4 ms·

But Apple didn't recreate the same mobile handset as Motorola or anybody else. There is very little value or scientific benefit in going back to the moon within

by skeeter2020 1y ago

But Apple didn't recreate the same mobile handset as Motorola or anybody else. There is very little value or scientific benefit in going back to the moon within the parameters of this mission; it's literally "do the same thing again".

mrheosuper 1y ago
What do you mean "the same thing"? Different rocket, different suits, and different budget. If we want to put people on Mars, we must prove we can put people on Moon, again.
- lkjdsklf 1y ago
  Its also in an entirely different part of the moon, from an entirely different orbit It’s like saying visiting the marianas trench and Everest are the same because they’re both on earth
- bruce511 1y ago
  Putting people on Mars US equally useless. Any colony on Mars would require enormous support from Earth. It would never be self-suffient. Mars would need water, air, energy, raw materials, fuel and everything else for (basically) ever. There is zero to be gained (here) from a Mars colony. Mars lacks a magnetic field, air to breath, water to drink or cultivate crops, a temperature suitable for plant or animal life, fuel sources to build industry, supply chains for the construction or maintainence of the simplest electrical systems. Talk of Mars is purely a PR play. Someone will be first. Yay. But Mars will play no part in Earth's future.
  - xvilka 1y ago
    I think we should aim for Ceres[1] instead, which is way more resources rich compared to Mars for a sustainable colony. And a perfect starting point for exploring the rest of the asteroid belt[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_Ceres https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_Ceres [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_asteroid_belt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_asteroid_b...
- m4rtink 1y ago
  Mars has actually quite different environment to the Moon if you wan't to do surface testing: no atmosphere, different gravity, abrasive dust, different day and year length, different solar constant, etc. For spaxe infrastructure however - sure, stuff mined and manufactured on the Moon can definitely help any planetary missions.
anigbrowl 1y ago
Incredible lack of imagination. If we went back to the moon on the regular we could by now have high resolution cameras permanently installed there pointing back at Earth, sending video in real time. but we have satellites for that High resolution photographs of the entire earth (as opposed to tiny pieces of it) would have a massive positive emotional effect on people. The Earthrise photo's enduring popularity is proof of this. There's water on the Moon; we could have bases there by now, even if they were limited in functionality and size, like the ISS. We could have remote-control or autonomous moon rovers and bipedal robots exploring there 24-7. Instead we have Moon landing denialists one one hand and jaded 'it's just a rock, who cares' nay-sayers on the other.
- m4rtink 1y ago
  There a satellite that does that: https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/ https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/ Well, when US is not running out of money.
- vel0city 1y ago
  > High resolution photographs of the entire earth We already have this, it doesn't require being on the moon. > There's water on the Moon; we could have bases there by now, even if they were limited in functionality and size, like the ISS. The scale of going to the ISS versus the moon is massively different. Most of the research we'd be doing on the moon that isn't just for robots to do like digging in the dirt could still be done on an orbiting space station (like, how to mitigate effects of microgravity on the human body, how to cultivate plants in low gravity, studying microorganisms and chemistry in space, etc.) > We could have remote-control or autonomous moon rovers and bipedal robots exploring there 24-7. This doesn't require a human presence on the moon. We've had nearly uninterrupted robots on Mars for decades and haven't had a human on it. > Instead we have Moon landing denialists one one hand You had moon landing denialists even right after we landed. Us continuing to be on the moon isn't going to get rid of these naysayers. People are arguing the earth is flat, that anthropogenic climate change can't be possible, that the earth is 40,000 years old, and vaccines are mind control agents. I get it would be cool and there probably is some science that could only be done with humans on the moon that I don't know about (I don't know everything, for sure). I think it would do a lot to push our engineering forward to have this kind of constant investment towards operating in space. But outside of being a means to funnel public funds to engineering firms to essentially find cooler ways to burn money I'm not sure it's all worth it. Not saying we shouldn't have a space program! There's still lots we don't know about the universe and lots of cool science to learn. But do we need actual humans on the moon to achieve these goals?

mrheosuper 1y ago

What do you mean "the same thing"? Different rocket, different suits, and different budget. If we want to put people on Mars, we must prove we can put people on Moon, again.

lkjdsklf 1y ago
Its also in an entirely different part of the moon, from an entirely different orbit It’s like saying visiting the marianas trench and Everest are the same because they’re both on earth
bruce511 1y ago
Putting people on Mars US equally useless. Any colony on Mars would require enormous support from Earth. It would never be self-suffient. Mars would need water, air, energy, raw materials, fuel and everything else for (basically) ever. There is zero to be gained (here) from a Mars colony. Mars lacks a magnetic field, air to breath, water to drink or cultivate crops, a temperature suitable for plant or animal life, fuel sources to build industry, supply chains for the construction or maintainence of the simplest electrical systems. Talk of Mars is purely a PR play. Someone will be first. Yay. But Mars will play no part in Earth's future.
- xvilka 1y ago
  I think we should aim for Ceres[1] instead, which is way more resources rich compared to Mars for a sustainable colony. And a perfect starting point for exploring the rest of the asteroid belt[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_Ceres https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_Ceres [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_asteroid_belt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_asteroid_b...
m4rtink 1y ago
Mars has actually quite different environment to the Moon if you wan't to do surface testing: no atmosphere, different gravity, abrasive dust, different day and year length, different solar constant, etc. For spaxe infrastructure however - sure, stuff mined and manufactured on the Moon can definitely help any planetary missions.

anigbrowl 1y ago

Incredible lack of imagination. If we went back to the moon on the regular we could by now have high resolution cameras permanently installed there pointing back at Earth, sending video in real time. but we have satellites for that High resolution photographs of the entire earth (as opposed to tiny pieces of it) would have a massive positive emotional effect on people. The Earthrise photo's enduring popularity is proof of this. There's water on the Moon; we could have bases there by now, even if they were limited in functionality and size, like the ISS. We could have remote-control or autonomous moon rovers and bipedal robots exploring there 24-7. Instead we have Moon landing denialists one one hand and jaded 'it's just a rock, who cares' nay-sayers on the other.

m4rtink 1y ago
There a satellite that does that: https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/ https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/ Well, when US is not running out of money.
vel0city 1y ago
> High resolution photographs of the entire earth We already have this, it doesn't require being on the moon. > There's water on the Moon; we could have bases there by now, even if they were limited in functionality and size, like the ISS. The scale of going to the ISS versus the moon is massively different. Most of the research we'd be doing on the moon that isn't just for robots to do like digging in the dirt could still be done on an orbiting space station (like, how to mitigate effects of microgravity on the human body, how to cultivate plants in low gravity, studying microorganisms and chemistry in space, etc.) > We could have remote-control or autonomous moon rovers and bipedal robots exploring there 24-7. This doesn't require a human presence on the moon. We've had nearly uninterrupted robots on Mars for decades and haven't had a human on it. > Instead we have Moon landing denialists one one hand You had moon landing denialists even right after we landed. Us continuing to be on the moon isn't going to get rid of these naysayers. People are arguing the earth is flat, that anthropogenic climate change can't be possible, that the earth is 40,000 years old, and vaccines are mind control agents. I get it would be cool and there probably is some science that could only be done with humans on the moon that I don't know about (I don't know everything, for sure). I think it would do a lot to push our engineering forward to have this kind of constant investment towards operating in space. But outside of being a means to funnel public funds to engineering firms to essentially find cooler ways to burn money I'm not sure it's all worth it. Not saying we shouldn't have a space program! There's still lots we don't know about the universe and lots of cool science to learn. But do we need actual humans on the moon to achieve these goals?