Slashdot Mirror
NASA Weighs Moon Plans
mknewman writes "Space.com is reporting that NASA is set to roll out next month a U.S. national strategy for lunar exploration, one that outlines both robotic exploration needs and the rationale for sending humans back to the Moon. This has been sorely missing in Bush's Vision for Space Exploration."
That's easy. It'll weight 1/6 of what it does on Earth.
NASA Weighs Moon...
I've been wondering for years why we would ever want to step foot again on the moon given the risks and massive costs (other than the obviously political reason of: the chinese are doing it). This article is actually semicoherent, and it's great to see them putting a heavy focus on robotic exploration.
What I'd still rather see though, is human exploration being conducted on an "as needed" basis. For example, let's put robots on the moon that can determine if the moon can be utilized for its supposed natural resources (as NASA contends it has), and if these robots can't mine fuel or other supplies that could be used for a Mars mission, we can send people up there.
Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
Tastes like no chees I've ever tasted.
We need two Humvee-sized rovers exploring the moon that are visible with the naked eye from Earth. That should keep people interested in the moon as they watch the rovers bounced around the craters until NASCAR builds out a race track up there.
NASA Weighs Moon Plans
It would depend on the number of pages, but on nice 24lb paper with a clay coating, the plans really shouldn't weigh more than a few ounces. Now, 100lb cover stock would be a different story. You might need a rocket scientist to calculate that.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
nt
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
So busty chicks will have more "perkiness", but retain the same nice tactile qualities...
Posted AC, of course!
I think, perhaps, they should amass the plans instead. That way the lander won't crash when one contractor weighs its plans in Earth gravity and the other in Lunar.
KFG
The real action is going to be on Phobos and Mars, in that order. Don't look for the next Iceland, look for the next New York City, the slam-dunk locations in space. The Lagrange points in the Earth-Moon system, Earth-crossing "dead" comets and Mar's small moons are good candidates. Phobos allows both resource extraction including actual water (not maybes in polar shadows), Phobos also offers realtime contact with Mars and the convenience of working in familiar freefall. The moon has a lot of unaddressed operational issues that a Phobos/Mars orbitter and mine scheme doesn't possess. Admittedly there is a lot of handwaving in this, but we discussed the tradeoffs here:
r d=businesstech&Number=503952&page=&view=&sb=&o=
http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Boa
Josh
gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
Are people that against wallace and gromit? Seemed relevant enough to me.
Bugger the costs, just charge it: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I think its because its been putting on a few pounds.
God spoke to me.
What NASA really needs to do is to take a step back and redesign their platforms if we really want to get manned space exploration / commercialization back on track. The shuttle fleet is already beyond its EOL cycle and we don't have a viable alternative ready at the moment. In order to fulfill current promises and to keep in the race with other countries, current plans call for the re-development of basically what we were flying in the 1960s, rockets with capsules - albeit updated. Interestingly enough, the congress that authorized the money for the development of the shuttle also made a stipulation that the plans of the previous generation of Apollo rockets had to be destroyed - in other words, go forward or don't go. I know NASA has been researching alternative technologies capable of achieving orbit for many years, but I'm not sure the US (or another country for that matter) has made a significant commitment of money and support by the people to further the technologies required for effective manned space travel. IMO, if I were to compare the development of the space programs to the development of the aeronautical industry, we are still flying single engine prop planes with an open cockpit. The necessary base technologies in my opinion are... 1) Propulsion mechanism Albeit with different chemicals and forms (solid/liquid), we are using the same propulsion mechanisms as those engineered in WWII. Thankfully the guidance system has been greatly improved though... 2) Energy Whether it be for the propulsion mechanism or for powering the facilities on the craft/facility, power generation or harvesting is very important. 3) Gravity For short term missions (1-3 weeks) it is not a great concern, but the longer people stay in space or even reduced gravity environments, more time must be spent on maintaining the body so that it has a fighting chance when returning to Earth. While vigorous exercise might be good for a lot of us, it doesn't make a lot of sense to need to spend a lot of time on exercise when you're doing a mission that costs as much as it does.
Personally, I think we should skip Mars for the time being and concentrate on getting useful things done on the moon. Once we have some real manufacturing capability, building larger projects, for both earth orbit and beyond, would become much easier. In the long run, we want to encourage private enterprise in space. By blazing a trail, NASA can jump start the process.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
The current plan for the first flight is convert a passenger jet for space travel so that the US Congress can be relocated to the Moon. A second much larger craft is planned for a trip bearing all the lawyers. Since one in every three americans is a lawyer this should help reduce the populations problems and free up the court system. The Congressmen and lawyers are quite enthusiastic about the plan since the earth will be consumed by a space goat shortly after the second flight. If there's time a third flight is planned for lobbyist and the handfull of remaining conservative leaders. Once all are relocated the earth, err I mean moon should be safe.
Google tells me the moon has a mass of 7.36 × 10^22 kilograms, or a weight of 1.62260225 × 10^23 pounds. Dats a lot o cheese.
Finally, I can build Moon Unit Zappa.
Task Mangler
It is somewhat illogical, in the difficult time of allocating funding in science, to make a decision to revisit the Moon first and then to discuss the justification for this new technological/scientific endeavor.
This is almost like a por-barrel project for Texas in the national scale...
Why don't we focus on locating the missing tapes from the original moon landing before moving forward.
This has always struck me as absurd about Bush's Moon and Mars plans, he's been drumming up such ideas now and then, while at the same time slashing NASA budget. Why anybody believes he's doing anything other than posturing is beyond me.
Well, it's so clean, Sir.
KFG
I don't know about "against", but certainly "ignorant of" qualifies. Let's face it. As high as the quality of W&G animation is, they're not exactly on the high priority list of DVDs for geeks to watch. But, yes, it's completely relevant
... the line comes from "A Grand Day Out" in which Wallace and Gromit fly to the moon to get some cheese because "everyone knows the moon's made of cheese". The GP's line was when Wallace was trying to determine what kind of cheese the moon is made of.
Hey, ignoramus mods
*sigh*
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
No, no, you got it wrong. They're weighing the moon plans. I mean ... really ... do blueprints weight that much that they need to be weighed?? :)
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
They need to be careful and be sure the Rebels don't get ahold of those plans.
After all, that's no moon.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
How many sheets of 24lb paper does it take to add up to 24 lbs? Presumably the same number of sheets of 100lb paper would add up to 100 lbs.
Just saying.
It's sad to see people still calling this a "Bush" program because that will be the kiss of death for the VSE if it sticks, and I honestly doubt Bush had much to do with it's formulation at all. Back before the VSE was announce by Bush, there were articles on the web about NASA management and white house science staffers formulating a new vision for NASA. I think it's their vision and Bush just gave his approval. It would be a shame for an incomming democratic administration to kill it because it was tied to Bush. Is this what the poster wants?
Sure, it might be a good idea to go to the moon and explore some more, but what's clearly missing here is AN EXIT STRATEGY for getting off of the moon after we're done.
Why is it that whenever anyones says "... Bush's vision ..." I think of crayons, preschool and cirlces of paper?
Why does America want to explore the Moon? It seems stupid when China is already going to do it - there is no need for America to go there. Or something like that. At least, that is the agument we always hear when there is talk about China, Europe or Russia wanting to do something the Americans already do, such as having their own gps, astronauts etc. Except it's the other way around, of course.
>This has been sorely missing in Bush's Vision for Space Exploration.
Bush wants to make Star Trek a reality, but geeks still find a way to bash him. Sheesh!
For this topic I'm lacking in detail and references, but I seem to recall from when Bush first started talking about putting people on Mars via the moon, there was some talk about his vision of a new direction for Nasa not being so much in the interest of pure science as was inferred, but rather there were parallels with ideas floating around at the time about the militarisation of space, and Bush managed to put icing and a candle on it and call it a party.
Of course, the so-called space race of the 50s-60s had a lot to do with developing missles to deliver nuclear warheads, so it's not as if Bush would be the first to use a facade of scientific benevolence to make military advances.
I still question the current practicality of putting people on the moon or Mars. Despite the US sending men to the moon in the 60s, it was the robots and space stations which the Soviets pursued through that time which were the true future of space exploration and put them ahead. Space is still a nasty, big place, and we are insignificant and fragile; have we really got to the point where we can truly justify the added complexity and expense of human missions beyond low orbit, instead of expanded automated missions?
RTFM; please, I beg you.
How about you start treating this subject with the gravity it deserves?
I am about the most nerdy, curious, star trek fan person in town. There is nothing more fascinating to me than exploring the universe. However, I'm completely opposed to using government funds to send people into space.
Let's let the private sector explore space.
People talk about the "benefits" of the space program, like plastics! Great, an oil-consuming product that takes hundreds of thousands of years to bio-degrade. If that's not progress, I don't know what is!
Resources on Earth are very limited. We all work very hard to pay our taxes. Let's let the private sector lead the way into this exciting new place!
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
Isn't it a bit premature? Why not robotic missions for a while? We have a long way to go in understanding both human physiology and how to adapt it to the unforgiving environment of the non-earth realm. This is a journey of generations, not a sprint. Armstrong's footprints look nice, but honestly, humans living on the Moon and beyond will become a reality centuries from now, only after we lay the groundwork of unglamorous research.
There's a good reason for manned exploration: people -- otherwise known as 'taxpayers' -- don't care about and aren't inspired by robotic exploration. When the Mars Rover does something, it's lucky to get a 5 second mention on CNN. Putting a robot on another planet isn't nearly as tangible an accomplishment as putting a person somewhere.
When people want a measuring stick to judge the successfulness of our technology, they still say "we put a man on the moon..." (generally followed by "...and we still can't do [something]"); you don't hear people saying "we put a robot on Mars" or "we put launched a deep-space probe beyond our Solar System..." While important, virtually everything NASA has done since the moon landing, with the possible exception of the Hubble Space Telescope (because of the neat pictures it sent back), has failed to capture the public's interest. And as a result, they have seen their funding grow slimmer and slimmer.
To be honest, doing exploration that doesn't get the average people excited is shortsighted, because it's ultimately those people, apathetic and ignorant as they may be, who control the purse strings that are the lifeblood of the space program. If they don't care about NASA, then NASA gets its budget cut by the Congresscritters next time they're looking for money to fund their Bridge to Nowhere. And that means no money for 'real' scientific research.
Putting people back on the moon ASAP is essential to restore interest in the Space Program to a country that has, by and large, forgotten it. Manned space exploration today is a joke: it's tourism. The adventure of space is something mostly reserved for a generation that's obsessing over the costs of prescription drugs, and has stopped looking outwards for new frontiers. The younger generation hasn't been given any reason by NASA to be interested. I haven't even seen as many kids these days saying that they want to be astronauts as used to. (And why would they -- ride up into space on a vehicle that would be cat food cans already, if it had been an automobile; have basically nowhere to go when you get up there; and there's always the risk of the whole thing falling apart on the way down.)
NASA is a far cry from the national inspiration that it was to previous generations, and unless it can demonstrate some ability to capture the imaginations of today's citizens, it's going to be budget-cut into nonexistence.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Is it a coincidence that NASA announced a major mission sorely lacking in Bush's "vision" for our space program only a week after Bush lost control of Congress? And therefore most of his control of the space program that Congress defines, and Bush just gets an "up or down vote" on.
--
make install -not war
TFA suggests one possibile excuse to go to the moon is to conduct scientific research (if the plan of attack uses an outpost).
However, look at where that's gotten us on the ISS: the original plans were to have far more scientific research modules than will be on the final ISS, but they have been cut to control costs. The overhead--that is, the life support, power, storage, and escape modules--are all still being implemented. Support for the ISS would not have been as high among decision makers if they had known that so much of the research would have been cancelled.
Long story short, I hope they don't make the same mistakes with moon travel. Get a good estimate of how much science can be done and at what costs, then get Congress to vote on it.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
Did God provide Bush with his Space Vision?
Bush doesn't need a telescope for a vision of space. God tells him what's out there.
There's no oil on the moon as far as I know...
-- Samir Gupta, Ph. D. Head, New Technology Research Group, Nintendo Co. Ltd., Kyoto, Japan.
Bush's vision - Oxymoron for a moron
Weight is the force due to gravity. On earth this is very similar to (linearly dependant on) the mass of the object, as the force from gravity is always the same value.
