Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Back to the Moon (Read 1081 times) previous topic - next topic
Thryleon, azzurro and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Back to the Moon

Reply #15 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
1.  What are its goals?

The progression of science i can see space x doing regarding a take of and landing.  Artemis 2 is going up, orbiting the moon and coming back.  We've done that before, sure they might be testing something.  Not sure, I genuinely dont know the goals.
It's not quite the same as before, in that previously Collins and others in the Command Capsule orbited the moon while colleagues rode the LEM.

It's part of the schedule to establish a long term base on the moon, in which case this route will be repeated many many times as part of a re-supply delivery run. They are also testing equipment and technology designed to be used in extended missions.

Long term, they need moon bases to obtain heavy helium, Helium-3, to power future fusion reactors. Because despite the rhetoric no serious physicist or resource scientist believes renewables can deliver the energy we are going to need.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: Back to the Moon

Reply #16 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
Quote from: kruddler – on


I'm not sure what the project was greenlit off the back of, but the amount of things we've learned in the past are still finding new ways of benefitting us today.

Science will find 100's if not 1000's of benefits that will help in unimaginable ways.

Most of the time things like this happen it is to confirm previous suspicions or to help understand specific circumstances.

Whether or not is indulgent probably depends on your relationship to science.
Conversely, your relationship to the army and war (or lack of) may lead you to the conclusion that a nations defence is indulgent.

My relationship with science is pretty healthy.  My question is twofold.

1.  What are its goals?

The progression of science i can see space x doing regarding a take of and landing.   Artemis 2 is going up, orbiting the moon and coming back.  We've done that before, sure they might be testing something.  Not sure, I genuinely dont know the goals.

2.  Is it indulgent?  In the current climate maybe.  The fuel to get it up there when the world is staring at shortages.  

Ive had a couple of responses indicating that im not alone in my thought process, and ive not seen a ringing endorsement for it aside from furthering science.  Thats good enough for me to have warranted asking the question.

Are you worried about the amount of 91 ron required to achieve the mission ?
Let’s go BIG !

Re: Back to the Moon

Reply #17 –
Quote from: northernblue – on
Are you worried about the amount of 91 ron required to achieve the mission ?
The boosters are solid rocket motors, the main vehicles is fueled by hydrogen and liquid oxygen with water vapour as the exhaust gas.

Hydrogen is the same technology we should really be using for transport, fast to refill, long range, conventional delivery, water vapour is the exhaust.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: Back to the Moon

Reply #18 –
I know they are fueled by hydrogen, that’s why I asked the question I did…
Hydrogen for trucks and cars is laughable.
Let’s go BIG !

Re: Back to the Moon

Reply #19 –
Quote from: northernblue – on
Hydrogen for trucks and cars is laughable.
I hear that coming from the EV industry and it's investors, I don't blame them for making hay while the sun shines(sorry) but it's not likely to last without political interference.

Several WA mining operations are now converting to hydrogen fueled vehicles because it works in remote locations and can perform in ways that EV cannot, they did try EV but the recharging delays and battery degradation became an issue. When you need to go you need to go, and they go around the clock and a long long way. In some operations a 20 minute delay can cost them more than the price of the vehicle!

To me batteries remain the big issue, unfortunately a lot of the battery R&D and manufacturing has occurred in cool climate locations, places it snows and regions that think 25°C is a hot day. The most up to date research has exposed the degradation of some batteries in moderate or hot climates is 300% greater than reported in cool climates, as yet they do not know why it's unexplained, but it's confirmed by the findings in the mines. The irony for Australia is that the batteries are chock full of technology to warm them up correctly, but here the problem is cooling.

As an aside, mining has a project to convert iron ore trains to hydrogen fuel cell, I believe a prototype is already in service.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"
 

Re: Back to the Moon

Reply #20 –
Quote from: northernblue – on
Quote from: Thryleon – on


My relationship with science is pretty healthy.  My question is twofold.

1.  What are its goals?

The progression of science i can see space x doing regarding a take of and landing.   Artemis 2 is going up, orbiting the moon and coming back.  We've done that before, sure they might be testing something.  Not sure, I genuinely dont know the goals.

2.  Is it indulgent?  In the current climate maybe.  The fuel to get it up there when the world is staring at shortages.  

Ive had a couple of responses indicating that im not alone in my thought process, and ive not seen a ringing endorsement for it aside from furthering science.  Thats good enough for me to have warranted asking the question.

Are you worried about the amount of 91 ron required to achieve the mission ?
what part of is it indulgent did you not understand?
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: Back to the Moon

Reply #21 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
Does anyone else see a manned trip to orbit the moon as indulgent?  What are we hoping to achieve out of it?
The future.
Our planet has limited resources and a biosphere that we are pushing. The rest of our system has more resources than we can ever use, and we're too stupid to go and get them.
[1] It rains hydrocarbons on Titan.
[2] There is more water in the Saturn's rings than on Earth by a factor of 100.
[3] Mining asteroids is easier than mining on a planet's surface. The stuff is easier to access and you don't have to worry about an environment to damage.
[4] The Sun puts out more energy in a day than we can use in a century, and we use less than 0.00001 % of it.

I could go on for a lot longer.
This particular mission is mainly testing stuff for future missions. But the idea is not just to visit the moon, but to use its resources. It has plenty of them. That is the future, and this is just one small step.

Anyone who considers space and indulgent is not thinking about the future. Our future is out there! And the sooner we embrace it, the better!
Live Long and Prosper!

Re: Back to the Moon

Reply #22 –
I thought the moon landing was a hoax.

Re: Back to the Moon

Reply #23 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
Quote from: northernblue – on


Are you worried about the amount of 91 ron required to achieve the mission ?
what part of is it indulgent did you not understand?

I think you missed the point mate. There are many different types of fuels in the world and the one they are using is the most abundant - hydrogen.

In fact, I'm sure that the technology used in such missions is exactly the type of research and development we need more of to solve our energy crisis here on earth.

If we have an issue with resources, the best way around that is to use the most abundant in the universe.... which is exactly what they are using and what we are trying to get up and running.

So ironically, you answered your own question.

Re: Back to the Moon

Reply #24 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
Quote from: Thryleon – on
what part of is it indulgent did you not understand?

I think you missed the point mate. There are many different types of fuels in the world and the one they are using is the most abundant - hydrogen.

In fact, I'm sure that the technology used in such missions is exactly the type of research and development we need more of to solve our energy crisis here on earth.

If we have an issue with resources, the best way around that is to use the most abundant in the universe.... which is exactly what they are using and what we are trying to get up and running.

So ironically, you answered your own question.
so fuel aside, which im happy to say i got incorrect the spaceship is built on hopes and dreams? 

What are goals of the mission?
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: Back to the Moon

Reply #25 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
Quote from: kruddler – on


I think you missed the point mate. There are many different types of fuels in the world and the one they are using is the most abundant - hydrogen.

In fact, I'm sure that the technology used in such missions is exactly the type of research and development we need more of to solve our energy crisis here on earth.

If we have an issue with resources, the best way around that is to use the most abundant in the universe.... which is exactly what they are using and what we are trying to get up and running.

So ironically, you answered your own question.
so fuel aside, which im happy to say i got incorrect the spaceship is built on hopes and dreams?

I'm not sure what your issue is. Yes, the whole thing costs a lot of money, but you're assumption is that money would be spent on good causes if not spent on that is leading you astray.
The US of A would rather put that money into their military and blow things up than feed the poor.

Your own morals are clouding your judgement on theirs.