The Moon: Voyage Back

[Redoubts]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4261522.stm

So NASA plans to return to the moon, eh? 15 years seems like an awful long time to plan though. How long did it take Apollo go get up and running in the 60s?

[Krispy Joe]

How long did it take Apollo go get up and running in the 60s?



We were also kinda racing the Russians, made a few mistakes (See: Apollo 1, Apollo 13) along the way, and had huge public support back in the 60s, but I recon this time we're really in no rush and public intrest in space exploration is at an all-time low, I dare say, so we are gonna take our sweet time. 15 years makes since, I suppose. Sounds like a good idea to me.

[DunNa]

In the 60's NASA had a huge budget, now they don't. They still haven't "recovered" in the eyes of alot of people from stuff like that shuttle blowing up and all that. Oh and I've heard they are going to want to make the new lunar thingy reusable much like the current shuttle.

Throw all of that together and you get the time difference.

[Grunt]

The pod seems a lot safer than the shuttle dose. You don't have to land it, just let it drop in at the right angle.

[ScAvenger001]

Just let it drop in at the right angle and divert a carrier group to go pick it up. Or at least come up with a ship that can pull the capsule (and astronauts!) out of the water and carry it back

[DunNa]

Well I'm assuming with the limited funds reusablity is a plus. It might be harder on the crew and on the landings but financially it would probably work out better in the end.

Unless of course they say fucking going there more than once we'll just rebuild one of those Sat-V's we have laying around throw some lap tops in them and send some poor saps up there :rolleyes:

[Modest Genius]

its a stupid thing to be doing anyway. it has little to no scientific benefit, costs a shitload of money and is just a general pointless waste of resources. we can do a lot more useful stuff for less money if we use robots.

Robert L Park, professor of physics, University of Maryland

"I watched on live television in 1969 as Neil Armstrong stood on the moon. I wept tears of pride at what humans could accomplish. I was there listening, 20 years later, when the first President Bush called for a return to the moon and on to Mars. Instead, we retreated to low-Earth orbit, no further from Earth than Washington is from New York. Not because we couldn't go further, but because there is no reason to. The cold war is over, and human space exploration has been overtaken by progress. We already have explorers on Mars. They don't break for lunch or complain about the cold nights, and they live on sunshine. Driven, as always, to complete his father's unfinished work, President Bush, the younger, has called for a return to the moon in 2018, and on to Mars. But this time it is not a noble quest, but a cynical poison pill."

[Walnut]

This sounds pointless. What is there to learn from the moon that we didn't learn in the 60's?

[Grunt]

I want to go to the moon.

May need to go to the moon and mars to give new land for our ever expanding population.

[Redoubts]

I doubt we'll be getting to that point anytime soon.

[GoatChomper]

its a stupid thing to be doing anyway. it has little to no scientific benefit.....
You couldn't be more wrong about that in light of the spinoff technologies that the space program developed.
we can do a lot more useful stuff for less money if we use robots.
Except one thing.....be there in person. Shall we remain Earthbound?
Driven, as always, to complete his father's unfinished work, President Bush, the younger, has called for a return to the moon in 2018, and on to Mars. But this time it is not a noble quest, but a cynical poison pill."
Translation: it was just and noble cause for Kennedy and Johnson to spend enormous sums to do something that actually affected the Cold War not in the slightest, but when Bush Jr. invades Iraq/tries to get man back onto the moon he's "just trying to avenge/top Daddy".

In other words, just the usual cynical leftwing horseshit.

But while we're in a retrenchment mood, let's go whole-hog and stop wasting money on telescopes and all other aspects of astronomy. Why the hell do we need to know about stellar physics.....what has Polaris ever done for us that we should spend money to study it, I ask you.

[Kak]

Hasn't China expressed interest of going to the moon? I think Russia has recently been eyeing it as well.

[marty]

Another space race? 3-way this time.

[Walnut]

You couldn't be more wrong about that in light of the spinoff technologies that the space program developed.

Sure, but how much more could going back teach us? I guess we won't know unless we try, but why not try for something we haven't done before? We're bound to learn more from that.

[Kak]

I don't think China could do it, but if Russia gets into high gear they could beat us back there.

[marty]

We didn't do much on the moon at all last time, but we still got a shitload of benefits from it. Imagine how much better it will be now that we will be more thorough?

[Modest Genius]

You couldn't be more wrong about that in light of the spinoff technologies that the space program developed.indeed. but if thats your goal, why not invest in basic research? better value for money.
Except one thing.....be there in person. Shall we remain Earthbound?sure, but what benefit would being there actually have? and what reason do we have to leave earth right now? its not as if theres anywhere else to go...
Translation: it was just and noble cause for Kennedy and Johnson to spend enormous sums to do something that actually affected the Cold War not in the slightest, but when Bush Jr. invades Iraq/tries to get man back onto the moon he's "just trying to avenge/top Daddy".

In other words, just the usual cynical leftwing horseshit.<shrug>i just quoted it, i didnt write it
But while we're in a retrenchment mood, let's go whole-hog and stop wasting money on telescopes and all other aspects of astronomy. Why the hell do we need to know about stellar physics.....what has Polaris ever done for us that we should spend money to study it, I ask you.that was kinda my point, that the money could be better spent on telescopes and robots. stopping Hubble falling into the ocean in a few years time would be a start. We can find out just as much about the moon or mars through other means, at a fraction of the cost. and the telescopes can be used to look at other things too

[Agent Law]

that was kinda my point, that the money could be better spent on telescopes and robots. stopping Hubble falling into the ocean in a few years time would be a start. We can find out just as much about the moon or mars through other means, at a fraction of the cost. and the telescopes can be used to look at other things too
The HST should be replaced with a bigger telescope.

[HarryB]

Sure, but how much more could going back teach us? I guess we won't know unless we try, but why not try for something we haven't done before? We're bound to learn more from that.

The moon is closer. It's easier to start developping space structures on other planetary bodies when they're right there. I'd rather start climbing the space stairs from the first step than try to jump 4 or 5 because they are closer to the top. We went to the moon 40 years ago but never actually did anything that amazing outside walking around and picking up rocks. Although a country can't claim space, we should start exploring moon, thus space, habitation.

I don't think China could do it, but if Russia gets into high gear they could beat us back there.

I wouldn't be surprised if they did. They've already done the first step (lauching people into space).

indeed. but if thats your goal, why not invest in basic research? better value for money.

Not if you don't have anything to research. If history has shown us anything, research works best on a need now basis. No stress rarely moves research.

sure, but what benefit would being there actually have? and what reason do we have to leave earth right now? its not as if theres anywhere else to go...

Considering we haven't been there in 40 years, we might be able to find something that could aid our fuel problems. Maybe it'll help propelle solar technology. Maybe we might discover a new fuel source.

As for telescopes, they only go so far. Back when Europeans were "discovering" parts of the world, do you think they just went around in their boats and telescopes and went; "Yep, trees and hills; I told you Douglas. What, go over there? I just said it had trees and hills, what more do you want?" No, they went there. Just because we can look at the moons surface doesn't mean we can't go there and have a good look see. The Earth is made up of so many elements and minerals. I bet the moon is too.

[GoatChomper]

indeed. but if thats your goal, why not invest in basic research? better value for money.
Because trying to research the dynamics of manned interplanetary travel from the bottom of this gravity well is.....well, pointless.
that was kinda my point, that the money could be better spent on telescopes and robots. stopping Hubble falling into the ocean in a few years time would be a start.
No, letting Hubble go as scheduled would be a good start so the time and money can be spent on a newer device. Remember, the machine is now twenty years old.....when it was built, an Apple IIc was bleeding-edge.
.....and the telescopes can be used to look at other things too
But why bother spending that money to look at anything at all.

[Kak]

The step between launching people into space and going to the moon is very big. The Soviets were the first ones to launch a person into space, and beat us pretty much in every space category, but we still beat them to the moon. Russia has been going into space non-stop now for 44 years. China has just finally sent a man into space two years ago in 2003. I'd bet on Russia getting to the moon well before China does, if Russia were to express the same interest as China.

[-V-]

No, letting Hubble go as scheduled would be a good start so the time and money can be spent on a newer device. Remember, the machine is now twenty years old.....when it was built, an Apple IIc was bleeding-edge.

So what dude? Its a tellescope and the most important bits in it are the mirrors, not how fast its micro-processors are. Sure incremental upgrades to increase the resolution of the immage capturing equipment is a good idea (increaseing its megapixel rating, for clarification purposes), but scrapping it just because its 20 years old and no other reason? No. We don't scrap ground-based telescopes if they are more then X-ammount of years old, so why should we scrap this one?

-E-

On the whole going to the moon and beyond thing: Yes I do believe that it is the right course of action, since there are some very tangable fringe benifits from it (ie asteroid mining, zero-G industry, and the like) but right now, with the dammage being caused to us by Mother Nature I think we can put of the Mars mission for next 10-15 years in order to sort out the mess thats going on down here at the moment.

[Maddog]

So what dude? Its a tellescope and the most important bits in it are the mirrors, not how fast its micro-processors are. Sure incremental upgrades to increase the resolution of the immage capturing equipment is a good idea (increaseing its megapixel rating, for clarification purposes), but scrapping it just because its 20 years old and no other reason? No. We don't scrap ground-based telescopes if they are more then X-ammount of years old, so why should we scrap this one?
Case in point an observatory near where I used to live uses a telescope that's close to 100 years old, and its still amazingly good.

-e- and btw, there arn't any telescopes now that could get us more information about the moon than if we actually land it. Hell we can't even zoom in enough to see the Apollo stuff.

[Captain Colon]

I'm pretty sure there's no easy/good way to upgrade it...it was only recently that we found out that black holes emit x-ray bursts a few minutes after the initial gamma ray burst when they form, something we couldn't see before because the telescopes on older satellites couldn't turn fast enough.

I'd think that if it was really that much cheaper to upgrade what we have instead of just building a new, better one then we'd be doing just that.

Just let it drop in at the right angle and divert a carrier group to go pick it up. Or at least come up with a ship that can pull the capsule (and astronauts!) out of the water and carry it back
I wonder how much of that was in the vein of keeping the commies away from the capsule though?

[Maddog]

I wonder how much of that was in the vein of keeping the commies away from the capsule though?Well the capsule wasn't going to float back on its own... someone needed to get it.

Hell we don't even have to land in the ocean, if I remember right Russia's capsules landed on the ground.

[Captain Colon]

Well the capsule wasn't going to float back on its own... someone needed to get it.
Yeah but you don't necessarily need a carrier and the Iowa floating around to do it.

[Daywalker]

If they do do it, all I want is for everything they use to be made in America by Americans. Create some jobs, invest money in American buisnesses. I guess the space race really helped U.S. technology based buisnesses, so it'll probably do it again.

[puke o'hara]

Going to places in space is something that'll be done sometime in the future, but I wouldn't be completely sure if moon is the place for us right now - or _manned_ flights the way. "Space science" shouldn't be a form of escapism to stop us from thinking of problems back on earth though.

[Modest Genius]

The HST should be replaced with a bigger telescope.it is being, the JWST. unfortunately, the JWST wont be around until 2010. and just because something is old and not cutting edge doesnt make it useless. plenty of telescopes around the world were built in the 60s or earlier and are still being used for cutting edge research
Not if you don't have anything to research. If history has shown us anything, research works best on a need now basis. No stress rarely moves research. err, what? every study ever done has concluded that in the long run goal-based research doesnt achieve anything. sure, in the short term its useful, but not in the long term.
Considering we haven't been there in 40 years, we might be able to find something that could aid our fuel problems. Maybe it'll help propelle solar technology. Maybe we might discover a new fuel source.Im not saying we wouldnt. be we could do the same thing by sending robots, orbiters and aiming spectrometers at the thing without the huge cost and difficulties
As for telescopes, they only go so far. Back when Europeans were "discovering" parts of the world, do you think they just went around in their boats and telescopes and went; "Yep, trees and hills; I told you Douglas. What, go over there? I just said it had trees and hills, what more do you want?" No, they went there. Just because we can look at the moons surface doesn't mean we can't go there and have a good look see. The Earth is made up of so many elements and minerals. I bet the moon is too.of course. again, im not saying its a bad thing to do. im saying that we could do the same thing at less cost without involving humans in it. if those europeans couldve put a camera on a plane and sent it off i bet they wouldve done, it explores rather more in less time at less cost
Because trying to research the dynamics of manned interplanetary travel from the bottom of this gravity well is.....well, pointless.err, who ever said anything about that? we KNOW about that. we could use that knowledge to send probes, rather than people.
No, letting Hubble go as scheduled would be a good start so the time and money can be spent on a newer device. Remember, the machine is now twenty years old.....when it was built, an Apple IIc was bleeding-edge.as i said, JWST is in the pipeline already, and doesnt need any more funds. And Hubble is still producing top quality scientific data, there is a HUGE waiting list to use the thing. why not keep it going, when its doing so much good? its not as if it would cost a lot, compared to launching a new one or even one mission to mars. oh and its been upgraded several times already, and further upgrades would be a logical addition to any mission to stop it falling out of the sky, theyd have to replace some gyros anyway
But why bother spending that money to look at anything at all.ok, now im confused. your previous post was encouraging discovery and the space program, yes this comment implying the opposite. are you just shifting your opinions merely to play devils advocate?
Going to places in space is something that'll be done sometime in the future, but I wouldn't be completely sure if moon is the place for us right now - or _manned_ flights the way. "Space science" shouldn't be a form of escapism to stop us from thinking of problems back on earth though.good point. the only real benefit i can see for manned over unmanned is the long term goal of colonisation. but shouldnt we be making sure well still be around in 100 years so we CAN colonise places.

[Walnut]

but shouldnt we be making sure well still be around in 100 years so we CAN colonise places.

It's nowhere near a one-or-the-other thing.

[Army GI]

Going to places in space is something that'll be done sometime in the future, but I wouldn't be completely sure if moon is the place for us right now - or _manned_ flights the way. "Space science" shouldn't be a form of escapism to stop us from thinking of problems back on earth though.Even though it's cool to think about, I never really thought Space Science to be much of a feasable thing for humankind to do. Sure we can play around in innerspace, but what about when the sun dies (if whatever the evolved form of human beings will be in 5 billion years still exist by then), we'd have to find a new solar system all together with just the PERFECT set of circumstances that you find here on earth. A million miles to close and we boil; too far and we freeze.

[Agent Law]

So what dude? Its a tellescope and the most important bits in it are the mirrors, not how fast its micro-processors are. Sure incremental upgrades to increase the resolution of the immage capturing equipment is a good idea (increaseing its megapixel rating, for clarification purposes), but scrapping it just because its 20 years old and no other reason? No. We don't scrap ground-based telescopes if they are more then X-ammount of years old, so why should we scrap this one?
A wider diametre telescope would be able to collect more light/energy and could potentially see deeper into space. Plus, the eggheads could put all sorts of goodies for a next-generation space telescope to be many times better than the HST.

Even though it's cool to think about, I never really thought Space Science to be much of a feasable thing for humankind to do. Sure we can play around in innerspace, but what about when the sun dies (if whatever the evolved form of human beings will be in 5 billion years still exist by then), we'd have to find a new solar system all together with just the PERFECT set of circumstances that you find here on earth. A million miles to close and we boil; too far and we freeze.
If our species has survived the test of time for five billion years and been continuously developing (without systematically destroying ourselves), we would have reached such an advanced phase that we would of spread across the galaxy. We may not even be in the same galaxy in five billion years (could of abandoned it for various reasons). The future is a long time, and I'm an optimist. :)

[Army GI]

If our species has survived the test of time for five billion years and been continuously developing (without systematically destroying ourselves), we would have reached such an advanced phase that we would of spread across the galaxy. We may not even be in the same galaxy in five billion years (could of abandoned it for various reasons). The future is a long time, and I'm an optimist. :)
I'd like to think so.

[HarryB]

err, what? every study ever done has concluded that in the long run goal-based research doesnt achieve anything. sure, in the short term its useful, but not in the long term.

What I said was break throughs tend to happen by accident more often than not, and generally things related to problems that need answers now. And usually those problems mount when a large project on a short time base is proprosed. Take WW2 for instance. Countries needed new technology to counter that of other countries. But look at all the extra things people created from the spin offs of those. Did any of them ever think that 30 or 40 years we'd be using research they were starting to make microwaves and the like?

[GoatChomper]

So what dude? Its a tellescope and the most important bits in it are the mirrors, not how fast its micro-processors are.
Well, dude, you're forgetting about twenty years' worth of advancement in materials technology and what several decades in the harshest environment imagineable can do to systems.
.....but scrapping it just because its 20 years old and no other reason? No.
That's right, No. Read again.....I mentioned scrapping it so that the monies and effort currently being spent on it can be dedicated to a newer, better one.

[SWATJester_os]

The problem with hubble is that we can't go much larger than that while on earth due to gravitational deformity in the lens making process.

[Maddog]

If our species has survived the test of time for five billion years and been continuously developing (without systematically destroying ourselves), we would have reached such an advanced phase that we would of spread across the galaxy. We may not even be in the same galaxy in five billion years (could of abandoned it for various reasons). The future is a long time, and I'm an optimist. :)
id sure hope we'd move to a new galaxy by then cause in a couple billion years another galaxy is supposed to collide with the milky way and that's going to be crazy.

[-V-]

The problem with hubble is that we can't go much larger than that while on earth due to gravitational deformity in the lens making process.
Could you expand please? I'm guessing you mean gravitational distortion on earth that makes the mirror seem normal here, but when in orbit it flexes due to lack of gravity and becomes useless?

[Modest Genius]

The problem with hubble is that we can't go much larger than that while on earth due to gravitational deformity in the lens making process.hence why JWST is using segmented mirrors. oh and hubble is a mirror based telescope too, not a refractor
Well, dude, you're forgetting about twenty years' worth of advancement in materials technology and what several decades in the harshest environment imagineable can do to systems.harshest environment imaginable? hardly. dropping it into a volcano or sandblasting the thing would cause somewhat greater damage to a telescope than sitting in a vacuum. whilst you have a point, plenty of technology which is way older than that is still used, and still used sucessfully. and almost all of it has withstood more wear and tear than the HST
That's right, No. Read again.....I mentioned scrapping it so that the monies and effort currently being spent on it can be dedicated to a newer, better one.and i pointed out that the amount of money and effort is miniscule compared to that required for manned spaceflight to the moon. hence why i would prefer that than sending men to the moon.

[Captain Colon]

Could you expand please? I'm guessing you mean gravitational distortion on earth that makes the mirror seem normal here, but when in orbit it flexes due to lack of gravity and becomes useless?
Something to do with being able to make the curvature absolutely perfect that can only be done in a zero-g environment after a certain point, if I remember correctly.

[SWATJester_os]

Could you expand please? I'm guessing you mean gravitational distortion on earth that makes the mirror seem normal here, but when in orbit it flexes due to lack of gravity and becomes useless?

It's the fact that at a certain size, we cannot make a lens that is entirely perfect in shape....gravity tends to deform it.......its for the same reason they want to make ball bearings in space because without gravitational effect, the bearings won't distort when being cast, and thus are perfectly round.

[Modest Genius]

aye, a lens/mirror which is measured to be perfect to the required accuracy on earth then bends in space, meaning it is no longer accurate. and its somewhat hard to simulate or calculate. far easier to use segments

[SWATJester_os]

Or to just build it in space....well, it wouldn't be easier, but a huge singular lens that was built in space would bring incredible results.

[GoatChomper]

harshest environment imaginable? hardly. dropping it into a volcano or sandblasting the thing would cause somewhat greater damage to a telescope than sitting in a vacuum.
The silliness of mentioning volcanoes and telescopes aside, you've forgotten the huge temperature variations inflicted on an orbiting object.....not to mention a constant bath in charged solar particles.

[Modest Genius]

Or to just build it in space....well, it wouldn't be easier, but a huge singular lens that was built in space would bring incredible results.yeah, because we can build in an ultra-accurate laser micrometer and a grinding tool into the telescope [/sarcasm]

and goat, yes i considered those. but being bombarded by radiation doesnt really hurt inanimate non-mechanical objects under minimal stress very much. sure, the temperature changes are a problem, but less than dropping the thing into a volcano as i suggested earlier

[-V-]

yeah, because we can build in an ultra-accurate laser micrometer and a grinding tool into the telescope
Why not just send an entire mirror grinding factory up then, eh? I mean really at that point you have to settle for the cost versus benifit thing there. And SWAT was mentioning a good point, that if you want a reallly big mirror for a space-telescope chances are that your going to have to grind it in space. Which I think in itself would yeild some interesting benifits, depending on the angle at which such a task is approached at.

[GoatChomper]

and goat, yes i considered those. but being bombarded by radiation doesnt really hurt inanimate non-mechanical objects under minimal stress very much.
Microdust moving at cosmic speeds, and the huge constant temperature changes caused by going from -250 degrees to well over the boiling point of water, do. The insulation and exterior shell have degraded with age, making the interior temperatures increase over time.