"finding new and inventive ways of spending $580 million of taxpayer money."
The space programs relies on the help of all the countries. So that we all act as one planet to better understand our universe and our own planet. Yes this uses tax payer money because if we had a choice most people would rather stay tuned to latest news about John & Kate.
If you are upset about money being used for the space program the alternate, has no stronger definition of opposite. Tax payer money used to kill ourselves, to show who is "superior" in some twisted logic. War.
Comparing the amount of money used by NASA and the war is like comparing the price of a ice cream cone to OWNING your own 747. When you think about it (and educate yourself) it is ridiculous how much the space program is UNDER paid compared to money used for senseless wars.
Much like war, action speaks louder than words. I won't continue to ramble on. Such research is invaluable. If you're keeping up with the space news you know how much it will pay off in the long run. I look forward to this mission and I wish it great success.
@Belabras: I was not talking to Graeme I am talking to the people that do feel this way. I just met a few of them the other day during the launch. Some people were actually telling me it was staged.
I can spend $580 million dollars in new and interesting ways and advance mankind in space. I would be herald as a fanatic by some, a visionary by others. So who wants to write me a check?
@LittleDragon: We've explained this to you before, you can't make a rubber band big enough for that to work. Besides, wouldn't all the parakeets get dizzy?
@Grey_Area: @LittleDragon: I for one would gladly give some of my tax dollars to fund a sh*t crazy plan to develop a giant 'space rubber band' and send parakeets into space.
I was also thinking - Did the X Prize say anything about size? Why not just send a little tiny rocket and a little tiny camera and little tiny vehicle. How much fuel could that take?
I remember that mission from when I was in junior high school. (Yeah, that's what we called it back then.) The TV coverage was all flashy and cool until things went wrong, at which point things got very serious. The whole world was worried.
Great men, both in the ship and on the ground. We can find and develop men like that again, if we want to.
You the know what the sad thing is? Space infrastructure hasn't advanced to a point when the deaths of astronauts is as routine as deaths from traffic collisions.
I certainly don't want to diminish those harrowing and heroic days for the Apollo 13 crew and the engineers at ground control but I think it says a lot that spaceflight is still so infrequent that people hardly bat eye at deaths and injuries.
@corpore-metal: "I certainly don't want to diminish those harrowing and heroic days for the Apollo 13 crew and the engineers at ground control but I think it says a lot that spaceflight is still so infrequent that people hardly bat eye at deaths and injuries."
You mean when they come back alive? Any time there are major injuries or deaths in the space program, people start calling for NASA to be disbanded.
@corpore-metal: Yeah, that is a very disappointing fact, with Harrison Schmidt, a Geologist. As someone who studied geology in college, I'm very happy about that fact. But yeah, we should have sent more geologists, on every mission after Apollo 11.
Yay! now Iran will be able to orbit a Nuclear Bomb Factory and pick off its enemies from Space.
I do however laugh at the suggestion that being able to dock with another craft "in space" is a vital step to Lunar Ambitions. Not if you are Going one Way...
Title: Colonizing the Moon
Description: The one way transfer of ten million colonists to the Moon over a two hundred year period. This requires the launch of single stage Vehicles that will also function as Landers and Habitats. These Launchers will have capacity of storage to provide the Colonists with Two Years of Food and the Hydroponic and Aquaculture Capacity to produce Food into the future not only sufficient to sustain the colony, but to cope with growth in Population.
CAPACITY OF LAUNCHER 10,000,000 colonists/200 years=50,000 colonists/year 50,000 colonists/365 days=137 colonists per day 137 colonists/24 Launch vehicles/day=6 Colonists/Launcher
@ZanipoloLebron: No, it is vital, because of the nature of how we land on the moon. Early on, engineers realized that it was impractical to land the entire spaceship on the surface, hence the LEM, which detached and landed from the CM. In order to do this, it had to be docked shortly after launch, and it had to redock once they came up from the moon. I don't see this changing, because of the nature of space travel - the less mass you have to launch from a surface, the better.
We're unlikely to ever have to go one-way to the moon - not in the near future, anyway. Maybe at some point, but we don't have the facilities or experience to live long-term on the moon, and even then, I don't see people living there for a long time.
Colonization is an admirable step, but there's a lot to do inbetween here and there.
@Finstern: That would actually take more fuel. The Sun represents a nice big gravity well, sure, but getting there still means making escape velocity from the local gravity well- both Luna, and the Earth/Luna system.
@I Think We're Property: Yeah, it takes a lot to get to the moon, but it takes even more to get to the sun. I imagine that it was the easiest way to get rid of this, because the impact would completely destroy it.
O_o ok to get to the moon you need fuel to navigate and slow down and stuff. There is almost no friction in space, just gravity so sending something into the sun should take just as much fuel as sending something into the moon, we are not in any hurry here. The object is to destroy it and I think the moon is much less cooler to blow something up than anything else that could take this out on its way to the sun.
Please inform me if I'm wrong, I'm just a geek, not a nerd.
@Finstern: It would also take quite a bit of fuel to get out of a lunar orbit. There's really no need for them to do that, and carrying extra just to dump something in the sun isn't the best use of their resources when it comes to heavy lifting out of earth's gravity.
@Finstern: Just an adendum, the point of the mission was mapping, not to blow something up on the lunar surface - crashing it into the moon gives them the added effect of putting something there - something they're following up on.
06/19/09
The space programs relies on the help of all the countries. So that we all act as one planet to better understand our universe and our own planet. Yes this uses tax payer money because if we had a choice most people would rather stay tuned to latest news about John & Kate.
If you are upset about money being used for the space program the alternate, has no stronger definition of opposite. Tax payer money used to kill ourselves, to show who is "superior" in some twisted logic. War.
Comparing the amount of money used by NASA and the war is like comparing the price of a ice cream cone to OWNING your own 747. When you think about it (and educate yourself) it is ridiculous how much the space program is UNDER paid compared to money used for senseless wars.
Much like war, action speaks louder than words. I won't continue to ramble on. Such research is invaluable. If you're keeping up with the space news you know how much it will pay off in the long run. I look forward to this mission and I wish it great success.
06/19/09
I'm pretty sure the remark was meant light heartedly, but I do agree with you on the need for space exploration funding.
Lord knows we spend money on many far less noble causes.
06/19/09
06/19/09
Ok, some people are just idiots.
Staged? WTF.
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/05/09
Or has the Doctor Who hiatus finally twisted my brain?
06/05/09
I was also thinking - Did the X Prize say anything about size? Why not just send a little tiny rocket and a little tiny camera and little tiny vehicle. How much fuel could that take?
04/17/09
Great men, both in the ship and on the ground. We can find and develop men like that again, if we want to.
04/17/09
Recess wasn't as cheery as usual.
04/17/09
You the know what the sad thing is? Space infrastructure hasn't advanced to a point when the deaths of astronauts is as routine as deaths from traffic collisions.
I certainly don't want to diminish those harrowing and heroic days for the Apollo 13 crew and the engineers at ground control but I think it says a lot that spaceflight is still so infrequent that people hardly bat eye at deaths and injuries.
04/17/09
You mean when they come back alive? Any time there are major injuries or deaths in the space program, people start calling for NASA to be disbanded.
04/17/09
It's sad there've been no people on the moon in my lifetime, and I'm no spring chicken.
04/17/09
04/17/09
04/17/09
04/17/09
"Are you boys in the space program, too?"
04/17/09
Apollo 13 is one of my favorite films ever - while it's certainly not perfect, it's extremely well done.
04/16/09
What, they struck it with greater force? Having an impact on the surface is a meteor's job description.
04/16/09
04/16/09
04/16/09
03/03/09
I do however laugh at the suggestion that being able to dock with another craft "in space" is a vital step to Lunar Ambitions. Not if you are Going one Way...
Title: Colonizing the Moon
Description: The one way transfer of ten million colonists to the Moon over a two hundred year period. This requires the launch of single stage Vehicles that will also function as Landers and Habitats. These Launchers will have capacity of storage to provide the Colonists with Two Years of Food and the Hydroponic and Aquaculture Capacity to produce Food into the future not only sufficient to sustain the colony, but to cope with growth in Population.
CAPACITY OF LAUNCHER
10,000,000 colonists/200 years=50,000 colonists/year
50,000 colonists/365 days=137 colonists per day
137 colonists/24 Launch vehicles/day=6 Colonists/Launcher
• LAUNCHER COLONIST CAPACITY (6)
• ERRORLESS LAUNCH RATE (24 LAUNCH VEHICLES/DAY)
ALLOCATION OF LAUNCHERS
24 launchers/day x 365 days x 200 years=1,762,000 Launchers
10,000,000 colonists/6 colonists = 1,666,667 Launchers
1,762,000-1,666,667 = 95,333 Surplus Launchers
• PASSENGER CARRYING LAUNCHERS (1,666,667)
• RESUPPLY/SPECIALIST CARGO LAUNCHERS (95,333)
COST
$100,000,000,000/Launcher x 1,762,000 Launchers = $176.2x 10^15
• ANNUAL COST ($811 x 10^12)
• TOTAL COST ($176.2x 10^15)
03/04/09
We're unlikely to ever have to go one-way to the moon - not in the near future, anyway. Maybe at some point, but we don't have the facilities or experience to live long-term on the moon, and even then, I don't see people living there for a long time.
Colonization is an admirable step, but there's a lot to do inbetween here and there.
03/03/09
I'm watching you, China.
03/03/09
03/03/09
03/03/09
03/03/09
03/03/09
@Andrew Liptak:
O_o ok to get to the moon you need fuel to navigate and slow down and stuff. There is almost no friction in space, just gravity so sending something into the sun should take just as much fuel as sending something into the moon, we are not in any hurry here. The object is to destroy it and I think the moon is much less cooler to blow something up than anything else that could take this out on its way to the sun.
Please inform me if I'm wrong, I'm just a geek, not a nerd.
03/03/09
03/03/09
03/03/09