/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12642130

833KiB, 1065x766, moon colonization with 9 heavy.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Fri 29 Jan 17:04:30 2021 No.12642130 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12642171 >>12643828 >>12643939 >>12644099 >>12644241 >>12644278 >>12645850 >>12646456

Using Falcon 9 heavy, NASA could start right now, building an base in the Moon and have it operative by 2023.
Why are they not doing it? And it would even be cheaper and more efficient!

https://youtu.be/Xlw3S3v13TY
https://youtu.be/SHgpGJXLrJc

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 Jan 2021 17:14:01 No.12642171 Report

Quoted By: >>12642222 >>12643612

>>12642130
>Why are they not doing it?
because who cares? A probe can do all these things with less cost and no threat to astronauts' lives.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 Jan 2021 17:16:45 No.12642179 Report

Quoted By:

Who cares about the moon we have social issues to deal with #buildbackbetter

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 Jan 2021 17:31:45 No.12642222 Report

Quoted By: >>12642227

>>12642171
>no threat to astronauts' lives.
They are adults and they are astronauts, they have to take risks.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 Jan 2021 17:34:10 No.12642227 Report

Quoted By: >>12642282 >>12644395

>>12642222
Why? Because we told them so? What's the point of sending them there if they're no better than probes? The Soviets obtained first moon samples before the Americans using Lunokhod probes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 Jan 2021 17:52:11 No.12642282 Report

Quoted By:

>>12642227
the moon would make a good starting point in order to get to mars. the lower gravity means rockets could launch with a heavier payload and we could develop technologies on the moon that could potentially make life better on earth.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 Jan 2021 18:03:53 No.12642323 Report

Quoted By: >>12644431

NASA is hamstringed by bureaucracy and the US is too much of a fucking mess.

China will make good progress and SpaceX will achieve it by the end of the decade. Moon infrastructure is inevitable and the events of the last decade have brought the expected time down by an order of magnitude at least.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 Jan 2021 18:59:42 No.12642525 Report

Quoted By:

Might as well wait a couple years for starship to get working, it'll be a lot cheaper that way.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 Jan 2021 23:37:39 No.12643612 Report

Quoted By: >>12644242

>>12642171
>when Xi say there will be moonbase, there will be moonbase
>when Putin say Russians will land on the moon, Russians will land on the moon
>when Biden say Americans will return to Moon, lets just send more drones, because space is too dangerous
This is why America is on decline.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Jan 2021 00:30:47 No.12643828 Report

Quoted By: >>12643868

>>12642130
How will they land it?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Super heavy moon.jpg, 867KiB, 3951x3419

Anonymous Sat 30 Jan 2021 00:45:48 No.12643868 Report

Quoted By: >>12645853

>>12643828

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Jan 2021 01:07:27 No.12643939 Report

Quoted By:

>>12642130
NASA doesn't want to do manned space anymore.

They'd be perfectly happy launching robot probes to the moons of Jupiter fromnow till doomsday.

As far as they're concerned manned spaceflight is a waste of time and money.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 68747470733a2f2f6b36312e6b6e332e (...).png, 300KiB, 1005x755

Anonymous Sat 30 Jan 2021 02:17:52 No.12644099 Report

Quoted By: >>12644281

>>12642130
>mircowave power-beaming set up
bruh just mini reactors, hardly any set up compared to a bunch of panels

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Jan 2021 03:02:06 No.12644225 Report

Quoted By:

>rockets
lol fuck off with that archaic garbage

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Jan 2021 03:07:54 No.12644241 Report

Quoted By: >>12644265

>>12642130
How would this advance NASA's primary mission of climate science and racial equity?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Jan 2021 03:08:26 No.12644242 Report

Quoted By: >>12644506

>>12643612
>when Biden say Americans will return to Moon
Biden will never, ever say that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Jan 2021 03:15:37 No.12644265 Report

Quoted By: >>12644269

>>12644241
NASA has done climate science for decades you mong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Jan 2021 03:18:19 No.12644269 Report

Quoted By: >>12644273

>>12644265
I know, and that's awesome. But there's no climate on the moon so why would NASA go there? I'm not seeing it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Jan 2021 03:19:35 No.12644273 Report

Quoted By: >>12644286

>>12644269
practice building a space base

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Jan 2021 03:22:56 No.12644278 Report

Quoted By:

>>12642130
Politics. Senate created the SENATE LAUNCH SYSTEM with specific mandates on how to build a rocket, what components to use and which vehicles to be use for moon and where the money is spent.

