It seems the first one in was a medical officer and gave the “Four green”...
So, is that four entering the capsule or five? I'm confused.
While I agree there's not much real science (we've done this before, and can do it far better with automated missions) this mission was important to prove out Orion and the SLS system.
Well what I understand her to say is that from the viewpoint of science information the trip was of little value. But she does acknowledge the existence of other reasons beside science for the Artemis programme, namely geopolitical (beating the Chinese) and, curiously I thought, economic.
I asked a mate, a reliable human source, he said Titanium.
The big one is Helium-3 for aneutronic fusion. But that is very speculative since we don't even have D-T fusion yet, and aneutronic fusion is much farther out.
Ah, so the economic argument only applies if the objective is to build a Moon settlement. Which invites the question of why one might want to build a Moon settlement. Hard to resist the impression of something disappearing up its own arse.
Because otherwise we're trapped on this rock at the bottom of a steep gravity well? Can we continue to expand as a species without eating up our planet from the inside?
But we aren’t expanding as a species. The population is forecast to stabilise and then fall.
Yes - or build vehicles for further exploration.
Cause? Or effect?
Does moon base fall under "space travel"?
Sometimes I think we hominids need to start expanding more into inner space. We don't need more billions of us, or more shiny gadgets to do that. No life where compassion, love, wonder, and illumination can be found is stagnant.
No the population is stabilising because women are now able to control their fertility, and because they are increasingly able to do the same things as men in society. You see this pattern in every society as female emancipation takes hold. The challenge is for a stable population to learn to live sustainably.
It's a stepping stone to become a multi-planet species, which ultimately does increase the chances of our survival as a species long-term, should anything happen to Earth (self-inflicted or otherwise). But then until we learn how to expand beyond our own solar-system, we're limited to being a one-system species. Then one-galaxy... oh, the nihilism of it all!
Yeah but we will never expand beyond our solar system - because the numbers are awful. It would take centuries to get even to the nearest star, let alone any habitable planet. So it's a stepping stone to bugger all, as far as I can see.It's a stepping stone to become a multi-planet species, which ultimately does increase the chances of our survival as a species long-term, should anything happen to Earth (self-inflicted or otherwise). But then until we learn how to expand beyond our own solar-system, we're limited to being a one-system species. Then one-galaxy... oh, the nihilism of it all!
As to why the moon and not, say, straight to Mars, then it's about learning the ropes in a "safer" location. Sure, the environments of the two bodies are different, but we can get used to manned space-flight, improve the operations, the safety, etc. A more luxurious toilet is one thing, for example!! Learning how to operate in a lower gravity (Mars is roughly 1/3g, the moon roughly 1/6g), what sort of construction works (notwithstanding different requirements/environments), protocols, etc. Probably best to learn such stuff, or as much as we can, where rescue is only a few days away rather than months/years. Consider it a proving ground / test-bed for the techniques and earth-side operations, rather than anything specific to being on the moon, although once there I'm sure there will also be much to learn/try about the moon.
Is there an urgency, though? Not really. We haven't returned for 50+ years, and nothing has pushed up the need since then. It's nice to have a focus, though, to keep pushing toward something rather than just repeating the same old same old.
We don't know what we don't know. Getting beyond our solar system is a problem to worry about long into the future. It may be that if/when we're comfortable enough with space-travel within our solar system, with recycling tech, that people are willing to take a journey into the depths, so to speak. For people to commit to a one-way generational starship that, for all intents and purposes, is a self-contained space-faring city. Who knows. It's pure speculation at this point. But, any such future needs a first step. Even if that is a first step to discovering that it'll never be feasible.
In many ways I don't disagree. I think the "struggle" to achieve something is its own goal in many respects, and many benefits will arise from it (probably? possibly?). But where I think it differs to the likes of climbing Everest is that we pretty much knew with Everest that, other than the view there was not much else (other than the achievement itself). With space-travel, there may well be things out there that can offer benefits to manking as a whole (resources, capabilities, etc?). Yes, maybe robotic exploitation rather than manned would be the way to go, but a man with a shovel is currently far more capable than a robot.
www.theguardian.com
Once we get an ansible working, interspecies Zoom sessions will be easy. Nobody messes with generation ships anymore. The future ain't what it used to be!
Yes. And given the situation in the Gulf and rocket fuel hydrogen mainly coming from steam reformation of methane, it might get more ultra-exp for a while.
The dreams are a bit thin on the ground. I probably will not start an Artemis 3 thread, maybe 4 when they land again.
When they start testing the landing module it would be worth a thread I think. That’s a lot more complicated and interesting than a bog standard rocket job.