# Going to the moon is history. What went wrong?



## Urien (Jul 16, 2009)

They are showing numerous history documentaries about the moon shots. It seems odd and a little sad to me that we have history shows about visiting the moon. It betokens (for me anyway) a lack of progress in big science... by that I mean space flight, conquest of our system, new forms of energy and the like. The sort of advancements made from 1850-1950.

I see the space shuttle go up... and it's still just a big firework.

Now most advancement appears to be small scale, phones, faster computers, drugs. But you can't cheer them the way you can a jet, or steam engine or mighty liner.Presumably they are the seeds for new macro or big science; I hope.

Where's the fusion, where are the robots, where are the hotols, zero point energy, moon bases and space stations?

I have nostalgia for the future that never was.


----------



## iansales (Jul 16, 2009)

In point of fact there have been lots of advances made since 1969, many of which were kick-started by the Apollo programme. But there's been no desire to return to the Moon, or to move into LEO in greater numbers. Perhaps because getting out of our gravity well is still an expensive, inefficient and dangerous task. Until someone figures out a way of getting into orbit cost-effectively and safely, we're pretty much stuck here.


----------



## zachariah (Jul 16, 2009)

Calvin said it best:

"Where are the flying cars? Where are the moon colonies? Where are the personal robots and the zero gravity boots, huh? You call this a new decade?! You call this the future?? HA! Where are the rocket packs? Where are the disintegration rays? Where are the floating cities?"

Answer 1:
We're not smart enough (yet).

Answer 2:
We can't afford it.

Answer 3:
This is as good as it gets.


----------



## ktabic (Jul 16, 2009)

SpaceX did a commercial launch the other day (Video of the launch here). Nothing particularly exciting about it, except it costs about a tenth of the price of an equivalent NASA launch. This should mean that NASA can save money on launches and invest in other areas of space exploration.*

Of course that requires the political will and clearly defined goals. Even if the clearly defined goal is beat the Chinese (the moon landing was really nothing more than beat the Ruskies). China is worth watching for future space developments, and the ESA may finally get a manned space program, but the really exciting thing for the moment is commercial launches. The less that spent on getting people into space, the more we can do in space.

*In reality, they would have their budget cut instead. Idiots, the NASA budget is tiny to start with.


----------



## AE35Unit (Jul 16, 2009)

They should have had mars landings and the beginning of a moon base by now. Unfortunately there are other priorities.


----------



## AE35Unit (Jul 16, 2009)

iansales said:


> In point of fact there have been lots of advances made since 1969, many of which were kick-started by the Apollo programme. But there's been no desire to return to the Moon, or to move into LEO in greater numbers. Perhaps because getting out of our gravity well is still an expensive, inefficient and dangerous task. Until someone figures out a way of getting into orbit cost-effectively and safely, we're pretty much stuck here.



They have it. Its the Space Elevator as mentioned in The Fountains of Paradise by Arthur C Clarke. It just needs someone to have the guts to run with it(it was demonstrated recently on a James May program)


----------



## iansales (Jul 16, 2009)

The space elevator is a few years away from being a reality. As things presently stand, we can't actually build one - our materials science is not yet up to the job. Not to mention the fact that you need to use present launch vehicles as part of the construction process...

I decided to ramble about about the subject on my blog here.


----------



## Scifi fan (Jul 16, 2009)

Small gadgets can represent big advances. I don't think a hydro-electric dam is a bigger technological achievement than the discovery of penicillin, or the advances in the cell phone. 

That said, I would like to see us go into space in a big way, because the orbital factories can provide goods manufactured in zero gravity, that we cannot do here. Furthermore, if factories are in deep space, they won't be polluting our biosphere. So we'll have both economic growth and an environmental paradise.


----------



## Urien (Jul 16, 2009)

It's certainly an answer to potential resource shortages. I wonder if we said today, by 2020 we'll have a space elevator, and followed through with the same money and effort of the moon program, we'd be able to get there.

