NASA begins moon return effort

"Old Physics" wrote in message
om...

Unfortunatly new lunar samples won't yield new science. The 842
pounds returned by the Apollo landings are ancient and bland. That
they are unique may be their saving virtue.

For the most part you may be right, but sample return from one of the poles
would be a fundamentally different thing.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of the National Non-sequitur Society. We may not make
much sense, but we do like pizza.

"Mike Combs" wrote in message ...
"Old Physics" wrote in message
om...

Unfortunatly new lunar samples won't yield new science. The 842
pounds returned by the Apollo landings are ancient and bland. That
they are unique may be their saving virtue.

For the most part you may be right, but sample return from one of the poles
would be a fundamentally different thing.


I forgot about that. Finding ice would be the most important
discovery short of evidence of life on mars. The trajectory problems
and the lack of solar power would make it a job for NASA or some other
nation's program.
Much of the discussion in this NG concerns the market for tourism.
I would guess the minimum mass per passenger would be around half a
ton to LEO. For the same launch expenditure you might be able to
return 100 lbs from the moon. Even at present that would be about
$200/gm of lunar material, low enough that there might be a market for
a few tons. It would be the first attempt to turn a profit off
exterrestrial resources. Or if debre from the asent stage were
retrieved, it would be one of the few times repatriated material
generated cash, the past record being set by Sotheby's auction in 1993
which netted more than six million.
It's all about perceived value and anticipation of appreciation.
The examination of the crash site with HD cameras would certainly make
the news. Making history by retriving a few pieces of history could
translate into a tidy sum from collectors.
Best of all it comes without the risk of loss of life. Pity the
insurance and travel agents if that ever came to pass.

Mike Combs ) wrote:
: "Old Physics" wrote in message
: om...
:
: Unfortunatly new lunar samples won't yield new science. The 842
: pounds returned by the Apollo landings are ancient and bland. That
: they are unique may be their saving virtue.

: For the most part you may be right, but sample return from one of the poles
: would be a fundamentally different thing.

Wouldn't a Lunar return mission be a nice test for a Mars return mission?
Both unmanned of course. I think the "proof oc concept" aspects plus the
lunar material, to a lesser degree, would be beneficial.

Eric

: --


: Regards,
: Mike Combs
: ----------------------------------------------------------------------
: Member of the National Non-sequitur Society. We may not make
: much sense, but we do like pizza.

"curlyQlink" wrote in message ink.net...
A truly looney idea.

There was only one reason for the Apollo mission: to beat the Russians.
Well, we beat 'em already.


That was the reason then. There could be new reasons to go
the the Moon in the forseeable future (to beat China, for
example). But I don't see the U.S. going anywhere in space
as long as the current multi-hundred-billion-dollar-war/
terrorism footing exists. I don't see how U.S. Govt
officials could possibly sell such an effort while still
issuing color coded alerts and while U.S. soldiers are still
involved in daily combat (in more than one country).

- Ed Kyle

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.space.policy.]
On 2004-08-06, Eric Chomko wrote:
Mike Combs ) wrote:
: "Old Physics" wrote in message
: om...
:
: Unfortunatly new lunar samples won't yield new science. The 842
: pounds returned by the Apollo landings are ancient and bland. That
: they are unique may be their saving virtue.

: For the most part you may be right, but sample return from one of the poles
: would be a fundamentally different thing.

Wouldn't a Lunar return mission be a nice test for a Mars return mission?
Both unmanned of course. I think the "proof oc concept" aspects plus the
lunar material, to a lesser degree, would be beneficial.

Not really.

The methods for landing a sample-return vehicle on the moon are notably
different from those on Mars; the sampling equipment would likely need
to be different enough to be an engineering hassle.

The major problem is the actual return vehicle; most plans for Mars
sample return involve ISRU (making fuel in-situ) in order to make the
vehicle suitably lightweight (and allow a greater return mass) that it's
a viable mission. (It also means you can have an engineering proof of
ISRU, without having to waste much of a mission's payload taking along
an unproductive chemical lab)

ISRU is, currently, impractical on the moon - and it *certainly*
is impossible for the ISRU concepts put forwards for Mars, which involve
the atmosphere as feedstock.

By the time you've re-engineered enough of your hardware to land &
function on the moon, you've pretty much designed a seperate probe with
a vaguely similar task.

Proof of concept... well, we know we can do sample-return from the moon,
it's been done. It would be useful to be able to test the sample-return
procedures before The Samples come back, but there's no need to set up a
lunar-return program for that.

Yeah, the samples would be useful and interesting (assuming you did
something like a farside return, or some good surveying and then return
in Copernicus), but if that's the case it's likely to be simpler just to
run a seperate program with the same broad objectives rather than try to
reuse unsuitable hardware.

--
-Andrew Gray

"ed kyle" wrote in message om...
"curlyQlink" wrote in message ink.net...
A truly looney idea.

There was only one reason for the Apollo mission: to beat the Russians.
Well, we beat 'em already.


That was the reason then. There could be new reasons to go
the the Moon in the forseeable future (to beat China, for
example). But I don't see the U.S. going anywhere in space
as long as the current multi-hundred-billion-dollar-war/
terrorism footing exists. I don't see how U.S. Govt
officials could possibly sell such an effort while still
issuing color coded alerts and while U.S. soldiers are still
involved in daily combat (in more than one country).

Yes, things were much quieter in the US during the mid to late
1960s.

NOT!!!!

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
...

