[QUOTE=Paramud;52969283]The moon actually could provide a lot uses, if it's used correctly. I'm relatively certain Trump just wants someone to carve a giant T into the side of it, though.[/QUOTE]
Even if the moon itself had no resources the research that could be gained by studying humans living in low gravity environments and the modern technology that would be created in to enable humans to live in space would be more than worth it.
[QUOTE=Sitkero;52969049]Why do I get the feeling this is the primary driving factor behind Tinyhands' motivation here[/QUOTE]
That's probably it.
Reading NASA SBIR solicitations this fall, everything was clearly geared towards building technologies for a manned mission to Mars. I work extensively with the additive manufacturing group at GSFC, and everything we've done has been about resource reuse, in-situ fabrication of everything we can, and general improvements to the logistics of deep space missions. It's been a lot of good work that has the potential to be hugely beneficial for Mars missions - and so much less so for lunar missions.
It's not that going to the moon is the worst thing, it's that we're doing so after the agency has been gearing up to do otherwise for quite some time now. Giving their limited budget and need for long term planning, this really fucks with how things can be done and how previous work can be used to satisfy new goals.
When Trump got elected, I was relieved that be left my jobs industry mostly alone. Now he's gone and done something fairly goddamn irritating, and is also hinting at slashing their budget it seems (which puts my job directly at risk)
[editline]12th December 2017[/editline]
To be clear, I think the moon is cool and my current work involves building a better gravity model of the moon and building a better astrodynamics toolkit for lunar missions (using GRAIL mission data). The moon has interesting phenomena, but again it's the fact that this comes at the cost of other goals NASA had that is upsetting. Not all of our work is exactly nullified, but it feels like its less applicable and relevant than it was previously.
[editline]12th December 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=meharryp;52968801]What's the point though? Is there actually anything left to do on the moon?[/QUOTE]
We still don't understand why it's gravity field is so anomalous, and why the Moon's mascons have limited local magnetic fields. The Moon's center of gravity is 2kms off it's geometric center - it's actually got quite a bit of stuff we have yet to learn about it
I can see why.
You see, the USA that was put on the moon in 1969 changed it's colours. It turned white, to be exact.
Now imagine that some aliens are passing by the moon or some scientists observing the moon in the future and what they see is a damn white flag. What would they think of it?
That's right. Snail eaters. Trump cannot give France a satisfaction of claiming the moon as theirs because America first and MAGA#1 and all of that shit.
And that's probably what Trump actually has in mind. Pride.
[QUOTE=Skyward;52969227]Trump just wants to brag about putting a man on the moon, he doesn't give a shit about anything that doesn't puff up his ego.[/QUOTE]
"Quick! What's something that's very difficult to do but we can probably do it because we've already done it before..." - Donald Trump probably.
[QUOTE=Lazore;52968818]I remember a thread a while back where people creamed over the idea of a base on the moon, now yalls hating on trump cause he wants to go there again?[/QUOTE]
This declaration doesn't really change anything - Obama wanted to go Mars, but we're not there yet, Trump wants to go to the moon, like both Bush Sr. and Jr. wanted to, but if the budget isn't there (and it hasn't been for the longest while), these kind of declarations are completely meaningless, no matter the president - and perhaps even harmful; just look at the money sinks that were the constellation program and now the SLS. Pretend mars and moon programs have shown to just draw money away from actual science so far - either the president and congress need to get serious about space, or else they should just let NASA focus on the ISS, robotic exploration and so on.
[QUOTE=meharryp;52968801]What's the point though? Is there actually anything left to do on the moon?[/QUOTE]
IIRC, the Moon has tons and tons of Rare Earth Metals which currently China has almost a world-wide monopoly on.
By opening the door to excavate and mine the moon, we could potentially break China's hold on the materials, not only fueling the economy but pouring in these materials for new technology research.
China has a habit of holding exports to other countries of these things for various reasons and sometimes "just cuz", so it's pretty crucial that the rest of the world gets access to them.
Does this mean NASA gets more money though?
Didn't scientists find a huge cave their recently?
That makes a moon base more feasible since it can naturally shield from space debris.
Hey here's an idea why don't we have the actual scientists set their priorities instead of letting the anti-science orangutan decide?
[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;52969868]Hey here's an idea why don't we have the actual scientists set their priorities instead of letting the anti-science orangutan decide?[/QUOTE]
Because for better or worse, we're a representative democracy, not a technocratic oligarchy.
Why, though? I like space travel as much as the next guy, but would the scientific or economic benefits of another moon landing outweigh the relative benefits of putting those same funds to something that would have a more immediate and critical impact on our lives and planet, such as investing into climate change research, clean energy technologies, or operations to combat the impacts of increased ocean temperatures and acidity?
With this administration fucking gutting our budgets for this kind of critical research, every measure must be considered in terms of it's opportunity cost. Putting money to a dick-enlarging moon landing is fun, but unless it can provide enough tangible benefit to humanity to outweigh the costs of choosing to put that money towards something else, it really doesn't seem worth it.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52969894]Why, though? I like space travel as much as the next guy, but would the scientific or economic benefits of another moon landing outweigh the relative benefits of putting those same funds to something that would have a more immediate and critical impact on our lives and planet, such as investing into climate change research, clean energy technologies, or operations to combat the impacts of increased ocean temperatures and acidity?
With this administration fucking gutting our budgets for this kind of critical research, every measure must be considered in terms of it's opportunity cost. Putting money to a dick-enlarging moon landing is fun, but unless it can provide enough tangible benefit to humanity to outweigh the costs of choosing to put that money towards something else, it really doesn't seem worth it.[/QUOTE]
Well this hurts a bit :(
In general, technologies for space travel can reflect back and help us normal folks out too, though. Here's an example from a tech my company worked on (if anyone doxes me I swear to god): we have a machine that recycles 3D prints back into raw filament to be used again. We're also using a variation of this machine to make sterile tools and utensils that can be recycled - though in that case, we do have to constantly use fresh raw material for the outermost skin of these sterile items. The core, though, is recycled plastic that is 95%+ sterile after we recycle it and purify it. I don't think I have to stretch too far to say there are implications for using that here on Earth, to reduce waste in various fields be it for FOB's for the military (which can make fuckloads of trash) or for making things like disposable utensils that are less wasteful. Or maybe as part of the relief sent to disaster zones or third-world countries.
A lot of the tech being pioneered for the Mars missions was based on the premise of reuse, recycling, and local fabrication. That and lowering waste (i.e, no more wet wipes on the ISS with our tech for making utensils). So it has plenty of potential to help us reduce environmental impact, improve resource reuse, and lower the amount of waste that is actually just waste. Local fabrication could possibly be used more to reduce transport and logistics requirements in manufacturing (stretching a bit here, but w/e), another way to reduce our carbon footprint.
I understand your concern BDA, and that you think we should consider directing funding elsewhere (and why this could make sense). But it can do a lot of harm, in the long run: NASA's work is hard to measure quantitatively for benefits in the short-term, but longer-term it has always been worth the cost. Now is not the time to cut back, as things are already pretty hamstrung as-is. This new directive isn't going to drastically change NASA's internal budgetary allocations: the Orion system is probably fairly well suited for Lunar work, tbh, and wasn't actually intended for mars missions (so that's a significant chunk of cash + R&D we don't have to deal with). I encourage you to read the NASA SBIR solicitations to get an example of the HUGE variety in technology and research that NASA does indirectly, let alone what it all does internally. That document also helps give one a vision of what their vision for things is, so it can be an interesting document to skim through.
[editline]edited[/editline]
i feel like i need a disclaimer about not being a representative of the company and that these are my personal opinions alone, jeese. im a little anxious about making myself (or my place of employment) identifiable :V
[QUOTE=paindoc;52969958]Well this hurts a bit :(
In general, technologies for space travel can reflect back and help us normal folks out too, though. Here's an example from a tech my company worked on (if anyone doxes me I swear to god): we have a machine that recycles 3D prints back into raw filament to be used again. We're also using a variation of this machine to make sterile tools and utensils that can be recycled - though in that case, we do have to constantly use fresh raw material for the outermost skin of these sterile items. The core, though, is recycled plastic that is 95%+ sterile after we recycle it and purify it. I don't think I have to stretch too far to say there are implications for using that here on Earth, to reduce waste in various fields be it for FOB's for the military (which can make fuckloads of trash) or for making things like disposable utensils that are less wasteful. Or maybe as part of the relief sent to disaster zones or third-world countries.
A lot of the tech being pioneered for the Mars missions was based on the premise of reuse, recycling, and local fabrication. That and lowering waste (i.e, no more wet wipes on the ISS with our tech for making utensils). So it has plenty of potential to help us reduce environmental impact, improve resource reuse, and lower the amount of waste that is actually just waste. Local fabrication could possibly be used more to reduce transport and logistics requirements in manufacturing (stretching a bit here, but w/e), another way to reduce our carbon footprint.
I understand your concern BDA, and that you think we should consider directing funding elsewhere (and why this could make sense). But it can do a lot of harm, in the long run: NASA's work is hard to measure quantitatively for benefits in the short-term, but longer-term it has always been worth the cost. Now is not the time to cut back, as things are already pretty hamstrung as-is. This new directive isn't going to drastically change NASA's internal budgetary allocations: the Orion system is probably fairly well suited for Lunar work, tbh, and wasn't actually intended for mars missions (so that's a significant chunk of cash + R&D we don't have to deal with). I encourage you to read the NASA SBIR solicitations to get an example of the HUGE variety in technology and research that NASA does indirectly, let alone what it all does internally. That document also helps give one a vision of what their vision for things is, so it can be an interesting document to skim through.
[editline]edited[/editline]
i feel like i need a disclaimer about not being a representative of the company and that these are my personal opinions alone, jeese. im a little anxious about making myself (or my place of employment) identifiable :V[/QUOTE]
I appreciate the break down, and you definitely raise some good points. I do want to clarify that I'm not trying to say that SHOULDN'T invest in this kind of research, just that the unfortunate reality of this administration's budgetary policy means that many fields of scientific research will suffer, necessitating some ugly and frustrating cuts to critical programs. I definitely agree that some incredible technological breakthroughs have come out through our space programs, and really only meant to imply that we need to weigh the opportunity costs of any research spending right now.
Basically, will the economic or scientific benefits of putting funding towards a moon mission outweight the benefits of putting that money towards some other field of study?
[editline]12th December 2017[/editline]
Or rather, is Trump pushing for a moon landing because it's actually going to provide valuable scientific insight or technological breakthroughs, or is he pushing for a moon landing because it would flatter his ego to know that people went to the moon on his orders?
Did the funding get increased for this or is it the same?
[QUOTE=01271;52970226]Did the funding get increased for this or is it the same?[/QUOTE]
Afaik funding changes won't be feasible until the budget for the 2019 fiscal year, as the one for 2018 is going through congress atm.
Trump also isn't very interested in space it'd seem, so I don't think there's really anything to suggest it won't just be the same old same old with lofty statements and then a timeline that puts the goal so far away that it won't matter.
How is NASA supposed to put a man on the moon with a lemonade stand's budget?
At first I was like this but then I came to understand that the tech just isn't really feasible for setting up a base and shipping ³He back to Earth, as much as Fusion Energy would benefit us, it'd take ages to setup like a shipping lane from the Moon to Earth and back, unless you built one way packages to launch towards Earth.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52970074]I appreciate the break down, and you definitely raise some good points. I do want to clarify that I'm not trying to say that SHOULDN'T invest in this kind of research, just that the unfortunate reality of this administration's budgetary policy means that many fields of scientific research will suffer, necessitating some ugly and frustrating cuts to critical programs. I definitely agree that some incredible technological breakthroughs have come out through our space programs, and really only meant to imply that we need to weigh the opportunity costs of any research spending right now.
Basically, will the economic or scientific benefits of putting funding towards a moon mission outweight the benefits of putting that money towards some other field of study?
[editline]12th December 2017[/editline]
Or rather, is Trump pushing for a moon landing because it's actually going to provide valuable scientific insight or technological breakthroughs, or is he pushing for a moon landing because it would flatter his ego to know that people went to the moon on his orders?[/QUOTE]
Well, it doesn't entirely matter [I]why[/I] he's pushing for it. When that government contractor got fired for flipping off the Trump motorcade people said "well it makes sense, that could jeopardize her job" - which is hardly true in the slightest, because the executive branch is pretty far detached from how funds are allocated and disbursed by agencies.
Its going to be the various departments and flight centers that break down what we need to do to achieve this relatively vague goal into a large quantity of tangible tasks, deliverables, and external subcontracts. You can bet that they'll try to make these as beneficial as they can be, and will consider their own internal long-term visions and plans. In the end
[quote]Or rather, is Trump pushing for a moon landing because it's actually going to provide valuable scientific insight or technological breakthroughs, or is he pushing for a moon landing because it would flatter his ego to know that people went to the moon on his orders?[/quote]
undoubtedly the second bit, given what the recent NY Times article suggested about his initial perceptions of the presidency. We can give him what he desires though, or at least an appearance of what he desired: internally, his direction and demands mean very little. Its really just sort of a masquerade, I'd say.
[editline]12th December 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=GHOST!!!!;52970626]At first I was like this but then I came to understand that the tech just isn't really feasible for setting up a base and shipping ³He back to Earth, as much as Fusion Energy would benefit us, it'd take ages to setup like a shipping lane from the Moon to Earth and back, unless you built one way packages to launch towards Earth.[/QUOTE]
Not to mention that helium-3 and deuterium fusion is a goalpost even further away than the beginning of nuclear fusion: it's one of the harder types of nuclear fusion to pull off, but it does have benefits (namely, it outputs charged particles that can be directly used for thrust). Logistically we could use things like rotovators and momentum-exchange tethers for flinging packages of materials about, though. Those are cheap and have negligible propellant costs relative to how much mass they can move
[QUOTE=Nikita;52970594]How is NASA supposed to put a man on the moon with a lemonade stand's budget?[/QUOTE]
Cheap chinese firecrackers and bottlerockets, duh.
[QUOTE=paindoc;52969958]Well this hurts a bit :(
In general, technologies for space travel can reflect back and help us normal folks out too, though. Here's an example from a tech my company worked on (if anyone doxes me I swear to god): we have a machine that recycles 3D prints back into raw filament to be used again. We're also using a variation of this machine to make sterile tools and utensils that can be recycled - though in that case, we do have to constantly use fresh raw material for the outermost skin of these sterile items. The core, though, is recycled plastic that is 95%+ sterile after we recycle it and purify it. I don't think I have to stretch too far to say there are implications for using that here on Earth, to reduce waste in various fields be it for FOB's for the military (which can make fuckloads of trash) or for making things like disposable utensils that are less wasteful. Or maybe as part of the relief sent to disaster zones or third-world countries.
A lot of the tech being pioneered for the Mars missions was based on the premise of reuse, recycling, and local fabrication. That and lowering waste (i.e, no more wet wipes on the ISS with our tech for making utensils). So it has plenty of potential to help us reduce environmental impact, improve resource reuse, and lower the amount of waste that is actually just waste. Local fabrication could possibly be used more to reduce transport and logistics requirements in manufacturing (stretching a bit here, but w/e), another way to reduce our carbon footprint.
I understand your concern BDA, and that you think we should consider directing funding elsewhere (and why this could make sense). But it can do a lot of harm, in the long run: NASA's work is hard to measure quantitatively for benefits in the short-term, but longer-term it has always been worth the cost. Now is not the time to cut back, as things are already pretty hamstrung as-is. This new directive isn't going to drastically change NASA's internal budgetary allocations: the Orion system is probably fairly well suited for Lunar work, tbh, and wasn't actually intended for mars missions (so that's a significant chunk of cash + R&D we don't have to deal with). I encourage you to read the NASA SBIR solicitations to get an example of the HUGE variety in technology and research that NASA does indirectly, let alone what it all does internally. That document also helps give one a vision of what their vision for things is, so it can be an interesting document to skim through.
[editline]edited[/editline]
i feel like i need a disclaimer about not being a representative of the company and that these are my personal opinions alone, jeese. im a little anxious about making myself (or my place of employment) identifiable :V[/QUOTE]
I'm sure the work done at NASA does contribute to other industries, but does it definitely do so more than a similar level of funding provided to a different field? It's not as if NASA are the only ones innovating.
I'm not about to call for the defunding of NASA, but I don't quite follow why fundings granted to NASA are expected to benefit the average person in the long term, but fundings granted to other fields are not.
[QUOTE=Rufia;52970689]I'm sure the work done at NASA does contribute to other industries, but does it definitely do so more than a similar level of funding provided to a different field? It's not as if NASA are the only ones innovating.
I'm not about to call for the defunding of NASA, but I don't quite follow why fundings granted to NASA are expected to benefit the average person in the long term, but fundings granted to other fields are not.[/QUOTE]
My point wasn't to say that those other fields won't benefit- but various agencies benefit the US in ways that aren't always easy to quantify. I'm fairly certain that the National Forest Service and National Park Service both bring a considerable amount of tourism to the US- thus advancing science and conservation while benefiting local economies. NASA also benefits the economy, with a healthy (last I heard ratio) of 1:10 for tax dollars received vs estimated contribution to economy. Both my claims are vague, though, so I'll have to find sources when I have a chance.
In an ideal world, we could sensibly fund our most beneficial agencies - whether the benefit is humanitarian, financial, or scientific. But this isn't exactly that world :/
In my feverish stupor, I read the title in the context that he wants to ship all the undesirables he doesn't like to the moon.
Shouldnt be spending this kind of money on NASA if our deficit is gonna balloon and the fucker plans on wasting money on the wall. Space travel cool and all but this isn't gonna make any massive strides and there's simply no money in the budget for this.
[QUOTE=cdr248;52983946]Shouldnt be spending this kind of money on NASA if our deficit is gonna balloon and the fucker plans on wasting money on the wall. Space travel cool and all but this isn't gonna make any massive strides and there's simply no money in the budget for this.[/QUOTE]
what about our gigantic military spending
[QUOTE=cdr248;52983946]Shouldnt be spending this kind of money on NASA if our deficit is gonna balloon and the fucker plans on wasting money on the wall. Space travel cool and all but this isn't gonna make any massive strides and there's simply no money in the budget for this.[/QUOTE]
Nah man it's cool we'll just borrow money from Social Security, that's always a hit with the people who depend on it:hiddendowns:
Space is cool but I'd rather the money go towards Puerto Rico or the opioid crisis or maybe mitigation of the effects of climate change
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52984812]Space is cool but I'd rather the money go towards Puerto Rico or the opioid crisis or maybe mitigation of the effects of climate change[/QUOTE]
but didnt you hear? climate change is no longer a threat to national security so we don't need to care anymore :downs:
[QUOTE=cdr248;52983946]Shouldnt be spending this kind of money on NASA if our deficit is gonna balloon and the fucker plans on wasting money on the wall. Space travel cool and all but this isn't gonna make any massive strides and there's simply no money in the budget for this.[/QUOTE]
There's no spending connected this, so Nasa's budget won't "balloon". Pretty sure the military budget is being increased by around 2.5 times nasa's budget next year, so even if they actually increased their budget to accommodate a moon mission, chances are it wouldn't budge anything important.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;52985916]There's no spending connected this, so Nasa's budget won't "balloon". Pretty sure the military budget is being increased by around 2.5 times nasa's budget next year, so even if they actually increased their budget to accommodate a moon mission, chances are it wouldn't budge anything important.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely not, in fact this delays things somewhat. NASA doesnt have a lunar lander or anything on the drawing board to actually carry this out. It took ten years to develope the orion capsule and its not even done yet because the expedited money from the end of the shuttle got burned up in defense spending instead leavig its development underfunded for years. Its like telling columbus to go ahead and set sail but not giving him the money and ships to do it
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;52985916]There's no spending connected this, so Nasa's budget won't "balloon". Pretty sure the military budget is being increased by around 2.5 times nasa's budget next year, so even if they actually increased their budget to accommodate a moon mission, chances are it wouldn't budge anything important.[/QUOTE]
The [I]deficit [/I]is supposed to balloon because of the current tax plan and will probably get worse with the increase in defense (and potentially, Wall) spending. It just doesn't seem like a good time to be looking into manned missions imo.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
