Skip to comments.Vice President Pence Will Talk Moon Return in NASA Speech Thursday
Posted on 08/22/2018 12:59:55 PM PDT by BenLurkin
The event will focus on "the future of human space exploration and the agencys plans to return to the moon as a forerunner to future human missions to Mars," according to a NASA statement.
The vice president's scheduled comments come amid a flurry of activity regarding human spaceflight. Last week, Lockheed Martin revealed work on its version of a prototype for a human deep-space habitation unit, and the Orion spacecraft that will carry those space travelers got its heat shield.
Earlier this month, JSC saw the announcement of commercial crew astronaut assignments to test flights and maiden International Space Station missions due to take place next year.
These developments and Pence's remarks this week all reflect Space Policy Directive 1, Trump's order that NASA focus on sending humans to the moon as a forerunner to eventual Mars missions
(Excerpt) Read more at space.com ...
Been there, done that.
I’m guessing the evil freaks are already writing Buzz Aldrin’s disparaging “review” of the upcoming speech.
I think that we’re far better off letting private industry (read: “SpaceX”) get us into space. Let NASA buy the space from them, as they are far ahead of everyone in developing reliable heavy-lift rockets that can be reused (which is the ONLY way to make it even close to economically feasible). Does the government build aircraft anymore? Nope, it contracts out the work to private industry. We ought to follow that example.
Waste of hundreds of billions of dollars being planned.
One of my all-time favorite panel cartoons. Too bad that most of the under 40 (or even under 50) crowd won’t have a clue.
FYI, I once saw another panel cartoon when the shuttle first flew. It had the shuttle pulled up to a garbage can, with the commander of the ship saying, “Ah, Houston, we found Jimmy Hoffa, over.”
There’s a current satellite mission mapping potential landing sites on the dark side of the moon.
When did the government ever build aircraft?
Who built (builds) the Atlas rockets?
Who built the Titan rockets?
Who built the Saturn rockets?
Who built (builds) the Delta rockets?
The earth does not move (rotate.)
A gyroscope spun up on the surface of the earth will maintain its position (all angles in relationship to its fixed gimbal mount) indefinitely. If the earth were rotating, the gyroscope would move out of position by about 15 degrees per hour.
You can verify this in any commercial aircraft that has a gyroscope based navigation system. Sit in the cockpit, fire up the gyroscope, and observe it for one hour. Its axis of rotation will not change its angle.
The earth does not move (rotate.)
What about things like day and night?
uh...it contracted all the previous NASA work too...from Mercury to Apollo to the shuttle!
The Mercury space capsule was produced by McDonnell Aircraft, and carried supplies of water, food and oxygen for about one day in a pressurized cabin.
The Apollo Command Service Module CSM was developed and built for NASA by North American Aviation starting in November 1961
The Apollo Lunar Excuson Module Lunar Excursion Module (LEM), was the lander portion of the Apollo spacecraft built for the US Apollo program by Grumman Aircraft to carry a crew of two from lunar orbit to the surface and back.
the Saturn V was designed under the direction of Wernher von Braun and Arthur Rudolph at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, with Boeing, North American Aviation, Douglas Aircraft Company, and IBM as the lead contractors.
The Space Shuttle Program was Commissioned by NASA and built by the joint effoerts of United Space Alliance, Thiokol/ Alliant Techsystems, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing Rockwell.
An old argument against the earth rotating is this. If the earth really did rotate, a person who jumps straight up would land somewhere behind where he jumped up from. But since he lands at the same spot, the earth must not rotate.
That argument fails because it doesn’t take into account the fact that the jumper has rotational inertia. He is, in a sense, rotating right along with the earth. Thus he lands at the same spot.
I don’t know much about gyroscopes. Wouldn’t the same argument apply?
No. You are arguing a completely different point (a “straw man” in debating terms). In other words, you are answering a question that was not asked. While your analysis may be true for the jumping man (I believe that it is), it does not apply to the gyroscope observation.
Gyroscopes do not jump. They are stationary. Not the same thing at all.
You would do well to invest some time learning about gyroscopic “rigidity in space.” YouTube is an excellent source of lessons with visuals.
Blessings to you and your loved ones,
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.