The main source of gravity on the moon is still the earth, but the gravitational pull is weaker, as it's further away. My back of an envelope puts the weight of the moon at 7.7e+31 Newtons.
Phobos and Deimos equatorial orbits are marginally useful for exploration. Exploration missions will likely use polar orbits because of the much greater geographic coverage and landing options.
Phobos and Deimos are S and C type asteroids repectively. S class Eros was found to be devoid of water. It is not likely that Deimos is water rich either.
an ill wind that blows no good
When they weigh the plans, I hope they don't break the scale.
Now Patrick Moore (one of the founders of Greenpeace) has admitted the anti-nuke effort was a mistake - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html . A lot of myths about nukes still abound from Greenpeace propaganda from the 1970s. Unfortunately Greenpeace still beats this drum even though they clearly should know better now.
Until this situation changes I think we are still limited to WWII type chemical propulsion systems. The space elevator offers hope, maybe. We'll see.
Sorta proves my point. They were inspired the first time we put a man on the moon. Not quite so much the second, and by the third, they weren't interested until something got screwed up.
It's the firsts that are important, and that's what NASA has to be continually aiming for. It has to constantly be extending our reach; pushing us further and further out.
I can guarantee you that the first time a person walks on Mars, while it may not be quite the same event as the Moon landing, that will get people to stop what they're doing and care, if only for a little while.
The idea is that you have to be the first to do something, and thereby capture the public's imagination; then, when you have their attention, use it to get the resources you need to consolidate that achievement, and start moving on to the next 'first.'
If NASA wants to keep going, it basically needs to give every generation a moon landing (and preferably more frequently than that). If people don't perceive that the money we're spending is taking us to new places, then they're going to take it and fritter it away elsewhere.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Suspect this moon program is going to turn into entitlement programs and basic science like all the others. So far, no more methane engine. Reduced CEV size. No more space station airlock. Now an additional $1 billion diverted to servicing Hubble.
Nasa weighs moon, plans.
Because the vast bulk of the funds go to emergency room visits. That is the only place were people without insurance can go. These same people do not have regular checkups which will catch the reasons they are in the emergency room to begin with.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
The main source of gravity on the moon is still the earth
This is true, but it doesn't provide the whole picture. As a former employee of a once-thriving gravity export business, I can confirm that the moon was our largest (by mass) customer. Things were going great until outsourcing forced our local gravity mine to close, as upper management realized that gravity is equally abundant in India, but that the miners there are willing to work for a pittance and the safety regulations are far more lax.
So now I'm unemployed and the Mooninites have to get by with gravity that's only a third of the quality that we normally enjoy here on Earth. *sigh*
Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, Spontaneous Order- BEST DO IT SO!
News update: They've been found.
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/818
It's disturbing to think of how close we came to losing them forever. It's also curious to note how little attention their recovery has gotten, in light of the hoopla over their misplacement.
Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, Spontaneous Order- BEST DO IT SO!
It looks like those are other missing moon tapes. They contain experimental data and telemetry, not video.
Regardless, I see no sense in putting the entire program on hold until the tapes are located. They're simply higher-resolution originals of video that we have plenty of copies of.
Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, Spontaneous Order- BEST DO IT SO!
Such claims are completely unjustified by observational facts, which was my original point.
As I said, Phobos and Deimos equatorial orbits make them shitty platforms for exploration. You cannot reach the polar caps from an equatorial orbit. It takes a great deal of energy to change the inclination of an orbit from 0 to 90 degrees.
an ill wind that blows no good
You do realize that the US Defense budget:
/ defense.pdf [gpoaccess.gov]/ hhs.pdf [gpoaccess.gov]/ ssa.pdf [gpoaccess.gov]
Defense: 474 Billion in 2005
Health and Human Services: 579 Billion in 2005
Social Security: 563 Billion in 2005
Those two programs are almost 3 times as much as defense! I didn't even look at the other social programs like HUD, education, and labor.
Back in the 90's when I toured NASA they told us that "less than one half of a penny out of every dollar that goes to DC gets marked for NASA". I am sure that has changed a bit now.
Don't believe me? Check this out:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/pdf/budget
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/pdf/budget
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/pdf/budget
Libertas in infinitum