Meanwhile I shall put on my hover boots, get the robot to fix my dinner, and pop off to the teleport junction so I can be in my morning meeting in Sydney.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jul 16, 2009)

Actually, it could be built with present materials; the argument "could never hold up its own weight over that distance" is as flawed as the "no chemical reaction contains enough energy to accelerate its own mass to escape velocity". It would be incredibly big, heavy and clumsy, and the price would make the trip to the moon look insignificant with present launch technology, but it could be done if the determination  existed. 
But if you don't want to launch the construction kit into orbit, how about a laser launcher? Might need hydrogen fusion to get enough energy , and a couple of mountain lakes for cooling (hey, I didn't promise it would be _easy_), but a project that size would have to reduce world unemployment.

I don't think anything could get an orbital tower up in a decade, though.


----------



## Nik (Jul 17, 2009)

Reaction Engines Limited :: Space Propulsion Systems

If you're in the expendables biz, be very afraid...


----------



## AE35Unit (Jul 17, 2009)

We need a base on the moon! Forget the expensive and elaborate Space station or worrying about extra payloads for more elaborate rocket launches and Space shuttles. Lets get the factory Up There!


----------



## Urien (Jul 17, 2009)

But how? Space fireworks (shuttle, ariane, and the rest) can't carry enough kit, at least not cheaply enough and they can't put it on the moon. I am preapred to be funded by the British Space program to build a large catapult in my garden. I will then shoot for the moon. 

But seriously folks, what about maglev accelerators and literally shooting for the moon? I fear this is a question for those who know like physics and whatnot dude.


----------



## AE35Unit (Jul 17, 2009)

Urien said:


> But how? Space fireworks (shuttle, ariane, and the rest) can't carry enough kit, at least not cheaply enough and they can't put it on the moon. I am preapred to be funded by the British Space program to build a large catapult in my garden. I will then shoot for the moon.
> 
> But seriously folks, what about maglev accelerators and literally shooting for the moon? I fear this is a question for those who know like physics and whatnot dude.



Well that would be great if you could achieve escape velocity,i.e. if you could reach a speed of 7 miles a second. Need a looot of power!


----------



## Urien (Jul 17, 2009)

MORE POWER? Well I could put up a wind turbine and some solar panels. Or I could get extra strong elastic for the catapult. 

But how much power to bombard the moon with say 100KG packages. I wonder if ebay and fedex in association could do it?


----------



## AE35Unit (Jul 17, 2009)

Urien said:


> MORE POWER? Well I could put up a wind turbine and some solar panels. Or I could get extra strong elastic for the catapult.
> 
> But how much power to bombard the moon with say 100KG packages. I wonder if ebay and fedex in association could do it?



Hmmm the postage is gonna sting!


----------



## zachariah (Jul 17, 2009)

Magnetic coil-driven launch tubes could do it, with achievable amounts of power, but with one important caveat: Massive acceleration. Of the kind no living creature could survive.

So you could perhaps shoot solid blocks of metal at the moon, if you wanted, but nothing with anything as delicate as electronic circuitry. To get around this you would need miles and miles of launch tubes to gently get the payload up to speed, and also you would need so much energy it becomes pointless.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jul 17, 2009)

The trouble with any of the "start with the necessary energy" solutions (even the linear accelerator up a mountainside) is that you've got all this lovely velocity within the Earth's atmosphere. Air friction, not only very rapid loss of energy but serious heating problems (ask any meteorite). The spaceplane improves on this, getting its final thrust where the air is more rarified, but that is also where its engines work the least well.

Now, if we could plasmolyse the air in front of the craft, and use magnetohydrodynamics to concentrate the plasma into the motors, while the vessel flew through near vacuum, we could gain on both fronts. After all, that's why UFO's glow blue, and the stray magnetic field shorts out car ignitions and electrical apparati. I don't know why the radio starts up again when the saucer has taken its souvenir photos and moves on; I would have anticipated the EMP equivalent melting the silicon junctions to amorphous glass, but perhaps Hollywood got that detail wrong?


----------



## AE35Unit (Jul 17, 2009)

Oh come on Chris,you can't expect Hollywood to get EVERYTHING right


----------



## chrispenycate (Jul 17, 2009)

Actually, I don't expect Hollywood to get anything right, despite the fact that they've got the budget to hire consultants several thousand percent better informed than myself I can generally spot one or two – shall we say discrepancies? – in most of their supposedly 'serious' production (I'm not even going to comment on children's shows like "Star Wars"). 

