OK conspiracy theorists - get out of this! Moon landings!

[Coito ergo sum]

Crumpet, L.O.E. is useful for research, if nothing else. It's reachable and sustainable. Add 230,000 miles to the trip and you have a whole different set of logistical issues.

Actually, the extra distance isn't a problem.
A space craft uses no energy, once it's up to speed. The energy requirement is just for acceleration and deceleration.

Those are significant engineering problems, as is descending to the Moon, and ascending from the Moon, and moving about on the Moon.

The return from the moon uses very little fuel. It's only take-off from the Earth which is fuel hungry.

If you talk to anyone involved in the Moon missions, you will find that they placed a tad bit more importance on the distance than you appear to be giving it. Are you an engineer or have an engineering background of any kind?

And now that they've found water on the Moon, you can actually make your own fuel, and store it there for future missions.

You can? And, the mining and refining equipment needs a craft to get to the Moon too.

I can't see that it's a fuel problem. I would have thought that the shuttle could have carried a craft capable of going to the moon and back.

Actually, we have sent plenty of THINGS to the moon since, so, no, it can't be a fuel problem.

Sending things to the Moon is a whole different animal than sending people.

[Coito ergo sum]

Crumpet, L.O.E. is useful for research, if nothing else. It's reachable and sustainable. Add 230,000 miles to the trip and you have a whole different set of logistical issues.

Actually, the extra distance isn't a problem.
A space craft uses no energy, once it's up to speed. The energy requirement is just for acceleration and deceleration.

The return from the moon uses very little fuel. It's only take-off from the Earth which is fuel hungry.

And now that they've found water on the Moon, you can actually make your own fuel, and store it there for future missions.

I can't see that it's a fuel problem. I would have thought that the shuttle could have carried a craft capable of going to the moon and back.

Actually, we have sent plenty of things to the moon since, so, no, it can't be a fuel problem.

See, there's where you don't understand. The cost of moving the mass to the moon from the ground is a minimum number not matter how you do it. And the moon ship would have to escape Earth's gravity to get to the Moon.

Also, you have to have a hell of a lot of equipment, proportionally, to mine water on the moon and separate the elements and store them. Or do you have a Lunar Mining Facility in your boot?

Yeh, but you can't deny that plenty of rockets HAVE been sent to the moon since.
Just unmanned rockets. So escaping earth's gravity didn't stop them.
They could be mining the moon for water now, using robots, if they don't want to risk a man.
The signal lag is only 1.3 seconds from Earth. You could control a digger from here.

Easier said, than done.

Certainly possible, but the expense is tremendous.

I'm all for it. But, you have to realize that you'd have to design and develop the robots to do the specific tasks you'd want them to do, and you'd have to develop the whole system here on Earth, and test it and make sure it works in every respect. Not only the robots, but the mining equipment, refining equipment, and then the machines that would use whatever you're mining and refining. Then you'd have to make sure the Moon has all the materials you need, and that you land the craft in the right place to get at the material that is there. You'd have to send advance mission to search and test to make sure that extraction is possible at particular locations, etc.

Then, all this equipment that you developed on the Earth would have to be designed so it can be packaged and put atop heavy lift rockets and shot to the Moon, then it would have to all land in the right places and then be able to extract itself and get to all the constituent parts and put itself together.

What you state is easy would the most monumental human endeavor in the history of mankind. It's doable, but it would be the most monumental human edeavor in the history of mankind.

[Coito ergo sum]

And if wishes were fishes...

Yes, I've learned a lot about wishes...

...wish in one hand, crap in the other, and see which one fills up first...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

MM, check out the frequency of the use of the word "crashed" in your post.

Many are crashed deliberately.
Like the recent one that showed that there was plenty of water in the unlit craters.

They didn't come back, they didn't carry humans.

[Coito ergo sum]

ARMSTRONG URGES RETURN TO THE MOON, THEN MARS
To train for Mars, a return to the lunar surface is essential, according to the first man to set foot on the moon in 1969.

http://news.discovery.com/space/armstro ... 10825.html

It's turtle crossings and guardrails around dry lakes in Oklahoma, or manned missions to the Moon and Mars.

We are at a tipping point for what we want the United States to be.

[mistermack]

Coito, I was replying to Gawdzillas "bin there, done it, no further point" post about the Moon.

The real question is "what is the point of a space station, compared to a Moon mission", and to be honest, I can't see the point of the space station in that context.
You would learn more from moon missions, and get much more.

I'm not saying that the space station is pointless, just saying that one Moon mission is worth ten space station missions, at least.

And I don't agree about Mars. The Moon is FAR more important than Mars, because it's potentially of far more use to humans. What sort of energy requirement would it be, to land and take off from Mars?
Vastly more than the Moon. It will be prohibitive for a long long time. Not so the Moon.

You say that the distance factor is important in space. How so? Apart from time, what else does it consume?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Coito, I was replying to Gawdzillas "bin there, done it, no further point" post about the Moon.

That was the attitude of the general public, not mine.

[Coito ergo sum]

Gradually boost the ISS into a higher and higher orbit until it's near the moon then lower an astronaut down on a rope.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/space-elevator.html

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If it's not an Otis, I'm not getting on it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito, I was replying to Gawdzillas "bin there, done it, no further point" post about the Moon.

Not my attitude. I realize the general public is not with me on the space flight issue, and I think that's sad. The general public thinks it's a waste of money. They, as usual, however, are ignorant of the facts. Not saying Gawdzilla is ignorant of the facts, just the general public, in general, generally speaking...

The real question is "what is the point of a space station, compared to a Moon mission", and to be honest, I can't see the point of the space station in that context.

They both have points. You need the space station experience and the moon mission experience as stepping stones to Mars and long-term life in space.

You would learn more from moon missions, and get much more.

I am in favor of Moon missions. But, you learn different things with the ISS, and all those things are valuable, or invaluable, or both.

I'm not saying that the space station is pointless, just saying that one Moon mission is worth ten space station missions, at least.

Apples to oranges. We need both.

And I don't agree about Mars. The Moon is FAR more important than Mars, because it's potentially of far more use to humans. What sort of energy requirement would it be, to land and take off from Mars?

A lot. The Moon is more important than Mars, because we won't do Mars without perfecting Moon missions first. That was the biggest load of bullshit that we were fed when the Constellation program was cancelled. FFS -- the Moon is to much trouble, but we're going to go on manned missions to Mars and to an asteroid? Pure bollocks. I mean, the fact that the media ate that up is a testament to their idiocy. All that was was a way to say "I'm not really canceling manned space flight, I'm just moving us to bigger and better things...." [whisper..."...long after I'm gone....in the 'out years'.."]. Pure CRAP! Evidence: no mention of the manned Mars mission for the last 18 months. How can we get to Mars by 2030 if we don't start now? Answer: can't. We're not going.

Vastly more than the Moon. It will be prohibitive for a long long time. Not so the Moon.

I agree - I am in favor of going back to the Moon.

[leo-rcc]

Brilliant marketing plan to capitalize on the misunderstanding of the term! Trademarked too, I bet.

Oh yes, also has been the leading brand of Duct tape (aka gaffer tape or stage tape) for years. 3M and Tesa make it too under a different brand name.

Sorry I have no interest in lunar landings but since half my robots are held together with this stuff I do know about this.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sorry I have no interest in lunar landings but since half my robots are held together with this stuff I do know about this.

I once helped slap "100 mph tape" on Mark Martin's car during his last race as a "junior Nascar driver".

[laklak]

If it's not an Otis, I'm not getting on it.

What about a Schindler? They're on the short list.

[mistermack]

Coito,
I agree there is no intention behind the "aspiration" to go to Mars. And the asteroid idea is ludicrous.
What benefit can you possibly get from that? Compared to the Moon, anyway.

If the plan is to get people living sustainably away from Earth, huge space stations are the answer.
But to build them, we need to mine the Moon. That's why the Moon is vital.
Once you get to a point where you can manufacture in space, from Moon materials, then you can really take off. The electrical energy supply is virtually unlimited and extremely cheap. Materials can be lifted off the moon without much effort. And processed into machinery etc. on a space station.
You could provide proper shielding from radiation with Moon materials because you wouldn't be so restricted by weight.

That's how I see it. Moon first, giant Space station second.
With proper shielding, and artificial gravity from rotation, people could be born, live and die in a giant space station. It's not certain that you could ever do the same on the Moon or Mars.

[Coito ergo sum]

This was before the information age. People had no idea about the dagnostic forensic technologies which would appear later. The simple and least risky option would be to put a craft into orbit and ditch it in the Pacific. Send a robot to the moon to collect samples with the same craft. The way the Saturn V was constructed would allow for a multiple mission launch. It isquite possible the robotic lunar soil/rock retriever failed for Apollo 13 explaining the dubious incredible rescue. Wouldn't we all like to repair a space ship with a spare sock and ducktape?

It's "duct tape" not "ducktape." It's tape designed and manufactured to seal the joints in heating and cooling ducts, not something for taping your favorite waterfowl to your ass.

Brilliant marketing plan to capitalize on the misunderstanding of the term! Trademarked too, I bet.

Actually, duck tape looks like the correct etymological usage. That is, duck preceded duct.

The original name of the cloth-backed, waterproof adhesive product was duck tape, developed for the United States Army by the Permacel division of Johnson & Johnson to keep moisture out of ammunition cases. The earliest civilian use I can find is in an advertisement by Gimbels department store in June 1942 (antedating the O.E.D. entry by three decades -- nobody but nobody beats this column), which substitutes our product for the ''ladder tape'' that usually holds together Venetian blinds. For $2.99, Gimbels -- now defunct -- would provide blinds ''in cream with cream tape or in white with duck tape.''

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/02/magaz ... -duck.html (William Safire, etymologist and writer)

Here is a 1902 Brooklyn Daily Eagle newspaper article using the term "duck" tape, referring to the tape that was used to wrap around cables on the Bridge. It's not exactly the same kind of tape as Safire was referring to, but shows a prior usage of a cloth tape being called "duck" tape. The tape Safire is talking about in his article is exactly the grey tape that we know today.

And, the evidence for prior usage of "duct" tape is.... ? Perhaps we can settle this matter.