Comment by bee_rider 2 months ago
It turns out there isn’t much on the Moon anyway, just rocks and dust, and now a couple flags. The value was the science done along the way to get there.
Now, that science is done.
Using TTLs seems less interesting in general(?). It is nice to be able to send computers into space. NASA should just use computers instead of TTL, if for no other reason than that keeping the infrastructure for those sorts of computers well funded is valuable.
Elaborated here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41570028
Colonizing the moon makes as much sense as swimming out to a rock a bunch of times, to prepare for piloting a cargo ship.
Maybe it was unclear, I meant, tautologically and just for emphasis, that the science that was done for the previous mission was (of course) done.
> Now, that science is done.
That said, building a base on the moon is pretty pointless, and I think we shouldn’t do it. If we’re going to become a spacefaring species, we’re going to have to learn how to live in space. The conditions on each planet, moon, whatever, are all pretty different, so we’ll probably need different bespoke solutions on each one.
We should perfect the art of building self-sustaining orbital habitats, because those aren’t redesigned from scratch every time. Let’s iterate on the space-station.
Energetically going downwell is a big cost. The only reason to go onto a planet is to get resources that aren’t already present in less energetically disadvantageous locations.
Sending mass from the moon to earth is energetically positive and you can build mass drivers and space elevators on the moon that are only powered by electricity. So assuming an ambitious space program, there is every reason to do this, except that it costs money.
It is a free source of, like, some amount of gravity. But we don’t know how our biology will respond to the wrong amount. Meanwhile an orbital habitat can be spun to get us the right amount.
In order to get to a planet in the first place, you’ll have to have a ship that can fly through space without the occupants getting irradiated. The biggest problem will be convincing them to get off the ship I think.
Because when we do science on earth we go to a place once take only a few samples and that's it. And then maybe every 10-20 years we might take another sample or something.
We have less data about the moon then any even half way interesting cave on earth.
The post I was responding to was arguing for using low-tech systems and lots of power to get to the Moon again.
We know, and they knew at the time, that the achievement of getting to the Moon was just a cherry on top of the technological development required to do it.
Should not redo that work. The current strategy of using higher-tech components and less brute force is more scientifically interesting.
I also think going back to the moon is stupid, but I elaborated on that a bunch the other branch, so I’m not going to bother doing it again. But if we have to go back again, we should follow their spirit rather than their actions and use the most advanced systems available. Not a bunch of TTLs. The value is in testing our ability to manufacture complex devices to work in a hostile environment.
Building a architecture to sustainably send human places will also enable a lot of other things. Having a 100 ton lander allows you to send far more then tiny probes. And we know well that actual humans exploring and looking for samples is better in many ways.
Getting humans to have long term sustainability and mobility on the moon and having tools and robotic support is long term.
The same architecture can then be reused for Mars.
On earth, most caves are explored with humans. Most science is not done by robotics only.
I went for a brief swim in the ocean once and having not seen any fish I concluded that the ocean must be devoid of life.