Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Pongo on June 05, 2002, 11:19:44 AM
-
Why doesn’t NASA take a shuttle to the moon?
Friend and I were talking about the moon shots and I started to wonder why the US hasn’t just re visited it in a shuttle? Certainly with some smaller solid fuels pre stocked in orbit a shuttle could launch with some kind of disassembled Lander in the bay and transit to the moon, assemble and drop a Lander, recover the crew like the Apollo missions did after the visit and return…
Imagine the size of a space telescope they could mount on the moon…
I know there is no great reason to return to the moon.but why not do it just to make sure the old plaques are clean…For moral..Seems it would be easy to do relative to Apollo….
-
I heard on a reputable news source that the whole moon landing was faked...I think it was on FOX..so you know its accurate information.
-
There was quite a bit of outcry from the public when we did go to the moon, hell, even "Fly like an Eagle" was anti-Nasa (Steve Miller Band).
-
Yeah- who wants to waste money on space exploration anyway.. there's nothing useful out there.........
-SW
-
Isn't China going to attempt a moon landing and perhaps construct a moon-base in 2010? Someone was talking about it a few days ago... here (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=54309&referrerid=3089)
I would love to see that happen in the future. :)
-
Too bad that when the humanity is getting wiped off from the face of this rock, I can't be there saying "told ya so".
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Imagine the size of a space telescope they could mount on the moon…
If you get that huge telescope to space, why the heck do you want to mount it on the moon? Why not just leave it there in space orbit around the Earth?
It would weight quite a lot on the moon - only 1/6th of what it would weight on Earth but still infinitely more then zero it weights in orbit.
It would be ten to hundred times further from Earth as far as signal propagation and control are concerned and infinitely more difficult to service.
Also, unlike a telescope in space, the moon will obscure half of it's view. So you would need at least two telescopes to cover the same area of the sky - you cannot always wait for two weeks while the moon turns around to look at some interesting event.
miko
-
how long before they have a Starbucks on the moon...
-
Look at the costs of going to the moon, and related technologies.
Dont get me wrong, I have a huge collection of NASA videos about the early years, moon landings and such. And while NASA does a good job of getting us there, when it comes to accounting, eeeek :eek:
A space station that's way over budget and very late, and many parts of its construction are on hold/delay until NASA kinda gets a grip on how to spend money.
I think most of us are in awe when the shuttle goes up and does its thing. And we all hope for that lofty goal of going into space, exploration etc etc (Trekkies, etc). But NASA needs to live within its budget (rather generous one at that). Going over budget by BILLIONS is absurd.
Personally, I'm hoping business endeavors will pursuit those ideas and goals, rather than rely on tax dollars completely. I'd love to see the space station completed and operating a full crew, as well as a manned mission to Mars. But the funding isnt there, and when you line up other budget requirements (defense, etc) there are other priorities closer to home.
If anything, while I admire NASA, I'm aggravated they can not police themselves financially...and they always bemoan Congress or the Administration for not giving them more money to spend without accountability.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Look at the costs of going to the moon, and related technologies.
Dont get me wrong, I have a huge collection of NASA videos about the early years, moon landings and such. And while NASA does a good job of getting us there, when it comes to accounting, eeeek :eek:
A space station that's way over budget and very late, and many parts of its construction are on hold/delay until NASA kinda gets a grip on how to spend money.
I think most of us are in awe when the shuttle goes up and does its thing. And we all hope for that lofty goal of going into space, exploration etc etc (Trekkies, etc). But NASA needs to live within its budget (rather generous one at that). Going over budget by BILLIONS is absurd.
Personally, I'm hoping business endeavors will pursuit those ideas and goals, rather than rely on tax dollars completely. I'd love to see the space station completed and operating a full crew, as well as a manned mission to Mars. But the funding isnt there, and when you line up other budget requirements (defense, etc) there are other priorities closer to home.
If anything, while I admire NASA, I'm aggravated they can not police themselves financially...and they always bemoan Congress or the Administration for not giving them more money to spend without accountability.
All just to fulfill one dead presidents dream on landing on the moon.(and one that damn near got us wiped off the face of the earth, good thing he died in office, he woulda been slated as the worse president ever, probably surpassing Clinton) :rolleyes:
-
but Rip, wasn't the Bay of Pigs incident a good thing? ;) (major sarcasm there)
-
Actually, returning to the moon has some merit. We have a few more advancements in engineering to go, and then we'll have to substantially increase NASA's budget.
I can't wait to hear the wacko environmentalists complain about mining operations on the moon, and how it effects life on Earth. The Commie News Network will have a field day.
