- #1
- 288
- 19
Would that mean that any possible mission to Pluto (the Pluto-Kuiper Express) would be shelved as well?Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Note that if the President's Mars iniative gets passed by Congress, there won't be any followon telescope. All the money for unmanned programs would be funnelled into the Mars thing.
NASA canceled all space shuttle servicing missions to the Hubble, which has revolutionized the study of astronomy with its striking images of the universe.
John Grunsfeld, NASA's chief scientist, said NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe made the decision to cancel the fifth space shuttle service mission to the Hubble when it became clear there was not enough time to conduct it before the shuttle is retired. The servicing mission was considered essential to enable the orbiting telescope to continue to operate.
"This is a sad day," said Grunsfeld, but he said the decision "is the best thing for the space community."
He said the decision was influenced by President Bush's new space initiative, which calls for NASA to start developing the spacecraft and equipment for voyages to the moon and later to Mars. The president's plan also called for the space shuttle to be retired by 2010. Virtually all of the shuttle's remaining flights would be used to complete construction of the International Space Station.
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Note that if the President's Mars iniative gets passed by Congress, there won't be any followon telescope. All the money for unmanned programs would be funnelled into the Mars thing.
Enourmously given the moons near absent atmosphere...the Earth's atmosphere is so dense that it causes objects in the viewfinders of telescopes to appear to be "twinkling", it's a bit like looking through the rising heat off of a desert floor...the Moon has none of that, very, VERY little atmosphere, much better for observation the Earth based...don't know just how comparable to 'space based' though...Originally posted by Loren Booda
Could Moon-based telescopes be more effective than Earth-orbit telescopes?
The main advantage of placing a telescope in space is to detect EM that is absorbed by the atmosphere, from gammas to UV, then IR to microwave. In the NIR and FIR there is also the advantage of being able to cool the scope better, so making the job of accounting for the radiation from the scope itself easier.Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Enourmously given the moons near absent atmosphere...the Earth's atmosphere is so dense that it causes objects in the viewfinders of telescopes to appear to be "twinkling", it's a bit like looking through the rising heat off of a desert floor...the Moon has none of that, very, VERY little atmosphere, much better for observation the Earth based...don't know just how comparable to 'space based' though...
I can't see how they could be; 'free space' is a better location in every respect.Loren Booda wrote: Could Moon-based telescopes be more effective than Earth-orbit telescopes?
Although no one has said anything about changing budgets and plans for missions already underway or in the pipeline, the depressing history of manned spaceflight leads one almost inevitably to conclude, as SA says, that just about ALL other NASA missions will be canceled - JWST, Pluto-Kuiper Express, even GLAST .SelfAdjoint wrote: Note that if the President's Mars iniative gets passed by Congress, there won't be any followon telescope. All the money for unmanned programs would be funnelled into the Mars thing.
Originally posted by Nereid
... I can't see how they could be; 'free space' is a better location in every respect...
Although no one has said anything about changing budgets and plans for missions already underway or in the pipeline, the depressing history of manned spaceflight leads one almost inevitably to conclude, as SA says, that just about ALL other NASA missions will be canceled - JWST, Pluto-Kuiper Express, even GLAST .
Originally posted by Nereid
...SelfAdjoint also mentioned Karl Rove (in another post); I just read up on him - given that
a) this is an election year in the US,
b) that Texas and Florida are important to the Republicans,
c) the Bush Mars initiative should bring in lots of votes for that party in those states,
d) there was no advance signaling of this initiative,
e) Bush has shown no interest in science or space before, and
f) the Mars initiative will not be funded out of any Bush budget (it will come later)
- it's hard to see this as anything but a deeply cynical move ...
Current thinking about the Moon as a destination has revitalized interest in lunar astronomical observatories. Once seen by a large scientific community as a highly enabling site, the dramatic improvement in capabilities for free-space observatories prompts reevaluation of this interest. Whereas the lunar surface offers huge performance advantages for astronomy over terrestrial sites, free-space locales such as Earth orbit or Lagrange points offer performance that is superior to what could be achieved on the Moon. While astronomy from the Moon may be cost effective once infrastructure is there, it is in many respects no longer clearly enabling compared to free-space.
Forgive me why would you assemble in space when you can assemble in a Low G environment where people can carry enormous weights around like toys?Originally posted by Nereid
The infrastructure needed for 'Made in the Moon' probes would be considerable, and quite costly in terms of time and resources (fantasies like 'nanotech' aside). Like just about all manufacturing, it'd likely end up as a hybrid - some done on site, some shipped from the Earth; final assembly in space?
Probably because Satellites aren't made in Factories, and most of the rest of what you speak of is research, which can be done/'perfected' here on Earth, beamed to the Lunar base for replication, much simpler, and less expensive...Originally posted by Nereid
The last satellite 'factory' that I toured wasn't all that small, and it seemed to have an awful lot of specialist equipment (little or none of which was made on site). The components came from all over ... the world. IIRC, big astronomy and solar system probes have one contractor for the project management and assembly (under a science director?), but dozens of sub-contractors, including university labs for some of the specialist instruments.
As any country which has toyed with autarky has found to its cost, self-sufficiency is very, very costly. So any Moon-based facility would still have a heavy reliance on Earth.
If the costs of getting into Earth orbit can't be reduced by at least a factor of 100, economics would suggest that a Moon base would make the 'heavy' components of any probe/observatory, and get just the 'light' ones - such as software, design, detectors - from Earth.
Space assembly may be attractive with good robots (humans are no good, even on the Earth); there's an awful lot of mechanical stress involved in launching an object, even from the Moon.
Er, just about all astronomical observatories - on the ground as well as in space - and space science probes are one-offs; the satellites which get made in factories are GPS, Iridium, communications GEOsats (sure each one is different, but AFAIK they're made from kits, like your Toyota), etc.Mr Parsons wrote: Probably because Satellites aren't made in Factories, and most of the rest of what you speak of is research, which can be done/'perfected' here on Earth, beamed to the Lunar base for replication, much simpler, and less expensive...
Don't forget the radiation dose from cosmic rays ...Originally posted by LURCH
I was wondering about the viability of maintaining a long-term human presence on the Lunar surface from a health aspect. It seems to me residents would have to be provided with a large centrifuge in which to live and/or work. Each person would spend several hours a day (not sleeping hours, but hours when they are standing, walking, etc.) under a simulated Earth-normal gravitational pull. This should orevent a lot of the health problems of long-term exposure to low-g.
The first victim of a moon base/Mars mission is most likely caused by accidents or equipment failures. Astronauts are trained extensively to handle emergencies, but there is always a risk involved in space exploration.
Astronauts are trained in basic medical procedures and are equipped with medical kits on space missions. In case of a medical emergency, they can communicate with doctors on Earth for guidance and assistance. They also have access to telemedicine technology to receive real-time medical advice.
Before a mission, astronauts undergo rigorous training and simulations to prepare for potential emergencies. Spacecrafts and equipment are also thoroughly tested and inspected before launch. During the mission, astronauts follow strict safety protocols and regularly check and maintain equipment to prevent accidents.
Psychological health is crucial in space missions as astronauts are often in confined and isolated environments for extended periods. They undergo extensive psychological evaluations before and during the mission to ensure their mental well-being. Additionally, they have access to support from psychologists and other mental health professionals.
Astronauts undergo training to prepare for the possibility of losing a crew member. They are trained to handle grief and support each other emotionally. They also have access to psychological support from professionals on Earth. Additionally, astronauts undergo debriefings after the mission to help them process any traumatic events.