A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 12th 08, 02:51 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews

On Mar 12, 8:52*am, wrote:
On Mar 12, 8:28 am, wrote:

The Shuttle got funded,
but not without getting a huge makeover by the Airforce that
dramatically increased development cost with wings engines and tiles
it didn't really need and the Army, that mandated SRBs which were
dangerous and low performing, in lieu of a fully reusable first stage,
increased operating costs.


Among with the other crazy non existent crap in your rant,

The Army had nothing to do with the Shuttle


Thiokol did - to the everlasting chagrin of vonBraun who wanted
nothing to do with the SRBs. I count them as army.

By the early 1970's there was concern that although national satellite
systems were providing essential capabilities to the national and
strategic levels, tactical users in the military services were not
being provided adequate access to these classified systems.

In 1973, the Army took the lead by establishing the Army Space Program
Office (ASPO) to execute the Army Tactical Exploitation of National
Capabilities Program (TENCOP), serve as the unique technical and
fiscal interface with the national program offices, and manage the
TENCAP material acquisition. The Army's TENCAP program is based on
exploiting current and future tactical potential of national
capabilities and integrating these capabilities into the Army's
tactical decision making process as rapidly as possible. This approach
was so successful that Congress ordered all services to establish a
TENCAP program based on the Army's model in 1977.


National systems are designed to support strategic requirements. The
ASPO leverages the national technology to provide downlinking of these
strategic systems to tactical levels. This data provides and accurate
and current picture of the enemy and the terrain during planning and
execution. National data combined with data from other sources
significantly enhances the Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield
(IPB). For Haiti, TENCAP systems provided the primary source of
imagery directly to the JTF Commander's analysts for planning the
operation and executing the initial assault. For Desert Storm, TENCAP
systems provided the majority of targeting support for deep operations
and imagery for IPB support of operation planning/maneuver for both
XVIII and VII Corps. TENCAP systems are also a significant source of
support to humanitarian efforts. For Hurricane Andrew, TENCAP systems
provided the quickest and most detailed damage assessment to the task
force commander. TENCAP's secondary dissemination and intelligence
broadcast capabilities provide the quickest and most detailed damage
assessment to the task force commander. TENCAP secondary dissemination
and intelligence broadcast capabilities provide continuing awareness
through all phases of operations. They provide the tactical commander
the ability to "see deep" in today's battlefield and then to assess
the impact of shooting deep. ASPO has developed and fielded over
ninety systems to both Army and air Force tactical units. After twenty
years the ASPO charter was revalidated in 1993. Today the Army TENCAP
program is the largest and most successful of the individual services
programs.

Since the beginning of the Space shuttle Program, eight Army personnel
have been selected by NASA as Space Shuttle astronauts. All have flown
on Space Shuttle Missions as Mission Specialists. Additionally, one
Army Warrant Officer has flown as a Payload Specialist. Applications
for assignment as Space Shuttle Astronauts are submitted through the
U.S. Army Personnel Command to NASA. Selection to the Astronaut
Program is made by NASA.

In 1980, three Army officers were assigned to the Johnson Space Center
(JSC) in support roles as part of memorandum of understanding between
NASA and the DA. They were the initial contingent of what became the
JSC Detachment of the Army Space Agency (now the U.S. Army Space
Command) in 1987. Numerous other Army personnel have subsequently
filled positions in Houston, gaining space operations experience to
bring back to the Army, or moving into the NASA Astronaut Corps.


LTC Sherwood "Woody" Spring d. LTC Sherwood "Woody" Spring, selected
by NASA in 1980, flew as a Mission Specialist on STS-61B (Atlantis)
from 26 November to 3 December 1985. During the mission, the crew
deployed three communications satellites. Additionally, LTC Spring and
USAF MAJ Jerry Ross conducted and EVA to demonstrate the feasibility
of constructing trusses in space.

