Will we go back to the moon next year? And what kind of valu

>>8701943
>Will we go back to the moon next year?

I hope so. I think we should have a base on the moon where astronauts stay for no longer than a year or so.

>And what kind of value does that even have for science?

A fucking shit load. Everything from building structures to medical effects to hands-on, drone resource gathering and materials refinement.

All the science gathered from doing that would help humans both on Earth and for future missions to other celestial bodies as well as general space exploration. This is the type of stuff you have to do as a stepping stone for future technology that has yet to be engineered.

>implying we went there in the first place.

>>8701948
I forgot to mention that advancements in radiation shielding to allow things like this to happen would be extraordinary.

>>8701950
Trolling isn't allowed outside of >>>/b/. That's the third global rule:

http://www.4chan.org/rules

3. You will not post any of the following outside of /b/: Trolls, flames, racism, off-topic replies, uncalled for catchphrases, macro image replies, indecipherable text (example: "lol u tk him 2da bar|?"), anthropomorphic ("furry") or grotesque ("guro") images, post number GETs ("dubs"), or loli/shota pornography.

That's just Trump. He cuts down funding for research that could help prevent climate change and for social sciences where we could make some real progress and instead wastes money on manned space flights.
Sad isn't it?

>>8701965
>social sciences
>budget cuts

Good. Those are not real sciences in the first place.

>preventing climate change

That will never happen and it isn't because of what humanity does or does not do. It is hubris to think otherwise.

>>8701943
Accepting your "given," you may have a point. But I don't see any reason that your given makes any sense.

>>8701943
>at the possibility of flying astronauts aboard the space agency's new heavy-lift rocket and crew vehicle as early as 2018.

A: SLS cannot deliver asteroids to the moon
B: Putting people on the very first launch of a new rocket which can't even be tested is retarded
C: It won't launch next year anyways

>>8701990
astronauts *
:)

Children are starving in Africa and you want to waste money on elaborate fireworks?

>>8702065
True. We should use the budget to help cull worthless people like them from the planet.

File: NASA.jpg (62KB, 282x400px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 282x400px

>>8701943
implying we ever went to the fucking moon in the first place

https://youtu.be/86hjO8DmCqA

THEY SENT OJ SIMPSON TO JAIL FOR FAKING THE MARS LANDINGS

>>8702065
>>8702069
>>8702076
>>8702077
This is /sci/ not /b/. Go away please.

>>8702082
why don't you go away

i see a fucking thread about "jews"...

everyone arguing that jews are bad, etc

this place is no better than fucking /pol/

>>8701943
For the USA it would be a key mission, otherwise China would have a monopol in everything moon related.

>>8702165
This, fuck china, man.

>>8701943
Why do half the people on this board think settling on other planets is impossible? We've had the capability of doing so since the 80s, but the American public stopped giving a fuck about space so no ones tried. Shit we could've had a moon base halfway through the 70s if NASA stayed funded at 5% of the budget like it'd been with Apollo

>>8702181
NASA's budget in the apollo era was not much more than it is today
They wasted HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS on shit like ths space shuttle/ISS/stupid probes that accomplish nothing

>>8702239
>says as he posts from a pc or smartphone on the internet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies

>>8702256
>NASA used something therefore they invented it

k

we have not returned to the moon this millenium. we will not return to the moon, ever again. they will not allow us to.

>>8702239
What even is inflation. What even is percentage of national budget. What even is fucking historical fact.

>>8702282
If NASA had been getting 30 billion dollars a year for the last 20 years
They still would not have gone anywhere, because they don't WANT to

>>8702301
that, and... they were TOLD not to return while they were up there.

>>8702261
>being this retarded

>>8702301
My nigga, they were talking about going to the moon around this year during the Bush Jr. days. Of course they fucking want to go places, but no one wants to pay for it.

>>8702379
dumbass, they easily have the budget to do it if they wanted
They could do it with existing rockets
They don't WANT to, its fucking pork so that all these bureaucrats and NASA workers/contractors keep getting paychecks

The whole point of the SLS was to keep giving paycheckss to shuttle contractors/workers

>>8701965
>He has not yet submitted his first budget to Congress.

>>8701991
As well...

>>8702165
China made all the right steps for the last two decades.

Meanwhile every new president changed the space policy completly in the same timeframe.

>>8702735
https://rusi.org/commentary/%E2%80%98celestial-empire%E2%80%99-looks-space

>>8701955

>piling several feet of lunar regolith on top of a habitat module is an extraordinary advance in radiation shielding technology

kek

>>8702069

Nukes are elaborate fireworks

>>8701943
>Will we go back to the moon next year?
Seeing the way things have been developing lately, quite possibly
>And what kind of value does that even have for science?
Just going to plant a flag? None. Actually picking up where Apollo left off and building things to stay? Besides literally everything that has to do with long-term habitation and in-situ resource utilization, that's the basis for real space infrastructure. A moonbase is the first step to Lagrangian factories, which is the first serious step towards colonizing the solar system.

>>8701943
first find answer for this thread, >>8702792 after you can go the moon next year.

>>8701965
What exactly is there to research about climate change that NASA can do? CO2 is shit, methane is shit, got it. Now get your fucking ass up the well so you can build the solar power satellites (for which you need the moon) and forget this bullshit ever happened. And better nuke China too because they have absolutely no intention of stopping, which makes everyone else's efforts 100% meaningless at the moment.

>>8702856

>China has no intention of stopping
>which is why they developed more renewable energy capacity last year than all other nations combined

>>8702855

>In the off case you are not trolling, it's obviously not the same spot, idiot. Only the far background matches, which makes sense since it's miles away.

You've already been given the answer.

>>8702863
>renewable energy
>capable of replacing the thousands of coal plants powering China

>>8702870
>denying reality this hard

>>8702813
You forgot to mention that same regolith has worse radiation coming from it than just standing on the surface alone. The moon is a bright star of radioactivity. When cosmic rays hit the regolith even more damaging radiation is created. Piles of regolith are not going to help you against that form of radiation.

>>8702907

Sources please. From what I can find the radioactive isotopes formed from cosmic ray impacts are so short lived that they decay virtually instantly, meaning that if we were to simply pile up a layer several feet thick the entire mass except for the very upper layers still exposed to the Sun would quickly become radioactively inert.

Worst case scenario we would remove several feet of overburden and use the regolith underneath to provide shielding.

>>8702924
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/08sep_radioactivemoon

I'm sure if you use "enough" it will work, but you'll need to pull it from deep under ground where it has never been exposed to the radiation and is already shielded. As in the stuff under the regolith.

>>8702946
>>8702924
That's assuming it isn't radiated far far into the regolith.

>galactic cosmic radiation (GCR)
>Lunar cores (some almost 3 m deep from Apollo— Lunar Source Book 1991) are ideal samples
for investigation of cosmogenic nuclide production by GCR. Due to their high energies
(Simpson 1983), GCR penetrate several meters into the lunar surface resulting in the production
of characteristic nuclide depth profiles that can be readily measured. In contrast, SCR is of
much lower energy (Wilson et al. 2006) and penetrate only a few cm in rock or soil. To measure
an accurate SCR depth profile, each layer must be only about 1mm thick. This requires that the
sample has experienced very little disturbance during the time relevant for the measurement
(i.e., during the mean life of the radionuclide measured), and that very careful sample
processing and analysis procedures are employed. For lunar soil, the top layers that contain
SCR-produced nuclides have been mixed (gardened) by micrometeorite impact and core
handling, in some cases to several cm (e.g., Nishiizumi et al., 1979; Langevin et al., 1982).

https://archive.org/stream/Straume/Straume_djvu.txt

>>8702907
Not really. The regolith, or anything massive and dense enough will stop particle radiation. The particles will re-emit EM radiation, but you can deal with that by having a lead roof. There's always two stages to radiation shielding, and the particle shielding helpfully has to come first - which means you can just shovel whatever on top of your hab. If there's enough of it, it will protect you.

>>8702972
>>8702977
>GCR penetrate several meters into the lunar surface resulting in the production of characteristic nuclide depth profiles that can be readily measured.

Gonna need a lot of lead. How does water ice fare? I think 3 meters of it should work so long as it is encapsulated to prevent sublimation.

>>8702993
>3 meters

3 feet. 3 meters is for spent nuclear fuel shielding.

>>8702993
>GCR
This is what the regolith is for. GCR are primarily composed of charged particles, and by primarily, I mean pretty much exclusively. The lead or any other heavy element with a dense electron shell is for stopping the x-rays and gammas emitted when said charged particles strike the nuclei in the regolith.

so again, how to radiation shielding:
1. Particles - get a lot of volume and nuclei, light is good because it limits the amount of EM being emitted. This is one of the things the water is used for in reactors. You'll need a lot of volume for this since protection comes from depth.
2. EM - get a lot of electrons. Metals are good for this. Doesn't need to be very dense.
3. Particle shielding outside, EM inside.

>>8703028
The regolith is optimal for neither particles nor EM, but there's lots of it, so you could really just get away with a lot of regolith. It will emit a lot of secondary radiation, but will also be less permeable to said secondary radiation than something like water.

>>8703032

That's why regolith is the best. It's sub-optimal for shielding against particles, it's sub-optimal for shielding against EM, and there's so goddamn much of it on the Moon that it doesn't matter, just pile it higher and you're good to go.

You just pile up 10 feet of regolith, it's only 10% gravity

Or maintain an artificial magnetic field, could be done with super conductors ?

>>8703086

Magnetic fields are a meme. Earth is protected by radiation form our atmosphere, which is the equivalent of several meters of water in terms of shielding. All the magnetic field does is deflect solar wind and prevent our atmosphere from eroding faster than it already does.

File: Altair-Lander_(latest).jpg (431KB, 1368x1183px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 1368x1183px

>>8701943
Here's what we'd need before going back to the moon:
>Complete the SLS
>Finalize Orion

In addition, to land on the moon, we would need this:
>Design a lunar lander
>New spacesuits (presumably)
>Design long-term habitats and stuff so it isn't a boring Apollo v2

I guess we could do a worthless one-time flyby by the end of the decade, but it would take several years and a fuckton of money to plan a robust lunar exploration program. Manned lunar exploration would be a huge waste of money unless lunar resources would justify the cost. It would still be more worthwhile than the ISS though.

>>8702065
Should the US fund birth control in Africa? The conservatives in power wouldn't like that.

>>8701943
Does Trump have an interest in the space program because he values the advance of science? Or does he see it merely as part of his supposed jobs creation program?

>>8703266
Neither. He wants to go to space because it's the cool thing to do and will create a great future for America. It's not exactly difficult to figure out.

File: lunar_lander.jpg (52KB, 747x412px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 747x412px

>>8703217
>altair
>landing anywhere but a haystack
wew

>>8702082
so, can you prove that the moon landing ever happened?
Don't forget that the burden of proof is on you here.

can you even prove that the moon exists?

>>8704447
Actually, no, the burden of proof is on the guy that says the massive evidence is somehow faked in this huge conspiracy that never broke down in 50 years.

Also,

<----/x/

>>8701950
Fuck off