NASA and its international aeronautical cohorts have some serious explaining to do before they start rocketing folks to the Moon again. They better convince the public why it's so important for our species to invest hand-over-fist just to root around some boring gray orbital dust ball - a dust ball we already stuck a flag in a …
We've never been there!
An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours.
Russian scientists calculated in 1959 that astronauts needed a shield of 4 feet of lead to protect them on the Moons surface. Why didn't the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation? And why are NASA only starting a project now to test the lunar radiation levels and what their effects would be on the human body if they have sent 12 men there already?
Apollo missions were bollocks - even traversing the Van Allen belt (which would have taken them 4 hours) the astronauts would have received lethal doses of radiation.
Yes, yes there's always going to be conspiracy theorists - but just take a look here http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html there's a few piecesbeing read into a bit much but it's interesting reading nevertheless - the gravity videos, especially of the astronaut getting up unaided from the ground is just spectacular!
if this atude had been prevlent in earler centries
then we yould noe have boverefd to colonize amrica and we would not be having this argument!
I could never look at any website that contains ufos or aliens in its title and take it seriously. They never reference the source so you cant trace it to see (prove its not) if its authentic. Sun newspaper style.
better blasting a challenger2 tmwards the moon, no fusion of the b-2 bomber and sr-71 blackbird
Of course we need space research! How on earth do we otherwise make a Golgofrinchan 'Ark B', already sadly needed.
Re: isn't the ISS enough of an example?
The main thing the ISS taught its sundry space-agency collaborators is how *not* to build something in orbit, i.e. sending it up in twenty ton chunks:
@mejia & Owens
"The reason NASA doesn't want to go to the moon because the first thing that people are going to be looking for is the Lunar Landing which never happend. <sic>"
Gary Owens said basically the same thing ad nausem (I loved your work on LAUGH IN, by the way)
Guys, there's a simple test to determine if we went to the moon. The coordinates for all the landing sites are published. Look 'em up. Hire a big honkin' telescope, and hook up a laser to it. Fire a laser burst at one of the landing sites. Play 'Mary Had a Little Lamb' for all I care. Look at the site 2.5 seconds later trough the same telescope. See the same burst of laser light coming right back at you. It it Aliens? Hell no. Each Apollo crew placed a prism at the launch sites. A special five sided prism, so that any light shown on them is reflected straight back at the source of the light. Six sites, six prisms, six laser light reflections. Now go back under your rock, while the rest of us plot the future of the human race, and leave us the hell alone, you stupid Luddites.
van Allen Belts? We didn't stay there- that would be dangerous. The amount of exposure during the time it took to transit the belts is not fatal. Staying on the lunar surface during a solar flare could be fatal, and six crews (9 if you count Apollo 8, 10 & 13) lucked out by getting by without a flare, but that could happen with future crews during longer stays. We need shielding of some kind, as has been mentioned, bu that doesn't mean we ain't been there.
...putting on my lab coat explain to the WalMart crowd how the science works.
last of the modem
With a titanium alloy chasis and reinforced carbon hull and thermal/electrical layers+toughened external layer and a year in a lab shooting it with iron pellets at lightspeed, jets with heatrods/rings, ion thust, its technology possible to replace the shuttle with a craft you could fly around in, advancing future craft technology and no need for a moonbase, just some probes
To hell with...
To hell with humans in space. At least until they put up a space elevator.
Go Go GO
Look here naysayers, there is easily enough cash to do this. The tech spin offs will be cool, that there helium 3 might be very useful and hey why not!
I personally refuse to sign onto to either / or attitude, i want the moon and mars and everywhere else.
Stopped peeing in my porridge, up up and away and dam the financial cost! After all its not going to cost anything like the years spending on defense kit during the cold war or 5 years in Iraq at $1 Trillion and counting.
Its just a matter of will!
Peices of the puzzle
"I'm sure that all they've discovered is how to build a space station and how to live in one."
oh, is that all?
"Actually, the Apollo program was cancelled--with a couple more missions already slated and the Saturn rockets for them already built--in order to divert money into the Viet Nam war effort.
So, which expenditure would have benefited us more, do you think? Seems like a no-brainer to me..."
The Apollo program ended in 1975 shortly after Skylab, the same year the Vietnam war did so the money wasn't diverted to that.
...in a nutshell, their argument for space exploration (our natural urge to discover etc etc) boils town to 'because it would be fucking awesome'. I'm down with that.
travel could exist in 10years, sooner if briton needed a craft, the planet does'nt need another capsule to supply the iss
Effective way of scanning sky for asteroids -problem
While it may seem simple enough in theory, as it is a simple theory to just scan the sky for asteroids heading for earth, the practicality of it is that it doesn't take for a 'mega-huge' rock to wipe out tens of millions of people, but only a relatively small rock of 100m in diam with the correct composition to explode with the force of a 100M ton thermonuclear bomb after being heated to 5,000 deg C in the falling through the atmosphere towards the ground. Secondly, the sky is VERY, VERY big. At any one point, we can only scan a EXTREMELY small percentage of the sky at one time, to have it be far enough out in trying to spot an object, that is again, only has to be a couple hundred meters wide to be devastating to the earth if it falls into the earth's gravity field and by chance falls towards a heavily populated city. If the 1908 Tunguska meteor had fallen instead onto London, NYC, Paris, Mumbai, Cairo, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Baghdad, Mexico City, etc, etc: any of the other hundreds of cities, even then with populations of over 5million + people in them, well over 90% of that city would've been obliterated by the impact of the meteorite slamming into the ground. An asteroid of 2-3 km diameter hitting the earth atmosphere & then ground like the Yucatan Penninsula meteorite, well, need i say more on it's potential effects? To spot a 3km wide rock hurtling our way at a meandering pace of 5 km/sec, at a distance of 1-2 million miles out is not easy to say the least, and we have usually only an approximated 8% chance of spotting it in time to work out it's size, it's likely composition,how close it will come to the earth, & if that is determined, how to alter it's course or destroy it & then launch 'something' in time to do just that. Sure, no problem at all.
most asteroids origins and orbits are known and could added tm the realtime navsystem, to scan for debris is future craft technology that can only really be created with a next gen shuttle with 4m wide NP ion thrust on each wing, not 10cm and a solar panel
with a hull material easy to create, seeing nanotubes are needed to be added to carbon fibers structure for kind of useful electrical current to pass through
peoples visions lack,
ion is here and now with nasa started tests on fusion propulsion, current shuttle is 50-60tons heavier then a whole new 1 would be and it would save millions of $ every time it rains with some NP turbojets, even if it couldnt reach orbit on its own.:-(
- Review Apple iPhone 6: Looking good, slim. How about... oh, your battery died
- +Comment EMC, HP blockbuster 'merger' shocker comes a cropper
- Review + Vid iPhone 6 Plus: What a waste of gorgeous fat pixel density
- Moon landing was real and WE CAN PROVE IT, says Nvidia
- Apple's iPhone 6 first-day sales are MEANINGLESS, mutters analyst