31
   

Should NASA go to Mars or back to the Moon?

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jul, 2010 09:19 pm
@edgarblythe,
To be fair the cost of placing a man on Mars in terms of moving mass around the solar system you likely could place a rover on Mars the size of a M1 tank.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jul, 2010 09:29 pm
@BillRM,
What do you want to blow up?
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 Jul, 2010 09:39 pm
@edgarblythe,
Now is not a good time to ask me that question after dealing with the women on the rape thread.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jul, 2010 07:58 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
...
A human being can actively, creatively, interactively, and experientially *explore* an area. But a remotely operated vehicle can only report data. There is a world of difference. A Whole World in this case.

This is an actual photograph of Io, one of Jupiter's moons - well actually a composite of photographs taken by a satellite zipping by at 35,000 miles an hour - with color enhancement corresponding to light frequencies reflected back from Io:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/07/29/arts/0729MUSEUM1/0729MUSEUM1-articleLarge.jpg
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/arts/design/29museum.html

It's too far for us to ever see in person, but I can't understand what's holding up a manned mission to Mars. Costs are halved if the crew agrees to stay there and settle the planet rather than plan returning to earth. That's from estimates by Buzz Aldrin linked earlier in thread.

Io, like the other moons of Jupiter, is tiny compared to the gas giant - the only planet exercising a significant gravitational attraction on our sun:
http://www.kinetikonpictures.com/books/gallery/images/t1.jpg
http://www.kinetikonpictures.com/books/image-gallery.htm
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Oct, 2010 03:13 pm
ChattahBox Science News) — Any question of whether the moon was simply a giant, dry rock has been permanently dismissed, thanks to a new report indicating that NASA has found what could be up to a billion gallons of water ice on the south pole of the moon, ABC news reports.Last year, NASA crashed an empty rocket into the moon to analyze the type of materials the collision would kick up. The result was that the satellite found about 41 gallons of water in the debris of the crash—which, when calculated across the entire moon’s area, translated into what could total up to a billion gallons, ABC said, citing a study published in the most recent issue of the journal Science.

Although scientists hope this could mean that astronauts may someday find sustenance from the water by melting and purifying it, and breaking down the hydrogen (which they could use for fuel) and oxygen (for breathing), that technology could be a long way off. In addition to finding water, the researchers also discovered minerals on the moon, including mercury, which is toxic if ingested. In addition, the scientists discovered silver, carbon monoxide, and ammonia during the mission, ABC reports.

Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Oct, 2010 06:58 pm
@BillRM,
Haven't you heard? It doesn't matter. Obama cancelled the Moon project. We're not going anymore. Actually, we're not going anywhere anymore. Now all we have are pipe dreams about what might happen in the future.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Oct, 2010 07:11 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Haven't you heard? It doesn't matter. Obama cancelled the Moon project. We're not going anymore. Actually, we're not going anywhere anymore. Now all we have are pipe dreams about what might happen in the future.


We(US) however are not the only ones who can seized man future to the rest of the solar system with the help of all that wonderful water on the moon.

We got to the moon the first time for short visits with 1950s technology after all.

In a way it does not matter if the future belong to the West or to China for example as long as we ,as in the human race we, do get out there.

0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2010 08:10 am
Yes, that's a point. I would have preferred that it be us, but Obama has taken care of our tradition of pioneering. I hope that China or India can take over, but, frankly, they are pretty far behind.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2010 08:17 am
Quote:
The White House is considering adding one more shuttle flight, a June 2011 mission during which the Space Shuttle Atlantis would deliver cargo and supplies to the international space station. However, Yates said an extra shuttle flight would have no impact on plans to pink-slip employees in the fall.

After the shuttle’s retirement, NASA plans to rely exclusively on Russian Soyuz vehicles to get astronauts to the space station until a new generation of commercially operated U.S. spacecraft comes on line several years from now. The White House also intends to fund the development of technologies needed for deep space exploration, but those plans are still in the formative stage, so no new jobs have been created as a result.


http://www.spacenews.com/policy/100706-lawmaker-nasa-plan-recovery.html


"....until a new generation of commercially operated U.S. spacecraft comes on line several years from now."

There is really no such firm plan. It is basically wishful thinking.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2010 09:05 am
@Brandon9000,
Perhaps if someone's political party would stop cutting and advocating for further cuts of NASA, they would have a better plan in place.

Cycloptichorn
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2010 09:58 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
but Obama has taken care of our tradition of pioneering


Come on we had been out of that business since the 1970s Obama is hardly the one that stop us.
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2010 10:29 am
As many are aware, we have recently found great gobs of water, silver, mercury, hydrogen and even METHANE on the moon! Methane may indicate the present or at least past existence of life up there! We have the technology. Let's go back to the moon!
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2010 10:50 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
but Obama has taken care of our tradition of pioneering


Come on we had been out of that business since the 1970s Obama is hardly the one that stop us.

Obama specifically cancelled the "Return to the Moon" (Constellation) program. We now have not one single manned space mission in preparation.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2010 10:51 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Perhaps if someone's political party would stop cutting and advocating for further cuts of NASA, they would have a better plan in place.

Cycloptichorn

Nobody forced Obama to cut it.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2010 11:05 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Obama specifically cancelled the "Return to the Moon" (Constellation) program. We now have not one single manned space mission in preparation.


How many similar plans had been put forward and then cancel by the next administration since the 1970s?

I would be surprise if the even the authors of the Constellation plan did not expect it to be cancel no matter who won in 2008.

To me it was not a real program as it was full with incorrect assumptions and many short comings on it face that would not had been there if anyone did expect such a project to go forward.

Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2010 11:07 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Obama specifically cancelled the "Return to the Moon" (Constellation) program. We now have not one single manned space mission in preparation.


How many similar plans had been put forward and then cancel by the next administration since the 1970s?

I would be surprise if the even the authors of the Constellation plan did not expect it to be cancel no matter who won in 2008.

To me it was not a real program as it was full with incorrect assumptions and many short comings on it face that would not had been there if anyone did expect such a project to go forward.

Why didn't he fix it, then, so it would work? Obama cancelled it and didn't substitute any other manned program. That is a matter of public record.
laughoutlood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2010 11:45 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
What do you think?


I think life likes to spread itself around.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Oct, 2010 06:26 am
@NickFun,
NickFun wrote:
Methane may indicate the present or at least past existence of life up there!


Oh sure . . . it may be evidence of fossilized dinosaur farts.

But i doubt it.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Oct, 2010 07:59 am
@Setanta,
Nickel Iron core reactions can catalyze CO2 and H2 into methane, so methane itself doesnt indicate biotic processes necessarily. Methane is probably 90% biotic on earth but is also abiogenic in several special cases
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Oct, 2010 08:01 am
I was just trying to be ironic. Anyone who is not aware of the methane content of the "pre-life" atmosphere of this planet really has no business in such a discussion.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/02/2023 at 10:29:26