-
why would we want to go to the moon its a lifeless rock. its about as usefull as a giant laser in space
-
Originally posted by vorticon
why would we want to go to the moon its a lifeless rock. its about as usefull as a giant laser in space
About half of the Moon's surface is covered by the dark lunar mares (latin for seas) or lowlands. Mare basalts are volcanic lavas rich in iron and titanium oxide minerals that formed when molten rock from the Moon's interior came to the surface and flowed over large areas.
-
oh i have an idea lets build a giant laser orbiting the earth made out of ores from the moon theres an idea...lets set it up so it homes in on arrogance and stupidioty then kills the cause of it all.
-
do babys go from cradle to 10k marathon in one setp ???
neither should we with our space program we need a permanent base in orbit of earth first then a moon base
-
My premise I guess was that the expense to go again would be substancialy less then the apollo version. There is nothing stopping a orbitaly refueled shuttle from making the trip right? There is no reason why the bay couldnt carry a lander of some kind right?
The expense is much less. And dreams are not a bad thing.
Miko..I guess you are right..the real limit on hubble is the size we can get to orbit..not the size of the end product..
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Why doesn’t NASA take a shuttle to the moon?
Friend and I were talking about the moon shots and I started to wonder why the US hasn’t just re visited it in a shuttle? Certainly with some smaller solid fuels pre stocked in orbit a shuttle could launch with some kind of disassembled Lander in the bay and transit to the moon, assemble and drop a Lander, recover the crew like the Apollo missions did after the visit and return…
Imagine the size of a space telescope they could mount on the moon…
I know there is no great reason to return to the moon.but why not do it just to make sure the old plaques are clean…For moral..Seems it would be easy to do relative to Apollo….
Since I'm in the space business, I'll give you the short answer: The shuttle is undermodeled to travel to the moon. Waaaayyyy undermodeled. It would take too much time and space to give all the reasons why, but if you make it to the con this year, I'll be happy to discuss the particulars over a brewski.
-
"Why do we need a space station on the moon"
Same reason we need one in orbit in space. Refuel/resupply for shuttles- plus the moon has 1/6th(is that right?) gravity than earth... that's a LOTTA rocket fuel you won't burn up trying to simply get into space.
Basically a moon station, or large enough space station, would make space travel feasible. Only problem is that it would have to be self sufficient for long periods of time without resupply- especially on the moon.
The first step would be space station (permanent one, easily repairable, easily resuppliable, large enough to act as a space harbor for shuttles), then build a moon base (orbit will never decay, it will have access to it's own minerals, possibly water too, and have to be able to make it's own oxygen and have a fairly large colony to operate it)...
So basically, if you wanna go any further out than the moon with manned missions... then we NEED a moon base.
-SW
-
Sabre,
I'd be interested in hearing. Isn't the Shuttle only allowed in low earth orbit? It can't even reach some of the higher satellites orbiting earth, right?
-
I don't think the shuttle is only LEO...
The Hubble wasn't a LEO as far as I know, but a shuttle serviced it?
-SW
-
Vortican, FYI: War and Space exploration has brought you all the convieniences you use today via R@D. ;)
-
the shuttle would most likely consume all its fuel before attaining escape velocity. It barely has enough fuel to get to LEO and back safely.
You would need extra boosters or one of those big orange tanks fully fueled already in space for the shuttle to get out to the moon. Then what are you going to do when you get there? There's no runway on the moon to land on and the shuttle's maneuvering thrusters couldn't do a vertical landing like the original lunar landers.
It seems you would need a specialized vehicle to get to the moon. Not the shuttle.
-
Yeah, you'd be surprised what the space program did for your computer your using right now.
Or a notebook computer. Hell a Palm pilot. Everything had to become smaller, lighter, less electronically demanding while at the same time more powerful.
Then lets not forget teflon, and other everyday things we use that have become possible from the space program.
It'd boggle your mind if you knew what space exploration did for us.
-SW
-
"Then what are you going to do when you get there? There's no runway on the moon to land on and the shuttle's maneuvering thrusters couldn't do a vertical landing like the original lunar landers. "
Umm...carry a lander and extra fuel in the cargo bay.
Or refuel at the space station and carry a bigger lander.
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Yeah, you'd be surprised what the space program did for your computer your using right now.
Or a notebook computer. Hell a Palm pilot. Everything had to become smaller, lighter, less electronically demanding while at the same time more powerful.
Then lets not forget teflon, and other everyday things we use that have become possible from the space program.
It'd boggle your mind if you knew what space exploration did for us.
-SW
I thought teflon was created during the A-bomb R@D for hold the core? (Shrugs) Plastics (which damn near everything is made from) was created in WW2 by DuPont for wartime use.
-
Originally posted by Sancho
the shuttle would most likely consume all its fuel before attaining escape velocity. It barely has enough fuel to get to LEO and back safely.
You would need extra boosters for the shuttle to get out to the moon. Then what are you going to do when you get there? There's no runway on the moon to land on and the shuttle's maneuvering thrusters couldn't do a vertical landing like the original lunar landers.
It seems you would need a specialized vehicle to get to the moon. Not the shuttle.
Baring Sabres discussion I will miss at the con..
I proposed the shuttle reconecting some fuel in orbit and transporting some kind of landing vehicle in its bay.
Knowing absolutly nothing about it......I just wondered why. I had assumed that reaching orbit was more difficult then leaving it. Maybe that is incorrect.
-
Teflon has that non-stick surface for cooking, doesn't it? Or am I thinking of something else?
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Teflon has that non-stick surface for cooking, doesn't it? Or am I thinking of something else?
-SW
Yeah, thats the stuff...I thought it was developed for for A-bomb core. Either way, R@D is a GOOD thing!
-
Hmmm, I dunno.. I heard it was developed during the space program...
Maybe it was just made more economically feasible by the space program?
Dunno.
-SW
-
Heh, we're both wrong...developed in 1938:
http://www.dupont.com/teflon/newsroom/history.html
-
?... who say's we havent been back to the Moon? (or don't have something going on there)? :D
-
Originally posted by Tumor
?... who say's we havent been back to the Moon? (or don't have something going on there)? :D
Earth-based telescopes ;)
-
If you get that huge telescope to space, why the heck do you want to mount it on the moon? Why not just leave it there in space orbit around the Earth?
Because if you mount it on the far side of the moon - or in lunar-stationary orbit on the far side - then you eliminate all that pesky Earthlight.
-
Don't forget Tang!!:D
-
Baring Sabres discussion I will miss at the con..
I proposed the shuttle reconecting some fuel in orbit and transporting some kind of landing vehicle in its bay.
Knowing absolutly nothing about it......I just wondered why. I had assumed that reaching orbit was more difficult then leaving it. Maybe that is incorrect.
__________________
Pongo
Pongo has the best idea -- 1st shuttle delivers a booster rocket to the space station in it's cargo bay. (it's BIG barely fits) 2nd shuttle attaches rocket to it's rear and already has the lander in it's bay. Off they go.. In fact the booster rocket can be reused placed back in storage at the station.
A manned moon telescope station should be placed on the dark side.
The best deal is to go to Mars. They discovered water there. Where there's water theres' life. How do you get around the 6 month travel times?
All just to fulfill one dead presidents dream on landing on the moon.(and one that damn near got us wiped off the face of the earth, good thing he died in office, he woulda been slated as the worse president ever, probably surpassing Clinton)
You can't be serious. JFK gave us vision. Something lacking in the current leadership. You are of course aware he cut taxes. All kinds of stuff you take for granted in modern life come from the space program.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
There was quite a bit of outcry from the public when we did go to the moon, hell, even "Fly like an Eagle" was anti-Nasa (Steve Miller Band).
never heard that before, can you point me to some ref's on this Rip?
thanks
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
You can't be serious. JFK gave us vision. Something lacking in the current leadership. You are of course aware he cut taxes. All kinds of stuff you take for granted in modern life come from the space program.
I'm serious. Did JFK invent the space program like Gore did the internet? I suppose to you left wingers....read up on the origins of the manned flight space program, the only thing JFK did was say "Hey, thats a great idea, I'll get the funding for it since we have no deficit after having Eisenhower in office for 8 years, as a matter of fact, I'll cut taxes too since Ike did a damn fine job". ;)
JFK's vision was landing on the moon.(would have been done regardless of who entered office in 1960) Bush's vision is keeping your bellybutton in tact so it doesn't get blown up by another terrorist.(Again, doesn't matter who got elected, whatever president would have met the same "vision" for your future)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
never heard that before, can you point me to some ref's on this Rip?
thanks
nope, other than going off of memory during the nightly news during that era. The media ate that stuff up. There were all sorts of public outcry (mainly from the liberals) that we should be "feeding the starving children in the world rather than spending millions for the space program"
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
nope, other than going off of memory during the nightly news during that era. The media ate that stuff up. There were all sorts of public outcry (mainly from the liberals) that we should be "feeding the starving children in the world rather than spending millions for the space program"
True enough, I remember some protests against the Apollo program. But saying there was "all sorts of public outcry" is a little misleading. Kind of like saying there were all kinds of pacifists protesting during WW2. Probably similar percentages in both cases.
Now after Apollo 14, there was considerably more protest. We had been there - done that. The public lost interest soon after, and that level of fantastic awe we felt in July 1969 has never really returned.
I like the idea BTW, I think we should continue into space in a big way. Expanding our horizons will expand our possibilities.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Don't forget Tang!!:D
LOL Good one!
