Back to the moon....
4 posters
Page 1 of 1
Back to the moon....
by CarolinaHound Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:12 am
Atlas 5 rocket launches NASA moon mission
An Atlas 5 rocket thundered to life and streaked into space Thursday, hurling two NASA spacecraft toward the moon for a $583 million mission to scout out landing sites for future manned missions and to search for evidence of hidden ice near its frigid poles.
One spacecraft will map the cratered surface from a perilously low 31-mile-high orbit while the other will blast out 350 tons of pulverized rock and soil for chemical analysis, digging a shallow 66-foot-wide crater in a kamikaze crash visible from Earth.
"First, we want to identify safe landing sites," said project scientist Rich Vondrak. "Then, we want to search for resources on the moon. And finally, we want to get better insight into the space radiation environment and how it may be harmful to humans."
Delayed 20 minutes by nearby thunderstorms, the United Launch Alliance Atlas 5 rocket's RD-180 first stage engine ignited at 5:32 p.m., slowly pushing the towering rocket away from launch complex 41 at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.
Spectacular rocket cam views showed the Atlas 5's fiery exhaust plume against the cloud-draped limb of planet Earth and the deep black of space. Another camera showed the nose cone fairing falling away, exposing the satellite payload to view.
Two firings by the Atlas 5's hydrogen-fueled Centaur second stage successfully boosted the dual-spacecraft payload onto a four-day trajectory to the moon.
The $504 million Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, equipped with seven state-of-the-art cameras and other instruments, will look for suitable landing sites for future manned missions while creating the most detailed lunar atlas ever assembled.
The 4,200-pound solar-powered spacecraft also will measure the solar and cosmic radiation that future lunar explorers will face and map out the surface topology, mineralogy and chemical composition of Earth's nearest neighbor. One year will be spent scouting future landing sites followed by three years of purely scientific observations.
full story: http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10268241-239.html
An Atlas 5 rocket thundered to life and streaked into space Thursday, hurling two NASA spacecraft toward the moon for a $583 million mission to scout out landing sites for future manned missions and to search for evidence of hidden ice near its frigid poles.
One spacecraft will map the cratered surface from a perilously low 31-mile-high orbit while the other will blast out 350 tons of pulverized rock and soil for chemical analysis, digging a shallow 66-foot-wide crater in a kamikaze crash visible from Earth.
"First, we want to identify safe landing sites," said project scientist Rich Vondrak. "Then, we want to search for resources on the moon. And finally, we want to get better insight into the space radiation environment and how it may be harmful to humans."
Delayed 20 minutes by nearby thunderstorms, the United Launch Alliance Atlas 5 rocket's RD-180 first stage engine ignited at 5:32 p.m., slowly pushing the towering rocket away from launch complex 41 at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.
Spectacular rocket cam views showed the Atlas 5's fiery exhaust plume against the cloud-draped limb of planet Earth and the deep black of space. Another camera showed the nose cone fairing falling away, exposing the satellite payload to view.
Two firings by the Atlas 5's hydrogen-fueled Centaur second stage successfully boosted the dual-spacecraft payload onto a four-day trajectory to the moon.
The $504 million Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, equipped with seven state-of-the-art cameras and other instruments, will look for suitable landing sites for future manned missions while creating the most detailed lunar atlas ever assembled.
The 4,200-pound solar-powered spacecraft also will measure the solar and cosmic radiation that future lunar explorers will face and map out the surface topology, mineralogy and chemical composition of Earth's nearest neighbor. One year will be spent scouting future landing sites followed by three years of purely scientific observations.
full story: http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10268241-239.html
CarolinaHound-
Number of posts : 4843
Age : 54
Location : Fayetteville NC
Job/hobbies : Being loveable me.
Humor : yes
Registration date : 2009-01-13 -
Re: Back to the moon....
by Theophilus Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:34 pm
I find it interesting. The wanting to go back to the moon.
What I find interesting is the search for ice on the moon. Even if there was some ice I doubt it would be enough to support a colony there. I really doubt ice is there, but what do I know.
If we could get the cost of space travel down, we could bring all the water to the moon we wanted. I think having a moon base would have advantages for sure.
