45 years since the last Moon Mission/Trump signs Space Policy Directive

we may not have time for way after. a part of space exploration is finding solutions to problems on earth. There will be no shortage of reasons to not go out into space if you try to look for them. We shouldn't explore space until we explore the ocean, we shouldn't explore the ocean until no one in the USA is homeless, we shouldn't explore the ocean until we solve world hunger etc. There were people who protested the apollo moon mission because they felt it was a waste of money but those people have been proven utterly wrong with all the advancements we made because of what was a a small drop in the bucket of government spending.

On top of that I feel that we are settling for less by prioritizing one and then completely neglecting the other. I think we can explore the ocean and space. Technically we are already doing that. The problem is people want one beneficial approach to completely cannibalize the other such as Ocean exploration > space exploration when the money for both is readily available through proper government spending. If you want to explore the oceans, don't nip space exploration in the bud. Go after military spending.

There is also the interest element. Nothing will bring greatest minds and general public support like a mars mission. Nothing will motivate people intrinsically on the same level to become engineers, astronauts, scientists than a manned mission to mars and beyond. If you tell a kid about exploring the ocean vs getting strapped to a rocket and hurled out into space and then land on an asteroid or mars, hes gonna take astronaut over deep ocean diver any day. This extends to adults generally too.

in regards to europan life, we have the full right to study the life there and explore that moon and its ocean. The earth is our home, the solar system is our back yard.
It seems to me that we could produce a much greater frequency of hostile environmental experiments beneath the ocean because it is vastly closer than mars. I dont have any problem with space exploration as long as we dont interfere with life on other planets. There are many scuba divers and people love it so I do not agree that space travel automatically would be more popular, though there are obviously greater barriers to entry for astronauts. If technology advances through experimentation then it stands to reason that the location of the experiments is not the vital point, and due to the proximity of the ocean you could be advancing technology infinitely faster through testing your methods beneath the sea which would transition nicely into an easier path to mars and so on. As far as goverment spending goes, isn't Musk's space program privately funded? We don't really have a say in what our tax dollars are spent on so I don't think it's practical to take that stance or rely on appropriate allocation of monies by the government. What I mean is that with the two options for rulers that we had in the last election do you think either would not have approved the 19 billion dollar nasa budget for 2018? I am not without imagination and I'm not here to hate on the idea of space travel but I do think that it's interest has been disproportionatley prompted by popular culture and may not be the most pertinent form of exploration at this time. And I also don't presume that I am right about any of this in case you were wondering.
 
My opinion on this is that we should explore the entirety of the Earth before venturing further i to space. Less than 5 or 6% of the ocean floor has been explored and I think resources could be more appropriatley applied in that realm. I am not a huge fan of the Mars exploration because it is a mostly if not entirely dead planet and it seems like science fiction driven vanity that prompts the interest. I have a totally unsubstantiated idea that the table of elements will be expanded if we ever explore the entire ocean and the subterranean layers of Earth. Why exactly do you think going to Mars is worthwhile?

Well the sooner we establish independent colonies on other planets the better, until we do the human race always faces the possibility of extinction, only takes one cataclysmic event to wipe us out.
 
It must be hard living with a mental deficiency, because I went exactly into the reasons why I thought it was a stupid idea and none of them involved Trump. How you managed to parse that I just hate it because Trump is doing it is the height of being a fucking retard.
Suuuuuuure budddddy suuuuuuuuure.
 
I am just wondering as someone that believes the future of humankind lies in the stars. Is going back to the moon right now a good decision?
Doesn't really have anything to do with Trump. I just think we are at a stage were the available resources would be better spend on other things than manning a mission to the moon.

But I might be wrong if this gets people excited again about space. And gets a private buisnes/tourism going. I have no problem giving credit for it to the Donald.
In my limited opinion, I just feel it's not the right time the money could be spent better on getting a more efficient propulsion system for example.
You have to go to space to be able to get better at space. We need to land at places and we need to practice setting up for future endeavors. I think we need to set Up a colony for future launches to places like Mars. No better place than to scratch the surface on moon.
 
Suuuuuuure budddddy suuuuuuuuure.

Color me surprised, independently established opinions are a foreign concept to you. It should have been obvious since you're locked into the Dolan human centipede, but it's always nice to have confirmation.

Everybody knows you never go full retard.
 