In January 1987, the U.S. Army Space Agency's NASA Detachment was
established at Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas. Army astronauts
and other Army personnel working at NASA are assigned to this unit.
Later in 1987, the Army presented a concept briefing to the DOD
Military*Man*in*Space Prioritization Board for two manned experiments,
Terra Scout and Terra Geode, to be conducted on the Space Shuttle.
Terra Scout received a high priority and was manifested in September
1991.

LTC James C. Adamson was a Mission Specialist on STS*28 (Columbia)
which conducted a classified DOD mission from August 8 * 13, 1989. COL
Adamson flew again on STS-43 (Atlantis), 2-11 August 1991, which
deployed a communications satellite. MAJ Charles "Sam" Gemar flew as a
mission specialist on STS*38 (Atlantis), a classified DOD mission,
from 15-20 November 1990. LTC Gemar's second mission was STS-48
(Discovery), 12-18 September 1991, which deployed an atmospheric
research satellite. His third flight was STS-62 (Columbia), 4-18 March
1994, a microgravity research mission where the Shuttle was lowered to
105 nautical miles, the lowest ever flown by a Space Shuttle. LTC
James S. "Jim" Voss and CW3 Tom Hennen flew onboard STS-44 (Atlantis)
in November 1991. During this mission a Defense Support Program (DSP)
satellite was deployed with an Inertial Upper State rocket booster.
Also, CW3 Hennen conducted the Terra Scout experiment. In December
1992, LTC Voss and LTC M. Richard "Rich" Clifford were crewmembers
aboard STS-53 (Discovery) which carried a classified payload on the
last DOD Shuttle flight. This was the first time that two Army
officers were on the same shuttle flight. COL Voss' third mission was
on STS-69 (Endeavour) which deployed and retrieved two research
satellites. During this mission, COL Voss conducted and EVA to develop
techniques to be used in the construction of the International Space
Station. LTC Clifford was subsequently assigned to the crew of STS-59
(Endeavour) which conducted radar mapping of the surface and
atmosphere of the earth 9-20 April 1994. His third Shuttle mission,
STS-76 (Atlantis) took place in the Spring 1996. STS-76 will be the
third Shuttle flight to rendezvous and dock with the Russian Space
Station Mir. MAJ Nancy J. Currie (formerly Nancy Sherlock) was a
crewmember on STS-57 (Endeavour), 21 June-1 July 1993, which retrieved
a European research satellite. MAJ Currie became the first Army female
officer in space. Her second mission was STS-70 (Discovery), 13-22
July 1995, during which a NASA Tracking and Data Relay communications
satellite was deployed. LTC William S. "Bill" McArthur served as a
Mission Specialist on STS-58 (Columbia), a record seven-person life
science duration medical research flight. His second flight, STS-74
(Atlantis) took place in Fall 1995. STS-74 was the second Shuttle
mission to rendezvous and dock with the Russian Space Station Mir.

The U.S. Air Force Space Command was activated in September 1982.

In March 1983, President Reagan announced the Strategic Defense
Initiative (SDI). This was a major shift in national defense
philosophy from massive retaliation to an active, non-nuclear defense
that would be able to defend the United States against ICBMs. Later
that year, DOD formed the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization
(SDIO) to manage the SDI research and development program and
coordinate work within DOD.

Also in 1983, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army (VCSA) formed the
Army Space Council made up of designated general officers. The Army
Space Council meets periodically to coordinate actions, approve
proposals and provide guidance on Army involvement in and use of
space. Staff responsibilities, were, however, split among many offices
within Headquarters, Department of the Army in the Pentagon. The Army
Space Executive Working Group was formed to coordinate and work on
space related actions, especially those that would go before the Space
Council.
Army Science Board

In 1984, the Army Science Board studied the Army's use of space to
support its missions. The board concluded that the Army made only
minor use of existing space capabilities and was not active nor
influential in the design and operation of most of the systems.

In January 1985, the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) directed
that a Space Directorate be formed at Fort Leavenworth. The Space
Directorate consisted of six people assigned to the Combined Arms
Combat Developments Activity (CACDA). This directorate was tasked with
developing concepts, doctrine and operational requirements for the use
of space to support Army operations.
Army Space Initiatives Study

In May 1985, General Thurman, the VCSA directed that a special study
group be formed for six months to analyze how the Army should use
space and the Army's role in space. The Deputy Chief of Staff for
Operations and Plans (DCSOPS) of the Army directed the establishment
of the Army Space Initiatives Study (ASIS) group of 30 officers from
throughout the Army be formed at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas to develop a
blueprint for future Army involvement and investment in space that
would enhance Army land operations around the world.

On 1 July 1985, the U.S. Army Strategic Defense Command was activated
using the resources of the Army's Ballistic Missile Defense Command
(BMDSCOM) in Huntsville, Alabama.

By August 1985, the Concepts Directorate of CACDA, with assistance
from the Space Directorate, had prepared an interim operational
concept titled Army Space Operations.

On 23 September 1985, DoD established the United States Space Command
(USSPACECOM) as a unified command with its headquarters at Peterson
Air Force Base, Colorado Springs, Colorado.

Following World War II, the U.S. military became a leader in the
development and use of space. These space capabilities continue to
evolve as new technology is incorporated and users place greater and
greater demands on space systems.

The U.S. Army has had an important role in the development and use of
space systems. In the early stages of the U.S. space program, the Army
was instrumental in the development of rockets and satellites. The
first U.S. satellite was launched into orbit by an Army Redstone
rocket. Many of the Army's rocket and satellite programs were
transferred to NASA shortly after it was created in 1958.

The Army has always maintained heavy involvement in the design,
development and operation of space systems. Since the mid*1980's, the
Army has undergone an increase in the use of space systems to support
its operations. This increased use of space systems resulted in new or
improved capabilities during Operation DESERT STORM. Space systems
provided essential support in the areas of communications,
reconnaissance, surveillance, target acquisition, weather, terrain
analysis, position/navigation and early warning. All of the space
systems used were already in existence but their incorporation into
the Army was accelerated. This was the outcome of an evolutionary
process that is still on*going.

The U.S. space program was fragmented with efforts by the Army, Navy
and Air Force. The military services were competing as hard against
each other as they were against the Soviets. President Eisenhower's
scientific advisor, Dr. James R. Killian, president of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), was tasked to study the
situation and present a recommendation to the President. The military
services lobbied hard to maintain control of the nation's space
effort. Influenced by the President's "Space for Peace" policy, Dr.
Killian recommended the establishment of a civilian agency to handle
all aspects of research and development with civilian scientists
guiding the space program.

While plans for this new agency were tied up in red tape, the
President could not let time and events overtake our space program. He
directed the establishment of the Advanced Research Projects Agency
(ARPA) within the Department of Defense. ARPA's plans for space
exploration were soon approved by the President, and in a sense ARPA
was the first U.S. space agency.

In June 1958, the National Aeronautics and Space Act was adopted. This
act created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
effective on 1 October 1958, and gave it a broad charter for civilian
aeronautical and space research. The core of NASA's facilities came
from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) which was
disbanded. The Air Force would continue development of ICBMs and the
Navy could continue development of sea*launched rockets although the
Navy did transfer Project Vanguard and part of the Naval Research Lab
to NASA in November 1958. The Army could continue to develop IRBMs but
would transfer much of its rocket program to NASA. Most NASA
facilities, launch sites and test ranges have been, and continue to
be, built under the supervision of the Army Corps of Engineers.

In 1961, the Department of Defense assigned the mission of managing
and operating U.S. military space launch vehicles and satellites to
the Air Force.

Doubtless this is where you got the idea that the army had nothing to
do with things. Well, a major army contractor then. Happy? Likely
not.

The Thiokol Chemical Company was founded in 1929. Its initial business
was a range of synthetic rubber and polymer sealants, and Thiokol was
a major supplier of liquid polymer sealants during World War II. When
scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory discovered Thiokol's
polymers made ideal rocket fuels, Thiokol moved into the new field,
opening laboratories at Elkton, Maryland, and later production
facilities at Elkton and at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama.
Huntsville produced the XM33 Pollux, TX-18 Falcon, and TX-135 Nike-
Zeus systems. It closed in 1996. In the mid 1950s the company bought
extensive lands in Utah for its rocket test range, and continues to
have major operations in the state, at Magna and Promontory Utah. home
of the Space Shuttle's SRB, and its current headquarters at Brigham
City.

The original Shuttle design did not have SRBs, it had a liquid fueled
flyback first stage - a fully reusable system. It didn't have high
cross-range, and didn't need tiles or wings. It used J2 engines, and
didn't need an SSME- built around the best of the Apollo hardware and
experience.


Ads
  #12  
Old March 12th 08, 02:55 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews

On Mar 12, 8:57*am, "
wrote:
On Mar 12, 7:28*am, wrote:



Get a clue people. *Eisenhower was advised that the National Academy
of Sciences should operate as a board directing NASAs strategic
direction and growth - a Space Council that recieves a set amount of
funding each year for five or ten year terms. *Eisenhower ignored
this.


To the best of your knowledge, or alternatively, in your opinion, what
was Reagan's attitude toward or relationship with the National Academy
of Sciences?

Does anyone know where the phrase - to boldly go where no man has gone
before - came from?


It did not come from Gene Roddenberry.


I will give the pointer to the source to anyone who asks.


Okay, thanks in advance.

JTM


http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/report61.html

The Weisner Report briefing President Elect Kennedy on our space
capabilities.

Given time, a desire, considerable innovation, and sufficient effort
and money, man can eventually explore our solar system. Given his
enormous curiosity about the universe in which he lives and his
compelling urge to go where no one has ever been before, this will be
done.

  #13  
Old March 12th 08, 03:11 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 349
Default Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews

On Mar 12, 8:55*am, wrote:
On Mar 12, 8:57*am, "
wrote:





On Mar 12, 7:28*am, wrote:


Get a clue people. *Eisenhower was advised that the National Academy
of Sciences should operate as a board directing NASAs strategic
direction and growth - a Space Council that recieves a set amount of
funding each year for five or ten year terms. *Eisenhower ignored
this.


To the best of your knowledge, or alternatively, in your opinion, what
was Reagan's attitude toward or relationship with the National Academy
of Sciences?


Does anyone know where the phrase - to boldly go where no man has gone
before - came from?


It did not come from Gene Roddenberry.


I will give the pointer to the source to anyone who asks.


Okay, thanks in advance.


JTM


http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/report61.html

The Weisner Report briefing President Elect Kennedy on our space
capabilities.

Given time, a desire, considerable innovation, and sufficient effort
and money, man can eventually explore our solar system. Given his
enormous curiosity about the universe in which he lives and his
compelling urge to go where no one has ever been before, this will be
done.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


You not so neatly avoided my question about Reagan's relationship with
the National Academy of Sciences.

JTM
  #14  
Old March 12th 08, 03:16 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews

On Mar 12, 8:52*am, wrote:
On Mar 12, 8:28 am, wrote:

The Shuttle got funded,
but not without getting a huge makeover by the Airforce that
dramatically increased development cost with wings engines and tiles
it didn't really need and the Army, that mandated SRBs which were
dangerous and low performing, in lieu of a fully reusable first stage,
increased operating costs.


Among with the other crazy non existent crap in your rant,


Eisenhower was described at the time 'lukewarm' to Sputnik. Kennedy
took a different tack and gain popular support. Specialists thought
the public reaction irrational and emotionally driven and felt a more
rational approach would be to ignore Sputnik and secretly pursue
military applications.

The Fuchs case weighed heavily on the President's mind and the fact
that he though the Russians were up to no good with the publicity they
were getting with this Sputnik thing. Its all in the declassified
documents..

http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/d...documents.html

A Civilian agency that was superior to military agencies in terms of
having access to all scientific and technical capabilities for
civilian use, a civilian agency that had a steady level of funding
each year, administered by a chief executive (vonBraun would have been
a good first candidate) and advised by a board of directors, would
remove NASA from much of the political wrangling. The same way the
National Science Foundation works. It is not up to individual
politicians or the President to decide on each research program or
activity. To put such power in the hands of politicians politicizes
the process. Overall funding, general direction, sure. But to fund
each program as a political process - turns NASA into a nightmare and
makes it impossible to function strategically. EISENHOWER KNEW THIS -
that's why he put it in the hands of the President to decide the role
of NASA - not a board of specialists who would inflame and exploit
public enthusiasm, perhaps with the help of space stunts from our
enemies. Kennedy represented the everything Eisenhower feared -
winning an election over a non-existant missile gap and plunging the
nation into a race for the moon and a long-term commitment to manned
solar system exploration.

LBJ reduced Kennedy's vision to landing a man on the moon.
Nixon reduced Kennedy's vision to man in space - which mean man on
orbit.
Ford and Carter ignored space
Reagan accentuated space again with SDI - until the Challenger
explosion.

Bush asked NASA what it would cost to return to the moon or go to Mars
-NASA said $100 billion - and Bush quietly forgot space - excepting as
VP he developed many connections to military uses of space -

Clinton ignored space - excepting Gore wanted a mission to Earth to
study the environment - Clinton declassified GPS.

  #15  
Old March 12th 08, 03:26 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews

On Mar 12, 10:11*am, "
wrote:
On Mar 12, 8:55*am, wrote:





On Mar 12, 8:57*am, "
wrote:


On Mar 12, 7:28*am, wrote:


Get a clue people. *Eisenhower was advised that the National Academy
of Sciences should operate as a board directing NASAs strategic
direction and growth - a Space Council that recieves a set amount of
funding each year for five or ten year terms. *Eisenhower ignored
this.


To the best of your knowledge, or alternatively, in your opinion, what
was Reagan's attitude toward or relationship with the National Academy
of Sciences?


Does anyone know where the phrase - to boldly go where no man has gone
before - came from?


It did not come from Gene Roddenberry.


I will give the pointer to the source to anyone who asks.


Okay, thanks in advance.


JTM


http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/report61.html


The Weisner Report briefing President Elect Kennedy on our space
capabilities.


Given time, a desire, considerable innovation, and sufficient effort
and money, man can eventually explore our solar system. Given his
enormous curiosity about the universe in which he lives and his
compelling urge to go where no one has ever been before, this will be
done.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


You not so neatly avoided my question about Reagan's relationship with
the National Academy of Sciences.

JTM- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I didn't see it sorry - it was seen by mee as -show quoted text -

http://www.fas.org/nuke/space/c06sdi_1.htm

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/

Ronald Reagan's records are no available on line the way Eisenhower
and Kennedy records are. So, I cannot say for sure. I do know that
after speaking with Edward Teller, Reagan did reach out to the
scientific community. OSTP was well established at that time and no
doubt coordinated his contact with the scientific community.

Like lil' Bush and WMDs in Iraq, Reagan tended to focus on the
conclusions he was after for strategic and national reasons having
nothing to do with science. As a result, there was a division between
'believers' and 'non-believers' in SDI. How this fell out, is hard to
tell without unfettered (and search engine enabled) access to
Presidential records from that time - organized by a thoughtful and
honest librarian historian.
  #16  
Old March 12th 08, 04:43 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 349
Default Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews

On Mar 11, 5:06*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
wrote:

Not an implication but a fact. *It wasn't just "military goals", it
was military missions, as simple as spacecraft delivery


MOL had nothing whatsoever to do with the Shuttle; it was a manned
reconsat that was canceled before the Shuttle program even started.


Charlie is hung up on the misconception that prior to Reagan's
inauguration, modifications to SLC-6 (originally developed for the
MOL) reflected military design of the space shuttle. Hence my mention
of "supporting structure," which you apparently overlooked or didn't
understand why you should consider, Pat.

