/sci/ - Science & Math

>>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.

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

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

>>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.

>>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.

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.

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

>>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.

>>12642130
How will they land it?

>>12643828

>>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.

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

>rockets
lol fuck off with that archaic garbage

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

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

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

>>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.

>>12644269
practice building a space base

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

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

>>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.

>>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.

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?

>>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.

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

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

>>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.

>>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.

>>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

>>12643868
Payload is too heavy

>>12644460

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

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

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

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

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