China, shooting for the moon
Discussion
The science may initially have been an afterthought but once it was implemented it became a very big part of the project. From Apollo 12 onwards, the science side of the missions became more and more important. For Apollos 15,16 and 17, it was the raison d'etre of those missions.
I would highly recommend the following book if you want to truly understand the scientific legacy of Apollo.
I would highly recommend the following book if you want to truly understand the scientific legacy of Apollo.
Bedazzled said:
If your prediction is right and they find a 'nearby' Earth-like planet in the next couple of years it could be a game changer. We could invest in developing automated probes with a new propulsion system to go and have a look at it; a human couldn't make the journey. If we are looking at the moon it should be as a stepping stone to that goal, sending a man there would just be an expensive and pointless distraction, imo.
We have sent over 100 robot probes to the moon since 1959. It's time to stop basically farting about and get some humans there on a permanent basis. On a cosmic scale it's in our back yard and has great exploitation potential for all sorts of reasons.It's far too close to us to ignore - and it's far too close to yield any meaningful engineering data for sending robot probes to nearby stars.
Probes to the outer reaches of the solar system - such as the Oort Cloud and the Kuiper Belt will be where we begin the path to learning how to get to out nearer stellar neighbours.
Some say there is no point in sending a man to Moon or another planet to wave a flag. Fair enough. But equally there is little case to be made for sending a robot to the Moon or Mars just to take a soil sample. What's the point in that? Millions spent on another scoop of dust. There is no point in finding out anything unless a man is going to follow.
There is a lot to do on the moon way beyond planting flags and making speeches. We've done all that. Even Apollo got over that fairly quickly and was, as I said earlier, returning outstanding scientific data within 6 months of the first landing.
WE have learned even more about the moon since those days and it is turning out to be a very interesting place. It's time to go back there and actually start living on it and exploiting it.
WE have learned even more about the moon since those days and it is turning out to be a very interesting place. It's time to go back there and actually start living on it and exploiting it.
NASA have just anounced today that their two gravity sensing satellites have been inserted successfully into lunar orbit. This will enable us to measure much more accurately the sources of the gravitational anomalies that are caused by the varying densities of materials within the structure of the moon.
In effect, we will get a far more accurate 3D map of the internal structure of the moon.
In effect, we will get a far more accurate 3D map of the internal structure of the moon.
Hooli said:
So they might finally find the monolith over due since 2001?
The monolith created a magnetic anomaly - not a gravitational one.This is one lunar fact that Clarke got wrong. He assumed that the moon would have a discernable magnetic field like the earth - so he had the monolith discovered by the distortion it caused to the supposed lunar magnetic field. However, the Lunar Orbiter missions of 1966 to 1968 and the Apollo missions confirmed that the moon does not have a global magnetic field. What the Orbiters and Apollo discovered was something quite unexpected, GRAVITATIONAL anomalies presumably due to massive variations in the density of the material of the moon itself.
These two new probes will be the first serious atempt to map these gravitational anomalies accurately and hopefully, allow us to actually see below the surface of the moon to great depth.
there's all that cheese for a startIMO, the project that will advance mans long range exploration of space is currently in orbit, only approx 225miles above our planet! The ISS is answering the "routine" questions that must be answered to allow man to live permanently away from home. Things like environmental control and balancing, minmum power loads, thermal performance, long term low gravity effects, even things like psychological and physiological stability.
The "pure science" bit of space travel, although costly and difficult is actually failry well understood, but the complexities increase by at least a square factor when you start to address the issues of long term survival and occupation of alien environments.
Certainly, long term lunar occupation would teach early settlers how to survive, and how much they can "mine" from their new environment to help them survive etc.
In a longer term view, the next scientific breakthrough required is simply a "faster than light" method of travel. Until this occurs, even a very "Local" exploration of our solar systems will be long, dangerous and experimental at best..........
In todays political and economic climate, i cannot see where sufficient funding would come from (even across multiple political boundaries (ie a multinational approach)) ??
Frankly, it will take a "doomsday asteroid" to get us humans to pick up our feet and work out how to move off this planet!
The "pure science" bit of space travel, although costly and difficult is actually failry well understood, but the complexities increase by at least a square factor when you start to address the issues of long term survival and occupation of alien environments.
Certainly, long term lunar occupation would teach early settlers how to survive, and how much they can "mine" from their new environment to help them survive etc.
In a longer term view, the next scientific breakthrough required is simply a "faster than light" method of travel. Until this occurs, even a very "Local" exploration of our solar systems will be long, dangerous and experimental at best..........
In todays political and economic climate, i cannot see where sufficient funding would come from (even across multiple political boundaries (ie a multinational approach)) ??
Frankly, it will take a "doomsday asteroid" to get us humans to pick up our feet and work out how to move off this planet!