Such as launching without an atmosphere to deal with, and the lighter gravity of the moon.
The costs to start with would be huge. Though in the long run if we were to do this. It would make deep space exploration much cheaper than it is today.
Not to mention that some of the costs could be covered by space tourism once the infrastructure was in place.
I feel we would have a lot to gain by doing something like this. Science advances the human race. Except when you are using it to build super weapons.
So I say go forth, lets go back to the moon.
What I find interesting is the search for ice on the moon. Even if there was some ice I doubt it would be enough to support a colony there. I really doubt ice is there, but what do I know.
If we could get the cost of space travel down, we could bring all the water to the moon we wanted. I think having a moon base would have advantages for sure.
Such as launching without an atmosphere to deal with, and the lighter gravity of the moon.
The costs to start with would be huge. Though in the long run if we were to do this. It would make deep space exploration much cheaper than it is today.
Not to mention that some of the costs could be covered by space tourism once the infrastructure was in place.
I feel we would have a lot to gain by doing something like this. Science advances the human race. Except when you are using it to build super weapons.
So I say go forth, lets go back to the moon.
Theophilus-
Number of posts : 914
Location : Beautiful Northern California.
Humor : I miss the humor in what people say at times.
Registration date : 2009-01-15
Re: Back to the moon....
by DM007 Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:53 pm
Water on the moon would be infinitely important. Not just for drinking, and the other stuff we use water for, but its chemical composition. H2O is hydrogen and oxygen. Crack them (easy and cheap to do, relatively), and we have O2 for breathing, fuel for electrical generation (fuel cell), and both for rocket fuel. This would be almost necessary to use the moon for a central launch point for the outer planets, and beyond. Hauling water to the moon is cost-prohibitive, as well as too large an undertaking to be remotely practical.
DM007- Number of posts : 372
Registration date : 2009-01-20
Re: Back to the moon....
by Theophilus Fri Jul 03, 2009 12:53 am
DM007 wrote:Water on the moon would be infinitely important. Not just for drinking, and the other stuff we use water for, but its chemical composition. H2O is hydrogen and oxygen. Crack them (easy and cheap to do, relatively), and we have O2 for breathing, fuel for electrical generation (fuel cell), and both for rocket fuel. This would be almost necessary to use the moon for a central launch point for the outer planets, and beyond. Hauling water to the moon is cost-prohibitive, as well as too large an undertaking to be remotely practical.
Yes I understand this. Thus the need to make space flight much less expensive.
My point was lets bring water to the moon.
If is not there, well lets bring it there.
Theophilus-
Number of posts : 914
Location : Beautiful Northern California.
Humor : I miss the humor in what people say at times.
Registration date : 2009-01-15
Re: Back to the moon....
by CarolinaHound Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:36 am
Theophilus wrote:DM007 wrote:Water on the moon would be infinitely important. Not just for drinking, and the other stuff we use water for, but its chemical composition. H2O is hydrogen and oxygen. Crack them (easy and cheap to do, relatively), and we have O2 for breathing, fuel for electrical generation (fuel cell), and both for rocket fuel. This would be almost necessary to use the moon for a central launch point for the outer planets, and beyond. Hauling water to the moon is cost-prohibitive, as well as too large an undertaking to be remotely practical.
Yes I understand this. Thus the need to make space flight much less expensive.
My point was lets bring water to the moon.
If is not there, well lets bring it there.
The problem there is that what water we have on Earth is all there is, as far as I know science has not yet found a way to make more, we can just recycle what we already have, which Earths eco system does naturally anyway. If you start removing it to support colonies on the moon and maybe other planets, you start depleating the Earth's water resources which could have a negative affect on our enviroment. And eventually if you try to set up large colonies, with thousands or millions of people you have need of vast amounts of water.
CarolinaHound-
Number of posts : 4843
Age : 54
Location : Fayetteville NC
Job/hobbies : Being loveable me.
