59 replies to this topic

[keithisco]

Waspie_Dwarf, on 25 September 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

It's not "frost" it is a significant amount of frozen water which could almost certainly supply a human base for many decades. The down side is that this ice can only be found inside craters near the lunar poles.

Jules Vernes? Do you mean ATVs?


That is NOT what it did, it simply hovered, lowered the rover on to the surface and then crashed. There was no lifting anything back into the atmosphere.

You really do not like it when people have contra - ideas to yours do you??

So tell me - what is the calculated M3 of recoverable ice - water available on the moon?

If you have never heard of the Jules Verne resupply vehicle then I am truly disappointed... nuff said on that point, unless being obsequious is also part of your reply

"It simply hovered and crashed"!! Sorry, that is really too ridiculous to even reply to because crashing would have meant crashing onto Opportunity. It lifted, as it was designed to do....

[Waspie_Dwarf]

keithisco, on 25 September 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

You really do not like it when people have contra - ideas to yours do you??

You really don't like making factually correct posts do you? I have no problems with different view points, I do have a problem when people make up their own facts.

keithisco, on 25 September 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

So tell me - what is the calculated M3 of recoverable ice - water available on the moon?

Quote

Using data from a NASA radar that flew aboard India's Chandrayaan-1 spacecraft, scientists have detected ice deposits near the moon's north pole. NASA's Mini-SAR instrument, a lightweight, synthetic aperture radar, found more than 40 small craters with water ice. The craters range in size from 1 to 9 miles (2 to15 km) in diameter. Although the total amount of ice depends on its thickness in each crater, it's estimated there could be at least 1.3 trillion pounds (600 million metric tons) of water ice.

Source: NASA

keithisco, on 25 September 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

If you have never heard of the Jules Verne resupply vehicle then I am truly disappointed... nuff said on that point, unless being obsequious is also part of your reply

Given the factual inaccuracies in your post so far I am not at all surprised that you don't know that Jules Verne is not the name of the vehicle type itself but only that of the first Automated Transfer Vehicle. I was attempting to clarify if it was indeed the ATV you meant (incidentally the second was called Johannes Kepler, the third is called Edoardo Amaldi the fourth will be called Albert Einstein and the fifth and final ATV will be called Georges Lemaître).

keithisco, on 25 September 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

"It simply hovered and crashed"!! Sorry, that is really too ridiculous to even reply to because crashing would have meant crashing onto Opportunity. It lifted, as it was designed to do....

Again what is it with you and facts? Opportunity was not lowered this way, Curiosity was, you got that right the first time. I should remind you that your claim actually was:

keithisco, on 25 September 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

Well i dont think it was any accident that NASA used a retro rocket to lift Curiosity's lander back up into the Martian atmosphere (Proof of Concept).

I repeat it did not do what you claimed. It did not lift Curiosity back up into the atmosphere.

[spud the mackem]

It would probably be sensible to establish a base on the Moon first,which could open up all kinds of new technology for future space travel, and of course lifting off from the moon would use much less fuel, than on earth. If all the Space Agencies got together maybe something will happen,instead of everyone trying to out compete with each other.

Edited by spud the mackem, 25 September 2012 - 08:42 PM.

[DONTEATUS]

Yes ! just Do it !

[Waspie_Dwarf]

spud the mackem, on 25 September 2012 - 08:38 PM, said:

It would probably be sensible to establish a base on the Moon first,which could open up all kinds of new technology for future space travel, and of course lifting off from the moon would use much less fuel, than on earth. If all the Space Agencies got together maybe something will happen,instead of everyone trying to out compete with each other.

There are good arguments for both the Moon then Mars and the straight to Mars scenarios. Whilst I may have disagreed with keithisco on the details, his argument that resources for supporting astronauts on Mars are in greater abundance than on the Moon is a valid one. However getting to Mars is much more costly. The economic case for the ease of resupplying astronauts on the Moon vs astronauts on Mars being at least partly self sufficient is a complex one and I don't know the answer.

However there is one factor that shouldn't be ignored, the human factor. We know that long exposure to zero g has medical consequences for astronauts, and even a one way trip to Mars is liable to expose astronauts to 6 to 9 months of zero g. What we don't know is what effects long exposure to reduce g has on the human body. Does the the calcium loss from bones still occur in a 1/6 or 1/3 g environment?

There is also the issue of medical emergencies or equipment failures. An astronaut taken ill on the Moon can be returned home in a few days. Any medical emergency on Mars would have to be dealt with in situ. As with the ISS any failed equipment can be replaces when the next resupply mission is launched. On Mars it could be months or years before replacements reach the base.

I'm a great believer in not running before you can walk, which is why I personally favour the Moon then Mars approach. I believe that lessons learnt on a Moon base can be transferred to a future Mars base and make it more likely to succeed.

My biggest fear is that which ever approach we take it won't be the scientists and engineers that decide, it will be the politicians.

[DONTEATUS]

THis is true Waspie ,its not the Reason we all want to go that gets squashed, Its the money,and the money is from the Politicians that hand it out. THis is why we need privet bussiness !

[Waspie_Dwarf]

And how will private business help exploration?

Private business is there for profit, nothing else. It does nothing for the greater good, only for greater wealth. It may be great for putting tourists into space but it isn't going to poor billions into searching for microbes on Mars UNLESS if can profit from it.

Politicians may not be my favourite animals but remember Columbus discovered America and Cook discovered Australia on government financed missions.

[DONTEATUS]

It puts the Dream Alive into all people on this world, ITs whats been missing in exploration. A kick start to all the young people that Look up to the People that Make Dreams come true !
Without that we will not move off this world.IMO

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Waspie_Dwarf, on 27 September 2012 - 02:46 AM, said:

And how will private business help exploration?

Private business is there for profit, nothing else. It does nothing for the greater good, only for greater wealth. It may be great for putting tourists into space but it isn't going to poor billions into searching for microbes on Mars UNLESS if can profit from it.

Politicians may not be my favourite animals but remember Columbus discovered America and Cook discovered Australia on government financed missions.

When did national governments ever do anything for the greater good? The examples of what happened after European government-sponsored expeditions discovered (or perhaps stumbled upon) other cultures doesn't exactly suggest that they were interested in doing it for the greater good, does it? Surely exploitation was the beginning and end of the motivation.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

747400, on 27 September 2012 - 06:45 AM, said:

When did national governments ever do anything for the greater good? The examples of what happened after European government-sponsored expeditions discovered (or perhaps stumbled upon) other cultures doesn't exactly suggest that they were interested in doing it for the greater good, does it? Surely exploitation was the beginning and end of the motivation.

'Tis a good point I grant you, however government's and politicians are in the business of at least giving the appearance of doing things for the greater good. They will invest in projects to impress the people (either their own in the case of democracies to win votes or those of other nations to prove the superiority of their particular dogma).

Sputnik 1, Vostok 1, Apollo 11; all government projects. Maybe not for the greater good, but we would not have reached the moon in 1969 if we had waited for private industry, in fact I would argue that we wouldn't have reached their yet.

True private exploration will not come from profit seeking companies... not until there is a resource they can profitably exploit. As things become cheaper then any private exploration will be the result of philanthropy from private individuals. At the moment such ventures are too expensive even for the super wealthy.

That is where private enterprise will, in my opinion, play a role. In companies like SpaceX private enterprise will force the cost of reaching orbit down. This in turn will make the cost of exploration cheaper. However I believe it will still be government led.

Private companies will give us space hotels before they give us orbital facilities for making new medicines because that is where the easy money is.

[DONTEATUS]

You just said it Waspie ! THe Cost will come down,And we will explore Space as a Free enterprise world !

[Waspie_Dwarf]

DONTEATUS, on 30 September 2012 - 11:39 PM, said:

You just said it Waspie ! THe Cost will come down,And we will explore Space as a Free enterprise world !

Actually DONTEATUS, that's not what I said at all. Try reading it again.

[Zeta Reticulum]

DONTEATUS, on 23 September 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

Just as Long as I can take my Little monkey with me. ANd Theres underground water ,rivers,Lakes,But Not Slave drivers !

You probably wont get eaten... but I'd say your monkey would end up as someones sunday dinner when the tinned food ran out.

[Magiclass]

Looking at this from a logical angle I think we should think about getting off this planet because all the things which man are doing to this planet is not doing it any favours! Eventually the Earth is  going to be pushed out to the position where Mars is as the Sun is expanding very subtley, and it will probably take at least 500,000 or more years to push Earth out that far, so the planet Mars will be in the exact position we are in at the moment so we will be in the habitation area for life to flourish. So, get your thinking caps on human race we've got 500.000 years to Terraform Mars for us to live on!

[DONTEATUS]

GOODAMN  WHats the problem with wanting our race to evolve into a Space faring race ! Every time I say something positive about out Travels and the need to support this industry  I get a reply like Its this or that that dosnt fit the bill !
Its about time I leave this Place !