Chances of Bush moon-Mars program surviving

In article ,
Martha H Adams wrote:
Just imagine: Apollo continues as it started. Flight hardware from
Saturn Vs to small modules is in production with the expectable
incremental improvements as state of the art develops. Small and then
larger settlements on the moon, so people can study Out There how to
live Out The so much better than any amount of sitting in a chair
and reading and writing books. Where would we be today?

Hard to make specific predictions, because it depends on too many details.

One prediction I would make, not a sure thing but fairly likely: all
persons resident on the Moon would be US government employees. The Moon
would be a centrally-planned company town, with any hint of free
enterprise a violation of regulations, just like the US side of ISS today.

And *you* and *I* would still be as firmly on the ground as ever. More so.

I'm not convinced that would be an improvement.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

"Jon Berndt" wrote in message ...
"Chosp" wrote

Two points, once again.
The moon is not as good a place to put optical telescopes as
in space. There are huge pointing problems that occur because
the moon blocks the way. These problems wouldn't occur
with free floating telescopes - even arrays would be better
off in space.

Note that any scope in earth orbit will have the same kind of problem. I
assume you are talking about placing a telescope farther from earth?

Second, if they are too cheap and timid to maintain (or even finish)
a space telescope in low earth orbit - what in the world makes
you think they will EVER acquire the courage or audacity to finish
ANYTHING on the moon - much less maintain it?

I've thought about this. One might assume that it is the shuttle itself
that they are concerned with, as I believe they have stated. This assumes
that any spacecraft that are used for the impending moon missions would be
safer. You ask an interesting question, though.

Jon

For optical telescopes, the moon has an advantage:
- a fixed platform to allow baseline inferometry
and disadvantages:
- gravity to distort lenses
- half the pointing area unaccessible

Overall, Very high Earth Orbit is probably a better location.

For Radio Telescopes, the moon has an advantage:
- Earth is blocked out
and disadvantages:
- gravity limits the size of the construction
- baseline inferometry islimited by the moon's small diameter

I think the best radio telescope location is orbiting the sun.

I think in 20 years we could have three 1km diameter telescopes
orbiting at 180 million kilometers (so that they pass within 30
million km of Earth every few years). They would be "connected" by
lasers transferring data and accurately measuring their distance
apart.

In about 50 years we could have three 10km diameter telescopes
orbiting thre sun a billion kilometers out.

What are the limits to this?

Henry Spencer wrote:
In article ,
Martha H Adams wrote:
Just imagine: Apollo continues as it started. Flight hardware from
Saturn Vs to small modules is in production with the expectable
incremental improvements as state of the art develops. Small and then
larger settlements on the moon, so people can study Out There how to
live Out The so much better than any amount of sitting in a chair
and reading and writing books. Where would we be today?

Hard to make specific predictions, because it depends on too many details.

One prediction I would make, not a sure thing but fairly likely: all
persons resident on the Moon would be US government employees. The Moon
would be a centrally-planned company town, with any hint of free
enterprise a violation of regulations, just like the US side of ISS today.

But this will neccesarily follow from any US government led Moon initiative,
whetever past, present or future.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:31:32 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
Sander Vesik made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

One prediction I would make, not a sure thing but fairly likely: all
persons resident on the Moon would be US government employees. The Moon
would be a centrally-planned company town, with any hint of free
enterprise a violation of regulations, just like the US side of ISS today.

But this will neccesarily follow from any US government led Moon initiative,
whetever past, present or future.

No. it depends entirely on the nature of the initiative.

The Hubble Space Telescope has far fewer pointing constraints than
would an equivalent telescope on the surface of the moon.


Three points: a lunar based telescope would get a full choice of
pointing options over the period of a lunar day and night. Second,
it wouldn't be subject to the frequent changes in heat and
cold as compared to Hubble which is in LEO. Third, a lunar
telescope could be serviced or have its servicing deferred
and still be used another day as long as supply ships and astronauts
continued to come to do the servicing. A lunar base wouldn't
always need humans for the purposes of their routine operation
of telescopes. For lunar industries, the base would need to be a city.

However, I agree the unmanned space telescope missions
should continue. The construction and support of a lunar
base seems to be a distant prospect.... IMO.......decades off at best.
And a lunar city at least a century off.

One pessimist to another..............William A. Noyes

"William A. Noyes" wrote in message
m...


The Hubble Space Telescope has far fewer pointing constraints than
would an equivalent telescope on the surface of the moon.


Three points: a lunar based telescope would get a full choice of
pointing options over the period of a lunar day and night.

A telescope on the northern hemisphere will never see all
the all of the southern sky. A telescope on the southern
hemisphere will never see all of the northern sky.
A telescope on the equator will see neither pole
for half the time due to reflected light from the
moon's surface.
Hubble has none of these constraints.

Second,
it wouldn't be subject to the frequent changes in heat and
cold as compared to Hubble which is in LEO.

Hubble was designed for those conditions.
They don't really affect its performance.

Third, a lunar
telescope could be serviced or have its servicing deferred
and still be used another day as long as supply ships and astronauts
continued to come to do the servicing.

The same could be said of Hubble.
Less risk of dust contamination on Hubble though.
Besides, if they abandon Hubble they will just as likely
abandon the moon and any telescopes on it.

A lunar base wouldn't
always need humans for the purposes of their routine operation
of telescopes.

Neither does Hubble.