Why Are We Orbiting Earth Instead of Landing on the Moon Again?

[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 let me 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: 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 let's 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?

 

[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]

Lacking imagination

[QUOTE When some reason is found, then start sending humans...
So mere curiosity is not enough then?

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?
[/QUOTE]

 

[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]

Moon property

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.

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 that's 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 that's 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.

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

 

[Phobos]

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

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, that's 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?

 

[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?

Excitement or fear can raise the heart rate.

I figured there would be a scientific reason how this could happen, that's what I want to know.

That's not what you implied in your previous posts. You clearly have an explanation in mind. So let's 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 let's 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.