PCEngineFans.com - The PC Engine and TurboGrafx-16 Community Forum
Non-NEC Console Related Discussion => Chit-Chat => Topic started by: xelement5x on July 20, 2017, 05:00:15 AM
Title: The Apollo 11 Moon Landing
Post by: xelement5x on July 20, 2017, 05:00:15 AM
So, 48 years ago Neil Armstrong was a part of human history by being the first human to step onto the surface of the moon. Pretty amazing when you think about it, but it sucks that we haven't been back to the moon since 1972 which is over 40 years.
Do you think we'll manage to go past low earth orbit again in your lifetime? Maybe back to the moon or another celestial body?
Title: Re: The Apollo 11 Moon Landing
Post by: MrBroadway on July 20, 2017, 05:14:48 AM
So, 48 years ago Neil Armstrong was a part of human history by being the first human to step onto the surface of the moon. Pretty amazing when you think about it, but it sucks that we haven't been back to the moon since 1972 which is over 40 years.
Do you think we'll manage to go past low earth orbit again in your lifetime? Maybe back to the moon or another celestial body?
I think we'll hit the moon again within the next twenty years, and maybe Mars by that time. I only say this from the rapid advances made in the private sector, since the government has long ago forgotten about how crucial it is to be in space.
Title: Re: The Apollo 11 Moon Landing
Post by: Punch on July 20, 2017, 05:17:54 AM
Yes but it'll probably be Elon Musk or some Chinese enterprise doing so. It's not like there's much to do in there anyway, sending deep space probes are a superior investment in every way and will continue to be until we figure out some physics loophole that may not even exist to viabilize space travel to other planets (aka not the moon).
Title: Re: The Apollo 11 Moon Landing
Post by: mitsuman on July 20, 2017, 05:32:27 AM
Too bad it was all staged on a sound stage in Hollywood!
I think we (as humans) will (or should) colonize the moon first, then go on to further reaching areas.
Title: Re: The Apollo 11 Moon Landing
Post by: esteban on July 20, 2017, 05:38:40 AM
Humans are cockroaches. We shouldn't infest any other parts of the cosmos except earth.
Title: Re: The Apollo 11 Moon Landing
Post by: Necromancer on July 20, 2017, 05:40:05 AM
I hope we don't go back (or further out), not as a manned mission anyway. It's a giant waste of money; superior robots (like me!) can do the exploring for far longer and for far less cost.
Title: Re: The Apollo 11 Moon Landing
Post by: crazydean on July 20, 2017, 07:03:17 AM
There's just no reason to go back to the moon. We did it before because it was the space race, and we had to beat the evil Reds. Colonizing other planets could have benefits such as the Earth being destroyed by an asteroid or the sun reaching a later stage in its life, causing Earth to become inhabitable. Also, don't forget the mining operations like in the movies! But, unless the moon is actually made of gold, uranium, or some hard-to-find isotope, we won't be going back.
Title: Re: The Apollo 11 Moon Landing
Post by: MrBroadway on July 20, 2017, 07:27:48 AM
There's just no reason to go back to the moon. We did it before because it was the space race, and we had to beat the evil Reds. Colonizing other planets could have benefits such as the Earth being destroyed by an asteroid or the sun reaching a later stage in its life, causing Earth to become inhabitable. Also, don't forget the mining operations like in the movies! But, unless the moon is actually made of gold, uranium, or some hard-to-find isotope, we won't be going back.
The moon is a more ideal launchpad than earth, iirc. I'm no expert, but there was floating around a good article detailing why the moon must be the next stop before Mars.
Title: Re: The Apollo 11 Moon Landing
Post by: crazydean on July 20, 2017, 09:17:09 AM
There's just no reason to go back to the moon. We did it before because it was the space race, and we had to beat the evil Reds. Colonizing other planets could have benefits such as the Earth being destroyed by an asteroid or the sun reaching a later stage in its life, causing Earth to become inhabitable. Also, don't forget the mining operations like in the movies! But, unless the moon is actually made of gold, uranium, or some hard-to-find isotope, we won't be going back.
