Report says return to moon isn’t ‘viable’

[Papa_Complex]

Going to the moon is economically viable. It simply isn't economically viable BY ITSELF. If manned exploration of space is to continue, then the moon is the best place to launch from. Gravity is 1/8 of Earth's, so the amount of thrust necessary for launch is smaller. There is some gravity, which makes logistics more simple. It's a solid base making construction and maintenance easier than with a satellite, like the ISS. It has the potential to produce many, if not all of the raw materials needed in order to construct the necessary craft.

Getting back there just makes too much sense NOT to go.

[Kaneman]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Going to the moon is economically viable. It simply isn't economically viable BY ITSELF. If manned exploration of space is to continue, then the moon is the best place to launch from. Gravity is 1/8 of Earth's, so the amount of thrust necessary for launch is smaller. There is some gravity, which makes logistics more simple. It's a solid base making construction and maintenance easier than with a satellite, like the ISS. It has the potential to produce many, if not all of the raw materials needed in order to construct the necessary craft.

Getting back there just makes too much sense NOT to go.

So why don't you guys go on up and get 'er cozy for us?

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Kaneman

So why don't you guys go on up and get 'er cozy for us?

No kidding, why does America have to be the water carrier for space?

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Kaneman

So why don't you guys go on up and get 'er cozy for us?

As usual, an American fails to not that there are already Canadians who are taking part in the effort.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Going to the moon is economically viable. It simply isn't economically viable BY ITSELF. If manned exploration of space is to continue, then the moon is the best place to launch from. Gravity is 1/8 of Earth's, so the amount of thrust necessary for launch is smaller. There is some gravity, which makes logistics more simple. It's a solid base making construction and maintenance easier than with a satellite, like the ISS. It has the potential to produce many, if not all of the raw materials needed in order to construct the necessary craft.

Getting back there just makes too much sense NOT to go.

We aren't going any deeper in to space anytime soon. That being the case, why take the risk and spend the money to set up the logistics required for something we have no plan of currently pursuing?

Maybe someday we will set up a base capable of building vehicles on the moon but I doubt I will see it in my lifetime. It is difficult enough on earth, in an oxygen environment, with hundreds to thousands of people working on it, to safely build an extremely complex spacecraft. Just supporting the number of people required on the moon for a project of this scale with oxygen, water, and food would require an exponential increase in the space program. Building and supporting a manufacturing facility would require investment of a scale never seen before.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

We aren't going any deeper in to space anytime soon. That being the case, why take the risk and spend the money to set up the logistics required for something we have no plan of currently pursuing?

Maybe someday we will set up a base capable of building vehicles on the moon but I doubt I will see it in my lifetime. It is difficult enough on earth, in an oxygen environment, with hundreds to thousands of people working on it, to safely build an extremely complex spacecraft. Just supporting the number of people required on the moon for a project of this scale with oxygen, water, and food would require an exponential increase in the space program. Building and supporting a manufacturing facility would require investment of a scale never seen before.

This discounts two things; automation and telepresence.

It should be an easy sell to the enviro-weenies. "We could move some industrial operations to the airless void, helping us to keep Earth clean."

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

As usual, an American fails to not that there are already Canadians who are taking part in the effort.

I am aware. I am also aware that Canada spends 1/50th of what the US does on their respective civilian space agencies.

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

This discounts two things; automation and telepresence.

It should be an easy sell to the enviro-weenies. "We could move some industrial operations to the airless void, helping us to keep Earth clean."

No it doesn't. You are talking about building spacecraft from raw materials on the moon. That is a process we can only automate to a small degree here on earth. Why would we be able to integrate automation in to the process more in space?

Before any craft is built on the moon it would need to be built on earth. With no plans to do so anytime soon why would we start building the infrastructure required to do it on the moon?

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

I am aware. I am also aware that Canada spends 1/50th of what the US does on their respective civilian space agencies.

More like 1/24 based on 2008 budgets. Roughly a factor of ten can be written off based on population, which means that your per capita spending on space tech is about twice ours.

No it doesn't. You are talking about building spacecraft from raw materials on the moon. That is a process we can only automate to a small degree here on earth. Why would we be able to integrate automation in to the process more in space?

Before any craft is built on the moon it would need to be built on earth. With no plans to do so anytime soon why would we start building the infrastructure required to do it on the moon?

I'm talking about how things would most efficiently work in the future. Currently a factory can turn out cars, with little input from humans. Do you have any idea what telepresence is?

Originally Posted by Apoc

But, its their fault they are poor! And that they dont have health care!

Damned leeches.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

More like 1/24 based on 2008 budgets. Roughly a factor of ten can be written off based on population, which means that your per capita spending on space tech is about twice ours.

The numbers I have seen are about $400 million Canadian for Canada and $17.1 billion for America. That isn't 1/24th.

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

I'm talking about how things would most efficiently work in the future. Currently a factory can turn out cars, with little input from humans. Do you have any idea what telepresence is?

A factory can automate turning out cars because they build hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of them. The more repetition in a process the more it can be automated. There is very little in building space vehicles that is repetitive.

Building a space vehicle requires extremely close tolerances and rechecking those tolerances multiple times. Until telepresence enables someone to turn a torque wrench, use a set of calipers, or manually check circuits it will only have a limited effect on reducing the number of people required to actually be present.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

The numbers I have seen are about $400 million Canadian for Canada and $17.1 billion for America. That isn't 1/24th.

I pulled the numbers for 2008, which stated something like $8B as the NASA budget for that year. Canada's space budget for 2008 was about $350M.

A factory can automate turning out cars because they build hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of them. The more repetition in a process the more it can be automated. There is very little in building space vehicles that is repetitive.

Building a space vehicle requires extremely close tolerances and rechecking those tolerances multiple times. Until telepresence enables someone to turn a torque wrench, use a set of calipers, or manually check circuits it will only have a limited effect on reducing the number of people required to actually be present.

Telepresence allows performing surgery a hundred miles away. It can certainly be used to match sub assemblies. The fine tuning is where the human presence comes in. The point is that you don't need a thousand people on the moon in order to get the job done.

I'm not thinking tomorrow, but rather 50 years in the future.