It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
If somebody said there's WMD's on the moon...We'd be back there by Christmas.
Originally posted by xmotex
If somebody said there's WMD's on the moon...We'd be back there by Christmas.
Funny, but the sad truth is that this project could have been easily paid for with what we've spent in Iraq. Nearly twice over, in fact.
[edit on 9/27/05 by xmotex]
I see the logic here. But if we vaporized a large chunk of the moon, I think it would have negative effects on earth tilt, which sucks for obvious reasons.
Originally posted by timski
...an ISS-2 would also give us the opportunity to test fusion-reactor theory and technology in an environment where, if it all goes horribly wrong, you dont risk vapourizing a large chunk of mother earth...
Originally posted by Murcielago
Originally posted by xmotex
If somebody said there's WMD's on the moon...We'd be back there by Christmas.
Funny, but the sad truth is that this project could have been easily paid for with what we've spent in Iraq. Nearly twice over, in fact.
[edit on 9/27/05 by xmotex]
blah blah blah
Its easy to view the past from the present and point out pointless things.
Example:
Were going to have to spend over a hundred billion to fix New Orleans, which we should have just gathered up several billions a few years ago and made super strong levees, that could easily handle a Category 5.
Get my point.
Originally posted by Frosty
Originally posted by timski
Why does payload destined for a lunar outpost have to be launched on the back of a rocket/shuttle? The cost per launch using the currently avalable delivery-systems make the scenario economically unviable.
A cheaper method would be to fire unmanned guided-payload-projectiles at the lunar surface by basically firing a cargo-pod from a large enough cannon...electo-magnetic propulsion could accelerate the pod to 1000mph plus, and have a small SRB to boost into orbit...a desert site would be ideal for launch control as the elec to power the launch could easily be gathered by a huge solar-array...
we could send all the materials ready for assembly a short while ahead of the manned mission to begin assembly...it would be a matter of a few weeks to build a habitable base-camp.
As for why go there in the first place....the lunar surface would offer great technological advantages....no atmosphere, so can experiment creating new metal alloy hybrids that need a de-oxygenated environment to be forged...the same for the reduction in gravity...larger structures could be build such as a roof span over a crater...although the 'Eden Project' didn't quite work to sustain human life independantlyy, as long as there are scheduled cargo-drops, a small colony could survive until they became self-sustaining...and when that is achieved, we'll head for Mars......as Armstrong said "..a small step for man, and a giant leap for mankind.."
You are thinking like Jules Verne. You cannot simply shoot something from a cannon and expect it to reach space.
The force that needs to be created to lift this object into space will be immense in that split second reaction and will more than likely take more weight/cost in explosives than fuel for a rocket. Chances are it will lose velocity and fall back down to earth, that is if the air resistance hasn't burnt and destroyed the projectile before it leaves the barrel.
1000mph is nothing. Most rockets travel at about 5mps or 18 times what you stated. And rail guns are pretty much categorized with cold fusion as fantasy
Is it breaking the rules here to put in a disagreement with the thread?
"Sampling the Moon's radiation environment":
1. You mean you don't already KNOW THIS STUFF? So how were you able to send men to the moon 40 years ago? And since we're told that you did, you must know something about the radiation environment since these guys were IN IT for over 100 man hours. I mean, if you didn't know this stuff back then don't you think it was kind of risky to send men up there? And how come you don't know about it now?
By placing the radiation detectors in CRaTER behind various thicknesses of a special plastic that has similar density and composition to human tissue, Spence and his colleagues will provide much-needed data: Except for quick trips to the Moon during the Apollo program, most human spaceflight has occurred near Earth where our planet's magnetic field provides a natural shield. In low-Earth orbit, the most dangerous forms of space radiation are relatively rare. That's good for astronauts, but it leaves researchers with many unanswered questions about what radiation does to human tissue. CRaTER will help fill in the gaps.
Out in deep space, radiation comes from all directions. On the Moon, you might expect the ground, at least, to provide some relief, with the solid body of the Moon blocking radiation from below. Not so.
When galactic cosmic rays collide with particles in the lunar surface, they trigger little nuclear reactions that release yet more radiation in the form of neutrons. The lunar surface itself is radioactive!
So which is worse for astronauts: cosmic rays from above or neutrons from below? Igor Mitrofanov, a scientist at the Institute for Space Research and the Russian Federal Space Agency, Moscow, offers a grim answer: "Both are worse."
Mitrofanov is Principle Investigator for the other radiation-sensing instrument on LRO, the Lunar Exploration Neutron Detector (LEND), which is partially funded by the Russian Federal Space Agency. By using an isotope of helium that's missing one neutron, LEND will be able to detect neutron radiation emanating from the lunar surface and measure how energetic those neutrons are.
The first global mapping of neutron radiation from the Moon was performed by NASA's Lunar Prospector probe in 1998-99. LEND will improve on the Lunar Prospector data by profiling the energies of these neutrons, showing what fraction are of high energy (i.e., the most damaging to people) and what fraction are of lower energies.
With such knowledge in hand, scientists can begin designing spacesuits, lunar habitats, Moon vehicles, and other equipment for NASA's return to the Moon knowing exactly how much radiation shielding this equipment must have to keep humans safe.
2. As to the "radiation environment" I'd also like to know if you're tentatively planning after your moon mission in 15 years to build an outpost/settlement on the north pole of the Moon so as to capitalize on almost continuous sunlight how you intend to stay cool? My flagstones heat up hotter than a pistol in the summertime, and they're only out in the sun for maybe 10 hours, and that's sunlight filtered through the earth's atmosphere. Since the moon has little to no atmosphere, how is this heat going to be dissipated as these rocks are inundated by this incredible heat continuously? And if the moon is half a million miles closer to the sun than the earth is -- well, I just think it's going to be too darned hot there for anybody to go there.
The temperature on the moon varies from -387 Fahrenheit (-233 Celsius), at night, to 253 Fahrenheit (123 Celsius) during the day. Because the moon has no atmosphere to block some of the sun's rays or to help trap heat at night, its temperature varies greatly between day and night.
3. Bart Slibel shows the astronauts going berserk in his video Astronauts Gone Wild and shows an excerpt from the one and only press conference they had where they were squirming, gulping, and twitching -- I mean they looked really GUILTY. (I'd be guilty too at facing the American people as "heros" and knowing I'd pulled a big fast one on everybody.) You can check it out at www.moonmovie.com.
Originally posted by Murcielago
Resistance - You do realize that space is a cold cold place...dont you?