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I'm serious. Did JFK invent the space program like Gore did the internet? I suppose to you left wingers....read up on the origins of the manned flight space program, the only thing JFK did was say "Hey, thats a great idea, I'll get the funding for it since we have no deficit after having Eisenhower in office for 8 years, as a matter of fact, I'll cut taxes too since Ike did a damn fine job". ;)
JFK's vision was landing on the moon.(would have been done regardless of who entered office in 1960) Bush's vision is keeping your bellybutton in tact so it doesn't get blown up by another terrorist.(Again, doesn't matter who got elected, whatever president would have met the same "vision" for your future)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Earth-based telescopes ;)
pink floyd ;) ;)
-
Remember, guys... the far side of the moon is not always dark. If it were, we'd have a full moon constantly, from Earth's perspective.
-
Just subcontract it out to China. They can do it cheaper than NASA. And unlike the Rooskies they won't have to take along a half dozen space tourists to pay for it.
-
oh i have an idea lets build a giant laser orbiting the earth made out of ores from the moon theres an idea...lets set it up so it homes in on arrogance and stupidioty then kills the cause of it all.
Working on it, but we need you need to reply with your GPS coordinates.
-
Shuttle to the moon - here is why you would not do it that way. It takes fuel to push the mass out of earth orbit to get to the moon right? The more mass the more fuel including fuel to push the fuel that pushes any extra mass and the shuttle has a lot of extra mass that you don't need to take to the moon with you. A short list off the top of my head:
1) Wings
2) Windows
3) Wheels
4) The cargo bay doors
5) All those fricken re-entry tiles
6) The Arm
7) Sheet metal that makes it aerodynamic
8) Internal truss work to bolt #7 to.
You would be far, far better off to use the shuttle to carry a much lighter vehicle into LEO and then use one or more additional shuttle flights to fuel that vehicle. Keep in mind though that each shuttle launch costs around $500,000,000 ($4 billion shuttle operation budget / eight launches year) and that the shuttle launch capacity is more or less completly absorbed by the ISS.
So, that is why we don't send a shuttle to the moon.
Let's ask a different question though. Why don't we design a lunar vehicle that can be assembled remotely in space and use a few Russian Zenit launches ($20,000,000 or so each *I think*) to get it to LEO and fueled. To that I have no answer. Some years back I was at a small presentation Robert Zubrin and he had some napkin calculations of just how cheap it could be to send one person to the moon and back if NASA were not involved, IIRC he was in the $100 million ballpark. Still a bunch, but only %20 of one shuttle launch. And the idea exists in various forms still, for example I think LunaCorp (http://www.lunacorp.com/home.html) has some ideas in this direction.
If I had my druthers the ISS would not be there and the shuttle operation taken away from NASA and privatised. NASA's mission is and has been to push the technology required for space exploration. That is a noble goal and a worthwhile one. But it is not the way to operate on a buget. Let NASA do what they do best which is to operate beyond LEO.
As to LEO I would have liked to see the ISS budget used in actual competive bidding, building and testing from various aerospace firms for reusable launch vehicles. As an example of a "might have been" examine the DC-X (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/x-33/dcx_menu.htm) test vehicle. Here was a good, simple, off the shelf sort of idea. What happened to it? Well, NASA got involved in the issue and had a competion between the firms for *proposals* for which only one would get picked. Referring to my previous paragraph, guess witch got picked. Yep, not that one, the one that was selected was the one the "pushed the technology envelope" the most. (Venturestar) As it turned out it pushed it a bit too far and was never completed before the winds changed and the budget was cut.
Anyway, I seem to have lapsed into rant mode. Sorry. But at least you know why sending a shuttle to the moon would not really be practical.
-
There's no real reason to return to the moon at the moment. It would be too expensive with little or no return. Remember, the shuttle goes up today MAINLY to deliver/repair commercial, military and sometimes, scientifical payloads. Lately they've been churning the ISS and Hubble up.
Take a look at Discovery Wings, they've been doing quite a few specials on NASA and SHUTTLE program.
Since the beggining SHUTTLE has been a great success, but its WAAAAAY too expensive, thats it great drawback. The Russians left NASA eating their dust in terms of efficiency over cost, but not on versatility and safety. Thats why NASA has been working hard on making a new shuttle... they need to get rid of the super-costly rocket boosters. Heck, some people have even suggested using gargantuan helium balloons to "lift" the shuttle to 100k alt and then drop the shuttle and have it use its own power from there.. but the problem still is the shuttle will have to achieve escape velocity before breaching atmosphere.. and not even the SR-71 can do that.. you need a rocket or something just as violent.
The only thing I can think of that would be worth returning to the moon now would be to set up a radio telescope array.
Radio telescopes dont really need to be a huge dish like the one in Arecibo.. but rather a linked series of smaller radio telescopes inside a sphere/circle.
So, if the put a radio telescope on the moon..on some spot in the moon, with a geostationary satellite relaying information from the lunar telescope to earth... AND if you have a series of radio telescopes around the earth, the lunar telescope and whatever telescope is in line of sight of the moon at the time would act as a radio telescope the size of the earth-moon orbit. :)
-
Let's finish the ISS first, shall we? :)
Daniel
-
ISS is a waste of money.
-
No it isn't.
-
If they really wanted to return to the moon quickly they would probably hoist the components for a intermediate spacecraft into space with a russian rocket (or the space shuttle) and then use that spacecraft to go there and back. It would probaby look a lot like the Apollo lander and capsule with some new technology worked into the equation. You have to figure that the technology in areas like computing has to be 1000 times lighter, smaller and more reliable than what they put into the Apollo craft. NASA also has vastly more experience with fuel cells, communications, and just about everything else that took them there 30 years ago. The reason to use the Russian rocket would be cost and the fact that they could probably lift the whole orbiter, fuelled, into low earth orbit so it could meet up with the crew and lander that the shuttle would bring up. I'm not saying it would be easy, but it would probably be fairly feasible to do it using a number of NASA off-the-shelf components that they have great experience with already.
It's probably feasible in a fairly short timeframe though I don't think the drive to invest the $$ is there to even bother to attempt it. Lots of NASA's cash is spent just making service flights with the shuttle to the ISS and Hubble and the general cost over-runs on the ISS. NASA just has to get something cheaper to launch stuff into orbit than the shuttle.
Some day though it'll happen. You have to wonder if there were to try a Mars mission if they wouldn't test out about half the technology on a more local hop to the moon and back.
-Soda
The Assassins.
-
I believe Mars is out and it's probably pointless now, anyway.
SSF/ISS is a good first step, but we have a long way to go.
I believe the Japanese will probably be the next country on the moon. Perhaps, they will make use of our services in getting there...
-
My brother used to work as chief of the Propulsion Division at MSFC in Huntsville, Alabama. He did this for 13 years. One of his jobs during this time was to conduct think tanks, where he would listen to ideas from people like in this forum thread. Before he became chief, he was in Preliminary Design as an Aerospace Engineer or physicist...don't know exactly what his official title was, however he was with NASA for almost 40 years all together.
He had some pretty neat stories to tell about Werner von Braun, who he knew personally and worked with in Huntsville. He said von Braun was quite the ladies' man, and women loved his accent. My sister-in-law actually got to dance with von Braun at parties.
Anyway, back to the topic. Jimmy (my brother) recalled that when von Braun told President Kennedy that it would indeed be possible within a ten year deadline to land men on the Moon and return them safely to Earth, the people at NASA almost went into a panic. They did not believe at the time it could be done, and felt that von Braun had gotten them into a project they could not deliver on. Well, as we all know, NASA did deliver through superhuman effort.
Sabre, my brother said exactly what you said concerning the Shuttle; that it was not designed to go to the Moon...way undermodeled, as you put it. He did make an interesting comment about the Shuttle computers, that the average desktop PC is about ten times more powerful than the ones on the Shuttle. He was refering to Pentium I and II models.
Another comment he made about space travel via rockets, was something to the effect that it was a miracle every time one of them didn't explode on the pad or soon after launch. When the Challenger exploded, it didn't really surprise him much...even if it had been launched under ideal conditions. The successful launches were lucky ones, in his estimation. I know this isn't very optimistic, saying all this, and please don't take it as a negative toward NASA. On the contrary, it demonstrates how complex such a venture really is. There are many unknowns involved, even with all the precautions NASA takes.
He said, people have a popular saying...we did it once, we can do it again. That's simple not true when it comes to going to the Moon and returning safely. If people only knew the complexities involved in our Shuttle launches, they would still be in awe of such an event, instead of taking it for granted.
Unfortunately my brother passed away in 1999 at the age of 62. I miss him very much.
Les
-
You want to return to the moon quickly, safe and cheap? You don't have problems with subcontracting some of the work to the russians? Forget the shuttle! I know a ship (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz.html) that is not under-modelled ;) The lander on your part.
About the ISS and the cheap launchers. I'm for the ISS and the cheap launchers, but I think that it has been choosen the wrong order. Seems much more logical to me designing caravel and then try sea travel than going everywhere in a rowing boat.
Greetings
P.S. What are the "cheap launchers" (not for tourism) that seem to be more likely to be constructed now that the X-33 has been cancelled?
P.S.2 Carl Sagan, the man who insisted to install a photographic cameras on the first space probes stated that space exploration should not be justified on the technological benefits for the life on earth (teflon, tang...). If that money was inverted directly on "down to earth" research greater revenues should come.