US has the capability, they just don't want to do it because state politics. SpaceX winning would mean less money for Alabama state which has controlled the funding for Space for the last 10 years or so.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Jan 2021 03:24:05 No.12644281 Report

Quoted By: >>12644341

>>12644099
Costs a billion dollar or so plus ton of regulations. Its cheaper/faster/more powerful to send in solar panels + batteries to moon, have human colony there than waiting on these government techs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Jan 2021 03:25:05 No.12644286 Report

Quoted By: >>12644310

>>12644273
So you want rich to escape to space while the poor/hungry african americans/latinos get left behind? That's not what NASA stands for. NASA stands for equality, not space exploration.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Jan 2021 03:35:46 No.12644310 Report

Quoted By:

>>12644286
>NASA stands for equity*
Fixed ;^)
Equality is a racist dogwhistle. Equity is the thing!

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO exec-order-nuclear-top.jpg, 680KiB, 1920x1080

Anonymous Sat 30 Jan 2021 03:55:58 No.12644341 Report

Quoted By:

>>12644281
>cheaper
possibly definitely not a billion, but we're comparing space power sources not power companies in the US
>faster
in what way
>more powerful
lmao no, a full on base requires much more energy than you think and the nights are 29 days long, that's an insane amount of battery storage. There are some peaks at the poles that have permanent sunshine but building near there could prove difficult.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Jan 2021 04:25:19 No.12644395 Report

Quoted By: >>12644486

>>12642227
>What's the point of sending them there if they're no better than probes?
Machines doing much less than man can do.

>The Soviets obtained first moon samples before the Americans using Lunokhod probes.
First of all, Lunokhods didn't obtained any samples. Secondly, first samples were returned with manned missions. The amound and variety of this samples is a good indication of why manned missions have greater scientific results.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Jan 2021 04:44:16 No.12644426 Report

Quoted By: >>12646477

From about 1970 to 2000 the $/kg of putting something into space was pretty constant.

What's the driving factor in the last 10-20 years for driving this down so much? All I can find is SpaceX saying "we're just more efficient and reuse our rockets".
Is that all it is? No major technological developments? No new materials?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Jan 2021 04:48:45 No.12644431 Report

Quoted By:

>>12642323
China has only seven crewed flights of their Soyuz based shenzou spacecraft, and their two single can space stations looked like Russian tks modiles. They are so far behind its not funny, and thats with benifiting from Russia, Europe and the states making all of the big innovations decades ago. China is a meme.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 38640716-9202081-image-a-3_16119 (...).jpg, 40KiB, 306x385

Anonymous Sat 30 Jan 2021 05:04:52 No.12644459 Report

Quoted By: >>12644460

Musk stand aside! STEM WOC coming through.
https://news.sky.com/story/new-concept-for-rocket-thruster-exploits-the-mechanism-behind-solar-flares-12202285

Paper:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2011.04192.pdf

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Jan 2021 05:05:57 No.12644460 Report

Quoted By: >>12645890

>>12644459
you already have your own shill thread, be gone thot

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Jan 2021 05:23:36 No.12644486 Report

Quoted By:

>>12644395
You make a good point however that was mostly true in the era of fixed landers. The several US mars rovers have been able to explore a lot of terrain, of course there was no sample return.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Jan 2021 05:32:50 No.12644506 Report

Quoted By:

>>12644242
He will say that, because it costs him nothing. If it succeeds, it was Obama's idea, if it fails, it was Trump's fault, and if it will drag for too long, it will become Kamala's problem.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Jan 2021 17:36:20 No.12645850 Report

Quoted By:

>>12642130
Look up Zubrin's "Moon Direct"

Basic idea is

>Mission 1
Falcon Heavy sends fuel farm to moon

>Mission 2
FH launches Earth to Moon Transfer module and Moon Ascent vehicle

> Mission 3+

Falcon 9 sends Dragon to Leo. Transfers crew to Moon transfer. Land on Moon

Coming back on Mars ascent vehicle. Transfer back to Leo. Come down in the dragon.

So Moon missions would be like 100Mill$ each after two initial FH lunches and developing the transfer and descent/ascent module. Also need to develop ISRU

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Jan 2021 17:37:34 No.12645853 Report

Quoted By: >>12646421

>>12643868
Payload is too heavy

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1375592079959.jpg, 131KiB, 500x333

Anonymous Sat 30 Jan 2021 17:53:07 No.12645890 Report

Quoted By:

>>12644460

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Jan 2021 20:28:44 No.12646421 Report

Quoted By:

>>12645853
Falcon Heavy can lift more payload if the boosters don't save fuel for propulsive landing and are discarded. Still cheaper than SLS.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Jan 2021 20:41:15 No.12646456 Report

Quoted By:

>>12642130
Easier to send robots to do all the construction, all they need is power and orders.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Jan 2021 20:52:41 No.12646477 Report

Quoted By: >>12646483

>>12644426
>No major technological developments?
A rocket that can land itself is quite a development

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 Jan 2021 20:55:27 No.12646483 Report

Quoted By: >>12648070

>>12646477
The technology is the same but it's applied differently.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 31 Jan 2021 06:07:02 No.12648070 Report

Quoted By:

>>12646483
By that logic nothing is a major technological development

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches