Do you think NASA should send crew/colony to Moon for research/start colony?

[Deaf3279]

Do you guys think NASA should start send people to moon again for research or moon or whatever?

[The Destroyer]

Needs to be in science labs or Off-topic

[The-Bean]

I voted "Nope, Waste of money".

Not really a waste, but there was no other "nope" choice. As much as I would love to see people on the moon right now I think it's just too expensive. In the coming decades when (hopefully) the price of getting large payloads into space decreases? Yes, we would be able to get far more science done for the same amount of money.

[Galileo Kerbonaut]

I've always wondered why they didn't go back, seems like totally illogical human behaviour. They've got the tech, over the years they've had lots of budget and by landing on the Moon in the first place you would say they would have a HUGE advantage over their enemies / other attempting nations. It's almost like after Columbus people would say: Nice a new continent, now let's move on, nothing to see here. Really, think about it? What was the first thing you did in KSP when you knew how to reach the Mün? Think big, go back, build a base...

There must be something to it.

[Deaf3279]

Needs to be in science labs or Off-topic

well someone post about "do you miss space shuttle?" Anyway...

I think NASA should send base to moon for research and colony (not mun) haha It would be first step of colony before they going into farrier moon/planets. I think Mars One is insane to send colony to Mars without trying at moon make sure everything work out and refine design before send to Mars. But it's their life. their choice. I would happy to going to Mars as long I have return to Earth ticket.

[llamatoes]

As much as I agree that it would be awesome, IMHO, manned space flight is all well and good, but we should wait for it to be cheaper, or as my dad say, when a space elevator is built (which I doubt the practicality of), I agree that NASA pootling around in LEO with the space station has not been good for space flight. Also, the shuttle stifled growth in the private sector of space travel, SpaceX would have been set up much earlier( by that I mean any private spacecraft allowed to dock with the iss). Haven't NASA read voyager, they could improve by setting it as standard reading material for their entire faculty.

[The Destroyer]

well someone post about "do you miss space shuttle?" Anyway...

I think NASA should send base to moon for research and colony (not mun) haha It would be first step of colony before they going into farrier moon/planets. I think Mars One is insane to send colony to Mars without trying at moon make sure everything work out and refine design before send to Mars. But it's their life. their choice. I would happy to going to Mars as long I have return to Earth ticket.

Which honestly should have been in science labs or off-topic too, as it has nothing to do with KSP. But with space, yes.

[Rocketscience101]

I say yes, because all it takes is one massive natural disaster and we become like dino's. Dead before you know it. If we are on the moon, which would buy us some time before we could get to Mars, or farther. Then we become an infinite species.

[llamatoes]

Yes, and what if both those get blown up?

Generation ships?

[SunJumper]

I think we should have a permanent settlement beyond LEO. It will, at least, serve to research long term effects of low gravity, and to test out completely permanent life-support (including food and water).

[NeoMorph]

Yes, for colony and research. It would be good for a test Mars base (nearly put Duna lol) but still be near enough to home in case of problems.

I'm really surprised we still haven't gone back to the moon. That's the only reason that makes me wonder if it did happen at all. The old "Capricorn One" effect (ie the tech wasn't up to it so they faked it). If they had gone to the moon I really would have expected them to be back by now because it would be easier... but still nothing. But part of me thinks they did go because to keep a secret this long would be next to impossible. Arrrgghhh... Conundrum time.

[Deaf3279]

Yes, and what if both those get blown up?

Generation ships?

You mean like this?

From Star Trek Voyager "Disease" they got generation ship

[NeoMorph]

One of the first books I read was about a generation ship... and the crew and passengers revolt and they forget they are actually on a ship after many generations. But now the ship is nearing the end of the journey and it is beginning to get ready to deploy to the colony world and parts of the that were locked down are now starting to open up. Got me interested in scifi and spaceflight from that one story.

Edit: HOLY GOOGLE... I put in some terms from the book and it found it right away... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphans_of_the_Sky

Edited May 11, 2013 by NeoMorph

[Galileo Kerbonaut]

I'm really surprised we still haven't gone back to the moon. That's the only reason that makes me wonder if it did happen at all. The old "Capricorn One" effect (ie the tech wasn't up to it so they faked it). If they had gone to the moon I really would have expected them to be back by now because it would be easier... but still nothing. But part of me thinks they did go because to keep a secret this long would be next to impossible. Arrrgghhh... Conundrum time

Either they didn't go or they went back and kept it a military secret. You think keeping a secret like this would be impossible? Most military inventions are kept secret for decades; you really don't think you know everything there is to know, do you?

[NeoMorph]

The moon missions were combined civilian and military... I would have expected someone to leak from the civvie side at least. As the saying goes, "Three can keep a secret if two are dead".

