Subdeacon Joe Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/02/it-turns-out-that-odysseus-landed-on-the-moon-without-any-altimetry-data/#lt52fvfep5ixtqvlf1 " You can say whatever you want to say," Altemus said. "But from my perspective, this is an absolute success of a mission. Holy crap. The things that you go through to fly to the Moon. The learning, just every step of the way, is tremendous." Altemus will participate in a news conference on Wednesday at Johnson Space Center to provide a fuller perspective of the journey of Odysseus to the Moon and all those learnings. But I got the sense he invited me to the company's offices Tuesday because he was itching to tell someone—to tell the world—that although Odysseus had toppled over after touching down, the mission was, in his words, an absolute success." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Riot Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 I wonder what poor technician is going to take the blame for the craft toppling? The engineers always blame the techs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cypress Sun Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 My gal asked me "Why are they going back to the moon, there was nothing there the last time?" I told here that regardless of the BS that the private and government entities give about scientific research and it'll be easier to launch from the moon for further space exploration...it's really all about the possible fortunes to be made from mining the moon for minerals/materials that are rare on Earth. Of course, when enough of these rare minerals/materials are brought back to Earth, they will no longer be rare and thereby prices for such items will fall. The entire "easier to launch from the moon" reasoning is the most obvious line of bs...lets launch stuff from Earth, take it to the moon and then launch from there...say what??? I'm glad for private space exploration and I think it's an outstanding achievement for a private company to put a lander on the moon, even though it did topple over. They are after the same thing that governments of India, China, the US, Japan and others are interested in....materials/minerals and ultimately...money. I just don't think that private investors are interested in research...they're interested in return on their money. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Riot Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 I am looking forward to the day when we can’t launch rockets due to all the space junk floating around our planet. Then private industry high tech junk collecting will be a real thing. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eyesa Horg Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 Just wait til the Aliens get pi$$d about all the litter we leave up there! 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Joker Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 @Cypress Sun launch to moon build there launch from moon. No need to bring stuff to earth. Just the helium3 alone is worth it if we can get sustained fusion tech locked in. @Pat Riot. I can see a day when there is an industry recovering that stuff for the metal and scrap value. Movie about that on Netflix. And asteroid mining I can see that as a need if any sort of space industry starts up 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Riot Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 52 minutes ago, Texas Joker said: I can see a day when there is an industry recovering that stuff for the metal and scrap value. Movie about that on Netflix. And asteroid mining I can see that as a need if any sort of space industry starts up I agree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cypress Sun Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 35 minutes ago, Texas Joker said: @Cypress Sun launch to moon build there launch from moon. No need to bring stuff to earth. Just the helium3 alone is worth it if we can get sustained fusion tech locked in. @Pat Riot. I can see a day when there is an industry recovering that stuff for the metal and scrap value. Movie about that on Netflix. And asteroid mining I can see that as a need if any sort of space industry starts up Texas Joker, I'm not talking about bringing stuff from the moon to Earth. I heard a spokesman for NASA stating that private research is needed so that we can launch FROM the moon to save fuel/money/etc. as there is no where near as much gravity and no atmosphere to overcome. Until a transporter, ala Star Trek, is invented...one still needs to get the material to the moon first. The entire save fuel/money/etc reasoning doesn't make any sense at all. They seemed to have forgot about that and a little snag called cosmic radiation due to having no atmosphere. Pat Riot, the space junk is getting worse and worse. It used to be that only certain countries had equipment in orbit around the Earth. Now anybody with a Estee's rocket seems to have something up there, it's getting worse and there's little to no oversight or regulation regarding it. Even at present day, it is almost impossible to go out (in a remote, dark location) and look up at the stars, planets and galaxies without detecting movement from satellites across the sky. IMO, Space X's unlimited launching of low orbit satellites is out of control with no signs of letting up. As far as space mining goes, good, I'm all for it...but private/government companies stating BS reasons reminds me of the old saying "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining". As far as recovery and "recycle" of old space equipment, I don't see that being profitable due to re-entry factors and costs but I'm no expert...I'm just fascinated by all things space related. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Joker Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 1 hour ago, Cypress Sun said: Texas Joker, I'm not talking about bringing stuff from the moon to Earth. I heard a spokesman for NASA stating that private research is needed so that we can launch FROM the moon to save fuel/money/etc. as there is no where near as much gravity and no atmosphere to overcome. Until a transporter, ala Star Trek, is invented...one still needs to get the material to the moon first. The entire save fuel/money/etc reasoning doesn't make any sense at all. 4 hours ago, Cypress Sun said: My gal asked me "Why are they going back to the moon, there was nothing there the last time?" I told here that regardless of the BS that the private and government entities give about scientific research and it'll be easier to launch from the moon for further space exploration...it's really all about the possible fortunes to be made from mining the moon for minerals/materials that are rare on Earth. Of course, when enough of these rare minerals/materials are brought back to Earth, they will no longer be rare and thereby prices for such items will fall. The entire "easier to launch from the moon" reasoning is the most obvious line of bs...lets launch stuff from Earth, take it to the moon and then launch from there...say what??? You said ♤. Mine materials on the moon. Make rocket either on moon or in orbit. Launch from MUCH shallower gravity well. Achieve asteroid belt get more material repeat Yes itll be expensive to bootstrap infrastructure to the moon or orbit but once there it's done. And can be used to stepping stone into stellar civilization. Radiation shielding will be done by burying habitats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cypress Sun Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 16 minutes ago, Texas Joker said: You said ♤. Mine materials on the moon. Make rocket either on moon or in orbit. Launch from MUCH shallower gravity well. Achieve asteroid belt get more material repeat Yes itll be expensive to bootstrap infrastructure to the moon or orbit but once there it's done. And can be used to stepping stone into stellar civilization. Radiation shielding will be done by burying habitats. By that time, I'll be long dead and will cease to give a... I mean, cease to care. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted February 28 Author Share Posted February 28 Okay, ships starting off from Earth are very limited in the tonnage they can carry because of the huge fuel load they have just to get into orbit. Use Luna as a sort of base camp so that instead of 90% (for example) of the tonnage being fuel that will be burned just getting into orbit, the ships can invert that and 90% is cargo, food, water, equipment, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 I had always thought of the asteroid belt as an enormous resource . It is about the mass of 3 to 4% of the moon spread over an area of 140 million miles depth and 2.3 billion miles in circumference and I did not find a number for the width of the belt. That seems to me like looking for gold nuggets in the Sahara desert when you think of looking for minerals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cypress Sun Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 29 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said: Okay, ships starting off from Earth are very limited in the tonnage they can carry because of the huge fuel load they have just to get into orbit. Use Luna as a sort of base camp so that instead of 90% (for example) of the tonnage being fuel that will be burned just getting into orbit, the ships can invert that and 90% is cargo, food, water, equipment, etc. All of that has to get to the moon somehow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Joker Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 There is water and silicon on the moon. That makes solar panels and fuel. He3 if fusion is available. Metals from lunar formation. Or recover/ repurpose old satellites for metal or components. And there will be a resource cost to get the initial startup there. Might never be self sustaining but a better use of resources than some things we spend tax money on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel-eye Steve SASS #40674 Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 6 minutes ago, Cypress Sun said: All of that has to get to the moon somehow. But that is not the main mission. The main mission is say going to Mars. You won't need the fuel to blast off from Earth for the Mars shot. Yes you will still need stock the lunar base camp from Earth, but will be done with ships designed for hauling cargo, not a flight to Mars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 34 minutes ago, Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 said: I had always thought of the asteroid belt as an enormous resource . It is about the mass of 3 to 4% of the moon spread over an area of 140 million miles depth and 2.3 billion miles in circumference and I did not find a number for the width of the belt. That seems to me like looking for gold nuggets in the Sahara desert when you think of looking for minerals. After thinking again, it’d be like trying to find gold dust in the Pacific Ocean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cypress Sun Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 7 minutes ago, Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 said: After thinking again, it’d be like trying to find gold dust in the Pacific Ocean. Cost effective, plain to see. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Joker Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 But you get radar returns off nickel metal asteroids Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted February 28 Author Share Posted February 28 3 hours ago, Cypress Sun said: All of that has to get to the moon somehow. Yep. Which doesn't take anything away from the fact that an expedition ship launching from Luna will be able to carry less fuel and more food, water, and equipment than one launching from Earth. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Riot Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 The Nazis have had a moon base on the dark side since 1945. I saw it in a documentary. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted February 29 Author Share Posted February 29 3 hours ago, Pat Riot said: The Nazis have had a moon base on the dark side since 1945. I saw it in a documentary. Heinlein wrote about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Ship_Galileo 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.