It seems to me that we could produce a much greater frequency of hostile environmental experiments beneath the ocean because it is vastly closer than mars. I dont have any problem with space exploration as long as we dont interfere with life on other planets. There are many scuba divers and people love it so I do not agree that space travel automatically would be more popular, though there are obviously greater barriers to entry for astronauts. If technology advances through experimentation then it stands to reason that the location of the experiments is not the vital point, and due to the proximity of the ocean you could be advancing technology infinitely faster through testing your methods beneath the sea which would transition nicely into an easier path to mars and so on. As far as goverment spending goes, isn't Musk's space program privately funded? We don't really have a say in what our tax dollars are spent on so I don't think it's practical to take that stance or rely on appropriate allocation of monies by the government. What I mean is that with the two options for rulers that we had in the last election do you think either would not have approved the 19 billion dollar nasa budget for 2018? I am not without imagination and I'm not here to hate on the idea of space travel but I do think that it's interest has been disproportionatley prompted by popular culture and may not be the most pertinent form of exploration at this time. And I also don't presume that I am right about any of this in case you were wondering.

no you can't. Because the ocean is just not as hostile as mars. The hostility of Mars is not just the environment but how far away and inaccessible it is to get help. You're on your own. Yes there are many scuba divers but you kind of contradicted yourself when you mentioned that the funding for space is more and more private. Where is the private ocean exploration companies and why aren't they as well known? because the interest and sense of wonder doesn't compare to space. Neither do the possibilities.

Say in the future you made a statement that we have now explored 50% or even 90% or even 100% or whatever of the ocean while I say we have a permanent mars and moon base and we are looking to explore the oceans of Europa and are looking to setup unmanned bases around the solar system that can resupply craft. We have know more about the sun, the formation of the earth, moon, the other planets etc. Honestly, the ocean does not compare.
 
Color me surprised, independently established opinions are a foreign concept to you. It should have been obvious since you're locked into the Dolan human centipede, but it's always nice to have confirmation.

Everybody knows you never go full retard.
Ok. Well your opinion is wrong.

More space adventures including the Moon is a good thing for the advancement of our kind.

I wish to be on Elysium before my doom.
 
Ok. Well your opinion is wrong.

More space adventures including the Moon is a good thing for the advancement of our kind.

I wish to be on Elysium before my doom.

Hey, while we're at it, why don't we discover America or colonize Australia? Y'know, since we're doing shit we already did instead of making new discoveries.

And while we're doing shit we already did, definitely be sure to figure out how the hell we expect to land on the moon with the SLS. I mean, it's just another decade of having no operational manned space program at all while we put that boondoggle together, but hey, muh moooon.
 
Hey, while we're at it, why don't we discover America or colonize Australia? Y'know, since we're doing shit we already did instead of making new discoveries.

And while we're doing shit we already did, definitely be sure to figure out how the hell we expect to land on the moon with the SLS. I mean, it's just another decade of having no operational manned space program at all while we put that boondoggle together, but hey, muh moooon.
Apples to oranges. Would have thought you'd be able to understand that.

I'm surprised you're so close minded on this issue. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised because this would glorify Trump and that's a no no for your ilk. But go on and keep spearing the rhetoric that we don't need to dip back into space very very comedic.
 
no you can't. Because the ocean is just not as hostile as mars. The hostility of Mars is not just the environment but how far away and inaccessible it is to get help. You're on your own. Yes there are many scuba divers but you kind of contradicted yourself when you mentioned that the funding for space is more and more private. Where is the private ocean exploration companies and why aren't they as well known? because the interest and sense of wonder doesn't compare to space. Neither do the possibilities.

Say in the future you made a statement that we have now explored 50% or even 90% or even 100% or whatever of the ocean while I say we have a permanent mars and moon base and we are looking to explore the oceans of Europa and are looking to setup unmanned bases around the solar system that can resupply craft. We have know more about the sun, the formation of the earth, moon, the other planets etc. Honestly, the ocean does not compare.
I disagree that a greater frequency of hostile environment experiements cannot be undertaken on earth if your main point is the distance, and if Europa is the target then it's an ideal test site. As far as survival on mars, I see the value based on the fact that is a nearby planet we can travel to but the expenditure of energy required to survive on a planet not capable of sustaining human life on its own it too much in for too little out. If we were to travel to another planet for our own survival would it not be to a planet capable of sustaining human life? If so, would not human or similar life not evolve their on its own and therefore we have zero right to be there (in terms of a colony)? If the modern world had grown up with more stories and films about the potential for deep sea exploration, not that it was completely absent, instead of thousands of media forms involving the glory of outer space I think the private sector would be much more interested. The wonder of the deep sea is vast, as is deep space. I see one as beneficial to the other but at the same time more feasible, imagine the greater number of humans that could be involved in local rather than stellar exploration. Good conversation by the way
 
Apples to oranges. Would have thought you'd be able to understand that.

I'm surprised you're so close minded on this issue. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised because this would glorify Trump and that's a no no for your ilk. But go on and keep spearing the rhetoric that we don't need to dip back into space very very comedic.

Considering that you're incapable of addressing anything beyond "you're mad at Trump" and "muh moon", you're exactly the lowest common denominator that eats shit like this up.
 
Here is a fun fact. When Lockheed Martin started working on going back to the Moon, it found out that we no longer knew how to do it. When the Apollo missions were over we put all the data, calculations etc into a warehouse. Much of it was paper. It sat there until the early 2000s and about a quarter of the data was lost from cockroaches rats etc. and had to be reproduced. That took years. I always thought if this was common knowledge it would give conspiracy people fuel.
 
Considering that you're incapable of addressing anything beyond "you're mad at Trump" and "muh moon", you're exactly the lowest common denominator that eats shit like this up.
I addressed and stated why we need more space travel and a moon landing. You're low comprehension can't get beyond I butt-rustled you with that Trump/Obama comment so you are straying from the actual conversation and attacking with those weird "muh" (I'm not black) conjecture.

Your reasoning for us not going to the moon sucks and is flawed beyond belief. The only logical reason I can come up with is that because Trump is involved, you're mad. Or you're really really stupid and anti-science.

ctuLrws.gif
 
I disagree that a greater frequency of hostile environment experiements cannot be undertaken on earth if your main point is the distance, and if Europa is the target then it's an ideal test site.

if you want to do ocean testing for a europa mission, that is not the same as exploring the ocean for the sake of exploring the ocean because obviously if we say we want a europa explorer, we are going to test it on our ocean first but this is not the same thing as a comprehensive effort to explore the ocean. That is like how we are currently doing tests with astronauts for mars on deserts on earth.

As far as survival on mars, I see the value based on the fact that is a nearby planet we can travel to but the expenditure of energy required to survive on a planet not capable of sustaining human life on its own it too much in for too little out.

Nobody said anything about us as in general public living on mars (at least not for the foreseeable future) but on us having a permanent Mars base for research. The more trips you do between earth and mars, the better you get at putting people there, the better your rocket tech, your robotics get. The better your medicine etc gets on keeping the people on that base alive. You may be able to find a way to get cryo sleep for the long trips. Better fire control, radiation protection, communications, better Food growing methods, better aircraft, better spacecraft, research into gravity etc. If at the end of this process and a century later or whatever we have the ability to have small towns on Mars to support those places then that is a bonus.

If we were to travel to another planet for our own survival would it not be to a planet capable of sustaining human life? If so, would not human or similar life not evolve their on its own and therefore we have zero right to be there (in terms of a colony)? If the modern world had grown up with more stories and films about the potential for deep sea exploration, not that it was completely absent, instead of thousands of media forms involving the glory of outer space I think the private sector would be much more interested.

we have every right to be on a planet that is not already inhabited by another civilization. Just as we had every right to create ships to colonize the Polynesian islands, Australia, New Zealand. I'm not sure why you think we don't have the right to go to other planets and why this doesn't extend to the deep ocean where no humans have ever been before.

Furthermore, we did have a period of ocean exploration attention when ocean exploration could be effectively exploited . That is when the great explorers came around and you had the stories of Jules Verne etc. With the advent of aircraft and modern technology and what we have learned about the universe, the ocean does not compare. The next frontier is now space. The next great civilization changing explorers like Magellan or James Cook etc, its going to be in space.

The wonder of the deep sea is vast, as is deep space. I see one as beneficial to the other but at the same time more feasible, imagine the greater number of humans that could be involved in local rather than stellar exploration. Good conversation by the way

I honestly see it as settling for less. Literally and honestly deep down, i see it as humanity backing down in the face of a great challenge. We're not running out of time to explore the ocean. We are running out of time to get out into space.
 
Here is a fun fact. When Lockheed Martin started working on going back to the Moon, it found out that we no longer knew how to do it. When the Apollo missions were over we put all the data, calculations etc into a warehouse. Much of it was paper. It sat there until the early 2000s and about a quarter of the data was lost from cockroaches rats etc. and had to be reproduced. That took years. I always thought if this was common knowledge it would give conspiracy people fuel.

I have a hard time believing this. They had computers in the 70s to type stuff out on didn't they? or at least type writers and then by the mid 90s there were scanners and internet.

EDIT: NVM i looked this up

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/...e-ability-to-travel-to-the-moon/#e1ef7191f48e

and daaaamn that is absolutely fascinating. We didn't necessarily lose the tech, we lost the methods on how to create the exact same rocket that went to the moon. Today's rocket would be way better. If we said lets go back to the moon, I can't see us taking more than a few years to get a new rocket/craft that can get us there.
 
Last edited:
I have a hard time believing this. They had computers in the 70s to type stuff out on didn't they? or at least type writers and then by the mid 90s there were scanners and internet.

EDIT: NVM i looked this up

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/...e-ability-to-travel-to-the-moon/#e1ef7191f48e

and daaaamn that is absolutely fascinating. But if we said lets go back to the moon, I can't see us taking more than a few years to get a new rocket/craft that can get us there.

My father personally went through the floppy disks, paper files and whatever else there was to go through along with a number of other engineers and that is what he told me. Obviously there is a lot more to it than what I posted but that is part of it.
I did not even know that this was something you could look up to verify. Another fun fact after finding this out Lockheed hired a guy that has been part of EVERY U.S. manned space travel mission to work on the project until he retired from working on the space shuttle. He was in retirement and his reaction was your kidding me right when they first called him. He was in his 70s and I think he was legitly concerned about the state of our country when a warehouse full of MIT grads with modern computers needed his help to reproduce what he had done with a slide rule in the 70s.
 
My father personally went through the floppy disks, paper files and whatever else there was to go through along with a number of other engineers and that is what he told me. Obviously there is a lot more to it than what I posted but that is part of it.
I did not even know that this was something you could look up to verify. Another fun fact after finding this out Lockheed hired a guy that has been part of EVERY U.S. manned space travel mission to work on the project until he retired from working on the space shuttle. He was in retirement and his reaction was your kidding me right when they first called him. He was in his 70s and I think he was legitly concerned about the state of our country when a warehouse full of MIT grads with modern computers needed his help to reproduce what he had done with a slide rule in the 70s.

Thats crazy. Ive read histories of knowledge/technology being lost but i never thought id see something like that happen in my lifetime.
 
I think we have been to the moon, but I'm not certain.

Well, at least there's hope for you. You should really doubt it about as much as atomic bombs being developed and dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki or like, a molecule of water having two hydrogen atoms covalently bonded to a single oxygen atom. That's how silly this is. As someone eloquently put, the web has opened the sum total of man's stupidity to everyone and the net result was that a whole bunch of stupid people learned a whole lot more stupid shit when it should be the complete opposite.

Exactly, get the hell away from sherdog and be human.

Sage advice. This place is a breeding ground for anti-intellectualism and a strong percentage of the posts by people Untermenschen in the science-related threads in particular are invariably horrid beyond belief and that's before even taking into consideration the constant, utterly invalid conflation of politics and science. You'll lose any faith you ever had in humanity spending time here on a daily basis.

Today's rocket would be way better. If we said lets go back to the moon, I can't see us taking more than a few years to get a new rocket/craft that can get us there.

Aside from @Phr3121, @Rebound59 and a precious few others, I don't think it's properly appreciated how absurd the Saturn V (1967-73) actually was* or what it takes to send humans beyond low earth orbit, particularly if it's with the intention of having them not only land on another astronomical body but returned to Earth in one piece which will invariably be the case sans far off colonization futurism, and it's quite convenient the moon's gravity is only 1/6 of Earth's where the latter is concerned. People seem to think it should be as simple as flinging an 800 kg robotic space probe into the solar system or something - although that gets wildly complicated thereafter in terms of navigation - when it is immeasurably difficult, not to mention outrageously costly with very high risk factors for loss of life.

* The thing had a payload capacity of 140,000 kg (308,647 lbs) to LEO and damn near 50,000 kg for Trans-Lunar Injection to the moon. It launched an entire fucking space station - Skylab 1 - into orbit in one go and the ISS could've theoretically been assembled in three launches with it as opposed to the several dozen it actually took on lesser launch vehicles. It utterly blows the panels off anything else that's ever been engineered by human beings, balls-to-the-wall jaw droppingly powerful. Each Apollo mission had a launch mass of 45,000-48,000 kg.

NASA hasn't gone back to the moon or pushed for Mars mission because the budget isn't there.

True, indeed.

As a percentage of the budget is dire.

bD7dr9f.png


This would be smart if we hadn't already gone all in on the SLS.

Yeah, it's unfortunately something of a pork barrel.

The same way we project our economic and military strength across the planet, we should be working on doing that in space.

Maintaining superiority in either of those facets won't even be possible without doing the same for science and technology on the whole, not to mention that they're also the anchor of modern civilization. The PRC is coming with supremely focused, ruthless ambition while the USA continues to dumb down and eat its own face. What the fuck is America going to do about it? China has already pulled ahead in quantum computing/cryptography and will likely be close to even in biomedical research and innovation over the next decade. They actually care about it.

In my limited opinion, I just feel it's not the right time the money could be spent better on getting a more efficient propulsion system for example.

Something along those lines is actually in the works, but this post has gone long enough.
 
Back
Top