[Trux]

I said no, but not for the reason of it being a waste of money

[Galileo Kerbonaut]

The moon missions were combined civilian and military... I would have expected someone to leak from the civvie side at least. As the saying goes, "Three can keep a secret if two are dead".

Think about people like Grissom, White, Chaffee and all those others. Really, if you dive into the subject, be ready for a surprise or two. Let's be honest, who was keeping an eye on NASA, other then NASA itself? How reliable are they in the first place? Never A Straight Answer. Now, I'm not saying they didn't go... but it is possible that they have faked it.

[NeoMorph]

The thing that keeps coming up is the Van Allen belts that protect us from radiation. Going to the moon in those rickety ships would have been like driving around in a microwave oven lol. How many Apollo astronauts died of cancer?

[The Destroyer]

You mean like this?

From Star Trek Voyager "Disease" they got generation ship

Or that.

[Nibb31]

Apollo had to calculate their trajectory in order to minimize the time spend in the Van Allen belt.

Unmanned probes can use low-thrust propulsion methods to get to the Moon, such as SEP, but a manned spacecraft requires a quick transition in order to minimize exposure.

[Galileo Kerbonaut]

The thing that keeps coming up is the Van Allen belts that protect us from radiation. Going to the moon in those rickety ships would have been like driving around in a microwave oven lol. How many Apollo astronauts died of cancer?

Well, it is strange to say the least that after the moon landings, people never went higher then 700 Km in orbit (indeed, because of these belts). It's like the moon missions are a huge anomaly in the statistics of space flight. Like I said before, if you have the tech already in the barn, why not use it? A normal human response would be to go back; over the years they've had enormous amounts of money, I really doubt that was an issue at all. Also, one would assume that with modern technology things would easier and cheaper then 4 decades ago. Sometimes, I really do doubt the story.

[Nibb31]

This poll is badly worded and bady placed. It's not a general discussion about KSP, so it should be in the Off Topic forums.

First of all, NASA's charter doesn't talk about establishing colonies on other worlds. NASA is a research and technology development agency. Its role is to develop new technologies and to make them available to the aerospace industry.

A colony makes no sense. There are only two reasons for colonists to want to migrate to another planet: either they are being forced to move there by the political power (ie. Australia) or they move voluntarily to improve their wealth, their confort or their security. Mars or the Moon offer neither wealth, nor comfort, nor security. Also, colonies only make sense if there is an economical incentive for the power who is financing the colonization effort, either though trade or by establishing a political land grab. Only the land grab idea is feasible, but there is no point in a land grab when there are no resources and there is no way to reach the land.

The only thing that makes sense is a permanent/semi-permanent scientific outpost, similar to McMurdo base in Antarctica, with crew rotations and regular supply lines. However, this would be immensely expensive.

Edited May 11, 2013 by Nibb31

[Galileo Kerbonaut]

No resources? Helium 3 maybe?

[Nibb31]

Well, it is strange to say the least that after the moon landings, people never went higher then 700 Km in orbit (indeed, because of these belts). It's like the moon missions are a huge anomaly in the statistics of space flight. Like I said before, if you have the tech already in the barn, why not use it? A normal human response would be to go back; over the years they've had enormous amounts of money, I really doubt that was an issue at all. Also, one would assume that with modern technology things would easier and cheaper then 4 decades ago. Sometimes, I really do doubt the story.

Between 1974 and now, when exactly was the point when NASA had "enormous amounts of money"? They were all tied up with the Shuttle and trying to get a Space Station so that the Shuttle had a place to actually go to.

It's not because of the Van Allen belts that nobody went higher than 700km. It's because there was no manned spacecraft capable of going higher, and no money to design one. And also because there was more interest in doing new stuff than in doing stuff that had already been done.

And you assume wrong about technology making things easier. We have become extremely risk averse. A human life is much more valuable now than it was in the post-war era. We test and validate more than we used to, we spend more time setting up commissions, validating numbers, getting approvals and certifications. And there is a lot less money. It took Boeing 2 years to develop the 747 and 10 years to develop the 787. This isn't because Boeing engineers suck or because flight is harder, it's because there is a whole lot more process overhead, economical pressure, and red tape nowadays than there used to be.

Edited May 11, 2013 by Nibb31

[Nibb31]

No resources? Helium 3 maybe?

There are small quantities of He-3 on the Moon, but not in such huge concentrations that a mining colony would be worthwhile. You would need to process 150 000 tons of regolith to get 1 ton of He-3. Besides, He-3 fusion is still pretty much a pipe dream. There are cheaper ways of producing fusion power.

Edited May 11, 2013 by Nibb31