But I suppose that with UFO technology they've difficulty finding an ex-crewman to bribe…


----------



## AE35Unit (Jul 17, 2009)

Star Wars a children's show?


----------



## Ursa major (Jul 17, 2009)

AE35Unit said:


> Star Wars a children's show?


 

He was probably kidding.


----------



## Wiglaf (Jul 17, 2009)

What is the return?  The benefits must outweigh the costs for large scale space activities.  Satellites make money.  Would a moon base make enough dough to cover the financial and material resources consumed.  We will do things when we judge that it will make us money or is necessary for national security.  When capitalists start spending money things will accelerate as they have more money.  Capitalists outnumber governments by a wide margin and the large start-up costs could be overcome by inducing less wealthy capitalists to invest in a corporation's stocks and bonds.  They just need to see a good chance for profit in the endeavor.


----------



## Ursa major (Jul 17, 2009)

Before people rush in with their money to invest in space travel, recall how few people have made money building railways/railroads or airlines. (I'm not sure, but on a cumulative basis, I don't think either of these industries has ever escaped from the red ink.)

If it wasn't for the frequent recourses to government subsidies (often poured in for nationalistic reasons), private development of transport infrastructure could almost be seen as industry and commerce providing a social good at their own expense (at the expense of huge losses, that is).


----------



## Wiglaf (Jul 17, 2009)

Ursa major said:


> Before people rush in with their money to invest in space travel, recall how few people have made money building railways/railroads or airlines. (I'm not sure, but on a cumulative basis, I don't think either of these industries has ever escaped from the red ink.)
> 
> If it wasn't for the frequent recourses to government subsidies (often poured in for nationalistic reasons), private development of transport infrastructure could almost be seen as industry and commerce providing a social good at their own expense (at the expense of huge losses, that is).


As the current California Constitution was designed to limit the influence of railroad tycoons who were using their vast profits from the railroad business to buy legislators, I think that some of them made some money.  It was bringing these technologies to small unprofitable markets that incurred losses and require(d) subsidizes.

The externalities argument is good except, is space travel a public good?  Does access to it help other companies to make a profit?  Is it a necessity to average people.  The fact that a few would find it cool is not enough.  Food, shelter, healthcare, etc. are simply a higher priority.  If the infrastructure allowed for improvements in these things, then it would become a public good.


----------



## Ursa major (Jul 17, 2009)

Wiglaf said:


> As the current California Constitution was designed to limit the influence of railroad tycoons who were using their vast profits from the railroad business to buy legislators, I think that some of them made some money. It was bringing these technologies to small unprofitable markets that incurred losses and require(d) subsidizes.


Yes, some people made vast fortunes - mostly at the expense of smaller investors.

Some railroads (or railways - the name often flipped between these two as the company came out of a bankruptcy) operated for years while bankrupt; the intervening years were often only a preparation for the next bankruptcy.

I saw this in the Wiki entry for the Southern Pacific (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Pacific_Transportation_Company):


> The railroad was founded as *a land holding company* in 1865, later acquiring the Central Pacific Railroad by lease.


_ (I added the bold.)_ That may help explain why this railroad survived and prospered where others did not.



Wiglaf said:


> The externalities argument is good except, is space travel a public good? Does access to it help other companies to make a profit? Is it a necessity to average people. The fact that a few would find it cool is not enough. Food, shelter, healthcare, etc. are simply a higher priority. If the infrastructure allowed for improvements in these things, then it would become a public good.


 
I agree. Being misty-eyed about something is all well and good, but if that something is a money pit with no redeeming or counterbalancing social purpose, it's diverting resources from where it might be better spent/used/invested.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Jul 17, 2009)

Ursa major said:


> He was probably kidding.


 

Actually he wasn't. Cartoon Network has made a Star Wars series, computer animated.


But back to the subject, there's far too much to consider for moon bases, even. Considering the fact that our planet's only natural satellite has NO ATMOSPHERE, how would one be able to breathe? Domes, you ask? Sure-where do you pump the oxygen from? Not to mention the fact that very little sunlight ever actually hits the moon, and the cost of shipping crucial survival supplies to even just the moon would be far too time and cost consuming.

Don't even get me started on other planets. Mars? Far too cold, thin atmosphere. Sure, we MIGHT be able to make it underground, but being such a small planet anyway.....where to put power plants for lights and heat for not only us, but necessary plants and animals?


----------



## Ursa major (Jul 17, 2009)

_(Chris may or may not have been *kid*ding, but I was definitely punning.)_

I would assume that one of the reasons the presence (or otherwise) of extractable water on the moon important is that it can be broken down into oxygen and hydrogen.

As to sunlight, why (on Earth ) do you think the moon doesn't get much much of it?


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Jul 17, 2009)

Ursa major said:


> _(Chris may or may not have been *kid*ding, but I was definitely punning.)_
> 
> I would assume that one of the reasons the presence (or otherwise) of extractable water on the moon important is that it can be broken down into oxygen and hydrogen.
> 
> As to sunlight, why (on Earth ) do you think the moon doesn't get much much of it?


 

I know why the moon doesn't get much, but to colonize the moon, would you be suggesting to destroy the only planet in the solar system with the capabilities of life on its surface?

I wonder if that's ever been taken into account-what would happen to the moon if the planet was destroyed? After all, there'd be no field of gravity for it, so I'd assume it would drift of slowly either to Mars or Venus.....


----------



## chrispenycate (Jul 17, 2009)

Manarion said:


> I know why the moon doesn't get much, but to colonize the moon, would you be suggesting to destroy the only planet in the solar system with the capabilities of life on its surface?
> 
> I wonder if that's ever been taken into account-what would happen to the moon if the planet was destroyed? After all, there'd be no field of gravity for it, so I'd assume it would drift of slowly either to Mars or Venus.....



If the Earth were destroyed, the moon would continue in the same basic orbit. And a square metre on the moon will average out at the same amount of sunlight as a square metre on Earth at the same longitude. As the moon has negligible atmosphere, more actual energy will reach the surface, as frequencies such as ultraviolet and water resonances will not be filtered out. Ok the other hand, during the fourteen day night there will be be no blanket of air holding the heat in, no phase change of water releasing heat stored in the long day, so it will all radiate out into space faster and get a lot colder.

Oxygen shouldn't be a major problem; moon rocks contain it, and if we're smelting metals to build stations, ships and suchlike, it should be a waste product, and I'm confident there will be carbon. What is likely to be in short supply is water, ie hydrogen, the commonest element in the universe. the moon's gravity isn't powerful enough to hold it. Perhaps crash a small comet into it, before colonisation goes too far? 

Anyway, why would anyone destroy the Earth? More, how could anyone? It's not that easy. Certainly the volcano earlier in the thread didn't even make a long term difference, and our energy potential is way below that. 

Mars, such a small planet? If I remember correctly, it has more land surface area than Earth. A planet is BIG; not relative to the solar system, or even the sun, but by human scale.

But why go from gravity well to gravity well? Asteroid and satellite mining for raw materials, comet and ring mining for volatiles and big, free flying habitats. Life as artificial as Los Angeles. Gardens of lunar regolith  mixed with organic compost, everything recycled.

And the moon as an old folks home.


----------



## ktabic (Jul 18, 2009)

Wiglaf said:


> The externalities argument is good except, is space travel a public good?  Does access to it help other companies to make a profit?  Is it a necessity to average people.  The fact that a few would find it cool is not enough.  Food, shelter, healthcare, etc. are simply a higher priority.  If the infrastructure allowed for improvements in these things, then it would become a public good.



Is space travel a public good? Yes. The public might not know it. But then the public probably didn't think a railway across America was much good for them. Or Columbus' trip across the Atlantic. Or airliners. When they all started, most people couldn't afford to travel on them. Of course, they are all essential to our modern world now. Can't do without them.

In fact, you can't even abandon space flight now. If you did, you would lose the ability to maintain a variety of now essential services. GPS, international telecommunications, satellite TV. All gone. The public might not realise it, but the ability to get into space is now a public good. 

Companies can't make a profit from the moon until they can get there - although companies will soon be making a profit from space travel (spaceX isn't going to be launching cargoes for NASA for free, but it looks like they will be able to do it for a tenth of the price of NASA, but they couldn't do that without the investment already made by NASA). And I'm sure that once companies got to the moon or LEOs they would rapidly figure out a way to turn a profit from the access.

Nessescities for the average person doesn't even come into it. It's one of the reasons we have governments. The average person doesn't require a nation wide road network, rail network, police forces, fire services, inteligence services, military or nuclear arsenal. But we have them because in a democracy it's not about what the average person needs. It's about what society needs.

Priorities is really all it comes down to. And if you took away the whole space budget and put it into other areas, like health or housing, you would make absolutely no difference to peoples lives.

The world wide space budget clocks in at $25 billion (~£15 billion). NASA makes up the majority ($17 billion or so) of that  so kudos to the US.
But that money is almost nothing.
The UK NHS costs £110 billion (~$180 billion dollars)
Medicare ~$400 billion - possibly rising to a cool $1 trillion if the US goes to universal healthcare
UK military £60 billion (~$97 billion)
US military $460 billion. 

Compared to those, $25 billion/pa isn't very much.


----------



## mosaix (Jul 18, 2009)

Nothing went wrong.

It was going in the 60's and 70's that was wrong. We went before our time because of the cold war and were lucky to get there and back without serious loss of life.

Ideally we should have gone in the 80's and 90's when better materials were available and computing power more up to the job. The Russians may have still tried it in the 70's and may even have landed but probably wouldn't have got back alive. 

In the 80's and 90's we'd probably have assembled the craft in orbit (as we intend to do this time) and visits to the moon would probably still be a regular occurrence.


----------



## Urlik (Jul 18, 2009)

mosaix said:


> The Russians may have still tried it in the 70's and may even have landed but probably wouldn't have got back alive.


 
considering how far ahead the Soviets were in the space race, I think it highly probable that they would have got there and back.


----------



## ktabic (Jul 18, 2009)

The Russians might not have made it to the Moon, but they did managed to keep a human presence in space for longer than anyone else (just short of ten years). ISS will overtake that record some time next year.


----------



## AE35Unit (Jul 18, 2009)

In '69 NASA said that 'the russians were ahead of them when it comes to weaponry and aeronautics,and continue to be so'
And yet what have they done since?


----------



## zachariah (Jul 19, 2009)

They've been busy establishing botnets.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Jul 19, 2009)

chrispenycate said:


> If the Earth were destroyed, the moon would continue in the same basic orbit. And a square metre on the moon will average out at the same amount of sunlight as a square metre on Earth at the same longitude. As the moon has negligible atmosphere, more actual energy will reach the surface, as frequencies such as ultraviolet and water resonances will not be filtered out. Ok the other hand, during the fourteen day night there will be be no blanket of air holding the heat in, no phase change of water releasing heat stored in the long day, so it will all radiate out into space faster and get a lot colder.
> 
> Oxygen shouldn't be a major problem; moon rocks contain it, and if we're smelting metals to build stations, ships and suchlike, it should be a waste product, and I'm confident there will be carbon. What is likely to be in short supply is water, ie hydrogen, the commonest element in the universe. the moon's gravity isn't powerful enough to hold it. Perhaps crash a small comet into it, before colonisation goes too far?
> 
> ...


 
You know, Chris, unlikely though it may be, Earth CAN be destroyed by natural cosmic events that may miss the moon. After all, I've yet to hear of a comet or asteroid that's a quarter million miles wide....

Another thought for colonization. Humans multiply at a pretty decent rate-perhaps it's because we have no natural predators?

One must admit that the moon is quite a bit smaller than our planet. Even if we did get enough supplies, oxygen, and whatnot, room would soon run out, especially if multiple countries attempt colonization.

Perhaps Mars has more land surface area than Earth, but I believe that's only due to the lack of liquid oceans on the planet. Mars IS smaller in size than Earth, and I still believe it too be just too far from the sun to be a feasible surface colonization option.

I still think there could be a shot at underground, but once again, there's argues of costs, supply shipment, oxygen, and whatnot....(Yes, I know, plants breathe out oxygen, but imagine the challenge of building power plants just to provide them with light.)


----------



## iansales (Jul 19, 2009)

AE35Unit said:


> In '69 NASA said that 'the russians were ahead of them when it comes to weaponry and aeronautics,and continue to be so'
> And yet what have they done since?



The Soviet's N1 launch vehicle blew up during a test launch, so they canned their programme to get to the Moon. It wasn't until the 1990s they even admitted they'd had one.

What have the Russians done since? Well, they've continued to send people up into orbit, far more safely and frequently than the Americans. And when the Shuttle is retired, the US will buying rides off the Russians to the ISS.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jul 19, 2009)

Manarion said:


> You know, Chris, unlikely though it may be, Earth CAN be destroyed by natural cosmic events that may miss the moon. After all, I've yet to hear of a comet or asteroid that's a quarter million miles wide....
> 
> Another thought for colonization. Humans multiply at a pretty decent rate-perhaps it's because we have no natural predators?
> 
> ...



I can't think of a naturally occurring natural event that would destroy the Earth without effecting the Moon. Eliminate the biosphere, perhaps; but a comet strike couldn't destroy the Earth. And if we did get an impact sufficient to destabilise Earth's orbit and send it ploughing into the sun, or whatever, the Moon would be dragged along; too well gravitationally linked.

In the case of a major disaster like that, there would be no way to evacuate the Earth; the only hope would be to ensure continuity, that mankind not become extinct. The majority of the population would die; if they managed to lift a few hundred thousand into space and establish habitats for them that would already be a miracle. So the population boom would not be an immediate problem (it's all right, there would be plenty) And solar energy would work very well, with the slight problem of a storage system to take up the twenty-eight day cycle, or power satellites orbiting the moon and beaming in energy.

Though properly designed space habitats might be more efficient, with the Moon just a source of raw materials, inhabited by miners.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Jul 19, 2009)

Those last would be my thoughts exactly, but as for mining, that raises one more problem: Remove too much of the Moon's mass, and would that not affect the Earth's tides? Or would it be after the planet was abandoned?


Mechanical cities in space would have to be the way to go, I think, unless we find a way to modify Mars enough to colonize.


----------



## Pyan (Jul 20, 2009)

The mass of the moon is about *7,231,000,000,000,000 tons,* Mana, so it'd be a while until you used enough to affect the tides.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Jul 20, 2009)

All depends on how much how fast.


Sure, it might take a couple millenia, but mining is highly destructive....then again, I guess asteroids haven't hurt much....


----------



## Wiglaf (Jul 20, 2009)

The goal right now should be cheaper launches, better cheaper satellites, and better "space station" technology. Then if you want to return to the moon you can work on a moon orbiting station with a returnable lunar lander and a station-to-station shuttle.


----------



## skeptical (Jul 20, 2009)

I agree with Wiglaf.
Building a single craft to go to the moon and back is somewhat silly.   We need three separate craft.  And this will require significant technological advances to make it truly practical.

1.   A space shuttle equivalent to carry people and fuel and supplies to orbit.
2.   A craft designed to travel from Earth orbit to lunar orbit.   No big rockets - just the much more efficient ion drive engines.
3.   A lunar shuttle - designed to land from orbit and take off back into orbit.

Once all three are in place, they can be re-used over and over, with each refuelling the next.  Costs go down and efficiency increases.

Why did the Apollo lunar program die?   Two reasons.

1.  It was before its time.   It took a massive heroic effort to get there using 1960's technology.   I do not believe out technology is good enough even today, since it is insufficient to even get people and supplies into orbit without enormous cost.   But way back then, the difficulties and risks were so high that even making the attempt was almost madness, and NASA realised it!

2.  It was done for the wrong motive.   Once the US had done it several times, they had nothing more to prove, and no practical reason to go, so they stopped.   When the costs and the risks are literally astronomical, you need a really good reason to attempt it, and this was lacking.


----------

