Recommend Space related reading for a (very bright) 12yr old boy

On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 12:39:14PM -0800, Matt wrote:
On Dec 17, 11:51 am, BradGuth wrote:
On Dec 17, 10:17 am, Matt wrote:

On Dec 17, 8:51 am, BradGuth wrote:

Isn't there a little something about telling the truth that's good
enough for a 5th grader?

Thanks to Brad you have an example to use in teaching your 12-year-old
another lesson: that people are free to post absolutely ridiculous,
disproven "truths" on the Internet.

Matt Billewww.mattwriter.com

In other words, those pesky regular laws of physics and of the best
available science that's getting replicated outside of your pretend
atheist mindset is of such "absolutely ridiculous, disproven
"truths"". Go figure.

No wonder your brown-nosed kind had to invent all of those "disproven
truths" about Muslim WMD, just like your swarm of faith-based
intelligence having puppeteered Hitler in order to get your semitic
domination way, as well as having perpetrated that spendy cold-war and
still backing our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) and of promoting his
global polluting energy cartel for all it's worth. Way to go, Matt
Bille.
- Brad Guth

I suppose I'm honored that I'm worthy of a putdown, but it's
impossible for anyone of truly scientific mind to accept that the
thousands of engineers, astronauts, and others who would have to be in
on an "Apollo hoax" have never talked, never leaked an authenticated
document, etc. (Brad's view of the Moon would also required hoaxed
reports from the Surveyor probes, the Voshkods, Clementine, etc., all
of which agreed with Apollo findings on the makeup of the lunar
geology and the properties of the lunar surface.)

It is worth noting, however, that there are many things unknown about
the Moon. I recently attended a conference where Dr. Maria Zuber,
Head of Dept of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, MIT,
mentioned how much we still have to learn about the Moon - we still
don't really know if there's any water ice, whether the Moon has a
core, etc. Zuber is a Mars expert who is now turning her own
attention to lunar spacecraft. NASA's Project Constellation explorers,
who are almost certain to be the first humans to set foot on the Moon
since Apollo 17, have a great deal of science to do. A fleet of
robotic spacecraft, some already in lunar orbit, likewise will tell us
much more.

Let's think about this a little before we go off and strip-mine the moon
for its minerals and such. If we do establish the moon's deep composition
with future Lunar space missions, and find that tunneling and mining
operations will provide copious raw materials for building off-Earth
settlements, let's take some care to preserve the poor old moon's good
looks, eh? Consider how many buildings are being torn down today and much
larger structures built on their land while sometimes preserving historic
brick and stone facades. If we do mine the moon's interior, hopefully we
can shore up the surface features so we don't have to look up at night at
great industrial scars covering the face of this planet's ancient
companion.


Regards,

Steve

--
Resolve to gather your shiny pebbles and move on to better things in the
happy new year.

The Last of the Great Observatories: Spitzer And the Era of Faster,
Better, Cheaper at Nasa
by George H. Rieke

I rather liked it. Warning: it is kinda boring, in a project-
management-of-big-space-science kinda way. But it covers quite a
timeline of NASA, from the project start in the mid-80's to the launch
in 2003.

There is a lot of coverage of project politics and money grabbing,
with some snippy remarks about the shuttles and the ISS (fully
deserved, IMHO). At the same time, it gives you a pretty good idea of
the huge challenges in launching a spacecraft. Things like faulty
machinery, bad test results, software overruns, fickle Congressional
funding, custom-made/non-serviceable hardware... The pros and cons of
faster, better, cheaper. Risk assessment of what can cause failures.
For one thing, it gave me a newfound respect for some, not all,
branches of NASA: this stuff is _hard_.

i.e. somewhat boring, but it might also bring the kid down to earth in
understanding that those nice shiny machines are a bear to get going.
Whether or not _that_ is a good thing is for you to decide.

Cheers

Douhet-did-suck

On Dec 26, 5:20 pm, "Steve wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 12:39:14PM -0800, Matt wrote:
On Dec 17, 11:51 am, BradGuth wrote:
On Dec 17, 10:17 am, Matt wrote:

On Dec 17, 8:51 am, BradGuth wrote:

Isn't there a little something about telling the truth that's good
enough for a 5th grader?

Thanks to Brad you have an example to use in teaching your 12-year-old
another lesson: that people are free to post absolutely ridiculous,
disproven "truths" on the Internet.

Matt Billewww.mattwriter.com

In other words, those pesky regular laws of physics and of the best
available science that's getting replicated outside of your pretend
atheist mindset is of such "absolutely ridiculous, disproven
"truths"". Go figure.

No wonder your brown-nosed kind had to invent all of those "disproven
truths" about Muslim WMD, just like your swarm of faith-based
intelligence having puppeteered Hitler in order to get your semitic
domination way, as well as having perpetrated that spendy cold-war and
still backing our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) and of promoting his
global polluting energy cartel for all it's worth. Way to go, Matt
Bille.
- Brad Guth

I suppose I'm honored that I'm worthy of a putdown, but it's
impossible for anyone of truly scientific mind to accept that the
thousands of engineers, astronauts, and others who would have to be in
on an "Apollo hoax" have never talked, never leaked an authenticated
document, etc. (Brad's view of the Moon would also required hoaxed
reports from the Surveyor probes, the Voshkods, Clementine, etc., all
of which agreed with Apollo findings on the makeup of the lunar
geology and the properties of the lunar surface.)

It is worth noting, however, that there are many things unknown about
the Moon. I recently attended a conference where Dr. Maria Zuber,
Head of Dept of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, MIT,
mentioned how much we still have to learn about the Moon - we still
don't really know if there's any water ice, whether the Moon has a
core, etc. Zuber is a Mars expert who is now turning her own
attention to lunar spacecraft. NASA's Project Constellation explorers,
who are almost certain to be the first humans to set foot on the Moon
since Apollo 17, have a great deal of science to do. A fleet of
robotic spacecraft, some already in lunar orbit, likewise will tell us
much more.

Let's think about this a little before we go off and strip-mine the moon
for its minerals and such. If we do establish the moon's deep composition
with future Lunar space missions, and find that tunneling and mining
operations will provide copious raw materials for building off-Earth
settlements, let's take some care to preserve the poor old moon's good
looks, eh? Consider how many buildings are being torn down today and much
larger structures built on their land while sometimes preserving historic
brick and stone facades. If we do mine the moon's interior, hopefully we
can shore up the surface features so we don't have to look up at night at
great industrial scars covering the face of this planet's ancient
companion.

Regards,

Steve

--
Resolve to gather your shiny pebbles and move on to better things in the
happy new year.

Most of anything human related with accomplishing our physically dark
and gamma saturated moon is going to be underground or situated much
deeper within.

The only thing you might see rather clearly with the likes of KECK is
of the massive LSE-CM/ISS that China will most likely establish within
or just a little to this side of the moon's L1.

- Brad Guth