Humor : yes
Registration date : 2009-01-13 -
Re: Back to the moon....
by DM007 Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:58 am
CarolinaHound wrote:Theophilus wrote:DM007 wrote:Water on the moon would be infinitely important. Not just for drinking, and the other stuff we use water for, but its chemical composition. H2O is hydrogen and oxygen. Crack them (easy and cheap to do, relatively), and we have O2 for breathing, fuel for electrical generation (fuel cell), and both for rocket fuel. This would be almost necessary to use the moon for a central launch point for the outer planets, and beyond. Hauling water to the moon is cost-prohibitive, as well as too large an undertaking to be remotely practical.
Yes I understand this. Thus the need to make space flight much less expensive.
My point was lets bring water to the moon.
If is not there, well lets bring it there.
The problem there is that what water we have on Earth is all there is, as far as I know science has not yet found a way to make more, we can just recycle what we already have, which Earths eco system does naturally anyway. If you start removing it to support colonies on the moon and maybe other planets, you start depleating the Earth's water resources which could have a negative affect on our enviroment. And eventually if you try to set up large colonies, with thousands or millions of people you have need of vast amounts of water.
I don't think we will ever be capable of depleting any amount of water we could carry away. If we started now, and launched all we could to the moon, we would deplete our means to get it there long before we put a dent in the supply. The problem with moving it is the volume needed. The mass is simply too great. Water is heavy, and our ability to lift it out of our atmosphere is finite, and very limited. Storing Earth water on the moon will never happen, except on a very small scale (for astronaut consumption and the like). 90% of the fuel used to launch the space shuttle into orbit is used to lift the fuel needed to move the entire vehicle. Not a very effective return. But, it happens to be our only option at the moment. In time, efficiencies will improve, but not to a scale to move large volumes of water. And, you have to get it onto the Moon's surface when you get it there. You can't just dump it into a hole from orbit.
DM007- Number of posts : 372
Registration date : 2009-01-20
Re: Back to the moon....
by CarolinaHound Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:59 am
DM007 wrote:CarolinaHound wrote:Theophilus wrote:DM007 wrote:Water on the moon would be infinitely important. Not just for drinking, and the other stuff we use water for, but its chemical composition. H2O is hydrogen and oxygen. Crack them (easy and cheap to do, relatively), and we have O2 for breathing, fuel for electrical generation (fuel cell), and both for rocket fuel. This would be almost necessary to use the moon for a central launch point for the outer planets, and beyond. Hauling water to the moon is cost-prohibitive, as well as too large an undertaking to be remotely practical.
Yes I understand this. Thus the need to make space flight much less expensive.
My point was lets bring water to the moon.
If is not there, well lets bring it there.
The problem there is that what water we have on Earth is all there is, as far as I know science has not yet found a way to make more, we can just recycle what we already have, which Earths eco system does naturally anyway. If you start removing it to support colonies on the moon and maybe other planets, you start depleating the Earth's water resources which could have a negative affect on our enviroment. And eventually if you try to set up large colonies, with thousands or millions of people you have need of vast amounts of water.
I don't think we will ever be capable of depleting any amount of water we could carry away. If we started now, and launched all we could to the moon, we would deplete our means to get it there long before we put a dent in the supply. The problem with moving it is the volume needed. The mass is simply too great. Water is heavy, and our ability to lift it out of our atmosphere is finite, and very limited. Storing Earth water on the moon will never happen, except on a very small scale (for astronaut consumption and the like). 90% of the fuel used to launch the space shuttle into orbit is used to lift the fuel needed to move the entire vehicle. Not a very effective return. But, it happens to be our only option at the moment. In time, efficiencies will improve, but not to a scale to move large volumes of water. And, you have to get it onto the Moon's surface when you get it there. You can't just dump it into a hole from orbit.
Good point. Didn't even think about that. I was thinking of it more from a anglers point of view, less water means fewer places to fish. You could mess with my woman before you can mess with my dog and my bass fishing! Could splain why I don't have a woman right now.
CarolinaHound-
Number of posts : 4843
Age : 54
Location : Fayetteville NC
Job/hobbies : Being loveable me.
