Report says return to moon isn’t ‘viable’

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by karl_1052

That is probably what everyone said about going to the moon in 1949.

Pretty much what many were saying after Kennedy's famous speech. "Why waste money on pipe dreams, when we could be feeding the poor here, at home."

They still aren't feeding the poor either.

[Apoc]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

They still aren't feeding the poor either.

But, its their fault they are poor! And that they dont have health care!

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

As usual, an American fails to not that there are already Canadians who are taking part in the effort.

I am aware. I am also aware that Canada spends 1/50th of what the US does on their respective civilian space agencies.

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

This discounts two things; automation and telepresence.

It should be an easy sell to the enviro-weenies. "We could move some industrial operations to the airless void, helping us to keep Earth clean."

No it doesn't. You are talking about building spacecraft from raw materials on the moon. That is a process we can only automate to a small degree here on earth. Why would we be able to integrate automation in to the process more in space?

Before any craft is built on the moon it would need to be built on earth. With no plans to do so anytime soon why would we start building the infrastructure required to do it on the moon?

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

I am aware. I am also aware that Canada spends 1/50th of what the US does on their respective civilian space agencies.

More like 1/24 based on 2008 budgets. Roughly a factor of ten can be written off based on population, which means that your per capita spending on space tech is about twice ours.

No it doesn't. You are talking about building spacecraft from raw materials on the moon. That is a process we can only automate to a small degree here on earth. Why would we be able to integrate automation in to the process more in space?

Before any craft is built on the moon it would need to be built on earth. With no plans to do so anytime soon why would we start building the infrastructure required to do it on the moon?

I'm talking about how things would most efficiently work in the future. Currently a factory can turn out cars, with little input from humans. Do you have any idea what telepresence is?

Originally Posted by Apoc

But, its their fault they are poor! And that they dont have health care!

Damned leeches.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by karl_1052

That is probably what everyone said about going to the moon in 1949.

I'm sure they were, and it was just as true then as it is today.

Without the political will to do it (go to the moon then, go to mars and beyond today) it will not get done. In 1949 the will was not there. That didn't change until Kennedy's speech in 1962. I strongly suspect that will would have eroded if Kennedy hadn't been assassinated.

There is no national urge right now to go to mars. Until that will exists any serious effort toward that goal is putting the cart before the horse.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

More like 1/24 based on 2008 budgets. Roughly a factor of ten can be written off based on population, which means that your per capita spending on space tech is about twice ours.

The numbers I have seen are about $400 million Canadian for Canada and $17.1 billion for America. That isn't 1/24th.

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

I'm talking about how things would most efficiently work in the future. Currently a factory can turn out cars, with little input from humans. Do you have any idea what telepresence is?

A factory can automate turning out cars because they build hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of them. The more repetition in a process the more it can be automated. There is very little in building space vehicles that is repetitive.

Building a space vehicle requires extremely close tolerances and rechecking those tolerances multiple times. Until telepresence enables someone to turn a torque wrench, use a set of calipers, or manually check circuits it will only have a limited effect on reducing the number of people required to actually be present.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

The numbers I have seen are about $400 million Canadian for Canada and $17.1 billion for America. That isn't 1/24th.

I pulled the numbers for 2008, which stated something like $8B as the NASA budget for that year. Canada's space budget for 2008 was about $350M.

A factory can automate turning out cars because they build hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of them. The more repetition in a process the more it can be automated. There is very little in building space vehicles that is repetitive.

Building a space vehicle requires extremely close tolerances and rechecking those tolerances multiple times. Until telepresence enables someone to turn a torque wrench, use a set of calipers, or manually check circuits it will only have a limited effect on reducing the number of people required to actually be present.

Telepresence allows performing surgery a hundred miles away. It can certainly be used to match sub assemblies. The fine tuning is where the human presence comes in. The point is that you don't need a thousand people on the moon in order to get the job done.

I'm not thinking tomorrow, but rather 50 years in the future.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

I pulled the numbers for 2008, which stated something like $8B as the NASA budget for that year. Canada's space budget for 2008 was about $350M.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/168653main_N...et_Summary.pdf

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Telepresence allows performing surgery a hundred miles away. It can certainly be used to match sub assemblies. The fine tuning is where the human presence comes in. The point is that you don't need a thousand people on the moon in order to get the job done.

I'm not thinking tomorrow, but rather 50 years in the future.

Telepresence does have limited application to the space program today. I'm sure both it and automation will play a part 50 years in the future (unlikely to be in my lifetime, the timeline I originally gave).

If you are talking 50 years in the future then why would we be sending men to the moon now? It isn't like we are going to forget how to do it. What we do today will have little impact on what happens 50 years from now.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/168653main_N...et_Summary.pdf

Yep, I obviously got the wrong number.

Telepresence does have limited application to the space program today. I'm sure both it and automation will play a part 50 years in the future (unlikely to be in my lifetime, the timeline I originally gave).

If you are talking 50 years in the future then why would we be sending men to the moon now? It isn't like we are going to forget how to do it. What we do today will have little impact on what happens 50 years from now.

You send people now because if you don't, then it won't be happening in 50 years. It's called taking the long view.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

You send people now because if you don't, then it won't be happening in 50 years. It's called taking the long view.

By that logic we will never send anyone again anyway since it has already been 40 years since we last sent someone.

Taking the long view is looking at what going to the moon now is going to accomplish toward forwarding the next logical step, going to mars. I don't see how going to the moon now advances that at all. Add in the additional estimate of $3 billion per year it will require, multiply it by whatever number you want because estimates for space programs are always horrendously wrong, and I don't see the value.