Why not an unmanned Lunar probe complete with rover like what is on Mars
and do a soil sample return? It is the logical follow on to the next Mars
mission.

Sounds like a reasonable idea. Assuming the real science justifies the
cost.

As a taxpayer with a bit of the science geek in me, I think NASA's recent
successes with unmanned probes are terrific. The cost is reasonable (by
big-science standards, anyway), and pure science is a laudable goal. Why
send people?

As far as the general public is concerned, sending men to the moon again can
have two possible outcomes. Either it the mission succeeds (yawn) or it
doesn't, and ends in humiliation. Either way, it's a profoundly stupid way
to spend billions of taxpayer dollars. My dollars.

Space enthusiasts, and people who work for NASA and its many subcontractors,
will see things differently of course.

curlyQlink ) wrote:

: "Eric Chomko" wrote in message
: ...
:
: Why not an unmanned Lunar probe complete with rover like what is on Mars
: and do a soil sample return? It is the logical follow on to the next Mars
: mission.

: Sounds like a reasonable idea. Assuming the real science justifies the
: cost.

: As a taxpayer with a bit of the science geek in me, I think NASA's recent
: successes with unmanned probes are terrific. The cost is reasonable (by
: big-science standards, anyway), and pure science is a laudable goal. Why
: send people?

Initially I agree. But there is something beyond science when a manned
mission is done. There is an artistic aspect that you can't compare. And
when science becomes more important than art to the human species, were
done.

: As far as the general public is concerned, sending men to the moon again can
: have two possible outcomes. Either it the mission succeeds (yawn) or it
: doesn't, and ends in humiliation. Either way, it's a profoundly stupid way
: to spend billions of taxpayer dollars. My dollars.

Well, the idea is to get the moon going as an actual commercial industry.
How is not clear but that is at least the idea of a return mission
(manned) and the long term goals.

: Space enthusiasts, and people who work for NASA and its many subcontractors,
: will see things differently of course.

Unmanned mission are important but there is nothing quite like manned
missions into space. Some of the latter is unnecessary at this point and
downright not doable (mission to outer planets).

Eric

"Perplexed in Peoria" wrote in message om...
"ed kyle" wrote in message om...
"curlyQlink" wrote in message ink.net...
A truly looney idea.

There was only one reason for the Apollo mission: to beat the Russians.
Well, we beat 'em already.


That was the reason then. There could be new reasons to go
the the Moon in the forseeable future (to beat China, for
example). But I don't see the U.S. going anywhere in space
as long as the current multi-hundred-billion-dollar-war/
terrorism footing exists. ...

Yes, things were much quieter in the US during the mid to late
1960s.

NOT!!!!

Despite the fact that the U.S. had a much more powerful economy
in the 1960s than it does now relative to the rest of the world
(it actually exported more than it imported at the time) the
Vietnam financial drain forced the cancellation of much of
NASA's planned Apollo program. NASA had to cancel Saturn
production in 1968, even before Apollo 7 was launched. The
great dearth of NASA projects during the 1970s was a direct
result of Vietnam.

The U.S. is a much weaker nation now than it was then, both
economically and, in many ways, military. I believe that
the massive costs of the current war, combined with the
$1.5 billion per day trade deficit that steadily drains wealth
and power out of the country, will prevent NASA from growing
its budget enough to launch a new Moon program for the
foreseeable future.

- Ed Kyle

On 11 Aug 2004 19:15:05 -0700, (ed kyle) wrote, in part:

Despite the fact that the U.S. had a much more powerful economy
in the 1960s than it does now relative to the rest of the world
(it actually exported more than it imported at the time)

Yes.

And this is why unemployment levels are so high now.

If international treaties forbid raising import duties, then the only way to deal
with spending more than you earn, as a country, is throwing people out of work so
that they don't have the money to buy imports.

Since imported goods are cheaper than American-made in many areas, there is a bit
of a downward spiral before equilibrium is reached.

Spending more than you earn is what a negative balance of trade means; think of
U.S. dollars spent and earned in the U.S. as a kind of poker chip or like a
cheque; when they are spent abroad, the foreign government gets them from the
exporter, gives them its own money, and then turns them in to the U.S. for real
money - gold (or at least Special Drawing Rights). But the U.S. does the same
when it exports anything.

Is this the fault of U.S. workers, who are lazy and don't produce quality
products? No. Japan would love to be able to buy more U.S. products, to keep an
important trading partner happy, for example; and that applies to Europe, South
Korea, and Taiwan as well. Well, then, if they would love to do it, why don't
they?

Japan doesn't have the money. It is not running some huge positive trade balance
with the whole world, just because it is running a huge positive trade balance
with the U.S.. In October 1973, the price of oil went up -- remember?

One good thing about the policy of many oil-rich Middle Eastern countries of
keeping the oil money for the extravagant lifestyles of princes, instead of
spreading it out about the common people is this: in general, when people have
more money, they are more likely to get married and have children. Since either
the oil will run out, or before that happens, we will achieve energy
independence, at least we can be serenely confident that this won't result in
mass starvation across a suddenly overpopulated Middle East. Foresight is easy
when it coincides with self-interest.

Mass support is easier to get in the U.S. for big spending on energy research
than big spending on space, and the former is, at least at the moment, if not for
the ultimate long term, the more necessary. Achieve energy independence, and you
have a solid foundation to build on for the exploration of space.

Although the Cold War may have been the fundamental motivation behind the Apollo
program, it still would have faced impossible obstacles politically if it hadn't
begun in a time of prosperity and optimism.

John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html