Why no man moon missions for almost 40 years?

R1 · Oct 20, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That's Buzz

Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV> MW, the dust should not be a reason not to expand our technologies, I mean dust or not, we should build many experiments when the lunar base opens.  However, what kind of sensing would it be? Microwave? radio? laser?  I'm sure the dust needs to be studied also, developing systems that accomodate for lunar and space conditions.  Dust itself can be microwaved until it solidifies, anyway.  The short or long range sensors may need additional shielding, true.  Moon based telescopes have also been discussed.  I would worry more about these, when it comes to the dust problems, than the radar/sensors, though.  I'm still wondering, though, on what type they would be.  Does anyone know?  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

upriver · Oct 29, 2008

All this talk about cost..... It has nothing to do with NASA's budget. They dont set their budget, the defense department does.With all the billions that we spent bombing and spying on other countries we could have easily gone to the moon and back. Now heres the thing if there was a reason to go there(MAKE MONEY) then you would expect the private sector to be there, but they have not gone back for some reason. It would be a strategic base location... How come they have not estabilshed a base there yet.... It aint peoples lives or something like that......

MeteorWayne · Oct 29, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>All this talk about cost..... It has nothing to do with NASA's budget. They dont set their budget, the defense department does.With all the billions that we spent bombing and spying on other countries we could have easily gone to the moon and back. Now heres the thing if there was a reason to go there(MAKE MONEY) then you would expect the private sector to be there, but they have not gone back for some reason. It would be a strategic base location... How come they have not estabilshed a base there yet.... It aint peoples lives or something like that...... Posted by upriver</DIV> The Defense Department does not set NASA's budget. It is set by Congress as part of the national budget. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

Saiph · Oct 29, 2008

Strategic base position?  For what?  Right now the general space strategy maxim is: Control the high ground!  That means orbital platforms (spy satelites, and perhaps orbital weapons if we ever get there).  If we base something on the moon, to affect the earth we actually have to lift it back up out of the moon's gravity well and travel the very long distance back to earth for it to do anything.Any strategic benefit you could think of achieving from a lunar base, you can achieve better, and at lower cost, in near earth orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

CalliArcale · Oct 29, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The Defense Department does not set NASA's budget. It is set by Congress as part of the national budget. Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV>Somewhat offtopic:There's a really cool poster pictorially representing the breakdown of the federal budget.  It took me quite a while to find NASA -- logos are scaled proportionally to their percentage of the 2009 budget.  To save you some searching, NASA's near the top-right corner.  NASA's getting more than chump change, that's for sure, but it's interesting to see how it compares to other things.Death and Taxes 2009 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

carlo783 · Nov 19, 2008

I was just speaking to my science teacher and he was saying that when your body mappes to 0 gravity it can complete this with no problem, However when your body comes back to earth then it struggles to remap and can send some astronaughts a bit "mad" for a bit is this true and is this why you never see astronaughts for long after they just wave at the crowd? yours carlo. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Its better to belive than to disbelive, in doing so doing everything to the realm of possibility-Albert Einstein </div>

MeteorWayne · Nov 19, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was just speaking to my science teacher and he was saying that when your body mappes to 0 gravity it can complete this with no problem, However when your body comes back to earth then it struggles to remap and can send some astronaughts a bit "mad" for a bit is this true and is this why you never see astronaughts for long after they just wave at the crowd? yours carlo. Posted by carlo783</DIV> Huh? What does "map to 0 gravity" mean? It can complete what with no problem? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

Mee_n_Mac · Nov 19, 2008

People's bodies do adjust to functioning in zero (or micro) G conditions and there are differences in their bodies in space vs on Earth.  A lot of astronauts have experienced "space sickness", which is somewhat like "sea sickness", early in their trip to space.  For longer periods spent in space, bone and muscle loss is a concern.  When people who've spent a lot of time in space return to Earth it's not uncommon for them to feel weak until their muscles get back to normal.  I don't know what you mean by a bit "mad". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -----------------------------------------------------Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, STOP ! </div>

Saiph · Nov 20, 2008

I think you're talking about peoples motions and reflexes being altered.  And it does, the body learns quite quickly how differently things move, and begins to act accordingly.  Of course, getting back to normal gravity means the body has to switch back, which takes a little time too. In a psychology class my teacher had made a set of "inverse goggles" and "displacement goggles".  One set flipped what you saw upside down, the other shifted everything to the left about 20 degrees.  I had the honor of wearing a set for a whole class, and walking around (and worse yet playing catch) while he did the lecture.  Next day, the other set...The freaky thing wasn't adjusting to the goggles, it was having everything seem shifted (or flipped) once you took them off.  Just....bizzare.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Search

Why no man moon missions for almost 40 years?

R1

Guest

upriver

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

Saiph

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

carlo783

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

Mee_n_Mac

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page