I think exploration of our own solar system , by humans, is already feasible - right now. We don't need faster than light technology for that - even if it is ever possible. In fact, we could even launch interstellar probes NOW if we wanted to.
Time is not an issue. For most of our history, long voyages took a long time. It's only in the last 100 years that long distance travel on earth has become something that takes days rather than months and years. The same goes for long distance communications. It's only really since the 1960s that we've got used to instant access to events as they happen anywhere around the world.
Space travel beyond the moon will reacquaint us with what has mainly been the norm - travel and messages take a long time when someone is far away. We'll just have to get used to dealing with such matters again.
Time is not an issue. For most of our history, long voyages took a long time. It's only in the last 100 years that long distance travel on earth has become something that takes days rather than months and years. The same goes for long distance communications. It's only really since the 1960s that we've got used to instant access to events as they happen anywhere around the world.
Space travel beyond the moon will reacquaint us with what has mainly been the norm - travel and messages take a long time when someone is far away. We'll just have to get used to dealing with such matters again.
Eric Mc said:
Time is not an issue. For most of our history, long voyages took a long time.
They did, but i don't think you can really relate the 4 years or so Captain Cook spent exploring Australia and the South Pacific with the ~75 thousand year long trip that it would currently take for our fastest ever made made object (Voyager 1 at 38400mph) to reach our nearest star (Proxima Centauri 4.3 light years away).........Im a bit thick, when people say it cost X country X amount, millions or billions. Does it really matter if its an internal thing?
Say USA, the government paying US people to work with US materials, or paying US business. As long as its all spent in the original country does it matter?
It makes sense to me, but I'm only a nut and bolt guy.
Say USA, the government paying US people to work with US materials, or paying US business. As long as its all spent in the original country does it matter?
It makes sense to me, but I'm only a nut and bolt guy.
Max_Torque said:
Eric Mc said:
Time is not an issue. For most of our history, long voyages took a long time.
They did, but i don't think you can really relate the 4 years or so Captain Cook spent exploring Australia and the South Pacific with the ~75 thousand year long trip that it would currently take for our fastest ever made made object (Voyager 1 at 38400mph) to reach our nearest star (Proxima Centauri 4.3 light years away).........Major Fallout said:
Im a bit thick, when people say it cost X country X amount, millions or billions. Does it really matter if its an internal thing?
Say USA, the government paying US people to work with US materials, or paying US business. As long as its all spent in the original country does it matter?
It makes sense to me, but I'm only a nut and bolt guy.
It's to do with outcomes. Is society better or worse for the expenditure. Are people better off, not just finaacially, but perhaps from a health point of view or even from a spiritual or motivated point of view.Say USA, the government paying US people to work with US materials, or paying US business. As long as its all spent in the original country does it matter?
It makes sense to me, but I'm only a nut and bolt guy.
Would $24 billion spent on cancer research in the 60s been better than $24 billion on a race to the moon. To be honest, these answers are impossible to tell as many of the benefits from such a programme are almost impossible to pin down and measure.
Eric Mc said:
Major Fallout said:
Im a bit thick, when people say it cost X country X amount, millions or billions. Does it really matter if its an internal thing?
Say USA, the government paying US people to work with US materials, or paying US business. As long as its all spent in the original country does it matter?
It makes sense to me, but I'm only a nut and bolt guy.
It's to do with outcomes. Is society better or worse for the expenditure. Are people better off, not just finaacially, but perhaps from a health point of view or even from a spiritual or motivated point of view.Say USA, the government paying US people to work with US materials, or paying US business. As long as its all spent in the original country does it matter?
It makes sense to me, but I'm only a nut and bolt guy.
Would $24 billion spent on cancer research in the 60s been better than $24 billion on a race to the moon. To be honest, these answers are impossible to tell as many of the benefits from such a programme are almost impossible to pin down and measure.
Thank you!
Eric Mc said:
It's to do with outcomes. Is society better or worse for the expenditure. Are people better off, not just finaacially, but perhaps from a health point of view or even from a spiritual or motivated point of view.
Would $24 billion spent on cancer research in the 60s been better than $24 billion on a race to the moon. To be honest, these answers are impossible to tell as many of the benefits from such a programme are almost impossible to pin down and measure.
I agree that you can't easily quantify the benefits in that way, but there are a huge number of spin off technologies as a direct result of the space programme that have been a positive contribution to a variety of areas, with medicine being only one of those. I think if you throw money at a singular subject like cancer research, then you are only going to get the best results available with the technology of the time, regardless of how much it is. If you spend the money expanding scientific knowledge across the board, then you will get discoveries that complement each other in ways that would never have been thought of beforehand.Would $24 billion spent on cancer research in the 60s been better than $24 billion on a race to the moon. To be honest, these answers are impossible to tell as many of the benefits from such a programme are almost impossible to pin down and measure.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff