|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Astronauts want to go to the moon
Several comments yesterday afternoon by astronauts seems to suggest to me
that they want to go back to the moon, not an asteroid. I guess the topic came up due to the moon being very visible so i understand during the space walk, but the comments did seem to be unquestioned and maybe un noticed, but I heard them. Brian -- From the Bed of Brian Gaff. The email is valid as Blind user. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Astronauts want to go to the moon
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Astronauts want to go to the moon
On 6/09/2012 11:24 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
It's visible, but I'd argue that we've "been there, done that". Note how coverage of the lunar missions peaked with Apollo 11 then tapered off until the O2 tank blew on Apollo 13. The same thing will happen with Mars missions. While people have been to the Moon, there's not that much difference between the Moon and Mars either. One beauty about the Moon is it's always visible to the Near Side, whereas Mars isn't; that's at least comforting. Exploring an asteroid that's *far* away from earth, as opposed to the moon which is *in our backyard* would be far more interesting, IMHO. Same thing with Moon/Mars missions. In a lot of ways, a smallish asteroid is far easier to explore than the moon since you don't need much of a lander, due to the very low delta-V required to "land" and "takeoff". If the asteroid is small enough, you don't need a lander at all. You can just "land" your Orion/hab/propulsion stack right on the thing. And have it bounce off too. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Astronauts want to go to the moon
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Astronauts want to go to the moon
Actually are we not looking at this the wrong way. Why do we need coverage
coverage coverage in the midia. Most of the interesting stuff happens in science without cameras showing it all the time after all. If we want to be going off world one needs to take it a little step at a time gradually letting go of the earth support. I do not think we are anywhere near ready for that just yet. the moon is a fair way, but not out in the asteroid belt where a blown major item is next to impossible to replace. Brian -- -- From the sofa of Brian Gaff - Blind user, so no pictures please! "Jeff Findley" wrote in message ... In article om, says... On 6/09/2012 11:24 PM, Jeff Findley wrote: It's visible, but I'd argue that we've "been there, done that". Note how coverage of the lunar missions peaked with Apollo 11 then tapered off until the O2 tank blew on Apollo 13. The same thing will happen with Mars missions. While people have been to the Moon, there's not that much difference between the Moon and Mars either. One beauty about the Moon is it's always visible to the Near Side, whereas Mars isn't; that's at least comforting. True. Exploring an asteroid that's *far* away from earth, as opposed to the moon which is *in our backyard* would be far more interesting, IMHO. Same thing with Moon/Mars missions. Also true. In a lot of ways, a smallish asteroid is far easier to explore than the moon since you don't need much of a lander, due to the very low delta-V required to "land" and "takeoff". If the asteroid is small enough, you don't need a lander at all. You can just "land" your Orion/hab/propulsion stack right on the thing. And have it bounce off too. If the gravity is low enough that could be an issue. Mechanically anchoring the craft to the asteroid might be useful. Jeff -- "the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Astronauts want to go to the moon
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Astronauts want to go to the moon
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message ... Actually are we not looking at this the wrong way. Why do we need coverage coverage coverage in the midia. Most of the interesting stuff happens in science without cameras showing it all the time after all. If we want to be going off world one needs to take it a little step at a time gradually letting go of the earth support. I do not think we are anywhere near ready for that just yet. the moon is a fair way, but not out in the asteroid belt where a blown major item is next to impossible to replace. Brian Generally I agree. But to twist an old phrase, "No Buck Rogers, no bucks". Manned space tends to help unmanned space. There's something to be said about "being there". -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Astronauts really did go to the moon, says Alien | L.A.T.[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | July 29th 08 05:31 AM |
First Men on the Moon - DRESS REHEARSAL -- Astronauts or AstroNOTS? | Jesper Thomsen | Space Shuttle | 1 | July 21st 06 04:19 PM |
China shelves plan for astronauts on moon | Dave Downing | History | 23 | June 22nd 04 10:39 PM |
Did The Apollo Astronauts See The Moon Or Earth 'Approaching'? | Skip Freeman | Amateur Astronomy | 6 | September 20th 03 08:41 AM |