Slashdot Mirror
Should We Land on the Moon's Poles or Equator?
Cujo writes "There is at present a lively controversy about sites for a crewed lunar landing. Advocates for landing near the poles, possibly on a mountain, point out the advantages of much higher sunlight availability and possible water resources in nearby cold traps. However, there may be more interesting geology and better mineral resources near the better-explored equator. NASA's Exploration Systems Architecture report lays out some of the tradeoffs."
Wherever it has the best/most cheese. Therefore, if the astronauts get stranded, they won't go hungry.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Quite true. But at the poles, there are craters which are permanently dark.
Really, the poles seem an obvious choice to me - constant light, constant dark, potential ice, new ground to explore - why not? Besides, it would be neat to have a simple pole near your complex plane.
It's time for Operation Crazy Plan.
If we make a commitment to return to the moon we should be prepared to explore, armed with airplanes (both manned and UAV), MPS (GPS on the moon) constellation, multiple bases, regular supply drops and greenhouses. We made it to the moon in the 1960s with technology that is downright scary by todays standards, we should prepare to return to the moon with a vengence on July 20, 2019.
...when did the Poles get to the moon ahead of the Americans and why are we considering landing on them? Let's make it the equator and take second place. Go Poland!
Huh? Oh.
Nevermind.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
ha, it would be more appropriate to hold this debate in chinese
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
At first I thought this was an "Ask Slashdot" entry, at which point I thought, "I'm not sure I want to trust NASA with a shuttle program."
concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
after all, if we've travelled all the way to the moon, we might as well get an Earthtan for all our trouble, and break out the Virgin Daquiris in their squeeze tetrapacks all round.
... um, wait, last time I checked we were at a negative savings rate as a nation because of Tax Cuts for Billionaires so they can buy jewelry for their teacup chihuahuas ....
Heck, we should think about making a Club Med on the Moon - we'll have lots of Lunar Tokens to buy water with - ok, dirty ice crystals from crevices, but the same concept.
And we should put up a big neon sign that says "UFOs Land Here! Interplanetary Spaceport! Have your Binary Passports ready!"
But whatever we do, let's just borrow the money for it from the overflowing national treasury built up by all those savings we've been saving
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
While we are talking about the moon, I can understand and see the scientific payoffs of sending people back to the moon, but I am much less clear on the whole Mars thing. What is the scientific end game of sending people to Mars?
We need to take out those pesky martians before they invade us. Do you think those little green men want peace? No way! First Strike against the Martians, it is our only chance.
Jihad vs. the Martians!!!
The downside of being on the dark side is that you are likely to be eaten by a Grue.
We should build a giant prism there.
You know, I happen to be a mechanical engineer at Electric Boat in Groton, CT, where we design & build nuclear subs for the US Navy. The focus of design in the past several years (post cold-war) has been centered around special operations forces capabilities, like sending out Navy SEAL frogmen and the like.
And occasionally, I think... a screen door really would help keep the fish and seaweed out of the lockout chamber when the frogmen are out on the mission.
And then I just shake my head and say "How would I ever suggest to someone that it might be useful to put a screen door on the submarine?" I'm not even Polish, so I don't even have an excuse.
"No fair, you changed the outcome by measuring it!" - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth
We need to do a study of where the richest cheese deposits are and land there.
Already found it.
Look here zoom in completely on point D.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
And of course, living on the Dark Side, we wouldn't want to encourage anyone to turn to the Dark Side either...there are already enough Sith Lords, Daryl McBride Vaders, Bill Gates Borgs, etc. in the Universe.
However, I don't think we should go to the moon at all. I think we should get our house in order first.
"The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!"
-- Larry Niven, quoted by Arthur Clarke in interview at space.com, 2001
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
I think you meant Olympus Mons. Mons Veneris is something completely different...
The place where we landed last time on the moon - in some studio near or in Hollywood.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I would just aim for the middle and hope we hit it!
Ohh GOOD IDEA! Let's put a huge nuke on the other side of the moon and see if it hits the earth. Who needs a stable orbit anyways?
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
http://it.is.rice.edu/~rickr/goddard.editorial.htm l
The inside of the Moon is always dark.
I think they should land at BOTH the poles AND the Equator. They should build electromagnetic catapults at all three sites. Each should be precisely oriented to shoot from the "mouth" of one into the "mouth" of another. Then they can use those for transportation between the sites. Start, accelerate, coast, decellerate, stop. "Simple"!
It's ALL dark.