moon landing

[bozo the clown]

Was wondering how we managed to land on the moon back in 69 and now 35 years later we are just managing to orbit the Earth.
Surely as we did it 35 years ago is it not a lot easier to do it again now given the advances in technology etc
And what a great moment for our generation to witness.
Should we not try to concentrate moon landings before we try to go to Mars which seems to me to be far more difficult for us than going to the moon back in 69.

[Integral]

There must be a significant scientific or economic reason for returning to the moon. What are these reasons? Simply for the "glory" is not a reason. Space travel is a VERY expensive hobby, there needs to be a reason, currently there is no reason to go to the moon.

I am not sure what you mean by

35 years later we are just managing to orbit the Earth.

Considering the fact that there have been men in orbit continuously for several years now, how does this constitute "just managing"?

Unfortunately we must be able to justify every mission with either economics or scientific gains. So far there has been no real economic reason found for being in space, so space travel has remained up to governments which have sufficient funds to spend on pure science. Scientifically there is little of interest on the moon. Soo...

As soon as you can come with some way to derive a profit from a mission to the moon, it will happen, until then... Don't hold your breath.

[bozo the clown]

What was the economic gain back in 69 was it not more of an economic drain also wasn't it a political reason psychological gain over the russians.

When I say just managing look we are not exactly up their in numbers are we and astronauts have to wait months before they can come back down due to delays, shuttle catastrophies etc ....

I bet if Bush announces before election a moon mission under his administration you'd see him get reelected isn't that an economical reason ( from his point of view anyway )

[Integral]

There was no economic reason in the '60s, it was done, at great expense, for glory and minimal scientific gain. Once again, if you can find a way to generate a profit from a man in orbit then it will happen in numbers. Currently it is an expensive hobby for our government and little else. About the only science being done is the effect of weightlessness on the human body. We can do better science, cheaper, if humans would stay OUT of space. Send remote sensing equipment to gather data. When some reason is found, then start sending humans.


I doubt that any real reason for Humans in space will ever be found....

Though a low gravity resort on the moon would be a very interesting change of pace for the rich and famous.

[check]

While actually going into space may not brought any economic gains, the technology developed to do this task certainly has.

[Integral]

While actually going into space may not brought any economic gains, the technology developed to do this task certainly has.
I would like to see some real solid data on just what technology that was developed by and for the space program which has had a major impact on our economy.

Certainly NOT Solid state devices, perhaps some metal alloys... what else..Oh yes, can't forget Tang!

Over all I believe that this is an old saw that is more legend then fact.

[bozo the clown]

Ok how much to replicate build the rockets and craft that sent man to the moon copy the blue prints Im sure they have all the data saved from start to finish, touched up with a little modern day technology surely the expense is not that great as all the research testing and actual practice has been done. Of course if we start from scractch its going to cost.

[marcus]

bozo I don't understand wanting to put humans on the moon or mars
they are dry places inhospitable places where any exploring needed can better be done by robots

so all this talk by the present political leaders about men on moon and mars strikes me as cynical grand-standing or extremely ill-advised

so I dont understand your line of questions, you seem to believe it would be a worthy goal and you say "let's go! it can't cost all that much, what would it cost?"

maybe you can explain why those are reasonable questions to be asking.


I would rather be asking how much would it cost to set up and maintain a manned base on Callisto or Ganymede. Those have a dirty-ice crust
to tunnel into
to use for cooling power-generators
to extract minerals from and provide water and propellant

Stuff could live under the ice
and they are interesting beautiful places where people havent been

a basic point about Callisto is, if you can take a nuclear power plant there then you dont need to take water, or oxygen, or vehicle propellant

the main bulk items of any space mission are abundantly available on the ground

I dont see manned moon or mars missions as the slightest bit interesting. Maybe you can explain what they would accomplish that robot craft could not do cheaper

[RAD4921]

The USA went to the moon in 1969 because we were in a "space race" with the Soviet Union. JFK proclaimed in the early 60s that we would put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. No doubt that the moon landings were done mainly out of national pride but it also had some scientific worth to it. Like others have said, space travel is very expensive and we would gain little scientific knowledge by returning to the moon but it beats spending money on boomer submarines. Write your congressman and complain.:)

[marcus]

... would gain little scientific knowledge by returning to the moon but it beats spending money on boomer submarines. Write your congressman and complain.:)

there are a lot of both technical and slang words I dont know
what is a "boomer submarine"?

[RAD4921]

"Boomer" is jargon used by people in the military to describe a submarine that carries ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile).

[neutroncount]

Actually marcus the moon is FULL of resources. The dust makes a great rocket fuel and if there is some ice in the polar craters we could obtain oxygen by reacting that water with iron oxide.

http://aerospacescholars.jsc.nasa.gov/has/cirr/em/8/4.cfm

At some point I could see a mining corperation set up a manned mining operation on the moon. Using a solar power "catapult", material could be placed in reentry containers and placed on an earth reentry trajectory. After the initial costs, it would start to pay for itself. Electricity is free, the building material is free, water MIGHT be free (i want to see ice evidence from polar craters first) and if that is true than oxygen is free as well. I do think human are destined for space...its only a matter of time thats all. I doubt much of this will start happening until a couple decades laters.

[russ_watters]

Ok how much to replicate build the rockets and craft that sent man to the moon copy the blue prints Im sure they have all the data saved from start to finish, touched up with a little modern day technology surely the expense is not that great as all the research testing and actual practice has been done. Of course if we start from scractch its going to cost. Unfortunately, even with our modern technology, it still costs $10,000 per pound to send an object into orbit. That is a physical limitation of chemical rockets and the only way to get around it is by finding another source of propulsion.

Unfortunately, Integral is right: there will never be a real, viable, commercial reason for people to go into space or to explore beyond possibly Mars.

[marcus]

Unfortunately, Integral is right: there will never be a real, viable, commercial reason for people to go into space...

that might be true but what if you remove the word "commercial"


... there will never be a real, viable, reason for people to go into space...

[edit: this is Russ quote with "commercial" removed---so it is not what he said. I just want to focus on that statement. I think i disagree with it even though all the science can probably be done better by robotic probes]

I would like to take an orbit around the earth. So I have a reason to go into space---if somebody offered me the ride I would go.

But I wouldnt want to go to the moon. I would rather take a ride across Texas on a Greyhound bus than go to the moon.

I would rather go to one of the moons of jupiter than go to Mars.
(Mars has some very beautiful scenery but it doesnt look half as thrilling as the planet Jupiter, which you get to watch from one of its moons)

also I like the idea of a >50 km shell of ice. I picture ice-skating everywhere----thru tunnels.

[bozo the clown]

Well we could replanish some of the cost regarding a moon landing by bringing back a fair weight of rocks crushing them down and selling them. Bring back the old US flag from the 69 landing and auction it off also one could deismantle the ship and sell the parts and also having landed on the moon doesn't the USA have the right to sell land on the moon I mean couldn't they sell like acres on the internet for a few bucks !

[russ_watters]

that might be true but what if you remove the word "commercial". If you mean consumer, I would include that in commercial. I see two categories of reasons to go into space: commercial and scientific. Well we could replanish some of the cost regarding a moon landing by bringing back a fair weight of rocks crushing them down and selling them. It also costs $10,000 per pound to bring something back. So they'd better be some really nice looking rocks. And that was just from orbit, btw - to get something to the moon and back is a good 3x that cost.

[marcus]

Well we could replanish some of the cost regarding a moon landing by bringing back a fair weight of rocks crushing them down and selling them. Bring back the old US flag from the 69 landing and auction it off also one could deismantle the ship and sell the parts and also having landed on the moon doesn't the USA have the right to sell land on the moon I mean couldn't they sell like acres on the internet for a few bucks !

porn movies made in zero gravity?

there must be a lot of ways a good promoter could make a buck off of manned space ventures

personally I wouldnt be interested in owning a moon rock but I would
pay five dollars for a half-pound rock to give as a present to someone
except that I dont happen to know anyone who'd like it as a present


the ice on the surface of Callisto is some of the oldest material in the solar system

I would be more interested in what a scientific lab could learn from one pound of that ice
than in what could be learned from a ton of the moon.

[bozo the clown]

Unfortunately, even with our modern technology, it still costs $10,000 per pound to send an object into orbit.

It also costs $10,000 per pound to bring something back


One could sell 1oz rocks for the $10,000.

[marcus]

bozo you must be kidding

if one were to glut the market with moon rock it would
have little or no value

people would be selling it on eBay

Ten grand an ounce is way more than market value

you could probably obtain an ounce of moon rock for less than that
right now, if you asked around, assuming you wanted it badly enough


-----------
but the other thing is that if moon rock were a commercial item it would be cheaper to send a robotic rock-scoop to the moon to get it

it would be real inefficient to send people to the moon to get rocks
because machines can do it safer, quicker, cheaper
-----------

the thing about humans is they are sentient
they experience what they are doing, significantly more than machines do

ultimately the "real, viable" purpose of including humans in it is
that the experience is worthwhile-----and ultimately because
humans may be able to make a home and raise families on some of these places in the sky

so in the last analysis it is neither commercial nor scientific

and it sure is not about bringing rocks back for the astronauts to peddle at ten thousand bucks an ounce.

[check]

I would like to see some real solid data on just what technology that was developed by and for the space program which has had a major impact on our economy.

This site has a good list of technologies, http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html
although it doesn't provide much reference into how and when NASA developed these. (So I guess it doesn't count as 'solid data')

Independently, many of these innovations may not have brought huge economic gains, but collectively I'm sure they have.

[SuperKamiokande]

I would rather go to one of the moons of jupiter than go to Mars.
(Mars has some very beautiful scenery but it doesnt look half as thrilling as the planet Jupiter, which you get to watch from one of its moons)



Isn't tht your personal preference over technological ability?

Realistically, we would have to have some set up on Mars or the Moon before we go anywhere else in the solar system. The biosphere dome experiments on Earth are all well and good but would they stand up in space? The problem here is that while the inside might be well contained, the outside only suffers from the climate the Earth has to throw at it. What would happen on the much larger temperature fluctuation of the moon, or the more distant sun from Mars? They would need to be able to set up in these places before going gallavanting off to some moon in the outer Solar System. A case learning to walk before you run.

[bozo the clown]

bozo you must be kidding


-----------
but the other thing is that if moon rock were a commercial item it would be cheaper to send a robotic rock-scoop to the moon to get it

-----------




No im just suggesting ways to help pay for a moon landing not to go their to collect rocks to sell.
The moon landing is simply for glory and to give the world something to be in awe at once again and to bolster space exploration.

[enigma]

Ok how much to replicate build the rockets and craft that sent man to the moon

The biggest reason we can't build another Saturn V right now is because the jigs have been destroyed. Any time you're building something as large as a rocket, you first need to build the production and construction facilities to do so. You need huge contraptions to hold the pieces together while you're constructing it. You need specially modified aircraft to move the pieces around. You need mammoth warehouses to build and assemble them. You need to fully train a small army of technicians. etc. etc. etc.

The actual pieces which go into the rocket are a small fraction of the total cost to build it.

[Integral]

The USA went to the moon in 1969 because we were in a "space race" with the Soviet Union. JFK proclaimed in the early 60s that we would put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. No doubt that the moon landings were done mainly out of national pride but it also had some scientific worth to it. Like others have said, space travel is very expensive and we would gain little scientific knowledge by returning to the moon but it beats spending money on boomer submarines. Write your congressman and complain.:)
Are you sure about this? Could not the boomers be used to explore the 2/3 of earths surface that we know less about then the surface of the moon or mars? I am speaking of the ocean floor of course. Is there not huge potential for commercialization, is there not the possibility of discoveries and technologies which could extend the life of our civilization for centuries, on gaining greater knowledge of the oceans of the earth?

I think it is the science fiction that we all grew up with the makes us turn to outer space as a potential solution. I see much that can be learned there, but unfortunately, at our current level of technology, man is a hindrance in space not a benefit. We can can explore and mine the moon or mars without a man ever sitting foot on them.