-
Greetings Sombra! Thank you for the web site link. That's a pretty cool one.:)
The Shuttle will eventually be phased out. It's too impractical and expensive. Rockets will probably gain more usage one of these days, because they are less expensive and more reliable. It's not feasible to build a rocket that could go to Mars. It would have to be about the size of the Empire State Building to launch from the ground. A Mars vehicle would have to be built in space.
This will happen some day I hope.
Les:cool:
-
I believe Mars is out and it's probably pointless now, anyway.
How do you come to that conclusion? There is likely to be huge mineral wealth on mars. They discovered huge quantities of water on mars only a couple of weeks ago - which would be vital for any manned exploration (from fuel to just plain old drinking water).
It may not be possible now or even in our lifetimes, but it will come.
The Earth can only support so much life, and unless we utilise the oceans for life support it's going to get very crowded within a couple of centuries. Of course the richer, more developed nations could share their wealth with the poorer nations, but that really isn't an option. To keep their position as leaders of the world, they are going to have to expand.
-
Sombra,
Granted there is a huge difference between a suborbital ballistic flight and LEO but, I'd say the best bet for cheap access is private industry. See The X Prize (http://www.xprize.org)
Recent advances in cable construction from carbon nano-tubes also has made thebeanstalk (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_elevator_001226.html) idea a problem of will rather than technology.
-
Thanks for the post, HFMudd. I was working on exactly the same post but ran out of time yesterday. You saved me the trouble of answering.
As regards to the ISS, I don't believe it is a waste of time, only a waste of money as currently managed. It has two goals, or should have. First, to gain experience living and working in space. Second, to serve as a micro-gravity research station with an eye to commercialization of space. NASA's poor-spending practices asside, the biggest mistake was internationalizing it, instead of leaving it a wholy-USA venture. I say this as a matter of program management, not one of national pride. The old saying is: "A camel is a horse that was designed by committee. That's what the ISS has become. Had the US chose to go it alone like they originally planned to (back when it was called "Spacestation Freedom"), keeping it's goals simple and clearly in mind, it is likely it would have been operational several years ago. Instead, it's goals have become fuzzy, with the new primary one being to "Promote international cooperation in space."
As for the reasons for returning to the Moon, there have been numerous ideas put forth over the years that would justify the establishment of a permanent manned presence on the Moon. There is no reason to go, unless it is to forward that goal.
P.S. The overwhelming reason for establishing colonies on other planets is to insure the survival of the human race. It's the obvious reason, but is often overlooked or ignored in these debates. Mars will be colonized, because it likely contains all the elements for a self-sustaining colony. The moon doesn't, but colonizing it first would be a logical step in preparing for Mars.
-
<>
Really? You mean in the liquid form and not ice? I know they have polar ice caps, or I think I've heard that. And they suspect permafrost just under the surface.
Seeing Mars first colonized is a dream of mine...one I'm sure will remain just a dream.
Ohh, found this article about great quantities of ice recently found:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_2013000/2013114.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_2009000/2009318.stm
-
It boggles my mind that people would think that going to the moon or Mars is a bad idea.
It's possible that Mars has life -- living on it right now. Vast oceans were recently discovered on Mars lying just below the surface! There is enough water on Mars to cover the entire planet with water! Think about that. Who is to say that life on Mars isn't just below the surface? Incidentally, the Mars lander NASA lost was going to land in an excellent spot to test for water / life.
The moon is just as interesting as Mars. It too has water locked away under it's surface.
Our solar system, except for Earth, was once considered to have absolutely no chance for life. As we learn more and more about it, it appears that may not be true.
What is on Europa? Vast oceans under the ice heated by vocanos. Could life be there? It certainly could be!
Jupiter, early in our solar system's creation, was once a star. All those moons circling Jupiter were it's planets. However, Jupiter didn't have the 'stuff' to last for long, and quickly changed to a massive gas giant. While burning as a star, it could have jump started life on it's moons / planets. Life could still be there now, or at the very least, evidence of life.
-
I never heard that Jupiter was once a "star" for a short time. I heard that it could've been one but it just nearly misses being of a size to allow for that to happen.
Educate me.
-
It's possible that Mars has life -- living on it right now. Vast oceans were recently discovered on Mars lying just below the surface! There is enough water on Mars to cover the entire planet with water! Think about that. Who is to say that life on Mars isn't just below the surface? Incidentally, the Mars lander NASA lost was going to land in an excellent spot to test for water / life.
Probably very little of it is in the form you have pictured. Almost all it will be frozen and probably in the form of scatterd crystals. Still, there does seem to be a lot of H20 there that can be reached. Considering that everywhere on or in earth the Earth we look for life, we seem to find it, it seems that Mars should be able to support bacteria. (In fact the Viking landers of 1970's would have given the same results when testing for life for certain Earthly bacterium.)