Humor : yes
Registration date : 2009-01-13 -
Re: Back to the moon....
by Theophilus Sat Jul 04, 2009 4:11 am
CarolinaHound wrote:DM007 wrote:CarolinaHound wrote:Theophilus wrote:DM007 wrote:Water on the moon would be infinitely important. Not just for drinking, and the other stuff we use water for, but its chemical composition. H2O is hydrogen and oxygen. Crack them (easy and cheap to do, relatively), and we have O2 for breathing, fuel for electrical generation (fuel cell), and both for rocket fuel. This would be almost necessary to use the moon for a central launch point for the outer planets, and beyond. Hauling water to the moon is cost-prohibitive, as well as too large an undertaking to be remotely practical.
Yes I understand this. Thus the need to make space flight much less expensive.
My point was lets bring water to the moon.
If is not there, well lets bring it there.
The problem there is that what water we have on Earth is all there is, as far as I know science has not yet found a way to make more, we can just recycle what we already have, which Earths eco system does naturally anyway. If you start removing it to support colonies on the moon and maybe other planets, you start depleating the Earth's water resources which could have a negative affect on our enviroment. And eventually if you try to set up large colonies, with thousands or millions of people you have need of vast amounts of water.
I don't think we will ever be capable of depleting any amount of water we could carry away. If we started now, and launched all we could to the moon, we would deplete our means to get it there long before we put a dent in the supply. The problem with moving it is the volume needed. The mass is simply too great. Water is heavy, and our ability to lift it out of our atmosphere is finite, and very limited. Storing Earth water on the moon will never happen, except on a very small scale (for astronaut consumption and the like). 90% of the fuel used to launch the space shuttle into orbit is used to lift the fuel needed to move the entire vehicle. Not a very effective return. But, it happens to be our only option at the moment. In time, efficiencies will improve, but not to a scale to move large volumes of water. And, you have to get it onto the Moon's surface when you get it there. You can't just dump it into a hole from orbit.
Good point. Didn't even think about that. I was thinking of it more from a anglers point of view, less water means fewer places to fish. You could mess with my woman before you can mess with my dog and my bass fishing! Could splain why I don't have a woman right now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8O3Plt8DyMk
Theophilus-
Number of posts : 914
Location : Beautiful Northern California.
Humor : I miss the humor in what people say at times.
Registration date : 2009-01-15
Re: Back to the moon....
by CarolinaHound Fri Jul 17, 2009 3:20 am
hehehe... yup dat's da way it goes.
You know now that I think about it, the got the wrong people searching for water out there. They need to send bass anglers. We can find water in the strangest places.
You know now that I think about it, the got the wrong people searching for water out there. They need to send bass anglers. We can find water in the strangest places.
CarolinaHound-
Number of posts : 4843
Age : 54
Location : Fayetteville NC
Job/hobbies : Being loveable me.
Humor : yes
Registration date : 2009-01-13 -
Re: Back to the moon....
by Old Timer Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:52 pm
CarolinaHound wrote:hehehe... yup dat's da way it goes.
You know now that I think about it, the got the wrong people searching for water out there. They need to send bass anglers. We can find water in the strangest places.
Well us trout fishermen know a few tricks to.
Old Timer-
Number of posts : 4718
Registration date : 2009-01-13
CarolinaHound-
Number of posts : 4843
Age : 54
Location : Fayetteville NC
Job/hobbies : Being loveable me.
Humor : yes
Registration date : 2009-01-13 -
Re: Back to the moon....
by Theophilus Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:42 am
CarolinaHound wrote:
What really interests me is what the private industry might do. I feel they could do a lot more with a lot less. Thus bring competition to the bureaucrats. I know how expensive this is. Though some competition by the private sector would be great.
Would the private sector be able to bring prices down for space flight, and further exploration?
I guess only time will tell.
Theophilus-
Number of posts : 914
Location : Beautiful Northern California.
Humor : I miss the humor in what people say at times.
Registration date : 2009-01-15
Similar topics» GUESS WHO'S BACK...BACK AGAIN!
» I'm back
» Get Back To The Chopper.
» Pizza guy must pay back money taken when he was robbed.
» I back up my beliefs, will you Hamas apologists do the same?
» I'm back
» Get Back To The Chopper.
» Pizza guy must pay back money taken when he was robbed.
» I back up my beliefs, will you Hamas apologists do the same?
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum