A little step for a man, a big step for the mankind.

Space and the university has always fascinated me.

News Links:

1. RFI - Footprint in time as world celebrates lunar landing
2. VOA News - US Remembers 40-Year Anniversary of Moon Landing
3. Many giant memories - JSOnline

The future step:

Should the moon be used as a springboard for trips to Mars and other space objects?

Cnn poses the following question:

Should there be a world organization in charge of space exploration?

__________________
Mini Network:: Financial information at your fingertips
Learn object oriented programming where it started

I will use a search engine before I ask dumb questions.

I miss the old space program..

So many people claim its a waste of money, but look at all the people it employs.. And then you add in the morale and pride boost when seeing these great achievements happen.. And not to mention the leaps in technology that we see by doing the impossible..

Unfortunately we have become a nation of no risk what so ever, so every setback is met with years of delays and spending to find out just what went wrong..

Add to that the overly generic "goals" being set these days and its a wonder that anyone even bothers any longer.. It makes me sad

__________________
Steve : Animal Charms Animal Jewelry | Fishing Blog
The existence of the flame thrower proves that at one time, some person said, "You know? I'd like to set that group of people on fire but they're too far away."

I find myself remembering a young fellow out on the bright moonlight night, turning to his girl and using the moon and a realisation of how truly insignificant we all really are as an argument that says, c'mon my love, nothing really matters, we are just specs in the great theme . . The romantic possibilities of the moon were boundless, The moon could evoke a freedom from concern about everyday realities. To this young man the moon was about love. .

To lie besides your girl on a warm summers night and evoked the moon for romance . . . .and hear her sweet voice say "look! . somebody just left dirty footprints all over it..." could break a boys heart . .

.

__________________

Tubby on the traditional emotional track.

Moon = Lunar

Related words:

English: lunatic.

Norwegian: lunefull = fickle, unpredictable

The moon is related both to emotions, culture, religion and science.



Your old moon will never be the same Tubby, but there is more out there.

To set the costs in perspective:

Source: Google Plans a PC Operating System

__________________
Mini Network:: Financial information at your fingertips
Learn object oriented programming where it started

I will use a search engine before I ask dumb questions.

Yes, the computing power is much much better today than existed in the 1960s/1970s. But to what avail? We still have two basic problems in space, the first is that every single item we need to survive in space needs to be blasted into orbit (I think its something like 8lbs of rocket fuel for every pound we bring up there) and the second is that human beings waste away slowly but surely in zero gravity.

Unfortunately the speeds that we're able to attain simply hasn't increased exponentially like our computing power! (we're still on liquid fueled rockets which at this point is essentially 50+ year old technology).

The only place I see them 'colonizing' in even the forseeable future would be the moon for tritium (which apparently could be used for fusion)

So, I'm a little bit pessimisitic about the opportunities that await in space, the destinations don't seemingly have much to offer humanity (ie. not exactly hospitable). The nearest star is 4.2 light years away (Proxima Centauri) - Apollo 11 took 4 days to get to the moon. We just don't harness enough energy to actually do anything particularly useful up there.

__________________

I assume that space and energy is not the main problem. Regarding energy, it is it's consistence that may be the problem. The main problem is related to our psyche and our body and last but not least, bringing with us enough food (organic material that can ideally be expanded on the distant planet.)

1. What about space lifts (no joke) to a geostationary space town / village at least as big as let us say 10 super tankers?
2. What about a similar solution in space?
3. One or more space villages / towns / stations between the earth / moon and Mars?
4. Yesterday the possibilities were discussed with two of our experts that claimed that the first expedition to mars could be with older people 60+ that did not need to return. If we want to conquer mars, and populate the planet, demographically it is correct to send more women than men Those people may have another psyche than those going to the moon.
5. There will be no surprise here if China is first on mars.
6. What about an internationally financed organization, fund, company?
7. What about the economic consequences (multiplier effects) in a recession?
8. It can be more correct to start today than under a boom.

__________________
Mini Network:: Financial information at your fingertips
Learn object oriented programming where it started

I will use a search engine before I ask dumb questions.

Well, you have to physically produce the energy. Look at the Saturn V rocket and then look at the lunar module that landed on the moon itself.

And of course water. Each gallon of water weighs 8.3 lbs per gallon (+/-) and you either have to bring enough or you need a system to recycle it. But yes, our bodies are fragile when compared to the rigors the body must endure in space including atrophy of muscles, solar radiation and even high speed collisions with micro-meteors.

We may well see this. I watch shows discussing things like this all the time. On one of them there was an Asian-American scientist (Akio and I can't remember his last name) and he was discussing how it could be done with carbon nanotubes which would be sufficiently strong and yet sufficiently 'lightweight' to get the job done. In order to accomplish such a large task, humanity needs to get A LOT better at nano-manufacturing.

I'm not sure what this link is showing, I went there, it just is an advertisement for what appears to be a museum?

If you're discussing a trip to Mars, one of the methods would be to launch fuel packets so that the mission could pick them up along the way. But to date, the leaders in space stations are the Russians, and this is where we see some of the nasty effects of being in a zero G environment can have on the body. Let's see what they have: File:ASTP Soyuz Spacecraft.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In and of itself, I applaud their accomplishment, but in the 'grand scheme' of space exploration, its the equivalent of building a rowboat to sail around the world.

Gee, just as they were ready to collect social security and retire in style in Florida, you're sending them off to Mars! Would you go? I think the point is to 'bring them back alive'

I saw the program on 'terraforming' Mars too. I tell you what, let's terraform the Sahara first and then talk to me. There's little oxygen, thin atmosphere, the temperature is going to keep water in ice form.

Maybe, "The first unmanned Mars exploration program should take place between the 2014-2033 period, followed by a manned phase in 2040-2060" [which basically means, we can't do that right now.] I would suggest that it must necessarily be an international consortium.

No other way to do it.

Hoover Dam has had a lasting postive economic impact, it produces clean, renewable energy, year after year. I actually just looked it up and currently NASA received about .13% of US GDP per year.

"Putting a man on the moon: During March (1966): NASA told Congress the "run-out cost" of the Apollo program (to put men on the moon) would be an estimated $22.718 billion for the 13 year program that accomplished six successful missions of putting astronauts on the moon between July 1969 and December 1972. (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4009/keyev4.htm) According the Steve Garber, NASA History Web Curator, the final cost was between $20 and $25 billion.
How much would that be today? If we used the CPI, it would be $136 billion, but this would not be a very good measure since the CPI does not reflect the cost of rockets and launch pads. Using the consumer bundle would not be relevant either. Using the broader based GDP deflator gives a present cost of $117 billion. The alternative of using the wage indicators would be a rough measure of the labor cost in current terms and it would be $155 billion. By using the GDP per capita, we are measuring the cost in terms of average product and would get a number of $259 billion. Finally, a way to consider the "opportunity cost" to society, the best measure might be the cost as a percent of GDP, and that number would be $390 billion. This amount over thirteen years would be $30 billion per year. As a comparison, the NASA budget for the current fiscal year is approximately $15 billion. "[/QUOTE]

Now, if Mars were made from gold, or if you could export something from Mars that had value here, then maybe its worthwhile going, but if all you're going to do is to send two (apparently retirees!) people to dig around the soil and look for microbial life; I would suggest that the opportunity cost here on Earth is just too high. With that amount of money you could build solar powered desalinzation plants and hydrate the Mojave: File:Usgs mojave desert.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia {the price of pistachios would plummet!}

I also don't believe that the technological impact would be as drastic as the initial implementation of the space program. When JFK said that the US should go to the moon, all of the elements (rockets, guidance, life support) existed in some form, it simply needed to be packaged in a larger form. To go to Mars requires the same technology

__________________

There is a speculation that there is water at the moon's poles. Then there is oxygen and hydrogen.

I saw a Tv program on National Geographic. It is a closed mini rain forest with plants, animals and (fish?) under a dome. Yes, it is a museum too.

You and I think otherwise than those pioneers think. I think very few people would have joined Columbus on his voyage. The Apollo crews had a military background. That need not be the best background now. There are projects testing how human react to isolation. That is of course different from being isolated in a space ship or on mars. People with a very special psyche are needed. There are people that say that they would have taken a medicament that shortened their life if they won a gold medal in the Olympics. I would not. May be it is an experiment with those peoples life. But it is of course voluntarily. Life has always been risky. Some professions are more risky than other. If it is done correctly, it may even be less risky than some of the most risky earth professions. I think the cited scientist's idea of sending old people to mars to die there, is bad. In my opinion there are two realistic options:

1. Visit mars and return with no other long run profitable outcome than technological innovation.
2. Settle on mars.

I assume that people live on mars, at least in year 3000.

Agree, but one project need not exclude the other.

Agree.

Note: The Apollo crew wanted the Fn flag planted on the moon. The politicians rejected it an only planted the American flag there according to the Tv program I watched on your birthday.

At least, that would finally burst the Gold bubble.

Some scientists like Professor Stepen W. Hawking say that there are no other option for mankind in the long run. According to Keynes we are all dead in the long run. Hopefully mankind survive, but I admit that there is a no zero probability that his words are literally correct.

My personal opinion.

1. The technology to carry material into space has to be imroved. Space lifts are one example.
2. The security has to be better. Todays computeres are so strong that there should be no computer over load as there was on the Apollo project.
3. The expansion should be gradual where each step is tested and secured.
   - Bigger space stations.
   - Settling on the moon as a better (intermediate) place for future expansiopn (less gravity) than the earth.
4. Do you know the magnitude of the oil platforms in the North Sea? The Eiffel tower can be placed below them.
   -
   - Another slow loading image: http://www.statoil.com/STATOILCOM/SVG00990.NSF/Attachments/Troll/$FILE/TrollA1995.jpg
5. There is one big advantage by building in space. The form is not so important and it is very easy to move big sections. You can keep big sections tied together with a rope. Don't think earth conditions and gravity. There are of course other problems like radiation etc.
6. Better energy solutions. The use of solar, nuclear and other energy.
7. Exploring the space for water - Hydrogen + Oxygen.
8. Finally, export organic and human life.

__________________
Mini Network:: Financial information at your fingertips
Learn object oriented programming where it started

I will use a search engine before I ask dumb questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun There is a speculation that there is water at the moon's poles. Then there is oxygen and hydrogen.

And you need to make sure its there and in sufficient quantities. If you find out its a column of dry ice (CO2), boy are you in for a surprise. And yes, you could drink it, and yes, you could perform electrolysis and split it into O2 and H2 and make energy from that, but they make it sound oh so easy on these futuristic shows. They will say, "well, we could simply send out a Mars mission and task the mission with manufacturing their own fuel for the return trip." - sounds good, in theory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun I saw a Tv program on National Geographic. It is a closed mini rain forest with plants, animals and (fish?) under a dome. Yes, it is a museum too.

Yes, I read about that place. I believe it is in the UK. I get National Geographic and there was an article on it. Excellent magazine, this month is all about Angkor in Cambodia (absolutely fascinating)

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun You and I think otherwise than those pioneers think. I think very few people would have joined Columbus on his voyage. The Apollo crews had a military background. That need not be the best background now.

The crew probably should have a diverse background capable of dealing with a variety of problems that might arise. On one program they even said that (and I'm not making this up), that it should be a mixed gender crew for purposes of compansionship.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun There are projects testing how human react to isolation. That is of course different from being isolated in a space ship or on mars. People with a very special psyche are needed.

If you have a mission which you know to be long term and you're counting on the stability of the human psyche to withstand isolation; its a fundamentally flawed premise from the outset. The mission MUST provide for human companionship or you WILL be creating the conditions for social instability.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun There are people that say that they would have taken a medicament that shortened their life if they won a gold medal in the Olympics. I would not. May be it is an experiment with those peoples life. But it is of course voluntarily. Life has always been risky. Some professions are more risky than other. If it is done correctly, it may even be less risky than some of the most risky earth professions..

Well, you're saying that they're not coming back, so it removes the question from the abstract into the real. People will tend to discount future risks for present gain/pleasure (cigarettes, steroids, alcohol, etc)

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun I think the cited scientist's idea of sending old people to mars to die there, is bad. In my opinion there are two realistic options:

Perhaps, but whereas Jules Verne was prescient by predicting man's eventual ventures into space, Arthur C. Clarke isn't looking to good with 2001 a Space Odyssee now, is he? Our ability to 'harness energy' has essentially plateaued. If you went back to 1900 you would see a world largely driven by horses with some areas beginning to industrialize and harness coal (steam), by 1950, you see that we're harnessing oil, etc, but here's the thing, its now 2009, the 'planes, trains and automobiles' are all moving at the 'same' speed they did in 1950. This increase between 1950 and 1900 had major impacts on quality of life, etc.

There is a theoretical scale out there which I think you would like called the Kardashev scale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

Really, we're not any farther along on that scale and to be frank there is no inkling that we're even close to obtaining any great new energy source.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun Agree, but one project need not exclude the other.

Aside from the fact that terraforming an entire planet reeks of hubris; my point isn't that one would preclude the other, but that you have to crawl before you walk. Looking at the deserts in the world, the Atacama sticks out because its rain shadowed by the Andes and yet the entire Pacific Ocean (all the water you could want) is right there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun Agree.

They should’ve done both. The US Flag to acknowledge that it was a US funded venture and the UN flag to represent the fact that the accomplishment represents the accumulated of knowledge of mankind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun At least, that would finally burst the Gold bubble.

Hehe, indeed, perhaps it would be so plentiful that gold would actually be used as a conductor (like copper, gold is used but only in special applications where its cost warrants it)

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun Some scientists like Professor Stepen W. Hawking say that there are no other option for mankind in the long run. According to Keynes we are all dead in the long run. Hopefully mankind survive, but I admit that there is a no zero probability that his words are literally correct.

Eventually the sun will engulf the Earth, so he’s correct, if we don’t have settlements off of it, mankind will indeed perish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun My personal opinion.

I would say MUCH improved. The space lift would be good because if you power it from solar power in space, you eliminate the ‘problem’ of gravity and it makes the process technically more efficient.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun The security has to be better. Todays computeres are so strong that there should be no computer over load as there was on the Apollo project.

From what I read apparently our activities in orbit have made quite a mess up there that makes it fairly dangerous at the moment. But you are correct, mankinds computing power HAS improved exponentially

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun The expansion should be gradual where each step is tested and secured.

‘baby steps’ is probably the best route at the moment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun Bigger space stations.

Modular

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun Settling on the moon as a better (intermediate) place for future expansiopn (less gravity) than the earth.

It does have less gravity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun Do you know the magnitude of the oil platforms in the North Sea? The Eiffel tower can be placed below them.

Yes, I know they are large

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun There is one big advantage by building in space. The form is not so important and it is very easy to move big sections. You can keep big sections tied together with a rope. Don't think earth conditions and gravity. There are of course other problems like radiation etc.

Well, its more accurate to say that there are different challenges. Its easier to get something moving (no friction or gravity), but unfortunately the law ‘objects in motion tend to stay in motion’ applies, so now you have to worry about stopping the thing; whereas on Earth gravity would do that for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun Better energy solutions. The use of solar, nuclear and other energy.

The key for space is solar. If we could make solar cells more efficient, that would be nice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun Exploring the space for water - Hydrogen + Oxygen.

You need a lot of factors going your way. Suppose for example that Mars actually had an atmosphere with ratios of gases identical to Earth’s. Problem 1 is solved, the air is breathable.(In actuality its 95% CO2, 3% N2, and trace O2 and water) Problem #2, there just isn’t enough pressure (I looked it up, its about 1% of the pressure that exists on Earth), unfortunately you would most assuredly be unable to survive. You don’t even get to Problem #3 which is temperature (looked that up, looks like it ranges from -87C -> -5C with a MEAN of -46C) and in that case its technically survivable for at least a short time with proper clothing. As a matter of fact, its SO cold, the pressure actually changes because the CO2 actually freezes out of the atmosphere. (I wonder if that is even a potential solution to the global warming issue, ie. if we won’t stop putting the CO2 in and we can’t plant enough trees to take it out can we just go to the poles and FREEZE it out)

__________________

In a heartbeat, with no hesitation whatsoever..








I hope my wife comes with me..

__________________
Steve : Animal Charms Animal Jewelry | Fishing Blog
The existence of the flame thrower proves that at one time, some person said, "You know? I'd like to set that group of people on fire but they're too far away."

They lose me on 'You'll be drinking recycled urine'

Plus, you know you'll be on camera so that every Tom, Dick and Harry can log on and watch you pick your nose, additionally getting voted off the spaceship has harsh, harsh repurcussions.

Round trip, I'd grin and bear it....one way....no way.

Being famous for all eternity has its appeal, no doubt, being famous, alive, and on Earth, now we're talking.....

__________________

Its recycled??? You mean I've been drinking is straight as a practice for no good reason????????

There would definitely be a Big Brother aspect to it that would take some getting used to..

While studying architecture we had a pilot / experimental program where we worked with NASA and several other groups like JPL, current and former astronauts, etc., developing living spaces for extreme environments.. It seems that people in the program had discovered that living quarters designed by engineers weren't very comfortable over extended stays.. So they decided to let architects design the living quarters with input from engineers..

It was an eye opening experiment and one of the groups was chosen to design the new living space in Antarctica as a first stage to developing for living on the moon / Mars..

__________________
Steve : Animal Charms Animal Jewelry | Fishing Blog
The existence of the flame thrower proves that at one time, some person said, "You know? I'd like to set that group of people on fire but they're too far away."