get there, not being there. So you already understood the point I was making, yet you decided to argue against a complete straw man instead?! The point of a moon base as a stepping stone to Mars habitation -- again, from 20 year old memories of articles -- is in studying the real-world, long-term effects on humans of living off-Earth, as well as a low-gravity environment in which to assemble the sort of large ship required to move humans such a long distance.
Larrikin 1y ago
There are multiple seasons of a really good show called For All Mankind that basically has a rebuttal to your argument for every single decade in history since the first moon landing. You should check it out as it is really well written.
bregma 1y ago
"We choose NOT to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."