Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Waspie_Dwarf

Human Landers for Artemis Moon Missions

Recommended Posts

Waspie_Dwarf

NASA Names Companies to Develop Human Landers for Artemis Moon Missions

Quote

NASA has selected three U.S. companies to design and develop human landing systems (HLS) for the agency’s Artemis program, one of which will land the first woman and next man on the surface of the Moon by 2024. NASA is on track for sustainable human exploration of the Moon for the first time in history.

arrow3.gif  Read More: NASA

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Seti42

Personally, I think we should invest more in sending out robotic/AI probes (Europa!) than sending people out past earth orbit right now.
Sure, we should be researching and developing ways to launch larger loads/more stuff into space for less money, but I honestly fail to see the need to focus on human cargo to the moon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
12 minutes ago, Seti42 said:

Personally, I think we should invest more in sending out robotic/AI probes (Europa!) than sending people out past earth orbit right now.
Sure, we should be researching and developing ways to launch larger loads/more stuff into space for less money, but I honestly fail to see the need to focus on human cargo to the moon.

There are two points to be made here.

Firstly science by remote control is good, but not great. Why do we still send scientists to Antarctica? Because trained human eyes in the field are ALWAYS better than trained human eyes watching a monitor a huge distance away. Humans are more adaptable than robots, able to change plans immediately. Robotic exploration is slow by comparison. The only two robotic rovers have ever exceed the distance covered by the Apollo 17 rover, Lunokhod 2, which operated for 4 months and Opportunity which operated for 14 years. The Apollo 17 crew were on the moon for a few seconds shy of 75 hours.

The second point is that sending robots is going to save humanity. 

If mankind does not become multi-planetary ultimately we will become extinct. Ultimately there will be a catastrophe on Earth. If we are confined to this planet we won't survive it, the dinosaurs didn't have a space programme. We need to learn how to live on other worlds. If we listen to opinions like yours it will never happen.

Now is not the right time to be returning astronauts to the moon... now is long past the right time. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seti42
39 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

There are two points to be made here.

Firstly science by remote control is good, but not great. Why do we still send scientists to Antarctica? Because trained human eyes in the field are ALWAYS better than trained human eyes watching a monitor a huge distance away. Humans are more adaptable than robots, able to change plans immediately. Robotic exploration is slow by comparison. The only two robotic rovers have ever exceed the distance covered by the Apollo 17 rover, Lunokhod 2, which operated for 4 months and Opportunity which operated for 14 years. The Apollo 17 crew were on the moon for a few seconds shy of 75 hours.

The second point is that sending robots is going to save humanity. 

If mankind does not become multi-planetary ultimately we will become extinct. Ultimately there will be a catastrophe on Earth. If we are confined to this planet we won't survive it, the dinosaurs didn't have a space programme. We need to learn how to live on other worlds. If we listen to opinions like yours it will never happen.

Now is not the right time to be returning astronauts to the moon... now is long past the right time. 

Well, then...We have to go all in. Cut military budgets in half (or more) and work 100% together in a global cooperative, not as rival nations. All of that in addition to (at least in the US) increasing funding to sorely needed social programs like universal health care, raising minimum wages, more educational funding, and a stronger social safety net. Oh, and there's also the fact that we have to come together to actually deal with climate change. That really should happen first.

We need to essentially be a TON better than we are...And that could happen, but it'll take generations.

I love the idea of a better future and more space exploration, but I really don't think we're ready.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
8 minutes ago, Seti42 said:

I love the idea of a better future and more space exploration, but I really don't think we're ready.

If everybody thought like you do we will never be ready. 

You really fail to understand the concept of progress. It doesn't involve sitting around doing nothing until one day, as if by magic, you are suddenly ready. It involves small steps. It involves learning along the way. It involves small successes and big failures. It involves working so that you are ready.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DreadLordAvatar
2 hours ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

If everybody thought like you do we will never be ready. 

You really fail to understand the concept of progress. It doesn't involve sitting around doing nothing until one day, as if by magic, you are suddenly ready. It involves small steps. It involves learning along the way. It involves small successes and big failures. It involves working so that you are ready.

Son, the concept of progress is only sustainable by the concept of profit.  We ain’t Star Trek...yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seti42
7 hours ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

If everybody thought like you do we will never be ready. 

You really fail to understand the concept of progress. It doesn't involve sitting around doing nothing until one day, as if by magic, you are suddenly ready. It involves small steps. It involves learning along the way. It involves small successes and big failures. It involves working so that you are ready.

And you fail to understand people need to learn to crawl before they can walk. You don't go from horse cart straight to Bugatti Veyron. We're never going to have a huge, global space program until many down to earth issues are dealt with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter B
On 5/1/2020 at 9:57 AM, Waspie_Dwarf said:

NASA Names Companies to Develop Human Landers for Artemis Moon Missions

 

Isn't it a bit optimistic to expect that in less than four years we'll go from announcing the companies to achieving a landing? I mean, it was 6-7 years of hard slog by Grumman to get the original LM ready for flight, in a project where money was easily available.

Or am I getting something wrong here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DanL

We need people on the moon for the same reason that we need people in the coastal port cities even though they are at risk from the storms and sea. The moon will be our port to the rest of the solar system. Launching from Earth costs a fortune. Just getting free of its massive gravity requires a huge expenditure of fuel. Look at the Saturn V Rocket and then look at the little lunar lander. From the moon, the other moons and the asteroid belt are easy to reach. We couldn't launch a fleet from an inland city and we can't explore the solar system from Earth.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.