The moon is a more ideal launchpad than earth, iirc. I'm no expert, but there was floating around a good article detailing why the moon must be the next stop before Mars.
I'd be interested to see that article. It doesn't make sense to me unless we were able to assemble spaceships on the moon. The moon is a much easier launching point than Earth due to its low gravity (about 1/10, iirc). However, every part that was sent to the moon would first have to be shipped from Earth. If that were the case, it would be just as easy to leave straight from Earth.
I do remember an interesting problem in my Mechanics class where we compared the energy required to send waste to the Sun vs shooting it out of the galaxy. It turned out that much less energy is required to send the same sized payload outside the solar system. The takeaway being that gravity sucks. f*ck gravity.
Title: Re: The Apollo 11 Moon Landing
Post by: blueraven on July 20, 2017, 09:20:41 AM
I hope this turns into a Buzz Aldrin meme thread.
I loved it when he punched that dude in the face for saying he faked the mission. Couldn't stop laughing.
Title: Re: The Apollo 11 Moon Landing
Post by: MrBroadway on July 20, 2017, 09:22:44 AM
I'd be interested to see that article. It doesn't make sense to me unless we were able to assemble spaceships on the moon. The moon is a much easier launching point than Earth due to its low gravity (about 1/10, iirc). However, every part that was sent to the moon would first have to be shipped from Earth. If that were the case, it would be just as easy to leave straight from Earth.
I do remember an interesting problem in my Mechanics class where we compared the energy required to send waste to the Sun vs shooting it out of the galaxy. It turned out that much less energy is required to send the same sized payload outside the solar system. The takeaway being that gravity sucks. f*ck gravity.
Why wouldn't the sun's gravity do its magic after a while? Or is it because it'll trap it in orbit?
It's been far too long since I've seen the article in question, but here is a news article from 2005 that may be a jumping off point (pun fully intended) for research: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/nasa-reaches-for-the-moon-as-a-launch-pad-to-mars-313792.html
Title: Re: The Apollo 11 Moon Landing
Post by: mitsuman on July 20, 2017, 09:55:58 AM
However, every part that was sent to the moon would first have to be shipped from Earth. If that were the case, it would be just as easy to leave straight from Earth.
That is where colonizing comes in. With the advancement of 3D printers, parts will be a cinch on the moon. They've all ready used the technology on ISS.
They could just upload the info to a 3d printer from Earth to the moon. Wait for the parts to be made (or they could be printing as we make our way to the moon). Then put them together, and viola!
Title: Re: The Apollo 11 Moon Landing
Post by: Necromancer on July 20, 2017, 10:21:37 AM
And make the parts out of what? Unless you set up mining and manufacturing facilities on the moon, at which point you could set up traditional manufacturing facilities for anything and 3D printing isn't necessary, the raw materials would still come from earth, as would the water, food, and fuel.
Title: Re: The Apollo 11 Moon Landing
Post by: crazydean on July 20, 2017, 10:29:39 AM
Why wouldn't the sun's gravity do its magic after a while? Or is it because it'll trap it in orbit?
Yes, trapped in orbit. Found this on Google, and it looks pretty good to me: https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?54069-shooting-something-into-the-sun
However, every part that was sent to the moon would first have to be shipped from Earth. If that were the case, it would be just as easy to leave straight from Earth.
That is where colonizing comes in. With the advancement of 3D printers, parts will be a cinch on the moon. They've all ready used the technology on ISS.
They could just upload the info to a 3d printer from Earth to the moon. Wait for the parts to be made (or they could be printing as we make our way to the moon). Then put them together, and viola!
So, the raw materials for the printer have to come from somewhere (Earth). A 1kg titanium brick has the same mass as a 1kg titanium shield. Taking it to the moon requires the same amount of thrust. While I haven't looked into the ISS's use of 3-D printing, I assume it would be to make spare parts, so they don't require so much on-hand inventory.