This century is bound to be a turning point in the history of our civilization. There exits a strong possibility that civilization as we know it will not survive to the next century. If we fail to pass the test of survival in our future then mankind is doomed to a 1850's life style at the best. There is simply no easily retrievable energy sources left to exploit. So we must use our current knowledge and technology to solve the energy crisis which is looming. Resources squandered on ill advised and pointless manned space missions are irrecoverable. Can we afford them if there is no long term gain? It is not clear that we have much of a margin for error in our future, we have serious technological hurtles to over come. Solutions need to be found and they need to be found quickly. We need to allocate the available resources, both human and economic wisely and not ignore a potential solutions simply because it is not glamorous. There is still much to be learned about the solar system, this can be done much more efficiently by leaving humans on the surface of the earth.

I am sure many of you see me as simply a voice of negativity, I see myself as a voice of reality. We must apply what know, if we must pursue the understanding of the universe in an efficient a manner as possible and mean while we need to increase our under standing of inner space as well as outer space. At this point in time man in space simply makes no sense.

[Integral]

Ok how much to replicate build the rockets and craft that sent man to the moon copy the blue prints Im sure they have all the data saved from start to finish, touched up with a little modern day technology surely the expense is not that great as all the research testing and actual practice has been done. Of course if we start from scractch its going to cost.
Unfortunately there is much more to it then blue prints. Much of the knowledge of how the 60s moon missions were accomplished remains with the men who did it, they have long since retired. When they retired they took their knowledge of rockets with them, our current engineers knew little of that generation of rocketry and are having to relearn it. Did you not see the pictures of rockets exploding on the pad in the recent (10yr?) past? This is the learning curve of rockets. So no we simply cannot assemble and launch, as if it were a model rocket, a Saturn V.

[bozo the clown]

Can anyone here approximate the cost of a moon landing ?

[marcus]

Isn't tht your personal preference over technological ability?
.

No, I am basing this on technical considerations. Our technology is better suited to establishing habitats on water ice worlds than on dry ones.



Realistically, we would have to have some set up on Mars or the Moon before we go anywhere else in the solar system... A case learning to walk before you run.

No, I do not think so. A "set up" on luna or mars would be a frivolous undertaking which would not serve to get us closer to bases on a jovian moon.

humans on either luna or mars would live constricted lives
in cramped prefab quarters transported from home
and walking around in funny suits on a thoroughly inhospitable desert
surrounded by vacuum or near vacuum

if we were misguided enough to send people there


erecting larger structures containing breathable atmosphere and
supplying them with adequate amounts of water and oxygen
is apt to be a big deal on either luna or mars
even with some permafrost or polar ice

technically I expect it would be simpler to set up a permanent habitat for humans on Ganymede or Callisto (though the trip takes longer)

colonists would melt a tunnel deep into the ice
and hollow out as much space as they needed
and install an airlock at the mouth

the key piece of equipment is a small reliable nuclear
power source
because nitrogen does not seem as readily available
inhabitants would need to adjust to breathing
an oxygen atmosphere

[marcus]

Can anyone here approximate the cost of a moon landing ?

Bozo it's surprising that you continue asking about this. You yourself say you are interested in glory and awe and bolstering space exploration!
Putting humans on the moon would not gain glory or impress anyone in their right mind. nor would it advance space exploration.
It is a stupid move that would mainly serve to disgust our friends and amuse our critics.

When Kennedy gave the "We choose to go to the moon" speech, that was thrilling and the enterprise was awesome.

the second time would be an unworthy and contemptible anticlimax, supported by phony rhetoric, serving no purpose.

but you say:

"The moon landing is simply for glory and to give the world something to be in awe at once again and to bolster space exploration."

If you care about values like glory and awe and space exploration, then why dont you advocate a worthy undertaking?

why not something really analogous to Kennedy's decision in 1961
to do something that had not been done and that opened up new capabilities

there are dead and bone-dry worlds and there are worlds made largely of water
life as we know it is water-based
the conquest of an ice world is a natural and respectable goal
but returning to the moon is a pathetic and contemptible goal

I fear that a moon base would be seen as an expensive boondoggle and
tend rather to excite hostility to space exploration

US space policy needs to be redirected

[SuperKamiokande]

Well, I think robotic missions should be sent first to assess the adequacy of setting up habitats on such worlds first. The martian topography is very indicative of there having been water. Perhaps this water lies beneath the surface of mars? Investigation should be made.


humans on either luna or mars would live constricted lives
in cramped prefab quarters transported from home
and walking around in funny suits on a thoroughly inhospitable desert
surrounded by vacuum or near vacuum

if we were misguided enough to send people there


And Jovian moons would provide the same problem. Remember that they too have no atmosphere, having been stripped of it by Jupiter's gravity. And at that distance from the sun not only would it be much colder, but far more inhospitable from exposure to cosmic rays as well as asteroid and meteor impacts as indicated by its surface. The "cramped" prefabricated quarters transported from would also be necessary for a settlement on these moons and ppl would still need to walk around in "funny suits on a thoroughly inhospitable planet surrounded by vacuum". Settling on a nearer planet would just serve to show that such settling can be done before gallavanting out to the further reaches of the solar system.


erecting larger structures containing breathable atmosphere and
supplying them with adequate amounts of water and oxygen
is apt to be a big deal on either luna or mars
even with some permafrost or polar ice

technically I expect it would be simpler to set up a permanent habitat for humans on Ganymede or Callisto (though the trip takes longer)


Erecting larger structures on Ganymede or Callisto is also likely to be a big deal. I say get started on inhabiting nearby foreign worlds before trekking out to the outer reaches of the solar system (and maybe beyond).

[neutroncount]

(though the trip takes longer)

There's the clincher. We don't/won't have the technology to take all the resoruces we need from earth for a year's trip and transport it from earth to one of Jupiter's moons with a sizable crew involved...let along everything we'd need to make underground ice tunnels. We'd need better propulsion methods, much better radiation shielding (remember space is loaded with cosmic rays but its chicken scratch compaired to the Jovian radiation belts), and reliable equipment. I wouldn't want to be on THAT mission if the equipment I was using wasn't tested thoroughly offworld somewhere. Plus when did living in underground tunnels not become crampped and when could you NOT wear suits on Jovian moons? See where I'm going? The moon, Mars, Ganymede..all are inhospitable to humans in their current form and we'd need to build HABITATS regardless of where we are. I could just as easily say "we should build tunnels in the martian bedrock" but I'd still be a closed up habitat that humans would be sealed up in.

And what SuperKamiokande has been saying is right; walk before you can run. Rush things you end up a dozen frozen bodies laying all over Callisto. Humanity has time and the universe isn't going anywhere...let's colonize where we can.

[bozo the clown]

why not something really analogous to Kennedy's decision in 1961
to do something that had not been done and that opened up new capabilities

there are dead and bone-dry worlds and there are worlds made largely of water
life as we know it is water-based
the conquest of an ice world is a natural and respectable goal



Are you talking about a manned mission? If so than that is a waste of time and expense. Robotic mission than yes why not.

incidentily I found this unedited neil armstrong moon landing speech
at
http://www.blogjam.com/neil_armstrong/

[shrumeo]

That it funny as hell!

The moon landing was also a "proof of concept." Proof that it could be done.
We could have gotten the same data from robotic missions almost, maybe without bringing back tons of moon rocks.

Now we know it can be done, no mystery anymore. All we need is a reason to go and we'd be there.

Besides we all know the reason we didn't go back was because of the aliens Armstrong saw! ;)

[Phobos]

Overall, I agree that with current technology, a strong reason to go to the Moon is lacking. If we want to go to Mars (for glory or national prestige or whatever), then we can do that directly without a sidetrack to the Moon.

Once (if) space travel becomes less expensive, then the reasons to go to the Moon become easier to find.

Putting humans on the moon would not gain glory or impress anyone in their right mind. nor would it advance space exploration.
It is a stupid move that would mainly serve to disgust our friends and amuse our critics.


Note that many other countries are targeting the Moon...India, China, Japan (and in the past, Russia)...as a matter of national prestige & economic stimulus (not from selling/using Moon resources, but from the infusion of technology).

[Janitor]

If you'll pardon my usual not-quite-on-target post in this thread...

I have seen the Apollo/Saturn V stack lying on its side in Houston, and it is extremely impressive. Probably more impressive than any other product of technology that I have seen with my own eyes.

But I was thumbing through a magazine the other day--I think it was Discover-- and the claim was made therein that we are not all that far away from being able to construct a space elevator, using carbon nanotubes as the essential building material. True, this would "only" get things into Earth orbit. And maybe it's just bunkum, like all those prophecies of how, by 1970 or so, most of us would be commuting around the city in flying cars. But if such a thing is actually built in my lifetime, I will be as much in awe of it as I was of the Apollo flights.

[My thought when I started reading the magazine article was that the space elevator is not feasible in a world that harbors religious extremists, but it was pointed out that if it were anchored on a platform out in the ocean and surrounded by radar, sonar, and appropriate weaponry, it could possibly be protected from terrorism.]

[shrumeo]

I beg to differ.

We are far far far from being able to build any kind of space elevator, especially out of carbon nanotubes. We have only begun in the past 5-7 years to be able to do chemistry on them, or even spin them into decent fibers, or make paper out of them. Folks have made prototype field-effect transistors and even logic gates using SWNTs, but I highly doubt we are anywhere near being able to build large structures out of them, or even by just incorporating them. It's all still relatively new and difficult to work with.

I mean, someone only just realized that we vould make lightbulbs with the stuff.
http://news.com.com/Reinventing+the+lightbulb,+with+nanotubes/2100-7337_3-5226906.html

It would be nice, but It doesn't seem like its going to happen any time soon.

edit: I realize now you were doubting it too.

[bozo the clown]

Getting back to my original question why is it that landing with apollo 11 they returned 5 times to the moon with only 1 failure AP 13, so thats 5 out of 6 attempts ( 6 out of 7 including AP 11 ) thats a pretty good strike rate. So it would appear to me something that is not that difficult and why did they need to return 5 times ?

[enigma]

To explore different areas of the lunar surface.

To most of us, we just think they'd be up there going: "Oh look! Another rock!".

In actuality, you can study how the rock are located to determine how the Moon formed. You can look at the magnetic moments to learn about the early Earth's magnetic field. You can analyze craters from different periods of time to figure out the history of the makeup of the solar system. There is tons of geologic research to be done which just isn't possible to do from Earth.

[LURCH]

Ok how much to replicate build the rockets and craft that sent man to the moon copy the blue prints Im sure they have all the data saved from start to finish...

Better than that; there is an unused Saturn-V rocket sitting out as a display piece at Cape Canaveral!

[Phobos]

Getting back to my original question why is it that landing with apollo 11 they returned 5 times to the moon with only 1 failure AP 13, so thats 5 out of 6 attempts ( 6 out of 7 including AP 11 ) thats a pretty good strike rate. So it would appear to me something that is not that difficult and why did they need to return 5 times ?

Well it took several years preparation, billions of dollars, strong political will, and the world's leading scientists and engineers to make it happen. The fact that they succeeded almost every time is a testament to their skill and determination, and not to a simple task.

Why return after the first time? As enigma said, there are a million scientific reasons to go back again and again, but the Apollo program was more of a political thing than a scientific one (I think only 1 of the 12 Apollo astronauts that reached the Moon was a scientist). Carl Sagan said the reason was probably "momentum". After a huge up-front effort, the overall political goal was achieved at the first landing & return. After that, the program was still in place for a few more launches, but the political will quickly disappeared.

[Entropy]

It seems like every day I watch something on the discovery channel about the same 5 scientists telling us how one day people will live on mars and the moon because its "mankind's destiny." Who would want to live in such a hellish place? Maybe if you a scientist who loves studying I could picture maybe living a few years. But raising a family is rediculous. Bring up a child in a small cramped pod with low gravity would probably kill someone from mere insanity. Who would want to leave earth forever? Visiting other planets is awesome but living a life there? No thanks. Earth is a perfect paradise except for stupid people who mess things up.

As for space funding. Cut the US military budget in half and give it to scientific research and space exploration. Money spent on killing people is more useless than blasting hunks of metal into space if you ask me.

[shrumeo]

exactly, before I would live in a colony on another planet, that planet had better be just like earth (or better), or the colony had better simulate earth to the fullest, otherwise you couldn't pay me enough to leave, i think most people would feel this way if actually confronted with the option

it's like asking some guy in a mansion to live in a tent for the rest of his life

[TALewis]

Who would want to leave earth forever?

As long as we're entertaining irrational fantasies, I, for one, would live and die in space. I'm sure there are many people that would endure enormous hardships for the chance of leaving Earth and living a dream.

[selfAdjoint]

Amen, brother. Milions of us, I believe, around the world, would volunteer if there were ever a true habitat that took ordinary people and not specialized astro/cosmo nauts.

[Entropy]

Yeah, volunteer to take a trip and stay for a while. But I dought many people would want to live there forever. Seeing that you probably would die within 5 years or so due to bone loss, weaked immune system, and other disorders.

Of coarse people would live a life time up there if there was a perfectly replicated environment of Earth, or one extremely close. Even on Earth in bio-domes a small group of people get sick of living around each other within months. Plus it wouldn't be all that special once we have civilians going into space by the thousands. It won't be really that much of a dream once its common place.

You make it sound like we don't even want to touch space with a 50ft pole. Sure I'd go into space in a heart beat and so would lots of people. But leave my family, friends and home behind forever? No.

[TALewis]

Yeah, volunteer to take a trip and stay for a while. But I dought many people would want to live there forever.

Depends on the person. Someone with a spouse and children is not going to want to leave it all behind -- they've got a family to raise. However, a person with no family and nothing to lose might chose to live in space.

Seeing that you probably would die within 5 years or so due to bone loss, weaked immune system, and other disorders.

It might be difficult or impossible to return to Earth after having lived in a low-G environment for a long time, but who's to say you can't remain in space indefinitely? The medical consequences of living in space for that long remain to be seen.

[bozo the clown]

Living in the North Pole is prob about 10 times better than living on the moon or Mars

And living in a New York ghetto is prob 100 times better than living at North Pole

The Moon and Mars in prob a 1000 years will become penal colonies

[TALewis]

72.4% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

[neutroncount]

61.4% of all people know that.

[marcus]

Amen, brother. Milions of us, I believe, around the world, would volunteer if there were ever a true habitat that took ordinary people and not specialized astro/cosmo nauts.


the habitat I'm picturing is a series of ice caves about 1 km below the surface of ganymede or calisto

any of the larger caves can have a lake with fish
and water plants

its not a cramped pod and the gravity is certainly better than zero
the spaces can be as big as you can afford to light and heat
they can grow to accomodate the human, animal and plant population

there are some problems with it but its not all that repugnant

I think one could raise kids there

[marcus]

Living in the North Pole is prob about 10 times better than living on the moon or Mars

And living in a New York ghetto is prob 100 times better than living at North Pole

The Moon and Mars in prob a 1000 years will become penal colonies

what I'm talking about, bozo, is like living 1 km deep in greenland ice
or antarctic ice
in caves with artifical lighting
assuming essentially free electric power

(the support organization has to supply the nuclear power plant up on the surface of the ice)

we could try this on earth now and see how people liked it

I'm assuming that Calisto ice has a lot of minerals mixed in---it is not as differentiated as earth ice--but if we were doing a trial run in greenland or antarctic we could supplement the minerals

I agree with what you say about Luna and mars

living under a thick layer of mineral-laden ice with essentially as much space as you can use and want to hollow out
(with an atmosphere you make by electrolysing melt-water)
sounds like your factor of 10 times better than Luna or mars

how it compares with harlem would depend on the kind of people
you were with on the job---did you find them interesting and cogenial:
essentially your job would be Civil Ice-Engineering
or mineral mining and refining
or fish-farming----you'd have to like doing those things or it wouldnt be fun

you might have to develop a taste for hardboiled penguin eggs
(at least until they built the greenhouses)

[bozo the clown]

only time you'l find me under 1km of ice is during the next ice age

[marcus]

only time you'l find me under 1km of ice is during the next ice age

we will just have to make a special little house for you at the surface then

[marcus]

come to think of it
as long as the ice has enough structural integrity
some of the living quarters could be near the surface

somebody has to be up there to keep an eye
on things up topside

so we ought to be able to accomodate you bozo

[bozo the clown]

Could anyone explain how astronauts on the way to moon survived van allen belt radiation ? And also how the ship stayed intact when there are micro metoers travelling very fast that would rupture the craft wouldnt it ?
Cant be luck as we repeated this feat 6 times with 1 failure

[Entropy]

Aluminium which the space craft is made of absorbs the particular radiation in the van allen belt. The radiation is mostly alpha particles (a helium nuclieus) which is easily stopped by just a few centimeters of air and beta particles (a rogue electron) which can really only make it a few meters of air or a centimeter or two of alumium. Only large consentrations of these particles pose a threat, which would usely come from solar flares, or gamma rays (high energy EM waves). You probably saw that show on Fox about how they faked the moon landing. They almost had me having doughts but a little research will show you its all rubbish.

As for micro meteors, space is a huge place! There are only a small few those small meteors per every dozen square kilometers. If you really think about it theres a very very low chance a small space craft will be hit, but its still possible.

[neutroncount]

Actually aluminium is bad for stopping radiation because its secondary decay products are sometimes as bad as the primary impacts (not to say its still wasn't/isn't being used today..it is). You want something with a lot of hydrogen in it...water, high density plastics, liquid hydrogen, ect.

But the astronauts didn't die because they didn't SIT in the belts. They passed through them rather quickly and they were on their way. Some shuttle missions themselves also pass briefly through part of the belts at times.

[marcus]

You want something with a lot of hydrogen in it...water, high density plastics, liquid hydrogen, ect.

.

ice

:approve:

[shrumeo]

What Asimov book was it where they were living on Titan? Or was it A. Clarke?

The folks mostly lived underground, but they would come to the surface to enjoy the methane sea, and the ammonia lakes. (Enclosed, of course.)

God, what book was that???

[Janus]

What Asimov book was it where they were living on Titan? Or was it A. Clarke?

The folks mostly lived underground, but they would come to the surface to enjoy the methane sea, and the ammonia lakes. (Enclosed, of course.)

God, what book was that???

Imperial Earth, A.C. Clarke

[bozo the clown]

Was wondering why ive never seen any interviews with any astronaut that walked on the moon, apart from Armstrong's speech one small step i aint heard a word from any other, am I ignorant or are these guys of very few words, I heard a story though about Armstrong being at a dinner and was asked about the moon landing he apparantly was in tears and walked out the room.

[TALewis]

I seem to recall seeing a lot of Aldrin and Cernan on TV these days.

[Phobos]

Was wondering why ive never seen any interviews with any astronaut that walked on the moon, apart from Armstrong's speech one small step i aint heard a word from any other, am I ignorant or are these guys of very few words, I heard a story though about Armstrong being at a dinner and was asked about the moon landing he apparantly was in tears and walked out the room.

Certainly Buzz Aldrin does a lot with the popular media (including a recent fight with a conspiracy theorist). But I often have the same question as you. With only 12 people ever having set foot on the moon, you would think that each of them would have an amazing story to share with the world. I guess the first folks there (Armstrong & Aldrin) get the glory. Hopefully Michael Collins (who sat in the capsule orbiting the moon while Neil & Buzz walked around) doesn't mind. I hear that he's ok with it.

[TALewis]

I've read that Armstrong very rarely makes public appearances. The only time I recall seeing him on TV was briefly during the 1999 30th Anniversary of Apollo 11.

[enigma]

They all gave plenty of interviews in the days following the moon landings.

You don't see too many interviews today because 35 year old news isn't news.

They're there if you look for them, however.

[Nenad]

we NEVER went to the moon

[enigma]

Don't be absurd.

There are mirrors placed on the moon which have been used to bounce lasers off the surface.
There were hundreds of thousands of people who worked on the project.
Using simple triangulation, the Soviets (who we were racing there and would have make a huge stink if we tried to fake it) could find that the radio signals were coming from the moon.

If you want to believe the crackpot luddites, more power to you.

This is a science forum, and you won't get much credence from disregarding evidence in favor of ignorance...

[bozo the clown]

is the hubble telescope powerful enough to see the us flag on the moon ?

[enigma]

Not the flag. It can resolve the blast crater caused by the Eagle's liftoff, though.

There's a possibility that the Clementine mission photographed the site. Still, satisfying the nutters (who wouldn't believe it anyway) isn't a priority of NASA. The landing site was photographed extensively by the 5 Lunar Orbservers prior to the Apollo landing, so there is little to no reason why they'd divert a multi-million dollar spacecraft just to prove what should be blatantly obvious.

[bozo the clown]

was wondering if it is possible to fly a modified space shuttle to the moon and land ?

[Integral]

No, it has insufficient fuel capacity. Its way to massive to even consider such a flight.

[FZ+]

He did say modified. And if you redefine 'land', to 'crash', and remove the need to return, you can divide the fuel requirement by 4, since you are cutting out the decceleration, the second acceleration, and the second decceleration phases. It might just be possible, though the fuel will probably have to be loaded on in space - I don't think the shuttle can carry the fuel required up, on its own.

For the moon 'haox' stuff, the best resource would be http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html.

[enigma]

I dunno.

If all it had to do was smack into the moon it might be able to get there. It's got a 23,500 kg cargo bay. If you use the main engines to do the trans-lunar injection it's possible. I'll have to run some numbers...

[Nenad]

how do you explain the van allan radiation belt?

[FZ+]

Well documented.

http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html
http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm

[Entropy]

how do you explain the van allan radiation belt?

Read some of my previous posts.

[Dmcm01]

woah, howcome the hubble cant photograph deep into the universe, but it cant photograph some flag on the MOON!? please help.....

[TALewis]

Here is a short answer to your question, Dmcm01:

http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=77&cat=topten

[Dmcm01]

*edit to last post: the first 'cant' should be a 'can'*

Thanks TALewis, so its too close as the lenses are built for long range and dont need to be able to show such deatail...........

[neutroncount]

As well as mine Nenad.

Why not go here?

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

[Nenad]

Ive read the whole thing and I have to say that it has the answers to the questions posed. BUT, y does the writer skip the fact about temperature in space. And another thing, if soo many skeptics are out there, y doesnt nasa send out another probe to the moon. If it was done like 6 times in the 60's, it should be easily attainable right now. It seems kind of suspicious to me. Half of me wants to believe it, but the other half does not.

[Entropy]

Another probe to the moon? We just sent two to search for water at the lunar poles and map the surface! Plus there really isn't that much of a reason to go back to the moon.

[bozo the clown]

One way to look at the moon landing is look at the great cathderals they built hundreds of years ago you think how the hell did they build these without construction technology we have today, but yet today we dont go exactly out of our way to build these again given their imense beauty.

Man can achieve great things with manpower ,dedication and purpose and of course not forgetting finances. Thats the way I look at it anyways.

[neutroncount]

Man can achieve great things with manpower ,dedication and purpose and of course not forgetting finances. Thats the way I look at it anyways.

Exactly. The space wars drove each side to pursue the moon, and use the above to try to achieve that goal.

Nenad what don't you get? When in sunlight you get radiative heat transfer via intrared radiation. When not, the surface cools down. But remember there is a lot of infrared being reflected around, from the moon as well as the earth so you don't get down to too extreme temps granted its still pretty cold.

[russ_watters]

...y does the writer skip the fact about temperature in space. What does the temperature in space have to do with anything?And another thing, if soo many skeptics are out there, y doesnt nasa send out another probe to the moon. If it was done like 6 times in the 60's, it should be easily attainable right now. There really aren't that many "skeptics," but regardless, why should NASA spend $10 billion dollars to try to convince a few crackpots of something that all of the existing evidence doesn't convince them of? It'd just be another page of notes on an already mile-high mound of evidence.

It is reasonably clear from Hoagland's actions that he's not a skeptic, nor is he mentally ill: he is, quite simply, a liar and a fraud.

[Phobos]

Ive read the whole thing and I have to say that it has the answers to the questions posed.


I certainly encourage you to thoroughly read the links provided and compare that to the stuff Fox TV put out. You'll find that there is a lot of well supported technical evidence, whereas the hoax-believers tend to make unsupported claims. (e.g., no stars in photographs? well, did they compare the actual photo exposure lengths to what would actually be needed to see stars? nope, they just assumed their imagined moonscape was accurate. Try taking a snapshot at night with your camera...you won't see any stars either unless you take an extended exposure over several minutes.)


And another thing, if soo many skeptics are out there,


Only 6% of Americans.
http://www.gallup.com/content/login.aspx?ci=1993
(ok 6% of the US population is still a large number...but 6% is small as far as typical polls go and it seems to me to be representative of fringe views)


y doesnt nasa send out another probe to the moon. If it was done like 6 times in the 60's, it should be easily attainable right now.


As Russ said, it costs billions of dollars. We need a good reason. But, in January, President Bush announced his plans to send astronauts back to the Moon and then to Mars. If they do it (it would take many years and the next president may not approve of it), it's going to require major restructuring of NASA. Check out the news articles about it. Even though we went to the Moon a few times from the late 60's to early 70's, all the equipment is now unusable and all the Apollo experts are no longer working at NASA. The current folks at NASA would need to dust off the old plans and start from the beginning.


It seems kind of suspicious to me. Half of me wants to believe it, but the other half does not.

Ok, be skeptical. But be skeptical of evidences/claims from both sides. See which makes more sense.

[bozo the clown]

Are you sure Bush announced plans to send man to moon then mars, I heard specualation that he would announce this in one of his speeches this summer but I didnt hear anything yet.

[TALewis]

Here is the text of President Bush's January 14, 2004 speech:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040114-3.html

[Nenad]

honestly, like I said befoure, I do not know who to believe. you guyes sound soo convinced, but theres a lot of fishy business going on out there.

[Nenad]

and by the way, almost everybody in europe thinks the whole thing was a fake.

[neutroncount]

Well who cares what europe thinks? They must all be idiots then. They're just mad because they're not the ones that did it. Let me ask you this. Do you think the Russians, who were also listening to the mission telemetry every mission, would keep quiet if they had found out? We couldn't even keep the atomic bomb from them...and that was a secret project.

How bout the fact that they would have had to create a low gravity, vacuum chamber the size of a large warehouse....hell we can't even do that today.

They would have had to fake all the rocks that they brought back. They would have had to launch 7 Saturn Vs, the most powerful rocket in the world, just for the hell of keeping the hoax look real (not to mention that the russians were tracking us the whole time).

I can keep on going but you had a whole website to read through.

[russ_watters]

and by the way, almost everybody in europe thinks the whole thing was a fake.I don't buy that - do you have a source?

[Integral]

I am amazed that anyone can have a realistic doubt that the landings occurred. I can say this based purely on a POLITICAL argument. Perhaps some you remember reading in your history books about the Cold War. As a reminder the cold was was a 30yr period of extreme political tension were the US and the USSR (check your history book for the meaning of that acronym!) following a doctrine call MAD. Which meant that a war would mean the end of civilization as we know it. To most of you kids this is all ancient history and is probably associated with WWII (more ancient history... Which means it all happened at the same time right??? ) In reality the Cold War lasted from 1945-1990 (plus or minus a few years) Notice that the entire Apollo program happen right smack in the middle of the Cold war. The USSR had an advanced technology which enabled it to have a space program of its own. This means that it had the ability to monitor signals transmitted from space, further they had the ability to know WHERE in space the signals were coming from. The would not have been fooled for even a second by a earth based hoax. The fact that the USSR never ONCE suggested that these missions were faked is testimony to the reality of the moon landing. Given the political atmosphere of the day had they NOT been monitoring signals from the MOON they would have screamed bloody murder. The Moon landings occurred as surely as the sun rose yesterday.

[Janus]

Just to add to what Integral has already said. If the Soviet Union could have raised even a shadow of a doubt that the moon landings were real, they would have. IOW, if they thought that any of the so-called evidence that the moon landings were fake would hold up in the court of international scientific opinion, they would have been the first to point it out. (And don't believe for one minute that they were less capable of finding said evidence than those who go around today claiming hoax). The fact that they didn't shows that they could not find any such evidence.


Another point is that much of the so-called evidence assumes that NASA was very sloppy in its fakery.

We are talking about experts here. If there were supposed to be stars in the lunar sky, they would have made sure that they were in the photos. If there should have been dust on the landing pads, they would have thown dust on them (How hard could that be?) etc.

If they were going to fake it, they would have made sure that they got all the details right (and not leave all kinds of clues for people to find).

[TALewis]

Unless--the Soviets were in on the hoax too! OMG, global conspiracy!

[Phobos]

We had the technology & drive to get there.
Our competitor/adversary/enemy at the time agreed that we got there.
We planted mirrors on the moon that you can still "see" by bouncing lasers off them.
We brought back moon rocks which are unlike anything to be found on Earth.
And each of the lines of argument for a "moon landing hoax" don't stand up to scrutiny.
We got there several times (for a hoax, once would be a safer bet).
Most of the thousands of people involved in the landing are still alive and are not indicating a hoax.

[Artman]

Forgive me if this has been said already (I have not read the entire thread). I just finished reading the book "October Sky" (great book. i highly recommend it!) a story about Rocket Engineer Homer Hickam's life in the coal mining area of West Virginia in the late 1950's.

In the book it talks about Senetor John F. Kennedy visiting the area during a very troubled economic period. He was campaigning and was speaking about bringing in government assitance to help the people. This was not what they wanted. They wanted to work and they were quickly losing interest in his speech.

Homer Hickam happened to be at the location where the future president was speaking and Kennedy asked for questions. Homer had been experimenting with rockets for a couple of years and was interested in knowing whether Kennedy had any interest in sending an astronaut to the moon. Kennedy saw the interest this question generated in all of the people and turned it to his favor by saying that we could work together as a nation to make it happen, yes he would pursue sending a man to the moon.

Kennedy saw then that this as a way of putting government money into the economy without it being a handout, as well as the feeling of national pride such a project could create.

[bozo the clown]

Was wondering the purpose of putting mirrors on the moon and why didnt they build a machine with solar pannels for energy supply. And do diff kind of experiments ( dont know what ) we could still be talking to this machine today.

[neutroncount]

The mirror was used to determine the changing distance from the earth to the moon very accurately. I don't know about power supplies.

[Integral]

Was wondering the purpose of putting mirrors on the moon and why didn't they build a machine with solar pannels for energy supply. And do diff kind of experiments ( dont know what ) we could still be talking to this machine today.
The missions to the moon were planed to the ounce they took EVERYTHING they could. Of course since most of the payload (thats the total mass that could be carried by the rocket) was devoted to men and life support systems they had little room for meaningful science equipment. This is the trouble with sending men into space. The limited payload available is devoted to the men and keeping them alive, not to useful equipment.

Certain things have not changed and no amount of technology will over come them. It requires a certain amount of energy to transport a kg of mass into space, the more mass lifted the more energy required, this is a physical fact which cannot be altered. If we wish to put man into space we must sacrifice the scientific equipment needed to obtain the data that should be the primary objective of the mission. Men is space are a wasteful extravagance which impede the true purpose of going to space in the first place.

[bozo the clown]

well they made space for a lunar rover, what purpose was that supposed to serve

[Integral]

You wonder why they did not plant some complex mechanism in stead of a simple mirror. If you want to know why they took the rover instead of an 18 wheeler...Think about it... As I said every OUNCE was planned, they took what they could. Back then they did not have the remote sensing capability so a robotic mission was not possible. Now we can leave behind the humans and accomplish MORE for less money. Simply because the space craft need only be structural enough to survive the trip though the atmosphere, the ENTIRE payload can be devoted to science.

[enigma]

They couldn't bring anything which relied on solar power because the moon has a 28 day 'day'. That includes a 14 day night. The batteries to keep that thing powered would weigh almost as much as the Eagle itself.

[Nereid]

Let's not forget the rocks and soil brought back from the Moon ... can any 'conspiracy theorist' point to a place on Earth where such are found? (they certainly aren't found on a ranch in Crawford!)

If they're not found on Earth, what are they then?

Personally I feel nonsense about there being no manned US Apollo missions to the Moon partly reflects a disappointing ignorance about rocks/geology/etc.

[Chronos]

I don't buy that - do you have a source?

Nenad asserted that most Europeans think the moon landing by USA was a hoax. That is what Russ was responding to. The quote link could otherwise be deceiving. I am attempting to support the reply by Russ.

Europeans have this annoying habit of being 'know it alls'. According to them, they are the cradle of civilization and invented everything. Moon landing a hoax? Patently absurd. Anyone with a decent telescope could have seen the lander crafts orbiting the moon [and many did]. Geologists from all over the world reached a consensus that 'moon rocks' brought back could not have originated from this planet. But, USA is so good at deception that we continued making 'fake' moon landings for another 10 years. European mythology, while annoying, is always amusing.

[Nereid]

Europeans have this annoying habit of being 'know it alls'. According to them, they are the cradle of civilization and invented everything.Some people who live in Europe may have annoying habits, are 'know it alls', etc. :tongue2: Some Europeans are humble, polite, generous, knowledgable, and so on. :surprise: Just like everyone else? :tongue2:

[Phobos]

Men is space are a wasteful extravagance which impede the true purpose of going to space in the first place.

Now this could make for an interesting debate. Care to start a new topic? (no war-of-the-sexes jokes though)

[Entropy]

Europeans have this annoying habit of being 'know it alls'. According to them, they are the cradle of civilization and invented everything.

Yep, but most Americans think they are the rulers of the world. :tongue:

[Chronos]

Yep, but most Americans think they are the rulers of the world. :tongue:

Hehe, aint easy to slide a little sarcasm by people here. Due to cultural difference some myths play better on the continent and some myths play better in the US. There is no shortage of American mythology and it is no less amusing or annoying than the continental variety.

[Phobos]

Was wondering the purpose of putting mirrors on the moon and why didnt they build a machine with solar pannels for energy supply. And do diff kind of experiments ( dont know what ) we could still be talking to this machine today.

Here's one such experiment they left behind...certainly wasn't meant to last 30+ years though.
http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/HumanExplore/Exploration/EXLibrary/docs/ApolloCat/Part1/ALSEP.htm

(the mirrors previously mentioned are still useful though!)

[Phobos]

Let's keep the cultural/nationalism mudslinging to a minimum. Unless it's moon-mud.

[russ_watters]

Now this could make for an interesting debate. Care to start a new topic? The most prominent proponent of this is Robert Park, who testified before Congress that "The space station [and by extension, manned spaceflight itself] stands as the greatest single obstacle to the continued exploration of space." The full text: http://www.nasawatch.com/congress/04.09.97.park.html

[Integral]

The most prominent proponen of this is Robert Park, who testified before Congress that "The space station [and by extension, manned spaceflight itself] stands as the greatest single obstacle to the continued exploration of space." The full text: http://www.nasawatch.com/congress/04.09.97.park.html
Wow! not only does he substantiate every point I mentioned, he adds more issues. What we need to know, has been learned, there is no advantage to micro gravity, and no economic benefits from MANNED space missions.

The best thing we could do is sell ISS to a commercial developer for a exotic vacation resort. With the extra spice of possibility of major mutation due to excess hard radiation of any children produced. Sounds grand... I'll pass.

[bozo the clown]

and no economic benefits from MANNED space missions.

.

no not yet, but there never will be if we do not do anything, from your posts integral would appear your not a big space exploration fan.

Now if we do not spend that money through space endervours where would it go? building more weapons perhaps, billions of dollars policing more of the world, maybe we should; instead of going to Mars invade N.Korea and take their nukes and nerve gas off them.

Of course i would rarther have the money saved from space go into tax refunds, but I know this would never happen so i'd rather see it go into the wonders of space than into the spilling of blood.

[Entropy]

no not yet, but there never will be if we do not do anything, from your posts integral would appear your not a big space exploration fan.

Now if we do not spend that money through space endervours where would it go? building more weapons perhaps, billions of dollars policing more of the world, maybe we should; instead of going to Mars invade N.Korea and take their nukes and nerve gas off them.

Of course i would rarther have the money saved from space go into tax refunds, but I know this would never happen so i'd rather see it go into the wonders of space than into the spilling of blood.

You should noticed that Integral said "MANNED" missions. That still leaves robots/probes to do all the data gathering or building or what not in space. Read more carefully before you start a rant.

[bozo the clown]

im not starting a rant i just got the feeling from integrals earlier posts that he feels there is too much money being spent on space exploration read more posts entropy before you jump to conclusions.

[Chronos]

Probes are clearly more practical and efficient. Forty years ago it was necessary to put people into space simply because the level of understanding and technology was not up to the task to execute those missions. That is no longer true. We can now put robotic explorers on Mars and orbital probes around Saturn for pennies to the millions it would cost to send people there. We should abandon the outdated mindset of manned missions. The quest should be for knowledge, not glory or pride.

[bozo the clown]

no man must come first we cannot give in to the machines !

[Integral]

Bozo,
The way I see it, it is YOU who is not interested in exploring the solar system, you only care about glory and cowboy heroics, not science. Did you read the link given by Russ? Please do. It was written for congressmen so even a grade schooler should be able to read and understand it.

I am all for exploration of the solar system and beyond. But we must do it efficiently and wisely. There is much to learn and many beneficial technological advances will need to be made to achieve even modest goals. The advances will be in remote sensing and controls, this type of technology can have a significant effect on our lives though improved manufacture techniques and vehicle safety. (Just a couple of examples off the top of my head). Sending a man into space is not necessary to accomplish any meaningful science. If you read the link, it is stated that there are a large number of both physical and life scientist who share this opinion. Since we have had men in space nearly continuously for the last 20yrs we are well familiar with low gravity environment. The fact is in the larger scheme of things the surface of the earth IS A LOW GRAVITY ENVIRONMENT, we gain nothing by going into space.

As I have said before we must use our available resources to learn as much as possible. It is not clear to me that the solution to our major problems lie in outer space. If we waste resources on a wild goose chase (ie man on Mars) we may well fall short of a solution to the real problems.

We need a inexhaustible source of cheap energy, given that all other problems will take care of themselves.

[Integral]

no man must come first we cannot give in to the machines !
LOL, Perhaps you should trade in your science fiction books for science fact!

[Phobos]

One thing to be said for manned missions...it inspires non-scientists' interest in science & the space program (y'know, the folks who are footing much of the bill). In the immortal words of Lockheed Martin (at least, by their new ad execs)..."To be human is to explore."

Of course, I realize/agree that much more can be accomplished with robotic missions at this stage in our space technology. But a little glory & pride can be a great motivator too.

[bozo the clown]

Sending a man into space is not necessary to accomplish any meaningful science.


you do not think the spacestation is meaningful science ??

[russ_watters]

im not starting a rant i just got the feeling from integrals earlier posts that he feels there is too much money being spent on space exploration read more posts entropy before you jump to conclusions. I pretty much share Integral's (and Dr. Park's) opinion, and you missed the point completely (as already mentioned). Integral's capitalization of the word "MANNED" was already pointed out, but lemme post for you a quote from the link (which you clearly didn't read): It is not their view or mine that space exploration or research should be curtailed. On the contrary the opportunities for scientific discovery in the space program have never been greater. There is, however, almost universal concern among physicists that the priorities of the space program are seriously misplaced. Specifically, it is the official view of the American Physical Society that scientific justification is lacking for a permanently manned space station in Earth orbit. Is that any clearer?

Now, this begs the question: where should the funding go? How about this: The Origins Program (http://origins.jpl.nasa.gov/). Its one of the programs on the block due to Bush's ill-advised Mars initiative. IMO, its the single most important program NASA has - and it doesn't involve any manned missions (except maybe to launch the components).

edit: you do not think the spacestation is meaningful science ?? Sigh. Are you reading anything we're posting/linking here? Yes, that is our position. If you disagree, there are a good half-dozen points made (which you have thus far ignored) that you can argue against.

[russ_watters]

One thing to be said for manned missions...it inspires non-scientists' interest in science & the space program (y'know, the folks who are footing much of the bill). In the immortal words of Lockheed Martin (at least, by their new ad execs)..."To be human is to explore."

Of course, I realize/agree that much more can be accomplished with robotic missions at this stage in our space technology. But a little glory & pride can be a great motivator too. And that is, of course, the catch-22 to all of this. The only way around it (maybe) is through some pretty spectacular robot missions. The Mars rovers were good (what did they get, a billion hits on the website?), but how 'bout a Europa rover?

[bozo the clown]

What I think is a waste of money are robotic missions costing billions of dollars piddling around the solar system probing planets that have absolutely no use to us. I mean who cares about the size of the debris in Saturn's rings.
If anything one should at least concentrate the money regarding Europa for a robotic mission.

According to NASA we will be going back to the moon using new craft that will be a lot more econmical. I was not born in 69 to see moon landing but I shall see the next one.
Bring it on.

[Entropy]

What I think is a waste of money are robotic missions costing billions of dollars piddling around the solar system probing planets that have absolutely no use to us. I mean who cares about the size of the debris in Saturn's rings.
If anything one should at least concentrate the money regarding Europa for a robotic mission.

I do. We hardly understand how Saturn's rings and its 30+ moons are able to keep there orbit around the planet. If we can figure out how all these object have come to a stable orbit in this gravitational mess we could improve satellites, spacecraft landings/launchings, and learn about the nature of gravity itself.

Look NASA has good reasons for doing certain missions. Its not just "hey lets send a giant camera into space and take some pretty pictures!" Read up on some of NASA's current missions you have questions about and I think you'll find a scientific backing for it.

[bozo the clown]

urm i think our current understanding of gravity out weighs working out the orbitals of Saturn, cassini is simply passing Saturn cause it may as well as part of its journey its discoveries regrading Saturn are just to satisfy the planet enthusiasts.

[russ_watters]

What I think is a waste of money are... So what do you think we should do and what benefit would it have? According to NASA we will be going back to the moon using new craft that will be a lot more econmical. If we were to go back to the moon, the craft could be more economical. But so what? Why go back to the moon?

[Entropy]

No your wrong. Maybe you should research it a little. We do not know how the rings of Saturn or some of it's moons mantain there orbits.

[Integral]

you do not think the spacestation is meaningful science ??
According to Dr. Park, everything that can be learning on the SSI has been learned. We have 20 yrs of data on the response of the human body to low gravity environments. Do you really think that there is any benifit to be had from 30yrs of data?

It is a shame that you can not read and respond objectivly to the infromation you are beening provided. So you think that I am simply anti space exploration..Period. This is simpy not the case. I have developed my views based on years of reading and my education. In my youth, I lived every minute of the Mercury, Gemni and Apollo programs, I watched and followed the development and early flights of the Shuttle (BTW, my older brother was part of the devleopment of some parts of Shuttle water recirculation systems). So I have followed manned space flights from the start, and even had some dreams of becoming a Mission specilist aboard the shuttle. My opinons are not blindly held nor have I always held them, they have been formed based on SCIENTIFIC fact. It is not an easy thing to drop deeply loved opinions, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

[bozo the clown]

I have read the links and all these posts and I completely understand your point of views and on some parts I agree i.e when you mention inexhaustable energy supplies.
But I say to you, have you not spent money yourself on something in the pursuit of interest and wonder when you could have spent that money on something more productive.
By returning to the Moon then Mars we will procudce new technology that may benefit us in the long run it will be for me a fascinating spectacle, like I said earlier we can use money from the 'policeman of the world fund' to finance it.
entropy as for the garbage floating around Saturn it works on the same principals as garbage floating around any other planet does it not ?

[Entropy]

Alright bozo, it seems to are completely inept to the point where you can do your own research. You don't even need to leave your computer. Go to google and type in "saturn's rings." BAM! Theres you're material.

http://ringmaster.arc.nasa.gov/saturn/saturn.html

The rings show a tremendous amount of structure on all scales; some of this structure is related to gravitational perturbations by Saturn's many moons, but much of it remains unexplained.

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/saturnrings.htm

Much of the elaborate structure of the rings is due to gravitational effects of nearby satellites. This phenomenon is demonstrated by the relationship between the F-ring and two small moons Prometheus and Pandora that shepherd the ring material. The F-ring shows a complex structure made up of two narrow, braided, bright rings along which "knots" are visible. Scientists speculate that the knots may be clumps of ring material, or mini moons.
In the mid 1980s Dr. Jeff Cuzzi noticed a wavy pattern in the ring material on both sides of the Encke gap. It was suggested that an unseen asteroid-sized moon in the gap caused the disturbance. Dr. Mark Showalter further analyzed the disturbance and used this "moonlet wake" pattern that resembled a motorboat wake, to determine the position and mass of the unseen body. The amplitude of the waves, he said suggested the mass of the unobserved object and the wavelength of the ripples revealed the moon's possible position. Using this mathematical model, Dr. Showalter was able to predict which Voyager images the moon would be in. In 1990 Dr. Showalter's work paid off and Pan was discovered within the Encke gap.


You see things aren't always so simple. When you have 30+ moons and those rings interacting the gravitational fields become complex and requires observation. See we don't know how Saturn rings mantain there orbits. You see just do a LITTLE research before you just assume things and go around acting like you know it all.

[Chronos]

Be nice. The question was innocent. Bozo is just trying to understand and participate in the conversation. My turn. We have limited [very limited] resources to spend to test theories and acquire new knowledge. People are very expensive cargo in space. They are fat and need life support. Machines do not. People do not cry when machines cease to function... unless you still have payments to make

[bozo the clown]

hmm interesting bout those rings entropy maybe its not gravity, one explanation could be likened to a hula hoop dancer the dancer being saturn and the rings being the hoop.

[selfAdjoint]

The hula hoop motion is determined by gravity and anglular motion. The angular motion is induced by couples induced by coordinated hip motions. Saturn has gravity and angular motion, but no hips.

[Phobos]

To all - - Let's keep this discussion a little more civil, please.

What I think is a waste of money are robotic missions costing billions of dollars piddling around the solar system probing planets that have absolutely no use to us.


The gets into a debate of the practicality of pure research. Some people will argue that scientific research should only be conducted if there is a clear economic/health/etc. benefit. Others will argue that pure research is valuable in that it increases the overall body of scientific knowledge (a powerful, enabling thing) plus it can produce unexpected, practical benefits (e.g., new or spinoff technologies).

Understanding the other planets does have a use for us...it helps us understand our own planet. (I recommend starting a new topic if you want to pursue this point.)


I mean who cares about the size of the debris in Saturn's rings.


Certainly space enthusiasts, like the people in this forum, love this kind of stuff.


If anything one should at least concentrate the money regarding Europa for a robotic mission.


I think we all agree that a Europa mission is in order!

I think we all agree that a space program is good. The points being presented to you are simply that a bigger space program is possible when it is robotic (more science can be done). Given the huge expenses of a space program, it becomes necessary to closely examine the rationale for making something a manned or robotic mission.

I, for one, would love to see the first manned mission to Mars occur in my lifetime. The very idea is exciting. But I'm not really willing to sacrifice all the other great scientific programs to do so. Anyone want to triple NASA's funding? :smile:

[Entropy]

Anyone want to triple NASA's funding?

Hell I say increase it 10 fold! Scrap some of are nuclear subs. Like we need to have a boat able to nuking half the world.

[berty]

So mere curiosity is not enough then?[/COLOR]

I doubt that any real reason for Humans in space will ever be found....
Ever?????? Oh ye unimaginative one....!

Though a low gravity resort on the moon would be a very interesting change of pace for the rich and famous.
I note a not so subtle dig at those who are richer and more success ful than yourself?

:wink:

[bozo the clown]

mm no posts for this in last few days is this the end, well all good things come to an end I guess.

[Rader]

mm no posts for this in last few days is this the end, well all good things come to an end I guess.

I just skimmed through this thread and it appears no one really knows why Buzz Aldrins hearbeat went to 160 beats per second, while collecting 4pounds of rocks in real weight. The reason contains the mystery, why we went to the moon. :confused:

I just consulted google. There use to be one realestate selling land on the moon now there is a whole bunch of them. The first link was the first.
http://www.moonshop.com/
http://www.buylandonthemoon.com/
http://www.moonestates.com/index.asp
http://www.planetaryinvestments.com/
http://www.lunarlandowner.com/

[enigma]

And if you think thats a good investment, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you!

Pan Am offered payed flights to the moon in 1970. Several hundred people spent tens of thousands of dollars each for the opportunity. They're still waiting for a ticket...

[Rader]

And if you think thats a good investment, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you!

If its the Brooklyn Bridge I might be interested. Does the title search show, that it free of all encumbrances and have a legal deed for at least 100 years? You may laugh my friend but realestate of any kind is the best long term investment. :smile:

How come nobody wants to know why Buzz has a bad heart? :mad:

[Phobos]

How come nobody wants to know why Buzz has a bad heart? :mad:

Alright, I'll bite. What are you talking about? This? Why is this significant?

from http://www.solarviews.com/eng/apo11.htm

What was probably the least efficient work that either Armstrong or Aldrin did came during the final minutes when Armstrong used a piece of equipment called the Lunar Equipment Conveyor or LEC to get the rock box up to Aldrin in the cabin. Essentially, it was a clothesline. After Aldrin hooked the LEC to a pulley in the cabin, Armstrong hooked the rock box to the LEC, backed away from the LM to make the line taut, and then pulled hand-over-hand as the box bounced its way up to Aldrin. It was hard work. At the start of the EVA, Armstrong's heart rate had been about 120 beats per minute and it had declined more or less steadily toward a low of about 80 as he took pictures at the rim of the crater east of the spacecraft. With time running short, he began a hurried collection of rocks and soil and his heart rate climbed to the 120-140 beat range. And then, while he was using the LEC, his heart rate shot up to 160 beats per minute and Houston had to call for a short rest. Other Apollo Commanders didn't have to work quite so hard when they were using the LEC. The excitement of the moment and the rush of collecting the bulk sample surely were contributing factors in Armstrong's case. But the LEC was an inefficient tool and, beginning with Apollo 14, the astronauts started carrying at least some of their gear up to the cabin by hand. The 16 and 17 crews did away with the clothesline LEC entirely - having decided that it was more trouble than it was worth - and hand carried everything except a bag containing their camera. That bag they raised and lowered with a hook and lanyard, a humble rope that somehow managed to inherit the LEC's name.

[Rader]

Alright, I'll bite. What are you talking about? This? Why is this significant?
from http://www.solarviews.com/eng/apo11.htm

I read your link and specifically what I enquire about below.

01-There is no mention of how many pounds of rocks the two astronauts collected. From my information discounting the low gravity on the Moon. Armstrong and Aldrin collected 4 pounds of rocks each, although that was probably around 48 pounds between them both, in Earth weight. Why would that make two mens heart in good condition, reach 160 beats per minute?

02-Have you ever heard real audio tranmissions from Armstrong and Aldrin upon leaving the LM, looking towards Moltke Crater. How about this one. Armstrong, Oh my God what is that? Houston, Go the other way we know about that. Go the other way.

03-There was a 14 minute video that Armstrong and Aldrin took near Moltke Crater, have you seen it?

04-From the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. Reproduced with the permission of Journal editor Eric M. Jones. Nato security?

05-There was a documentary special on Apollo 11, on these matters. The programing was going on for weeks prior and was scheduled to go for many weeks more. It was shut down after this documentary on Apollo 11.

06-The 14 minute video showed in great detail, structures on the moon that were not natural nor manmade. A structure 30X60X9 meters. Why would a Hoax be put on a documentary?

What was probably the least efficient work that either Armstrong or Aldrin did came during the final minutes when Armstrong used a piece of equipment called the Lunar Equipment Conveyor or LEC to get the rock box up to Aldrin in the cabin. Essentially, it was a clothesline. After Aldrin hooked the LEC to a pulley in the cabin, Armstrong hooked the rock box to the LEC, backed away from the LM to make the line taut, and then pulled hand-over-hand as the box bounced its way up to Aldrin. It was hard work. At the start of the EVA, Armstrong's heart rate had been about 120 beats per minute and it had declined more or less steadily toward a low of about 80 as he took pictures at the rim of the crater east of the spacecraft. With time running short, he began a hurried collection of rocks and soil and his heart rate climbed to the 120-140 beat range. And then, while he was using the LEC, his heart rate shot up to 160 beats per minute and Houston had to call for a short rest. Other Apollo Commanders didn't have to work quite so hard when they were using the LEC. The excitement of the moment and the rush of collecting the bulk sample surely were contributing factors in Armstrong's case. But the LEC was an inefficient tool and, beginning with Apollo 14, the astronauts started carrying at least some of their gear up to the cabin by hand. The 16 and 17 crews did away with the clothesline LEC entirely - having decided that it was more trouble than it was worth - and hand carried everything except a bag containing their camera. That bag they raised and lowered with a hook and lanyard, a humble rope that somehow managed to inherit the LEC's name.

[russ_watters]

Oh, you're looking for conspiracy theory. Wrong forum, but to put a fine point on it, the various moon conspiracy theories are absurdly false.

[zeronem]

Im posting this after reading on the 1st and second comment of this thread. Too much reading to do to see where this discussion has progressed to.

Anyways, this is a short little comment.

I heard that they found the Specific Element Helium-3(which is extremely rare on Earth), on the Moon. In fact I heard Helium-3 was extremely abundant on the Moon. This may possibly lead to more Missions to the Moon to Mine this Rare Isotope of Helium.

http://english.mn.ru/english/issue.php?2004-3-11

Click on the Link, very interesting if you havn't read it. It talks about this rare Isotope as being used for Fuel.

Edit Message: I changed the site to a different site, the site above is better then the last site I had on there.

[Entropy]

Helium-3 (aka Tritium).

[zeronem]

Helium-3 (aka Tritium).

http://www.triumf.ca/safety/rpt/rpt_8/node8.html

Tritium is an isotope of Hydrogen, it is not Helium-3. Helium-3 is the decay product of Tritium.

[Rader]

Oh, you're looking for conspiracy theory. Wrong forum, but to put a fine point on it, the various moon conspiracy theories are absurdly false.

No not a wrong forum, wrong assumption, on your part. I am asking a serious question. Why does hauling 4 pounds of rocks make a, in condition astronauts heartbeat go to 160 beats per minute? My question is logical, if you can give me a logical answer, I will listen. There could have been many reasons why we went to the moon, scientific, political but here is not the place to ask them as you said. I am not interested in conspiracy theories, I have better things to do. If no one knows the answer here, I will ask it in maybe the biology forum. I figured there would be a scientific reason how this could happen, thats what I want to know. All the rest could be crap, only if my first question can be answered. Armstrong and Aldrins hearbeat was registered and it is recorded history. Astronauts have trained in dive suits in water. The gravity situation, in water, is similar to the surface of the Moon.
My fit in my dive suite, that I bought at age 17, is no less restrictive than a astronauts space suite, I still use the same one at 51 years of age. Do you have any idea what it takes to raise your hearbeat to 160 when you are in excellent condition as they were and I am. There is only one thing besides very heavy physical activity that can raise a heart beat of a in conditon human body. What do you think that might be? :confused:

[russ_watters]

No not a wrong forum, wrong assumption, on your part. I am asking a serious question. Why does hauling 4 pounds of rocks make a, in condition astronauts heartbeat go to 160 beats per minute? My question is logical, if you can give me a logical answer, I will listen....

There is only one thing besides very heavy physical activity that can raise a heart beat of a in conditon human body. What do you think that might be? :confused: Excitement or fear can raise the heart rate. I figured there would be a scientific reason how this could happen, thats what I want to know. That's not what you implied in your previous posts. You clearly have an explanation in mind. So lets have it: What do you think the explanation is?

Also, your scuba analogy is flawed. The problem is that the amount of oxygen available with each breath from a scuba tank is many times larger than what an astronaut gets from his tank. As a result, its much more tiring working on the moon.

[Rader]

Excitement or fear can raise the heart rate. That's not what you implied in your previous posts. You clearly have an explanation in mind. So lets have it: What do you think the explanation is?

Your correct, so why does moving 4 pounds of rocks make your hearbeat reach 160? I think it was Armstrong, who flew 160 combat missions and had nerves of steel. Was the excitement or fear of walking on the Moon, greater than a combat mission? I could carry 4 pounds of rocks around all day and my hearbeat would not reach 160. My implication is only stated facts from the documentary, nothing more.The documentary gave the explanation not me, I want to know if it is a hoax and you do not convince me yet.

Also, your scuba analogy is flawed. The problem is that the amount of oxygen available with each breath from a scuba tank is many times larger than what an astronaut gets from his tank. As a result, its much more tiring working on the moon.

Why, my regulator gives me the same amount of oxigen at any depth I go. Yes the volumn intake is greater the deeper you go but your absorbtion through your lungs is proportional to how much work you do. So if you were sitting on the bottom resting you would exhale more oxygen than carbon dioxide, than if you were working.

Are you telling me that the equipment the atronauts used, was equivelent to breathing, climbing over the top of K2 8,000 feet altitude? I would think that Nasa would have developed equipment to breathe normally on the surface of the Moon and take that into consideration for duration of stay.

[Entropy]

Are you telling me that the equipment the atronauts used, was equivelent to breathing, climbing over the top of K2 8,000 feet altitude? I would think that Nasa would have developed equipment to breathe normally on the surface of the Moon and take that into consideration for duration of stay.

Well you are in the vaccum of space. The difference in pressure is greater if you have air at ATP. Maybe the space suit can't handle that pressure???

[Rader]

Well you are in the vaccum of space. The difference in pressure is greater if you have air at ATP. Maybe the space suit can't handle that pressure???

In vaccum of space, there is no pressure, there is nothing to press. If there was a whole in a spacesuite it would empty it quickly. We breathe at 14.7 pounds a square inch at sea level. Although at 8,000 feet above sea level the pressure might be half that. I do not think it is reasonble to believe Nasa would design a spacesuite for astronauts to only fill to 7 pounds per square inch and as a result, make the astronauts work hard and breath at marathon heartbeat levels.

Up till now there is two reasons given. One by you that maybe the ambient air pressure we breath on Earth is set at a lower level in spacesuites and the other by Russ that its harder working on the Moon with one sixth gravity of Earth. Another reason is constrition of movement in spacesuites. None give a logical explanation where a hearbeat could go to 160 doing normal work in a spacesuite, maybe all three combined could with adrenal emotion adding to the factors.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/pressure_in_the_vicnity.htm

http://www.vibrationdata.com/space/suit.htm

http://braindex.com/products/technology_and_science/space_technology/spacesuit.htm

http://www.universetoday.com/html/special/spacesuit.html

This last link may solve the mystery to this problem. Modern suits are filled to 3.7 pounds per square inch.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/isuit_991110.html

http://www.fi.edu/pieces/hiley/history.htm

[selfAdjoint]

In vaccum of space, there is no pressure, there is nothing to press. If there was a whole in a spacesuite it would empty it quickly. We breathe at 14.7 pounds a square inch at sea level. Although at 8,000 feet above sea level the pressure might be half that. I do not think it is reasonble to believe Nasa would design a spacesuite for astronauts to only fill to 7 pounds per square inch and as a result, make the astronauts work hard and breath at marathon heartbeat levels.

You misunderstood Entropy's post. The pressure difference, between the inside of the suit and the outside, is what is important. The outside pressure is 0 as you say. If the inside were 14.7 psi the suit would be very hard to design. The problem they had was that the suit wants to blow up rigidly, like a balloon. To keep the astronauts from being as rigid as gingerbread men, they put ingenious valves in the joints, and in order to make this work better, they lowered the pressure inside the suit. They did a lot of research beforehand, on mountain climbers, for example, to decide how low they could make it and still allow the astronauts to do somple work, like carrying a few pounds of rocks.

[Rader]

You misunderstood Entropy's post. The pressure difference, between the inside of the suit and the outside, is what is important. The outside pressure is 0 as you say. If the inside were 14.7 psi the suit would be very hard to design. The problem they had was that the suit wants to blow up rigidly, like a balloon. To keep the astronauts from being as rigid as gingerbread men, they put ingenious valves in the joints, and in order to make this work better, they lowered the pressure inside the suit. They did a lot of research beforehand, on mountain climbers, for example, to decide how low they could make it and still allow the astronauts to do somple work, like carrying a few pounds of rocks.

All what you say is very clear to me as I have investigated quite a bite, as you can see from the links to my previous post. Confirmed 3.7 psi is the pressure inside a suite and the reasons why. So that means the astronauts would be dead unless, the oxygen content in the air they were breathing was higher than normal. Were the astronauts breathing pure oxygen, if they were why would a heartbeat go to 160 while doing very little hard work?

Up on top of Everest, on a really nice day, it's nine inches which means that you are on oxygen most of the time. In fact, if you were to land there with a helicopter without oxygen, you would probably be dead within 10 or 15 minutes.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/JaredGoldberger.shtml

[marcus]

All what you say is very clear to me as I have investigated quite a bite, as you can see from the links to my previous post. Confirmed 3.7 psi is the pressure inside a suite and the reasons why....

Up on top of Everest, on a really nice day, it's nine inches which means that you are on oxygen most of the time. In fact, if you were to land there with a helicopter without oxygen, you would probably be dead within 10 or 15 minutes.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/JaredGoldberger.shtml

Hey guys I want to understand this better so help if you can.
Oxygen is 1/5 of air, so the partial pressureof oxygen in air we breath at sealevel is about 3 PSI

so it seems to me that if you breath pure O2 where ambient pressure is 3 PSI the chemistry should be about the same---as long as the CO2 is absorbed quickly and does not rise to a bad partial pressure.

So I wonder about what you say about astronauts only doing a little light work. part of the work they do is just moving around in stiff bulky awkward clothing, if you add that into the picture wouldnt it seem that they could do a normal amount of total work?

Or were they really enfeebled by low oxygen pressure?

[Rader]

Hey guys I want to understand this better so help if you can.
Oxygen is 1/5 of air, so the partial pressureof oxygen in air we breath at sealevel is about 3 PSI

so it seems to me that if you breath pure O2 where ambient pressure is 3 PSI the chemistry should be about the same---as long as the CO2 is absorbed quickly and does not rise to a bad partial pressure.

So I wonder about what you say about astronauts only doing a little light work. part of the work they do is just moving around in stiff bulky awkward clothing, if you add that into the picture wouldnt it seem that they could do a normal amount of total work?

Or were they really enfeebled by low oxygen pressure?

If 3.7 psi is in a spacesuite, it can not be pure oxygen, pure oxygen is lethal.
There has to be a mixture that is compatable for the astronauts at 3.7psi, temperature, mixture and pressure have to all be balanced, to keep them alive. The question is can the mix cause astronauts working in rather easy condition, make there hearbeat reach 160? We need a doctors opinion, who specializes in chemistry and biology.

For instance divers have a special mix of helium oxygen at great depths. Each atmosphere that you go down the volume is cut in half, so they must make a mix that fill the lungs but not with to much oxygen that would kill the diver. I think the problem is similar to make an analogy.

[selfAdjoint]

If 3.7 psi is in a spacesuite, it can not be pure oxygen, pure oxygen is lethal.
There has to be a mixture that is compatable for the astronauts at 3.7psi, temperature, mixture and pressure have to all be balanced, to keep them alive. The question is can the mix cause astronauts working in rather easy condition, make there hearbeat reach 160? We need a doctors opinion, who specializes in chemistry and biology.

For instance divers have a special mix of helium oxygen at great depths. Each atmosphere that you go down the volume is cut in half, so they must make a mix that fill the lungs but not with to much oxygen that would kill the diver. I think the problem is similar to make an analogy.

Did you have this link to the NASA Spacesuit Page (http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/suitnasa.html) ? It discusses several of these problems and states that the modern shuttle spacesuits feed pure oxygen to the astronauts.

[russ_watters]

Hey guys I want to understand this better so help if you can..... Sounds like you understand it just fine. Everything you had there was correct. Or were they really enfeebled by low oxygen pressure? No. I've looked into this a little more and apparently, it was just the bulk of the suit and doing a job with a poorly designed tool. For more, I started a thread at BadAstronomy.com on this: http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=15496If 3.7 psi is in a spacesuite, it can not be pure oxygen, pure oxygen is lethal. You even have the answer in your post. As a matter of fact, I took the scuba course last month and this is covered. Oxygen (pure or otherwise) is lethal at a certain pressure. Breathing 3psi pure oxygen and breathing 15psi air gives you exactly the same amount (partial pressure) of oxygen (like marcus said), so its no problem.Why, my regulator gives me the same amount of oxigen at any depth I go. Yes the volumn intake is greater the deeper you go but your absorbtion through your lungs is proportional to how much work you do. Your absorption through your lungs of any gas, oxygen included, depends on the partial pressure of that gas. That's why you get the bends: too much nitrogen dissolves in your blood. That's also why, if high enough pressure, oxygen can be toxic: too much oxygen dissolved in your blood. And that's also why with more oxygen, you can do more work: more oxygen dissolved in your blood and available to use for work.

That said, it appears the partial pressure of oxygen in a space suit is roughly equal to sea level, so this isn't an issue. My implication is only stated facts from the documentary, nothing more. At the very least, the implication is that something out of the ordinary (besides, of course, walking on the moon for the first time :rolleyes: ) was going on. And this quote from earlier suggests you are of the opinion that something very out of the ordinary was going on. The reason contains the mystery, why we went to the moon. So do you or don't you have an opinion? The documentary gave the explanation not me, I want to know if it is a hoax and you do not convince me yet. Whatever the documentary claimed, it takes an awful lot more than an out of the ordinary heart rate to prove it and making a claim second-hand doesn't eliminate your burden of proof.

[neutroncount]

For instance divers have a special mix of helium oxygen at great depths. Each atmosphere that you go down the volume is cut in half, so they must make a mix that fill the lungs but not with to much oxygen that would kill the diver. I think the problem is similar to make an analogy.


Think about it. What is different about this situation? Oxygen is only toxic at higher pressures. If a diver has been under greater than atmospheric pressure for an extended time to allow more gas to dissolve into the blood than suddenly goes from high pressure to a lower pressure, the plasma can no longer hold as much gas molecules and they will form back into a gas (while still in you) and you call this the bends. Even at the surface at 14 psi oxygen's effects can start at about an hour into breathing it pure. But at 3.7 psi oxygen is not as readily absorbed into the bloodstream so oxygen is much less toxic over a longer period. That's why astronauts can get away with it.

Dang beat me to it russ.

[Rader]

That said, it appears the partial pressure of oxygen in a space suit is roughly equal to sea level, so this isn't an issue.

Well it appears that all the pieces of the puzzle, of my inquiery into why 160 heart rate, were just turned upside down or not correctly arranged. Each ones contribution here confirms with a 99.9% certainty that:

Apollo 11 astronauts used inside there spacesuites, pure oxygen at approx 3psi. There were no side affects because, breathing 3psi pure oxygen and breathing 15psi air gives you exactly the same amount (partial pressure) of oxygen so its no problem.

At the very least, the implication is that something out of the ordinary (besides, of course, walking on the moon for the first time :rolleyes: ) was going on. And this quote from earlier suggests you are of the opinion that something very out of the ordinary was going on. So do you or don't you have an opinion?

Note Armstrongs hearbeat was at 158 and Aldrins 110 on LM descent. How much work was there to push buttons? Emotion OK maybe. The work load 4 pounds each, accomplished on the surface with restricted movement, 1/6 gravity. No way, I have done exercises in and out of water with a very restrictive wet suite, lifting your arms is very difficult. You have to experience what the physical activity encounters to get a in condition heart to reach 160. The documetary states, on quote that Armstrongs hearbeat was 160 and Aldrins at 155 as they both took the 14 minute video and walked in around and through this structure. For whatever reasons I would conjecture that that high of a hearbeat was due to emotions not workload.

Whatever the documentary claimed, it takes an awful lot more than an out of the ordinary heart rate to prove it and making a claim second-hand doesn't eliminate your burden of proof.

Thats true but then there is a 14 minute video, that came from the hands of a retired General ****, that was classified information, on quote. Its a fake or its not? Its my opinion to be suspect, for the very simple reason it is not normal 160 heartbeat and the fact that I have seen this suspect classified information. I plan to intervue the author and when this is accomplished, I will give you my formal opinion. :smile:

[russ_watters]

Note Armstrongs hearbeat was at 158 and Aldrins 110 on LM descent. Well, they were a few seconds from running out of fuel and Armstrong was driving. But maybe Armstrong was more prone to heart rate spikes than Aldrin for any reason. Some people are like that. I'm exactly the opposite - it takes an extreme amount of exhertion to get my heart rate up to 160 (but then, my resting heart rate is about 52). For whatever reasons I would conjecture that that high of a hearbeat was due to emotions not workload. Ok, but thats just a conjecture. Its utterly worthless without some real evidence. The mundane explanation seems viable - you need some real evidence in order to do anything more than conjecture that it isn't. And since no one seemed concerned about it at the time, saying it is evidence of anything is pretty tough: its wet tissue paper thin.

[Rader]

Well, they were a few seconds from running out of fuel and Armstrong was driving. But maybe Armstrong was more prone to heart rate spikes than Aldrin for any reason. Some people are like that. I'm exactly the opposite - it takes an extreme amount of exhertion to get my heart rate up to 160 (but then, my resting heart rate is about 52).

Russ, this is one of the best links I have ever found on what, I quoted before about Armstrongs nerves of steel. Does a trained fighter pilot in combat have his heartbeat reach 160? What is that based on, survival, or low heartbeat in combate? You do not know all the details of what was in the crater. The landing area was photographed in great detail and the landing site planed in advance, this was not suppose to be a star wars landing.
http://www.zip.com.au/~psmith/Luminary.html
So then you are a man in condition and do fully understand what I am talking about.

Ok, but thats just a conjecture. Its utterly worthless without some real evidence. The mundane explanation seems viable - you need some real evidence in order to do anything more than conjecture that it isn't. And since no one seemed concerned about it at the time, saying it is evidence of anything is pretty tough: its wet tissue paper thin.

Would you consider the 14 minute video, evidence if it was analized by experts to be authentic? Do you know what classified informaton means? No one should be concerned about it, as far as the public is concerned.
Lets not forget that my main concern is the 160 heartbeat. While landing the LM is debatable, it seems that the other repeated high heartrates while loading feather rocks and taking a video should not have had an impact on the heartrates of the two astronauts. We all have confirmed this from what we have learned, have we not?

Examine your memory, you mean to say the govenment always tells us why they are doing something and never hides the real reason, for whatever reason that may be, for the good of the public?

[enigma]

Are you kidding?

You're in a tin can; you're a few hundred meters up; you're the farthest away from the Earth that anyone has ever been.

If you crash, you die. If you abort, you disappoint every man, woman and child on the planet.

And then, your 'low fuel' warning buzzers start going off.

And you expect him to be cool as a cucumber?

Even combat pilots get excited. They just perform better under stress.

[Rader]

Are you kidding?.

Not in the least, I am trying to convince myself, with all your help. :smile:

You're in a tin can; you're a few hundred meters up; you're the farthest away from the Earth that anyone has ever been.
If you crash, you die. If you abort, you disappoint every man, woman and child on the planet.
And then, your 'low fuel' warning buzzers start going off.
And you expect him to be cool as a cucumber?
Even combat pilots get excited. They just perform better under stress.

You make a good agruement, I would almost agree with you, except that your reasons do not correlate with the X15 tests done on fighter pilots. The reason is not stress or exertion but excitement that triggers the high heartbeat in fighter pilots.

What was so exciting on the way down, for Armstrongs heartbeat, to hit 158 while landing the LM. We would have to agree it was due to excitement, statistics and experimentation show this. What is more exciting the acceleration of a X15 in a Earth atmosphere or a descent in a LM with no atmosphere. I can not answer that I was never to the moon. But logic would tell me you can not feel the force in empty space as you would here on Earth, there is no gravity, maybe I am wrong, do you have that answer? Then we have the main focus of all my inquires. What stress and exertion is there in collecting 4 pounds of rocks each, taking videos and pictures on the moon and setting up scientific equipement. Better question yet, why is it just as exciting landing a LM, as all those things accomplished on the moon? Sorry you have not convinced me my reasoning is flawless up till now. I would have hoped that someone could convince me by now. Armstrong..Buzz are you out there? :rolleyes:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/x15conf/legacy2.html

The physiological measurements of interest for acromedical analysis are heart rate, breathing rate, and blood pressure. Initial measurements were at first perplexing to acromedical experts. Figure 4 (ref. 5) shows some summary data. Heart rates averaged 145 to 160 beats/min, sometimes reaching a peak on some flights of 185 beats/min. Medical experts had previously only witnessed such high rates on sick people or people under stress. It was detennined from repeated flight tests, however, that stress or exertion was not involved and that the high rates were primarily due to psychological factors associated with the excitement of launch and acceleration of the X-15. Such behavior was finally accepted to be non-nal for this kind of activity. Nobody gets concerned, for example, when an astronaut shows similar rates during a launch or reentry sequence. As a matter of interest, Neil Armstrong registered a heart beat of 156 during the first lunar landing.

[neutroncount]

What is more exciting the acceleration of a X15 in a Earth atmosphere or a descent in a LM with no atmosphere. I can not answer that I was never to the moon. But logic would tell me you can not feel the force in empty space as you would here on Earth, there is no gravity, maybe I am wrong, do you have that answer?

You've got a strange concept of physics Rader. They were decelerating on their way to the moon. Of course there was gravity..the moon's gravity. This may have not been a problem in orbit but as they decelerated you feel those changes as if it were gravity. Atmosphere or not you'll still feel the pull of gravity inside LEM as it tugs it as well. They were linerally in a controlled fall toward the moon as he was trying to slow the decent module down...nerves of steel or not that has to have been a stressful situation. And yes stress, not just excitement causes quick rises in heartbeats as well..hell it can lead to fast irregular heartbeat too.

Then we have the main focus of all my inquires. What stress and exertion is there in collecting 4 pounds of rocks each, taking videos and pictures on the moon and setting up scientific equipement. Better question yet, why is it just as exciting landing a LM, as all those things accomplished on the moon?

1/6th gravity or not I bet those suits were difficult to maneuver in. So things become more of a challenge to do. Even shuttle astronauts doing routine spacewalks get exhausted due to resistive movements inside the suits and their in orbit.

It was detennined from repeated flight tests, however, that stress or exertion was not involved and that the high rates were primarily due to psychological factors associated with the excitement of launch and acceleration of the X-15.

Fail enough...that's X15 data. But you fail to mention the part right above that.

"Medical experts had previously only witnessed such high rates on sick people or people under stress."

So that counters your previous statements on stress altogether.

Sorry you have not convinced me my reasoning is flawless up till now. I would have hoped that someone could convince me by now. Armstrong..Buzz are you out there?

Russ and I have found plenty wrong with your logic. You're a cocky bastard in real life aren't ya!

[Rader]

You're a cocky bastard in real life aren't ya!

I always thought fowl language made a cocky bastard.

[enigma]

The reason is not stress or exertion but excitement that triggers the high heartbeat in fighter pilots.



You mean to tell me that you think that watching the lunar surface rushing up to meet you and warning alarms going off all around you wouldn't raise your heartbeat a tremendous amount?!?

Go ride a good rollercoaster. Now imagine a being on a rollercoaster which there is a very real chance of dying.

[neutroncount]

I always thought fowl language made a cocky bastard.


Just pointing out what I see. If you're willing to learn, you're willing to listen. I don't see you doing that. You have it in your mind that something is up and that's that..nothing else can be the answer.

[Rader]

You mean to tell me that you think that watching the lunar surface rushing up to meet you and warning alarms going off all around you wouldn't raise your heartbeat a tremendous amount?!?

Go ride a good rollercoaster. Now imagine a being on a rollercoaster which there is a very real chance of dying.

I am sure that must go through there heads but the way you state it, this factor, is then the major reason why the heartbeat would go to such limits. Is it only fear of death or also the pure excitement of the unknown, the first experience? I know how small there computers were and about the alarms and having to reload the program, giving prioity to whatever was most important, quick thinking on Armstrongs judgement.
The link I provided shows that high heartbeat is normal in X15 flights and the reason given for it, was excitment not stress. The hearbeat of Armstrong was 158, they attribute it to the same reason excitement. I am not disputing that. A astronauts training is most difficult, they pick the best and train them in these situations. If not for the statistics I found I would not believe it, hell when they first started testing X15 pilots they did not believe it, now its known that it seems to be quite normal.

The reason why I asked the question is, what is more exciting the acceleration of a X15 in a Earth atmosphere or a descent in a LM with no atmosphere. Was to make the point accelerating and decelerating in different gravities and atmospheres would feel different.

Well there is now few things that have been confirmed.
01-Astronauts spacesuites filled with 3psi pure oxygen, is the norm and they should be able to breathe and work as we do with air and 14.7psi, when in space or on the surface of the moon.
02-High heartbeats of 145-160 and more, of pilots and astronauts seem to be normal upon takeoffs and landings. Nothwithstanding I have been in a lot of dangerous situations and at 160 you can hear your heart beat, this has never happened to me. It seems I am not the norm and the statistics are. You would think that after lots of a pilots training, this would not happen but it appears that it does.

03-What about on the surface of the moon? Was it that difficult to move around? The suits had bendable joints, the rocks weighed little and the gravity was one sixth.

[neutroncount]

03-What about on the surface of the moon? Was it that difficult to move around? The suits had bendable joints, the rocks weighed little and the gravity was one sixth.

The suits were still heavy fabric and a temp regulation systems embedded in them. Plus they couldn't just walk; the low gravity prevented a natural walking rhythm in the suits so they had to hop around. Bending over wasn't natural either and required a lot of effort. Not because of the pressure difference (that was only a part of it), but because the suits stiffer regardless of bendable joints.

[Rader]

The suits were still heavy fabric and a temp regulation systems embedded in them. Plus they couldn't just walk; the low gravity prevented a natural walking rhythm in the suits so they had to hop around. Bending over wasn't natural either and required a lot of effort. Not because of the pressure difference (that was only a part of it), but because the suits stiffer regardless of bendable joints.

I have been looking into this and recognize the Apollo 11 mission was a first test. The Apollo missions, that followed used a moon rover, the suites were adapted, to bend at the waist, for sitting in the rover. The astronauts learned to do a run skip type walk, which dobled the speed of walking. It seems the heartrates were also lower due to these factors, even though the time spent was greater on the surface of the moon. Nothwithstanding it is difficult to imagine 160 hearbeats from trained astronauts working on the surface of the moon, from all the evidenece we have gathered and learned. It is factual documented evidence, that excitement seems to be the main factor for the high hearbeats, in take off and landings. It seems so also, that it was apparently very exciting working on the moon, for whatever reason.

Playing the devils advocate here, to find out some new interesting things and remember some that I have forgotten, as regarding the unusual hearbeats of the Apollo 11 astronauts has rattled a few. My intention is to leave this concern, without a doubt. By not questioning anything I would not have arrived to where I am now.

[neutroncount]

But I guess I still don't get the point. What are you trying to accomplish with this investigation? Are you just trying to get a feel on why these events happened and how they could have resulted?

Just to clairify things, I just read resently in another forums that some guys thinks that the reason his heartbeat went up was because he saw a huge UFO hovering over them. His "evidence" is a shadow and the lack of communication between the astronauts for about 20 seconds. The shadow was obviously from the astronaut and they didn't chat because Buzz was too busy trying to climb the ladder at the time.

I just don't want you to jump to wild conclusions either. It's better to think logically.

[Rader]

But I guess I still don't get the point. What are you trying to accomplish with this investigation? Are you just trying to get a feel on why these events happened and how they could have resulted?.

Well I will tell you. The documentary was convincing. The high heartbeat was the main attraction in the video and the structure did not look like anything I have ever seen. I would really like to know the answer to this one.

Just to clairify things, I just read resently in another forums that some guys thinks that the reason his heartbeat went up was because he saw a huge UFO hovering over them. His "evidence" is a shadow and the lack of communication between the astronauts for about 20 seconds. The shadow was obviously from the astronaut and they didn't chat because Buzz was too busy trying to climb the ladder at the time.

Please do not mix me up with lunatics. Did you ask this guy, if he had all his marbles? Really neutroncount, is that all you got from my posts, to compare me with this. :mad:

I just don't want you to jump to wild conclusions either. It's better to think logically.

I am trying to do this, the high heartbeat is what I am questioning, if that can be falsified, the rest may so be also. Tired tonight I did a test, will tell you about it tomoorow. I am not finished yet.

[neutroncount]

I know you're trying to think logically. I did not group you with crackpots. I know you are much better than that...at least you listen to what people have to say and learn from it.

[russ_watters]

Rader, you're putting a lot of effort into what looks to the rest of us like nothing at all. If you have some real evidence of anything, present it. There isn't anything in what you have written so far.

Also, I think you need some work on your critical thinking. Landing on the moon was a pretty extrordinary and unusual thing - not to metnion the most complicated and difficult project ever done. Of course there are parts of it that won't go as expected, things that won't work as planned. But to seize on a minor anomoly and expect it to be considered evidence of a major discovery/conspiracy is - well - kinda nutty. Unless you have some pretty clear, incontrovertible evidence of anything, you'd do well to drop it.

[Rader]

Rader, you're putting a lot of effort into what looks to the rest of us like nothing at all. If you have some real evidence of anything, present it. There isn't anything in what you have written so far.

I inquired today about getting the video analized by a expert. I was told that yes we can do it, he would give me his opinion, for $300,00 an hour. I told him $300,00 an hour is fine but I do not want an opinion. He said tecknology has reached such limits, that it can deceive even the experts. I have then asked this guy, who made the documentary, for an intervue and he will see me in the coming months on his trip back to Europe. The first question I will put to him is, after making a series of legit documentaries, why present a Hoax?

Also, I think you need some work on your critical thinking. Landing on the moon was a pretty extrordinary and unusual thing - not to metnion the most complicated and difficult project ever done. Of course there are parts of it that won't go as expected, things that won't work as planned. But to seize on a minor anomoly and expect it to be considered evidence of a major discovery/conspiracy is - well - kinda nutty. Unless you have some pretty clear, incontrovertible evidence of anything, you'd do well to drop it.

What you say is true about the entire Apollo 11 project but how do you consider a 158 heartbeat a minor anomoly! :grumpy: The link that I provided proves, that high heartbeats on takeoffs and landings appears to be very normal. To the uninformed this is not normal. You recognize yourself the difficulty to reach those high heartrates. I would never have expected this from trained astronauts, it appears they are just as human as you or I. I do not think there was any nuts involved in investigating this. Nutty to me would be to go to the moon for no reason whatsoever, or just to say, we did it before the Russians. Why could there not be, a agenda more important than pride and waisting tax payers money?

As for working on the surface of the moon, could a combination of physical activity and excitement make the heartrate reach 160? That would be a logical assumption. Is there more to this than meets the eye. What I mean is, could the lack of partial pressure of certain gases, cause spikes in the heartrate, due to some not studied as yet, effects on the metabalism? Metabolic efficiency to remove oxalic acid from the muscles is higher when you are in shape and blood corpusles move oxygen more effectively. But what about the lack of those other gases. How do they contribute? The physcial activity alone does not convince me. I have redone a test that I have been recording information on me for some 2 decades. A 10 K sprint up a mountain 250 meter rise on a mountain bike. This activity involves mainly the leg muscles, although all the muscles are used. 10K> 250 rise> 30 minutes 450 calories burned. Heartrate 28 years 80bpm 38 100bpm 51 years 125bpm. I have some idea what it might feel like, a 160 heartrate from physcial activity, inside a spacesuite that was tight and unconfortable. I have experienced a high heartrate above 160 from emotional excitement and it feels quite different from that of physcial activity. If the high heartrate was due to only physical reasons, it would have been quite unbearable. I have not found any radio transmission logs of complaints of this natue.

Does anyone have a good link to original un cut, not interpretations of radio transmission from the entire Apollo 11 project between the astronauts and Houston?

[russ_watters]

As for working on the surface of the moon, could a combination of physical activity and excitement make the heartrate reach 160? That would be a logical assumption. Indeed. Does anyone have a good link to original un cut, not interpretations of radio transmission from the entire Apollo 11 project between the astronauts and Houston? The BadAstronomy thread I linked includes links to the full EVA comms transcript including astronaut and control debriefing commentary.