The moon is just as interesting as Mars. It too has water locked away under it's surface.
Mostly at the poles. 4 billion years of sublimation is not you friend. Again you point is still your point is valid in that there appears to be a good deal of water ice that could be extracted.
Our solar system, except for Earth, was once considered to have absolutely no chance for life. As we learn more and more about it, it appears that may not be true.
100% agree. This is also true the area around deep ocean vents, in sufer springs and in the Earths deep crust.
What is on Europa? Vast oceans under the ice heated by vocanos. Could life be there? It certainly could be!
You might be mixing Europa and Io here. Europa has about 12 miles of ice over what appears to oceans or at least one homongus slushy. It is kept liquid by tidal forces from Jupiter although I don't doubt the same tidal forces heat whatever rocky core it has and produce volcanism as well. Io has no liquid water be does appear to be the most volcanicaly active body in the solar system.
Jupiter, early in our solar system's creation, was once a star. All those moons circling Jupiter were it's planets. However, Jupiter didn't have the 'stuff' to last for long, and quickly changed to a massive gas giant. While burning as a star, it could have jump started life on it's moons / planets. Life could still be there now, or at the very least, evidence of life.
Now this is just not true. IIRC Jupiter is somewhere between 50 and 100 times too small for hydrogen fusion to ever have occured. It does however radiate more energy than it recieves from the Sun and so has a greater impact on its satellites than the Sun does.
You main point is quite valid however as the moons of Jupiter, in particular Europa as mentioned above, would be a wonderful place to look.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
How do you come to that conclusion? There is likely to be huge mineral wealth on mars. They discovered huge quantities of water on mars only a couple of weeks ago - which would be vital for any manned exploration (from fuel to just plain old drinking water).
No, it's more likely that we have more wealth here, that we have not even begun to tap into. Certainly, there will never be any fossil fuels on Mars. Terraforming Mars would take something like 10,000 years at our current technology level, though it would be a simple matter of 500 years, or so, to move enough industry there to get the process moving. Unfortunately, the concept that we have the ability to influence the environment (global warming) enough to actually change Mars quickly, is naive and egotistical.
Attempting to colonize Mars, today, is too time consuming, dangerous and costly. Further, there is no viable profit to be made from it. Pointless, as I said.
It may not be possible now or even in our lifetimes, but it will come.
The Earth can only support so much life, and unless we utilise the oceans for life support it's going to get very crowded within a couple of centuries. Of course the richer, more developed nations could share their wealth with the poorer nations, but that really isn't an option. To keep their position as leaders of the world, they are going to have to expand.
Another bad premise, probably propagated by ignorant media types. Earth can support much more life than we have here today. The fact that we are not properly making use of the Earth is a good indication that we should not even consider screwing with Mars, yet.
Expansion? Expansion into the seas should proceed expansion into space.
The next best use of space exploration that we can involve ourselves in, is robotic mining of the asteroid belt, IMHO.
-
Probably very little of it is in the form you have pictured. Almost all it will be frozen and probably in the form of scatterd crystals.
Yes. I didn't mean walking-talking aliens. The importance is still there. Alien bacteria? It's impossible to know all the things we could learn from that.
You might be mixing Europa and Io here. Europa has about 12 miles of ice over what appears to oceans or at least one homongus slushy.
This is from an article that can be found here (http://ww.space.com/searchforlife/seti_devore_astrobio_020418.html).
"Like other solar system bodies, Europa is about 4.5 billion years old, but recent analysis of the crater density on its icy surface reveals that Europa is very geologically active—the surface is only about 50 million years old. The pull and tug of Jupiter’s gravity and magnetic fields keep Europa’s subsurface ocean liquid, and drive the surface recycling system."
It is largely believed that there is a liquid ocean 5 miles under the ice sheet.
"Data collected earlier this year by the Galileo spacecraft has now generated what some scientists are calling virtually undeniable evidence that Jupiter’s moon Europa has a significant water ocean churning beneath its icy surface.
The data, which was collected by Galileo’s magnetic-field-detecting instruments when the spacecraft flew close to the icy moon, showed that there is an electrically charged layer of some substance stirring possibly as close as 4.7 miles (7.5 kilometers) below the moon’s ice crust. Planetary scientists say the most likely explanation for the data is a liquid-water ocean similar to oceans found on Earth"
Now this is just not true. IIRC Jupiter is somewhere between 50 and 100 times too small for hydrogen fusion to ever have occured. It does however radiate more energy than it recieves from the Sun and so has a greater impact on its satellites than the Sun does.
I went back and did some reading on this subject. Apparently, Jupiter is large enough, and is even made up of largely the same elements our sun is, but isn't massive enough to be catagorized as a star.
However, I *did* read this, so I'm not pulling this out my ass:
"Jupiter was once a miniature sun according to our current concepts of solar system formation," he said. "It only lasted a short time - a few million years at most -but this was long enough, Hoagland estimates, "for molecules that are suspected life-process precursors to be created as they have been in thousands of earthly laboratory simulations. As Jupiter's early star-like period ended, the ocean's surface soon froze, locking the primordial soup' into an underground sea."
But I'm glad we're on the same page. Life could very well be living on Mars (and Europa) as I write this. It may not be intelligent or complex, (then again, maybe it could -- who knows whats there until we go look), but it's possible and worthy of exploration. :)
-
However, I *did* read this, so I'm not pulling this out my ass:
Gosh, I hope I didn't give the impression that I thought you did. If I came across that way, please accept my apology.
Jupiter was once a miniature sun according to our current concepts of solar system formation," he said. "It only lasted a short time - a few million years at most -but this was long enough, Hoagland estimates, "for molecules that are suspected life-process precursors to be created as they have been in thousands of earthly laboratory simulations. As Jupiter's early star-like period ended, the ocean's surface soon froze, locking the primordial soup' into an underground sea."
Ah, I see where we are coming from now. What the author (Hoagland) means is that Jupiter and its satellite condensed out of the dust of the early solar system in the same fashion that the Sun and its planets did. I don't think he meant to imply that hydrogen fusion occurred.
Or maybe he did if we consider the source. Hoagland, I assume, is the same one who insisted the "Face on Mars" (http://members.aol.com/garypos2/Hoagland.html) was artificial and that NASA was covering up the evidence. In that case, Hoagland is taking some liberties with the facts to support his book selling premiss of "amino acids occur a lot -> life occurs a lot -> intelligent life occurs a lot -> aliens build artifacts in our solar system some odd reason."
-
Jupiter was never a star. It lacks the mass to ever be a star.
-
Originally posted by Voss
Jupiter was never a star. It lacks the mass to ever be a star.
Unlike Roseanne Bar.
Da-dun-da!!!
-
Well, everything was once a star or part of it...
Daniel
PS: Okok a protostar, but the point is that it once burned
-
No, it's more likely that we have more wealth here, that we have not even begun to tap into.
Not necessarily true, since Mars hasn't had the mineral exploration Earth has enjoyed. The ease at which any minerals could be extracted and utilised by any potential colony hasn't really been determined.
Certainly, there will never be any fossil fuels on Mars.
That would become irrelevant if synthetic organic chemistry was developed to such a level where replication of vital polymers could be performed efficiently and economically. Perhaps even nuclear synthesis could become viable. Like I said, it's just a matter of time; although existing technologies might not be up to the task, a few centuries or even decades down the line the situation will be very different.
Unfortunately, the concept that we have the ability to influence the environment (global warming) enough to actually change Mars quickly, is naive and egotistical.
Not really. Considering experts in this field still dispute this very point, I believe it's pointless to pass judgement on the theory.
Attempting to colonize Mars, today, is too time consuming, dangerous and costly. Further, there is no viable profit to be made from it. Pointless, as I said.
True for today. But there's always tomorrow.
Another bad premise, probably propagated by ignorant media types. Earth can support much more life than we have here today. The fact that we are not properly making use of the Earth is a good indication that we should not even consider screwing with Mars, yet.
Not propagated by the media in my case - learned from the part of my degree which concerned environmental physics. Overpopulation is a multi-faceted problem that ties with many other environmental issues.
Currently, there is no desire to make better use of the Earth, mainly because of the compromises that would have to be made to our lifestyles to make that the case. But that's a discussion apart.
I can't see the sea ever being used to any large degree in the near future - I would imagine living down there for extended periods of time will require extensive R&D, the cost of which would be enormous. Right now, space captures the imagination much more than the oceans and so will always win in the battle for funding. But I'm sure the parallels between ocean floor and ET colonisation would allow for many cross-over technologies to be developed.
-
PS: Okok a protostar, but the point is that it once burned
If by "burned" you mean nuclear fusion occured, then no it did not. The mass of Jupiter is at least 50 times to small for that.
But it does radiate more energy than it receives from the sun. Not enough to heat its moons in any "life giving" way, but some. Again, Europa's apparent liquid ocean is heated by the imense tidal forces that the Jovian system experiences and not by radient energy from the Jupiter.
-
What I mean is that going waaaaaay back in time, Jupiter was nothing more than a big soup of highly energetic particles, and fusion didn't even exist yet :D
Daniel
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
What I mean is that going waaaaaay back in time, Jupiter was nothing more than a big soup of highly energetic particles, and fusion didn't even exist yet :D
Of course not, Kurt Tank hadn't invented it yet.
-
Kurt Tank was gay.
his progeny will invent gay asteroid mining.