Title: Re: The Apollo 11 Moon Landing
Post by: mitsuman on July 20, 2017, 10:37:10 AM
And make the parts out of what? Unless you set up mining and manufacturing facilities on the moon, at which point you could set up traditional manufacturing facilities for anything and 3D printing isn't necessary, the raw materials would still come from earth, as would the water, food, and fuel.
3D printing out of all kinds of substrates is getting to be common. I'm sure there is a way that basic polymers can be used at first. Hell, make it out of moon dust!
The upfront work will be huge. HUUUUGE I tell ya!! The idea would be to set up a small colony/workshop on the moon (think the Antartica science "community"). Once that is up and running, begin planning/working on project to go our further to explore. I know I glazed over the years and years and years and years and YEARS of transporting, building, acclimating, farming, and basic living. But that is what it is going to take. It is also going to take a multi-national effort. This isn't a US thing. It is a human being thing.
And of course, this is all pie-in-the-sky talk from me. I'm just a guy in the midwest with an associates degree from a community college and a desk job.
Title: Re: The Apollo 11 Moon Landing
Post by: xelement5x on July 20, 2017, 10:49:17 AM
Yeah, one of the reasons it's easier to send a ship from the Moon instead of earth is there is no pesky atmosphere and much lower gravity.
Resources are clearly a big issue, but many theories talk about capturing an asteroid and getting it into orbit to mine for resources. Also, the moon has an abundance of easily accessible Helium 3 which could be used for a fusion reactor to get power easier.
I agree that yes, the need to send people up there (and out into the solar system at large) is much lower since bots can do it much cheaper. But I think that all of humanity will reap technological benefits as we conquer manned space travel.
Title: Re: The Apollo 11 Moon Landing
Post by: crazydean on July 20, 2017, 11:06:29 AM
Yeah, one of the reasons it's easier to send a ship from the Moon instead of earth is there is no pesky atmosphere and much lower gravity.
Resources are clearly a big issue, but many theories talk about capturing an asteroid and getting it into orbit to mine for resources. Also, the moon has an abundance of easily accessible Helium 3 which could be used for a fusion reactor to get power easier.
I agree that yes, the need to send people up there (and out into the solar system at large) is much lower since bots can do it much cheaper. But I think that all of humanity will reap technological benefits as we conquer manned space travel.
I haven't heard anyone talk about capturing an asteroid. That would be pretty amazing, and take a lot of resources to accomplish. That's quite a long ways off from our current technology.
As for the Helium-3, that's great and all, but we still don't have a working fusion reactor. And, it's not for lack of trying. Many billions of dollars have already been spent on researching a working fusion reactor, and we're still a very long ways off from something usable. It's possible that the fusion reactor will never even be a feasible option.
I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade here, but I feel like the perception of the scientific community may be a bit higher than reality. I would like to see some real space travel in my lifetime, and it may happen. But, sending a manned craft to Mars and having a spaceship-building robot facility on the moon are two very different things.
Title: Re: The Apollo 11 Moon Landing
Post by: mitsuman on July 20, 2017, 11:30:09 AM
You're right. Having a spaceship-building robot facility on the moon is much more likely than a manned mission to mars. :lol:
...that sounds like the plot to Dead Moon. Cool.
Title: Re: The Apollo 11 Moon Landing
Post by: ClodBuster on July 20, 2017, 06:29:52 PM
After all those years, I still find it fascinating to read about the moon landing and other operations in space. After all, space is still a pretty hostile environment.
After all those years, I still find it fascinating to read about the moon landing and other operations in space. After all, space is still a pretty hostile environment.
And you know, the moon is a harsh mistress as well. ;)
Title: Re: The Apollo 11 Moon Landing
Post by: MrBroadway on July 21, 2017, 05:51:14 AM