Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
You guys...
Artemis 2
- Thread starter Pinball1970
- Start date
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Ken Fabian
Registered Senior Member
But expanding into space in any sustainable way is not feasible. It is not even close to feasible. Even if we can envisage technological solutions to each impediment the economics of applying them all do not work. Not even close. And colonising that works is an economic activity of the parent economy, not a saving the human race activity, no matter what those involved may want to believe such goals are fundamental.
At best we might see trying a colony as an experiment in enduring survival in a closed system - and it will be within closed systems, no matter the existence of space and of planets and moons, asteroids and comets. But we would be much better to run such experiments here on Earth, at much lower cost and with much less risk of loss of life. And probably still struggle to apply lessons learned to existence on Earth.
The thread has wandered off chronicling the specific mission but that question of why and of what the program can be expected to deliver seems legitimate. Perhaps the broader discussion should be for another thread - but I suspect it will only see people restate what they have already said here and in other threads.
Roosters for ever
Registered Senior Member
*shrug* People are like that sadly. I mean the interest in the Apollo landings waned after Apollo XII. It took a near catastrophe with Apollo XIII for the average Joe Blow, to perk up again at these ground breaking, cutting edge, scientifically endowed missions.
It has been more then 50 years since Apollo was sadly abandoned. Certainly it was costly, and always dangerous, and these were reasons why it was abandoned, but it also had much to do with the blaise 'Here we go again" attitude of the average Joe Blow. The same average Joe Blow, that probably never gives any thoughts about the science being done every day on the ISS, and how that science is forever benefiting us here on Terra-firma. The ISS is still doing science, and the Space Shuttle missions, did their bit also, not the least being giving the HST a new lens to give scientists a incredible view of our Milky way and beyond.
How much further would science in general be advanced here on Earth, if a permanent habitat had been built? I shouldn't have to go through all that here, after all this is a science forum, and it would be some what like teaching Granny to suck eggs.
My only suggestion is that it should be a world International effort, much like the ISS was. Trump is a low, egotistical arsehole, but if he is behind NASA then I suppose even the biggest low piece of shit, can have at least one saving point, even if it is simply to out smart and out wit the Chinese and their incredible advancements in SPACE science..
I wish the Chinese all the luck in the world in their space endeavours.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Yes competition is driving this now with other agencies and commercial ventures like New Glenn launch in 15 mins!
New Glenn launch (currently in a hold so you may be able to catch this if you an early riser stateside)
Last edited:
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
The big difference with these guys and Space x is they re use some of the kit saving money for future missions. The booster in this launch will come back and land on Jacklyn, a ship. EDIT Launch 12.25 BST
Last edited:
FYI, the Trump administration's budget for 2027 is for a 26% cut in funding. Within this, however, he is protecting Artemis missions, but the budget for other missions will be slashed by c.47%. Something like 40 missions are to be scrubbed due to lack of funding.
This is the same budget that proposes a c.40-50% jump in military budget to $1.5tn, not including the $200bn they want for the Iran war.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I gather all NASA's invaluable work on climate monitoring has been binned by this financial tech-bro Trumpy director, in favour of this piece of geopolitical willy-waving.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Is that Artemis or Iran?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Applies to a great deal in this presidency. What about the Arc de Trump? Or the proposed 3 x life size gold statue in his projected "library". He may come back to the suggestion, made some ago, for his ugly mug on Mt Rushmore too, though now that the shine is comng off that may not get very far. Orangemandias:
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
The two Biosphere missions have underscored that we have a long way to go with closed system endurance. One of them, the O2 level dropped to that at nearly 14,000 feet (~4Km) in altitude, and the inhabitants needed an injection of O2 from outside. There were also wild fluctuations in CO2, species dieoffs, mold overgrowth, insufficient food, etc. IIRC, one scientist had to be sent out through the airlock for medical treatment - a less salutary measure on Mars, one imagines.
