But I wonder why the USSR wouldn't have faked it, too?
They were masters of sleight-of-hand and propaganda--- and yet they never pretended to land on the Moon.
I wonder how many Cosmonauts are still floating around in deep space?
Posted on 09/19/2005 4:45:57 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
THE United States will send four astronauts to the moon by 2020, NASA administrator Michael Griffin said overnight.
NASA is to design a new rocket to replace its ageing shuttles that will launch the capsule to make the return to the moon.
The last manned mission to the moon was the Apollo 17 rocket in 1972.
I'll settle for the technology to make bigger hard drives and faster processors.
No, I wouldn't admit that. The technology is already available, although the hardware must be built. There is nothing from the technical side we need to learn before we can exploit most of the resources of outer space. There is plenty we need to learn about business and law. The law in particular is the stopper, since it is effectively blocking business investment.
Ironic that someone with the moniker Adam Selene should be opposed to Lunar development.
Robert Heinlein created that name in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress," which tells the story of a small band of miscreants who use a lunar catapult to throw rocks at Earth!
If you own the high ground, you control the battle. Rocks launched electrically from the Moon toward Earth, or toward the United States in particular, could devastate and depopulate the land of the free, making it look like a lunar landscape.
If we are concerned about weapons of mass destruction, we should also be concerned about controlling the high ground.
Are you claiming that our current technology is sufficient to reach an asteroid, extract the *common metals* that asteroids are composed of, and return them to Earth at a profit? What about the moon? If the tech is sufficient, then why aren't we doing it already? The answer is that it is not possible to do it profitably, and no amount of building bigger and better chemical rockets will make the technology sufficient.
Who is the "we" in "learn about business and law"? Do you think that as a country, we are constrained by laws preventing us from extracting minerals from asteroids?
That would be a yes, no question about it. That is known in the Senate Committee of Energy and Natural Resources. We should also know that.
Asteroids, yes. Moon, no.
Even better, Man! There's Beer!!!
We should build things like Prometheus in Lunar orbit, from Lunar mined, manufactured and rail gun launched materials.
It could also prove useful to choose a few choice asteroids (Nickle/iron?) and comets and carefully alter their trajectories and velocities to add their resources to the Lunar vicinity.
Learning how to carefully move such things around is something we should be getting up to speed on anyway. And if we're gonna go to the trouble anyway, then we ought to reap the resource benefits such a capability affords.
It's funny - but on the photo you posted it looks to me like the shadow for the guy and the LLM go to the right, and the shadow for the flag pole goes to the left! (Although I guess the sahding on the flag itself matches with the guy).
Anyway, looking at some of the photos and explanations I wonder if SOME of the photos WERE doctored. Not saying we didn't make it to the moon, but for "propaganda" purposes they were enhanced a bit (like adding the flag to this photo which may have been on the other side of the LLM or perhaps in the shade, etc.). After all - ONE of the main reasons we went to the moon was to beat the Russians and make us look good.
Ah, didn't we already do that?
"Even better, Man! There's Beer!!!"
Naw, you want to stay away from that space booze man, me and Cheech got some of that one day, I think it was from the Moon or something man, we got f*cked up.
We'll find beer on Mars before we find petroleum.
I guess it's possible for petroleum to have formed. If you like that "formerly warm and life-supporting" theory. Could be, maybe.
I wouldn't put my hopes on it.
On the other hand, it makes sense to add atmospheric gases to Mars. Most would stick for millions of years. That's worth it. Even a little would help.
But it wouldn't take much to make Mars suitable for life ... plant life, which would be a step in terraforming it.
We might find enough atmosphere around the gas giants. Venus has Carbon Dioxide to spare. If we do as I suggest and terraform Earth also, we could spare some water for our neighbor, too. One advantage of that is virtually free launching by way of a catapult throwing icebergs. We could piggyback manned ships on those bergs, too.
Mars could become an important source of foods when humans move out to the other parts of the system. It isn't as hard to launch from Mars. Catapults again, or a "skystalk."
I rather liked the idea of a long tether that would reach down out of orbit, and snag airborne vessels.
Point is, plants and foodstuffs would be growing on Mars, and what kind of plants do you need for beer? Grains. We'll probably have some beer brewing when the first grain crops are gathered.
I'll drink to that. Hold the petroleum.
Go on, explain how. Add some dollar figures for how much mineral wealth we'll bring back and subtract what it will cost to implement your plan. Try to come up with a positive number. Then explain why we need humans to be part of this plan.
Bear in mind that I'm not arguing space exploration is worthless. I'm arguing that our current technology allows us to do one thing: deliver a small payload somewhere in the solar system, with a very long wait for anything outside Earth's vicinity. The added expense needed to protect and bring back a living payload is not worth it. What we should do is continue to build unmanned probes and satellites, which have been very successful, and use the other funds to research new technology that will allow us to accomplish something bigger.
That's twice now you've referenced "catapults". What kind of technology are you picturing where giant rocks escape a planet or moon's gravity well via "catapult"? How will spending billions of dollars going to the moon or Mars help develop that technology, anyway? Do you seriously think it would ever be more economical to catapult a rock from the moon to Earth when you could simply launch a nuke from point A to point B? If you really wanted to, you could put point A in orbit, but throwing a boulder big enough to hit with the impact of a nuke? That's pure fantasy.
