Lunar Water Discovery Announced

[Don Wright]

I'm sure it's just from Dean spraying it with water to reduce the static electricity...

[oddjob]

In the 60s/70s it made sense to go to the moon because it hadn't been done before and we weren't sure what we'd find. Besides, we couldn't let the Soviets do it first.

A great next step would be to establish a moon base, but it still needs to have a purpose more than "hey, it's there, let's do it". Perhaps it becomes the launching pad for a Mars mission, but the scale of that effort would seem to be just too massive to move it to the moon. At a minimum, we need to solve the extended exposure to radiation problem on long space travel, and where to get the fuel to launch off of Mars surface which has 38% of earths surface gravity. A lunar module isn't going to get astronauts off of Mars, it's going to take a lot more thrust than that. Darn it, I really want to see a real effort to get to and from Mars surface. The moon is a dud by comparison.

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by oddjob

In the 60s/70s it made sense to go to the moon because it hadn't been done before and we weren't sure what we'd find. Besides, we couldn't let the Soviets do it first.

A great next step would be to establish a moon base, but it still needs to have a purpose more than "hey, it's there, let's do it". Perhaps it becomes the launching pad for a Mars mission, but the scale of that effort would seem to be just too massive to move it to the moon. At a minimum, we need to solve the extended exposure to radiation problem on long space travel, and where to get the fuel to launch off of Mars surface which has 38% of earths surface gravity. A lunar module isn't going to get astronauts off of Mars, it's going to take a lot more thrust than that. Darn it, I really want to see a real effort to get to and from Mars surface. The moon is a dud by comparison.

Have you read Zubrin's "The Case for Mars"? It's obviously pretty biased for Martian exploration, but it does a fantastic job of including lots of technical goodies while maintaining readability. Notably, at least according to Zubrin, as long as there is no solar flare while in transit, the radiation is not a huge problem for a 1.5 year expedition (time between leaving and returning to Earth).

Also, in-situ propellant manufacturing is really neat. Essentially, Mars has lots of CO2. O2 and CH4 make pretty good rocket fuel. If you bring the LH2 with you (which is nice and light) and "mine" the heavy stuff from the Martian atmosphere, it becomes significantly cheaper to launch/land. I'd love to see a lander just to test the concept, but I doubt Congress would be willing to lay down the cash for a proof of concept rover.

[oddjob]

Originally Posted by iCurtis

Have you read Zubrin's "The Case for Mars"?

No, but I'll seek it out.

There is a new silicon-germanium circuit manufacturing process that looks like it can solve the microcircuit radiation hardening problem. Manufacturing fuel is a level of complexity we never had with the moon missions, but higher thrust also requires more complex landers and the whole project is really massive. It seems to me to be as massive a challenge today as the original Apollo missions with 1950's/1960's technology.

Originally Posted by Molten

Just curious, what makes Mars any better then the moon?

Been there, done that. To secure funding, the new mission has to be something very new and exciting. What was the US reaction when China announced it is going to the moon? That's great, but 40+ years too late. I think we have to set a higher target, and even a hint of "we'll choose the moon because Mars is too difficult" is not acceptable. Aim high!

[Molten]

Originally Posted by oddjob

Been there, done that. To secure funding, the new mission has to be something very new and exciting. What was the US reaction when China announced it is going to the moon? That's great, but 40+ years too late. I think we have to set a higher target, and even a hint of "we'll choose the moon because Mars is too difficult" is not acceptable. Aim high!

Scientific exploration should be done for scientific significance. I'd hope we have more reason to focus on Mars then "its new" when we haven't really learned all there is to know about the Moon(or even Earth). Is it really just for the wow factor? or is there something more to it?

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by Molten

Scientific exploration should be done for scientific significance. I'd hope we have more reason to focus on Mars then "its new" when we haven't really learned all there is to know about the Moon(or even Earth). Is it really just for the wow factor? or is there something more to it?

The day we stop exploring and venturing out into the unknown universe is the day the soul of humanity dies.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by artdutra04

The day we stop exploring and venturing out into the unknown universe is the day the soul of humanity dies.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to artdutra04 again.

The Moon landing likely inspired more people to pursue science, technology, and engineering than anything else in human history.

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by Molten

Scientific exploration should be done for scientific significance. I'd hope we have more reason to focus on Mars then "its new" when we haven't really learned all there is to know about the Moon(or even Earth). Is it really just for the wow factor? or is there something more to it?

Human spaceflight is justified almost exclusively on the "wow" factor. Most recent exploration has. Shackleton, Byrd, Peary, Amundsen, Scott and others ventured into the frigid North and South for prestige. We raced the Soviets to the moon for prestige. We continue flying into space for prestige. We've got a lot to be proud of, so it'll take an incredible display of technology before the United States feels truly threatened in this leadership.

We could've launched the world's first satellite. We didn't, because we (or Eisenhower's administration, at any rate) didn't think it was worth the money. Then came Sputnik and public outcry. 83 days after receiving the go ahead, AMBA (von Braun's division that would later form the foundation for the Marshall Spaceflight Center) sent Explorer I into orbit.

Of course, there is lots of Science that goes on at the ISS. The Shuttle also used to fly exclusively science missions. However, if you really wanted to just do straight up science, wouldn't it be easier to spend the $300-$500 million (per Shuttle launch) on University research grants?


Why not ask JFK why we went to the moon?

Originally Posted by JFK at Rice University | September 12th, 1962*

....
We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.
...

*http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical...rt09121962.htm

[JaneYoung]

I crafted 2 separate posts during lunch, mulling over a response to the wow factor question. The more I thought about it, did some searches, and reasoned with myself, the more frustrated I became and chose not to post either one. The reason was because there are much more qualified members in ChiefDelphi that can respond to that question than I can and I should be quiet.

I should. But...

There is much more to exploration and discovery than the wow factor. There is opportunity in so many areas that it is mind boggling. In one of my posts, I listed 10 areas right off the top of my head and that was before I started doing searches for 'the purpose of space exploration'.

The bottom line for me is that if we choose not to explore and discover, I think it is akin to thinking the world is flat and we'll fall off the edge - in areas of science, math, and technology, and all of the areas they impact, in that which we call humankind.

Jane

[Molten]

I'm not suggesting against research and exploration. Far from it. I want to research as much as the next person. I just think there are much cheaper options that would have an equal impact on our understanding of the universe as well as science in general. We still don't know all the animals on Earth, yet we are looking to find one in space. We are just now finding water on the moon, but we've found proof of it on Mars already. Seems to me more focus should go towards other types of exploration then Mars.

[oddjob]

Originally Posted by Molten

Scientific exploration should be done for scientific significance. I'd hope we have more reason to focus on Mars then "its new" when we haven't really learned all there is to know about the Moon(or even Earth). Is it really just for the wow factor? or is there something more to it?

If you are spending your own money, you more or less don't need to get any support from elsewhere. To spend the publics money, on things other than banks and car union bailouts (don't get me started), you'd better make it pretty interesting! That's why Mars works - it's a massive challenge AND captures the publics imagination. The moon - didn't we do that 40 years ago?

There are plenty of home grown megaprojects to pursue too e.g. fusion power, how to set the earths thermostat to exactly where it was in year 2000 because that's just so perfect (sarcasm), etc..

[Molten]

Originally Posted by oddjob

If you are spending your own money, you more or less don't need to get any support from elsewhere. To spend the publics money, on things other than banks and car union bailouts (don't get me started), you'd better make it pretty interesting! That's why Mars works - it's a massive challenge AND captures the publics imagination. The moon - didn't we do that 40 years ago?

There are plenty of home grown megaprojects to pursue too e.g. fusion power, how to set the earths thermostat to exactly where it was in year 2000 because that's just so perfect (sarcasm), etc..

I understand and agree to an extent. My only contention is that the moon was "done" 40 years ago. Sure we may have gotten there then. But we are far from done with the moon. I think thats the main point I'm trying to make.

[EricH]

We're engineers and scientists. For us, the Moon is not done. There is still much more to do.

But for the general public, the Moon was done 40 years ago. You think there'll be big news if we send a rover to the Moon? Nah, we've got two on Mars already. Besides, we sent men there years ago. Who cares? We could send something to the Moon every day if we really wanted to.

If we're going to do anything with the Moon, it needs to be semi-permanent, something like the ISS but tied to the Moon. We, as engineers, need to figure out the food, water, and waste issues, not only for the station, but for the supply line. We need to figure out transit issues on the Moon. How are we going to get into and out of a Moon base? How are we going to build it? How do we get air into it? How do we get our people out of there when their stay is done?

And for everything we learn from that, we can look at Mars and figure out how to adapt it to the Martian terrain. The Moon, if we do go there, will be a jumping-off point for Mars, either in engineering terms or in real terms. (Build a spacecraft out there, or assemble it there, and it takes less fuel to get going.)

[Molten]

Thanks for stating my thoughts better then I could. Anyone confused by my stance, please read Eric's post.

[David Brinza]

Originally Posted by kin66863

You can never forget the beauty that the brings to you. louboutin Shoes in recent years, the love of ladies, their products are a lot of towel.The class heroine who. In 1999.louboutin series, the success of the handbags and jewelry ornaments. The juicy couture clothing is also close to the trend with a public fashion and your slim,beautiful and grace leg could easily catch people’s Juicy handbags Now you get this chance of you only vertu have to chooes.

Reported