In dozens of posts now, Charlie has plainly demonstrated no detailed
knowledge of any such modifications to SLC-6, at least not any that he
cares to post. We are to accept on blind faith that modifications
began at SLC-6 in 1979 and 1980, more specifically, modifications that
reflected the shuttle's *military* design.

The only work I'm aware of at SLC-6 during the Carter years was the
relocation of the tower by several feet. That was done only for the
*possibility* that SLC-6 might eventually launch a shuttle, *after* a
satisfactory military design had been approved for the shuttle and
military shuttle development had been funded.

Can you provide any support for Charlie's empty contention in this
regard, since he is obviously spinning about like a 45 platter stuck
on a soundless groove?

JTM

  #18  
Old March 12th 08, 05:03 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews

On Mar 12, 12:01*pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 05:52:48 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

On Mar 12, 8:28 am, wrote:
The Shuttle got funded,
but not without getting a huge makeover by the Airforce that
dramatically increased development cost with wings engines and tiles
it didn't really need and the Army, that mandated SRBs which were
dangerous and low performing, in lieu of a fully reusable first stage,
increased operating costs.


Among with the other crazy non existent crap in your rant,


The Army had nothing to do with the Shuttle


Mook seems to be going more and more over the deep end in recent
years. *Be careful. *If you disagree with him, he'll call you evil.


That's a lie Rand.

Evil is a perfectly legitimate concept.

I only call those things evil that may be any reasonable definition
might be defined by a reasonable person AS evil.

For example, someone who says that the poor and destitute of this
world should be denied any and all hope for a better life. That's a
pernicicous statement. When one adds that the rationale for this
denial of hope because they MIGHT be inspired to improve their
position. That's a shocking statement. Then when this person adds
their final reasoning, they support the previous two statements
because success MIGHT cause those in a superior position to have to
work harder to maintain their position.

That's evil Rand. Any person who subscribes to this view can rightly
be termed to BE evil.

I mean, apply that logic to your family. You would enslave a family
member and then deny them even the HOPE of a better life because the
MIGHT want to improve their position and that MIGHT adversely affect
any benefit you MIGHT get from their enslavement? wow.

shrug

It that isn't evil, what is?
  #19  
Old March 12th 08, 06:41 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,466
Default Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews



wrote:
What would this path have given us? For the same money spent on
Shuttle, by 1980s we would have had a human presence on the Moon equal
to that of Little American in Antarctica, and in the 1980s,


Unlike Antarctica, the Moon is difficult to get to, and even with Saturn
V's with nuclear upper stages, very expensive to supply a base on.
There's nothing there worth the effort of going there from a economic
point of view, and even from a scientific point of view its pretty
uninteresting. You may find water ice in the sunless valleys at the
poles, but you aren't going to find life of any sort.
Astronauts at a lunar base would soon find themselves bored out of their
minds from walking around in a barren, lifeless environment for two
weeks followed by hunkering down for a two week night, over and over again.
They could drive around in rovers, but even then they'd have to not
journey too far as they would still need to have the ability to walk
back to some sort of shelter with life support if the rover broke down.
Compared to the other moons of the solar system, our Moon is a very
boring place indeed.
It lacks volcanoes like Io, a atmosphere like Titan, a subsurface liquid
water ocean like Europa, Callisto, and Ganymede, nitrogen ice geysers
like Triton, or water ice geysers like Enceladus.
It's just a big dead ball of rock.
Like the summit of Mount Everest - once you get there, there's really
not much to do, so you plant a flag and head home again.

Pat
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews [email protected] Space Shuttle 81 March 26th 08 05:15 PM
NEED: Civilian/military space spending split over the years Jim Oberg Policy 7 December 7th 06 04:15 AM
NEED: Civilian/military space spending split over the years Jim Oberg History 7 December 7th 06 04:15 AM
First Civilian Astronaut Jo UK Astronomy 1 June 21st 04 07:11 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.