Serious Question, I want Serious Answers...

[IrishPisano]

Its not SG related, but it does deal with space...

1. What would the benefits be to a Moon-orbiting satellite?
2. If the benefits outweigh the cost, why have we (USA) not launched a Moon-orbiting satellite?

Sure, in the grand scheme of things, it is not any closer to the rest of the cosmos than Earth, but surely there would be less EM and light interference out there...

[jds1982]

I suppose it depends on what its for. Obviously if it were to look at the moon, it would be better in orbit of it, but I can't think of anything other than that for benefits. I suppose if it were somehow placed where teh moon was always between it and Earth maybe it might be better for listening to radio signals from space (not necessarily alien signals either). We also have launched moon orbiters before, just not permanent ones.

[IrishPisano]

I suppuse it depends on what its for. Obviously if it were to look at the moon, it would be better in orbit of it, but I can't think of anything other than that for benefits. I suppose if it were somehow placed where teh moon was always between it and Earth maybe it might be better for listening to radio signals from space (not necessarily alien signals either). We also have launched moon orbiters before, just not permanent ones.

d'ah, i remember the Apollo missions (not that I was alive, lol)

i was thinking that a lunar orbiting satellite would be better at receiving deep-space telemetry since its away from the EM interference of earth's EM field, though I'm only guessing at that... I wouldn't really say its needed to observe the moon as a primary function, but that would not be a bad idea either... hell, it could do both... lol...

i guess the 3rd question is, would putting a satellite around the moon offer better reception than one orbitting earth?



i'm also waiting for NASA/Earth to start building a permanent/semi-permanent space station on the Moon so we can start prepping for Mars missions as launching from the moon would require significantly less fuel than launching from the ground on Earth, or even earth's orbit...

[jds1982]

Actually we recently launched one, in the 90's I think, it found possible ice in a polar crater. I don't see how orbiting the moon could offer better reception, if anything it would be worse because its got farther to go, unless of course you're talking about reception for someone on the moon.

Edit: It was the lunar prospector.

[Womble]

Its not SG related, but it does deal with space...

1. What would the benefits be to a Moon-orbiting satellite?

Satellite TV for the Selenites?

2. If the benefits outweigh the cost, why have we (USA) not launched a Moon-orbiting satellite?

The Selenite cheque must have bounced.

[TheBigFlush]

...launching from the moon would require significantly less fuel than launching from the ground on Earth, or even earth's orbit...

Except for all the fuel and resources you're wasting to get materials to the moon.

[jds1982]

Except for all the fuel and resources you're wasting to get materials to the moon.

Well no you build stuff from materials on the moon and you bring your astronauts from Earth in a shuttle. The only resources from Earth would be what was used to launch the astonauts.

[TheBigFlush]

Well no you build stuff from materials on the moon and you bring your astronauts from Earth in a shuttle. The only resources from Earth would be what was used to launch the astonauts.

... and what was used to bring the equipment and crew of this hypothetical settlement, and what was used to bring all of the people and equipment for collecting resources on the moon, and what was used to bring the necessary people and equipment to turn these raw materials into something you can build a spaceship out of...

I don't see how you would save anything by transporting the people and infrastructure of several entire industries to the moon. This makes no sense. Can someone explain where you're conserving anything at all?

[jds1982]

Well obviously there would be a hell of an initial investment, but all the stuff you bring to produce things could be used to supply multiple missions. It's not like you're making the base simply to provide materials, it would be a mission in and of itself, but even if it wasn't it would still be less expensive. Say you were going to launch a Mars shot from Earth's surface, everything you need in one launch. That ship would have to expend a tremendous amount of fuel to reach escape velocity. Not only that you'd need enough fuel to get your fuel to orbit. However if you can launch with just enough fuel to get you to orbit, and fill up later you won't need to have the fuel onboard to launch your fuel to orbit so your ship could be smaller. Basically you would just reduce the weight you need to launch, which would reduce the cost of your mission. I hope that makes sense.

[Lord batchi ball]

Well I think a reason they don't put a satallite around the moon is that when it orbits the moon and it gets on the dark side there would be a period of a total darkness of information from the satillite, and during that period somthing could go wrong.

[Jarnin]

Its not SG related, but it does deal with space...

1. What would the benefits be to a Moon-orbiting satellite?
2. If the benefits outweigh the cost, why have we (USA) not launched a Moon-orbiting satellite?

Sure, in the grand scheme of things, it is not any closer to the rest of the cosmos than Earth, but surely there would be less EM and light interference out there...

Read this, this, this, this, and this.

If you want to ask a serious question, please, at least read a little about the subject so we can take your question seriously.

Research is easy. Google & Wikipedia are your friends.

[IrishPisano]

Read this, this, this, this, and this.

If you want to ask a serious question, please, at least read a little about the subject so we can take your question seriously.

Research is easy. Google & Wikipedia are your friends.

or you can not be a dick... i'm perfectly capable of doing research, but i'd rather discuss it...

damn, i hit the wrong reputation button...

[IcyNeko]

What's wrong with what Jarnin said? Most people in this forum don't have any educated idea about what you're talking about, and would reply using scifi basis (Reconnaissance satellite armed with PEWPEWLAZROS).

I'll be honest, I'm one of the uneducated ones.

Doing a little research for yourself, then providing links in the first thread may have been a better alternative. But honestly, don't get pissed at Jarnin. He was nice and helpful with his post. Props to him.

[IrishPisano]

What's wrong with what Jarnin said? Most people in this forum don't have any educated idea about what you're talking about, and would reply using scifi basis (Reconnaissance satellite armed with PEWPEWLAZROS).

I'll be honest, I'm one of the uneducated ones.

Doing a little research for yourself, then providing links in the first thread may have been a better alternative. But honestly, don't get pissed at Jarnin. He was nice and helpful with his post. Props to him.

If i wanted to simply look up the answer and research it i could... and i'd use things more reliable than wikipedia, and probably drop a line to one or two of my old engineering professors from college... however, i did not want to research it, i wanted to discuss it...

there is a siginificant difference between the two... i wanted to hear other people's legitimate opinions on it...

[TheBigFlush]

...That ship would have to expend a tremendous amount of fuel to reach escape velocity. Not only that you'd need enough fuel to get your fuel to orbit. However if you can launch with just enough fuel to get you to orbit, and fill up later you won't need to have the fuel onboard to launch your fuel to orbit so your ship could be smaller...

Sorry, I thought you were talking about building your ship and everything from scratch on the moon. Now this is making some sense. A refueling station would be sensible.

I still don't think you could build it from materials on the moon, though.