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
Turnip prefers his name be attached to shiny events which make good tv. President T puts colony and casino on Moon, not President T promotes research which accurately predicts CO2 levels, jet stream volatility, pelagic fishery migrations and current slowing in the AMOC.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Reports are that this, New Glen will most likely fail. The pay load is in an orbit that will bring it back to earth soon.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Well at least this latest Blue Origin rocket doesn't look like a penis. My son and I dubbed Bezos's first one Bellend One. Oddly Bezos himself looks like a penis. At least, let's just say he should avoid roll-neck sweaters.
Roosters for ever
Registered Senior Member
OK, thanks for that. So Trump remains an arsehole, and in my opinion, gives support for the need for an International effort for space endeavours, just as the ISS did albeit limited.
Mankind's baby steps into space, has transformed humanity in many different ways...agriculture, gps systems, meteorological predictions, CAT scans, computers, and certainly many many more that I am unaware of. A permanent Moon base and continuing advancements in space exploration will certainly advance that knowledge.
Not the least being the overall perspective that astronauts get when viewing this fart arse little blue orb from afar beautifully and eloquently summed up in Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot" narrative, which imo anyway should be compulsory knowledge for all primary school age children everywhere.
Ken Fabian
Registered Senior Member
I was aware of these - and aware that, whilst learning things, they could not be considered successful if demonstrating the capability to survive long term like that were the point. The occupants didn't have to assemble them, let alone build the industrial capabilities that were essential to making them and the machinery required out of local resources. Not that they were built with local resources - materials and equipment were probably sourced from around the world; even if preferentially from US suppliers, some will have used imported materials and factory equipment. Advanced industrial economies can do it. Remote bases in extreme isolation cannot.The two Biosphere missions have underscored that we have a long way to go with closed system endurance. One of them, the O2 level dropped to that at nearly 14,000 feet (~4Km) in altitude, and the inhabitants needed an injection of O2 from outside. There were also wild fluctuations in CO2, species dieoffs, mold overgrowth, insufficient food, etc. IIRC, one scientist had to be sent out through the airlock for medical treatment - a less salutary measure on Mars, one imagines.
I'm all in favour of international endeavours in this regard. More so than private ones, even, as the latter can be exploited for profit at the expense of (pun intended), well, everything else. With international endeavours there's an implicit sharing and equality of who can do what with the results. The downside is bureaucracy, and lack of speed. It'd be nice to have an international cooperation and budget, with no corruption, that can focus on manned expansion into space. But, well, we're not there (yet?).
Hopefully. Even if not in the areas expected. I mean, it may be that the development of the systems for the habitats becomes more of a benefit than any of the science they might do on the surface of the moon (I'm not saying it will be, just offering it as a hypothetical).
You don't need to be an astronaut to gain that perspective. After all, I don't recall Sagan's name on the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, or Shuttle missions?
But I agree with the sentiment. He's already posted AI images of "Trump" towers/buildings on the Moon.
Frantic Trump, 79, Posts Bizarre Fantasy for His Next Trump Tower
The president posted 17 times in 8 hours, sharing his thoughts on a range of subjects.
They're not images that his own team are coming up with, but he shares them on his own feed.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
It is official, New Glen "non nominal" orbit has failed and will return to earth.Well at least this latest Blue Origin rocket doesn't look like a penis. My son and I dubbed Bezos's first one Bellend One. Oddly Bezos himself looks like a penis. At least, let's just say he should avoid roll-neck sweaters.
Ken Fabian
Registered Senior Member
Whereas I think a whole lot of taxpayer funded R&D got us those things, many of which still depended on R&D done by not-space-focused agencies for other reasons (notably, but by no means only commercial) to successfully develop.
I support wide ranging R&D and I believe the different kinds all feed off each other. And we can never be sure which strand will give the pivotal developments.
I am a strong supporter of meteor defense as an international, cooperative goal. It also appears to be the most supported goal for NASA amongst Americans (according to Pew Research). There is no lack of need for supporting ongoing technological development in such a goal - it needs to be very ambitious. It is an ambition that can even survive world peace - which I don't think Artemis would. Without the showing Americans they are showing China motivation I think it would struggle to get funding. What it lacks is any particular need for crewed missions - more like it can be better done without the added complications and costs of including astronauts.
Last edited: