Moon Landings: Real or Hoax?

[Hman]

If they really wanted to build a forward operating base for future missions to Mars or other close planets, they should have built it on the moon and not in low earth orbit. Storage space for things like food, water and fuel is abundant on the moon, but with the ISS, there are limited space storing big amounts of anything really.

Yeah sure there's lots of space, but you have to think of building infrastructure to accommodate storage space. Tehthering to the space station would be much simpler, you package it on earth in the necessary container and send it to the ISS where it stays ready for use.

On the moon you would have to land it first, which requires a motor which burns lots of fuel, which increases weight and cost substantially over having a some small attitude control thrusters or having it delivered by a delivery craft.

Then when the time comes to launch for Mars you only need to get the vehicle to the ISS, pick up the supplies and go. If you needed to launch from the moon you would have to land on the moon, again wasting fuel, space, weight and money. Then you need to get the supplies loaded after which you need to launch from the moon, for which you need more power to escape the gravity, again requiring lots of fuel and money.

Also, if you were to launch from the ISS you could take as much supplies as you want without having to worry about the weight on the landing gear of the vehicle as you would with the moon.

[rustypup]

On the moon you would have to land it first, which requires a motor which burns lots of fuel

why? why not just drop it the way they do now with the rovers?... with 1/6 the gravity of earth all you'll have to deal with is a slight bump.

launching from the lunar surface takes a tiny fraction of the energy requirement of the same launch out of earth's gravity well...

the moon offers a fair number of necessary resources and, given that it acts like catcher's mitt for the very same asteroids which have been depositing heavy metals to earth for aeons, we could also realistically expect to find a cache or two of fissionable fuel... a must have if we're to seriously consider living there for an extended period of time and fuel local space exploration.... (albeit nowhere near the same quantities as on earth).

a natural cave system on the moon also offers some protection from the constant bombardment of micrometeors which make the ISS such an exciting place to live and work...

[Hman]

why? why not just drop it the way they do now with the rovers?... with 1/6 the gravity of earth all you'll have to deal with is a slight bump.

Mars has an atmosphere which you can use to slow things down, the moon doesn't have one. Without the atmosphere around Mars NASA would have landed the rovers using motors ad the did landing the Lunar modules.

launching from the lunar surface takes a tiny fraction of the energy requirement of the same launch out of earth's gravity well...

Launching from the ISS would take even less.

the moon offers a fair number of necessary resources and, given that it acts like catcher's mitt for the very same asteroids which have been depositing heavy metals to earth for aeons, we could also realistically expect to find a cache or two of fissionable fuel... a must have if we're to seriously consider living there for an extended period of time and fuel local space exploration.... (albeit nowhere near the same quantities as on earth).

How do you expect to extract and refine the resources there, are you going to wish the resources into gathering and refining themselves? Building facilities there would pose insurmountable financial implications.

a natural cave system on the moon also offers some protection from the constant bombardment of micrometeors which make the ISS such an exciting place to live and work...

Can we send you there with your hard-hat, lantern and some tools so you can start working on making the caves usable?

[Hman]

Oh and the rovers did in fact use rocket motors to slow decent rate.

http://marsrover.nasa.gov/technology/is ... nding.html

[rustypup]

Mars has an atmosphere which you can use to slow things down, the moon doesn't have one.

the gravity differential between mars and moon is one of the primary requirements for braking... otherwise simply dropping low-velocity loads would be of no import - especially with raw materials...

deceleration could happen long before impact where fuel costs could be kept to a minimum... and there would be no need to expend fuel on recovering delivery mechanisms... particularly if the mechanisms themselves constituted technical materials for use on the surface....

the lack of atmosphere means you will generally hit what you aim for on the moon...

Launching from the ISS would take even less.

docking with the ISS is fraught with risk and the station itself has very little excess storage capacity. i sincerely doubt engineering took into consideration the possibility that future generations would simply duck-tape bags of materials to handy protrusions in preparation for exploration... expanding storage space would produce an input cost with zero scientific value whereas every step of establishing a lunar base would add increasing value to our knowledge pool....

the moon is offering us:

• *fuel for exploration that doesn't need to be dragged out of earth's gravity well
  *water and oxygen which don't need to be dragged out of earth's gravity well
  *insulated environment which doesn't suffer from the abrasion enjoyed by the ISS

i fail to see how we could even begin to argue that dragging all the basic necessities up there is cheaper than simply grabbing what's already waiting for us...

<edit>
not forgetting the inherent possibilities in being able to reach out and grab near-earth asteroids relatively cheaply..
</edit>

Building facilities there would pose insurmountable financial implications.

so the best strategy then is to sit down here and cry about how expensive it is? until we get wiped out by some random visiting asteroid on it's way to a hot date with mercury... then we get to tally the cost in terms of indolence and self-interest...

Can we send you there with your hard-hat, lantern and some tools so you can start working on making the caves usable?

no. no. you're quite right. this is just me spitballing random nonsense... again

[Hman]

the gravity differential between mars and moon is one of the primary requirements for braking... otherwise simply dropping low-velocity loads would be of no import - especially with raw materials...

deceleration could happen long before impact where fuel costs could be kept to a minimum... and there would be no need to expend fuel on recovering delivery mechanisms... particularly if the mechanisms themselves constituted technical materials for use on the surface....

Yes, obviously there's a gravitational difference. The reason for braking is not so heavily dependent on gravity as much as approach speed is. Things don't move at 60km/h hour up there.

the lack of atmosphere means you will generally hit what you aim for on the moon...

Same thing goes for the ISS.

docking with the ISS is fraught with risk and the station itself has very little excess storage capacity. i sincerely doubt engineering took into consideration the possibility that future generations would simply duck-tape bags of materials to handy protrusions in preparation for exploration... expanding storage space would produce an input cost with zero scientific value whereas every step of establishing a lunar base would add increasing value to our knowledge pool....

None less than landing on the moon. I don't think they'd use duct-tape but the possibilities for expansion is there.

the moon is offering us:

• *fuel for exploration that doesn't need to be dragged out of earth's gravity well
  *water and oxygen which don't need to be dragged out of earth's gravity well
  *insulated environment which doesn't suffer from the abrasion enjoyed by the ISS

i fail to see how we could even begin to argue that dragging all the basic necessities up there is cheaper than simply grabbing what's already waiting for us...

Yes, instead we'll drag enormous amounts of materials to create mines, refineries and storage systems on the moon, with non guaranteed results. Well then you fail.

<edit>
not forgetting the inherent possibilities in being able to reach out and grab near-earth asteroids relatively cheaply..
</edit>

What's good for the moon is great for the ISS.

so the best strategy then is to sit down here and cry about how expensive it is? until we get wiped out by some random visiting asteroid on it's way to a hot date with mercury... then we get to tally the cost in terms of indolence and self-interest...

No, we should save that for when the Sun eventually goes supernova and burns us all.

no. no. you're quite right. this is just me spitballing random nonsense... again

Sounds like it.

[StarPhoenix]

No, we should save that for when the Sun eventually goes supernova and burns us all.

A minor league yellow dwarf is unlikely to exit the stage in so spectacular a fashion. IF prior history of life on this planet is anything to go by, we are likely to have become extinct before the oceans evaporate.

You will forgive me if I am a little cynical of the aspiration of our self-important species...