As for Mars, it will take more than a "little" to terraform it. The pressure at the surface is less than 1% that of Earth. It might as well have no atmosphere as far as plant, animal, or human life from Earth is concerned. There's no way today's technology will compensate for that. Once again, spending billions to send a person to Mars using current tech will not help develop any of the plans you describe. Transplanting gases from Venus? Impossible, since today's tech will melt or dissolve as soon as it lands. Transplanting from a gas giant? You can get one of today's rockets there in a few years, but if it gets close enough to collect gases, it won't have the lifting power necessary to get back to Mars. Even if it could work, how many of these rockets are you going to send to fill an entire atmosphere? Nuking the ice caps? They'll just freeze again, and even if they didn't, there still wouldn't be enough atmosphere.
Interesting ideas, but here's the problem: spending billions to use today's technology to do something useless will not help effect those ideas.
Years ago, my wife, kids, and I were in Florida during a launching of one of the shuttles. We staked out some prime real estate to watch the entire thing across the bay along with numerous other people. We brought lunch meats and drinks. Some one else had a radio and the shuttle kept getting delayed. It become almost a party like affair. We, during the delays, stuck up conversations with the other shuttle watchers. The people right next to us were a middle age couple from Canada vacationing in Florida and their to watch the launch like us.
Finally, 4 hours after the scheduled launch time, the shuttle took off. Honestly, it really wasn't that impressive. We would have had a better view watching it on TV but I held my tongue. But still the shuttle went up flawlessly.
After a few moments, the gentleman from the Canadian couple loudly stated,” Well that was no big deal."
I replied, even louder, "And we are the only nation in the world that can do it, too."
He quietly returned to his vehicle and drove off.
Essentially, it is electromagnetic propulsion. We have been experimenting with linear induction motors , magnetic levitation, rail guns and other means of moving heavy things quickly. On the moon, without atmosphere, all you have to do is accelerate an object to two or three miles per second, and it will go into orbit, or further.
"How will spending billions of dollars going to the moon or Mars help develop that technology, anyway?"
The technology is being developed, and could be developed, before we go.
"Do you seriously think it would ever be more economical to catapult a rock from the moon to Earth when you could simply launch a nuke from point A to point B?"
Yes. Once the catapult is built, launching a load from it, any load, will only cost pennies. Keep in mind, the purpose of the linear induction accelerator (catapult) is to launch things into orbit, where they can do what any satellite-type launch would do, enhance the functions performed in that area, replace or resupply the facilities there, or provide raw materials for things to be manufactured elsewhere.
"If you really wanted to, you could put point A in orbit, but throwing a boulder big enough to hit with the impact of a nuke? That's pure fantasy."
It's only fantasy until it is built. The technology is simple. It is the location that makes the task difficult. A boulder just barely tipping over the area of gravitational attraction, and then gently accelerating to impact on Earth would strike with the force of several thousand tons of TNT. It would come in at more than five miles per second. (That's gonna leave a mark!)
"As for Mars, it will take more than a "little" to terraform it. The pressure at the surface is less than 1% that of Earth."
Okay, so it would take a lot. Most of it is just moving stuff around. They call it Delta V, a change in velocity. With a nuclear rocket, any place where atmosphere is available, such as Venus, propellant gases are available for propulsion. Load the cargo bay with gas, and use the nuclear energy to heat the propellant for pushing it somewhere. The building of the ships would be industry, and everyone would benefit.
"It might as well have no atmosphere as far as plant, animal, or human life from Earth is concerned. There's no way today's technology will compensate for that."
It will take some time, depending on how aggressively we pursue it. An aggressive campaign could get quite a bit done in twenty years, perhaps enough for primitive plants to take hold.
"Once again, spending billions to send a person to Mars using current tech will not help develop any of the plans you describe. Transplanting gases from Venus? Impossible, since today's tech will melt or dissolve as soon as it lands."
Why would anyone land? Get what you came for, and leave. Gas and go.
"Transplanting from a gas giant? You can get one of today's rockets there in a few years, but if it gets close enough to collect gases, it won't have the lifting power necessary to get back to Mars."
Your perception is accurate, but there is no need to stop your forward momentum. Just as today's shuttle dips into Earth's atmosphere at high speed, we would just barely graze the tenuous outer atmosphere of various sources, ramming the gas into our storage bins like a skimmer gull or pelican. Then we would begin our exit climb, slowing, yes, but not enough to stop us, since we can accelerate again using some of the gas as a propellant. The circuit would be slow, perhaps taking years. Fictional interest aside, it would most likely be done by robot ships.
"Even if it could work, how many of these rockets are you going to send to fill an entire atmosphere?"
I would send thousands, increasing the numbers to reach a point of efficient production, just as we did with airplanes during World War Two. A full employment economy.
"Nuking the ice caps? They'll just freeze again, and even if they didn't, there still wouldn't be enough atmosphere."
For once I agree with you! A better use for that nuclear material would be as a nuclear rocket motor, and its energy would go toward heating cold gases to incandescence.
"Interesting ideas, but here's the problem: spending billions to use today's technology to do something useless will not help effect those ideas."
Not useless! Terraforming Mars will add more land area than is now available on Earth! And the changes that could be made on Earth would provide additional capacity here. A thriving presence in space will prepare us for the next stage of expansion, or perhaps prevent the next stage of extinction!
Thanks for the discussion!
But I wonder why the USSR wouldn't have faked it, too?
They were masters of sleight-of-hand and propaganda--- and yet they never pretended to land on the Moon.
I wonder how many Cosmonauts are still floating around in deep space?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.