|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
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. | |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Chances of Bush moon-Mars program surviving
"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? |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Chances of Bush moon-Mars program surviving
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 +++ |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Chances of Bush moon-Mars program surviving
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. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Chances of Bush moon-Mars program surviving
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 |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Chances of Bush moon-Mars program surviving
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA to Start From Scratch in New [Moon/Mars Exploration] Effort | Tom Abbott | Policy | 14 | January 19th 04 12:12 AM |
NEWS: The allure of an outpost on the Moon | Kent Betts | Space Shuttle | 2 | January 15th 04 12:56 AM |
We choose to go to the Moon? | Brian Gaff | Space Shuttle | 49 | December 10th 03 10:14 AM |
NASA Selects UA 'Phoenix' Mission To Mars | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | August 4th 03 10:48 PM |