By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - First mission to bring back samples from the moon since 1976 started successfully

Tagged games:

The moon is a stepping stone to the next real breakthrough; Mars.

Earlier this year NASA unveiled plans for a moon-orbiting space station, dubbed "Gateway", that will serve as a testbed for long-duration space missions such as reaching the Red Planet.

https://www.space.com/nasa-plans-artemis-moon-base-beyond-2024.html

As to how this benefits humanity back home, our long term survival as a species is dependent on reaching beyond the Earth. Our planet, at least in so far as it can support our continued existence, is finite and vulnerable. We cannot rely on it forever, especially the way we're going. We need to go beyond this one small island in the celestial sea and become a spacefaring civilization in order for humanity to flourish.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 24 November 2020

Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

Around the Network
Ka-pi96 said:

Where's the positive news?

Billions of dollars wasted to get a piece of rock while millions of people around the world live in abject poverty? Even if there were any decent scientific progress made from this I'd have to question whether it was worth it. But I doubt there will be. Going to the moon is just for "bragging rights" and to me spending billions of dollars of tax payer money for "bragging rights" is a reprehensible thing to do.

Most scientifical achievements came from projects that had nothing to do with it (Example: Antibiotics).

Not to mention that, for the more applicable scientific projects to grow, they need data and progress done in every field. Space will be an essencial place for humanity to thrive in the not so long future.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

Ka-pi96 said:
vivster said:

That is way too simplistic. While astronomy and astrophysics is the most boring field imaginable it still has brought us plenty of advances on earth and it will continue to do so.

It's wrong to say that the money is wasted. Scientific progress is absolutely necessary. The money to feed the poor is wasted elsewhere. Chastising scientists for using money for science instead of the poor is just like chastising the middle class for not donating to good causes. It's not their or our job to feed the poor. The money and manpower for that is elsewhere.

Except it's not scientists using their own money. It's the government using taxpayer money for this and it absolutely is their job to help the poor people in the country.

Some of those launchesd, and everything involved with it, are partially funded by private companies(Space X). Others is fully founded by companies. So it's not as simple as that.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

curl-6 said:

The moon is a stepping stone to the next real breakthrough; Mars.

Earlier this year NASA unveiled plans for a moon-orbiting space station, dubbed "Gateway", that will serve as a testbed for long-duration space missions such as reaching the Red Planet.

https://www.space.com/nasa-plans-artemis-moon-base-beyond-2024.html

As to how this benefits humanity back home, our long term survival as a species is dependent on reaching beyond the Earth. Our planet, at least in so far as it can support our continued existence, is finite and vulnerable. We cannot rely on it forever, especially the way we're going. We need to go beyond this one small island in the celestial sea and become a spacefaring civilization in order for humanity to flourish.

It makes more sense to spend the time and money on fusion power plants and ways to accelerate the move to a hydrogen fuel cell economy, instead of using fossil fuels to fly to the moon. Without that kinda tech we're not going anywhere on Mars.

But sure, both can be done at the same time, while a lot more needs to be done before letting humans lose to destroy new planets. If we can't survive on Earth in the long run, we certainly won't survive on Mars.



SvennoJ said:
curl-6 said:

The moon is a stepping stone to the next real breakthrough; Mars.

Earlier this year NASA unveiled plans for a moon-orbiting space station, dubbed "Gateway", that will serve as a testbed for long-duration space missions such as reaching the Red Planet.

https://www.space.com/nasa-plans-artemis-moon-base-beyond-2024.html

As to how this benefits humanity back home, our long term survival as a species is dependent on reaching beyond the Earth. Our planet, at least in so far as it can support our continued existence, is finite and vulnerable. We cannot rely on it forever, especially the way we're going. We need to go beyond this one small island in the celestial sea and become a spacefaring civilization in order for humanity to flourish.

It makes more sense to spend the time and money on fusion power plants and ways to accelerate the move to a hydrogen fuel cell economy, instead of using fossil fuels to fly to the moon. Without that kinda tech we're not going anywhere on Mars.

But sure, both can be done at the same time, while a lot more needs to be done before letting humans lose to destroy new planets. If we can't survive on Earth in the long run, we certainly won't survive on Mars.

Liquid hydrogen is not a fossil fuel.  But, while using it only takes 3 days to get to the moon, it's use would take 6 months to get to Mars, and even

longer to get back to the Earth.  The fastest and best way to get to Mars, is with a nuclear rocket engine, it could be either nuclear thermal or nuclear electric.



Around the Network
Nighthawk117 said:
SvennoJ said:

It makes more sense to spend the time and money on fusion power plants and ways to accelerate the move to a hydrogen fuel cell economy, instead of using fossil fuels to fly to the moon. Without that kinda tech we're not going anywhere on Mars.

But sure, both can be done at the same time, while a lot more needs to be done before letting humans lose to destroy new planets. If we can't survive on Earth in the long run, we certainly won't survive on Mars.

Liquid hydrogen is not a fossil fuel.  But, while using it only takes 3 days to get to the moon, it's use would take 6 months to get to Mars, and even

longer to get back to the Earth.  The fastest and best way to get to Mars, is with a nuclear rocket engine, it could be either nuclear thermal or nuclear electric.

All the more reason to speed up transition to a hydrogen fuel cell economy :)
Nuclear fusion to get to Mars would work as well.

Nasa might not use fossil fuels to fly (SpaceX does), yet a whole lot of energy goes into making the liquid hydrogen. Nuclear fusion is the future, yet we hardly ever hear anything about it. How are those test plants doing in France and India.



SvennoJ said:
Nighthawk117 said:

Liquid hydrogen is not a fossil fuel.  But, while using it only takes 3 days to get to the moon, it's use would take 6 months to get to Mars, and even

longer to get back to the Earth.  The fastest and best way to get to Mars, is with a nuclear rocket engine, it could be either nuclear thermal or nuclear electric.

All the more reason to speed up transition to a hydrogen fuel cell economy :)
Nuclear fusion to get to Mars would work as well.

Nasa might not use fossil fuels to fly (SpaceX does), yet a whole lot of energy goes into making the liquid hydrogen. Nuclear fusion is the future, yet we hardly ever hear anything about it. How are those test plants doing in France and India.

Yes, you are right that SpaceX does use fossil fuel to power its Falcon 9 rocket - it's called RP-1, and it's a highly refined form of kerosene.

A nuclear fission rocket engine will be available sooner than a nuclear fusion engine.  Nuclear fission has been around since the 40s, nuclear fusion, on the other hand, still does not exist.  The ITER reactor being built in Cadarache, France won't achieve first plasma until Dec. 2025. But, that thing is awesome!



Nighthawk117 said:
SvennoJ said:

All the more reason to speed up transition to a hydrogen fuel cell economy :)
Nuclear fusion to get to Mars would work as well.

Nasa might not use fossil fuels to fly (SpaceX does), yet a whole lot of energy goes into making the liquid hydrogen. Nuclear fusion is the future, yet we hardly ever hear anything about it. How are those test plants doing in France and India.

Yes, you are right that SpaceX does use fossil fuel to power its Falcon 9 rocket - it's called RP-1, and it's a highly refined form of kerosene.

A nuclear fission rocket engine will be available sooner than a nuclear fusion engine.  Nuclear fission has been around since the 40s, nuclear fusion, on the other hand, still does not exist.  The ITER reactor being built in Cadarache, France won't achieve first plasma until Dec. 2025. But, that thing is awesome!

True, submarines have been nuclear powered since 1955. There must be a reason NASA hasn't jumped on that ship yet. Maybe it's all a PR problem or all the shaking during launch isn't very good for nuclear engines.

Ah I see they just got back on track. Scrapped in 1970, $125 million granted in 2019 to continue with the nuclear rocket program. Nice.



SvennoJ said:
Nighthawk117 said:

Yes, you are right that SpaceX does use fossil fuel to power its Falcon 9 rocket - it's called RP-1, and it's a highly refined form of kerosene.

A nuclear fission rocket engine will be available sooner than a nuclear fusion engine.  Nuclear fission has been around since the 40s, nuclear fusion, on the other hand, still does not exist.  The ITER reactor being built in Cadarache, France won't achieve first plasma until Dec. 2025. But, that thing is awesome!

True, submarines have been nuclear powered since 1955. There must be a reason NASA hasn't jumped on that ship yet. Maybe it's all a PR problem or all the shaking during launch isn't very good for nuclear engines.

Ah I see they just got back on track. Scrapped in 1970, $125 million granted in 2019 to continue with the nuclear rocket program. Nice.

Yes, the NERVA program ended around 1970.  They had the Prometheus program in the 80s or 90s.  Not sure what the new name is now.

You don't want a nuclear powered rocket to get you off the Earth - hell people are scared enough of RTGs.  You want chemical rocket engines to get you off the Earth, but to go from Earth orbit to deep space, a nuclear powered engine is far away, the most efficient way to travel.



SvennoJ said:
curl-6 said:

The moon is a stepping stone to the next real breakthrough; Mars.

Earlier this year NASA unveiled plans for a moon-orbiting space station, dubbed "Gateway", that will serve as a testbed for long-duration space missions such as reaching the Red Planet.

https://www.space.com/nasa-plans-artemis-moon-base-beyond-2024.html

As to how this benefits humanity back home, our long term survival as a species is dependent on reaching beyond the Earth. Our planet, at least in so far as it can support our continued existence, is finite and vulnerable. We cannot rely on it forever, especially the way we're going. We need to go beyond this one small island in the celestial sea and become a spacefaring civilization in order for humanity to flourish.

It makes more sense to spend the time and money on fusion power plants and ways to accelerate the move to a hydrogen fuel cell economy, instead of using fossil fuels to fly to the moon. Without that kinda tech we're not going anywhere on Mars.

But sure, both can be done at the same time, while a lot more needs to be done before letting humans lose to destroy new planets. If we can't survive on Earth in the long run, we certainly won't survive on Mars.

I completely agree that we must transition away from fossil fuels as much as possible and work on becoming energy-sustainable. That too is essential to our long term survival.

We need to do both if we still want to be around in another, say, 100,000 years, at least as an advanced civilization. 



Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.