RevanA4 Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 NASA finally has plans to explore the moons serface once again before the end of the next decade and here is the ship they plan to do it with Click me yeah its kinda old but still interesting none the less Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hallucination Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 Well, the plans are interesting, but thats the only thing useful IMO. What is the point of going on the moon? It just doesn't seem worth the effort and resources to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevanA4 Posted December 29, 2005 Author Share Posted December 29, 2005 Well, the plans are interesting, but thats the only thing useful IMO. What is the point of going on the moon? It just doesn't seem worth the effort and resources to me. Nasa at one point had plans to create a base on the moon to studie it and other things The Mission of NASA is to explore outerspace what better place to start than our own back yard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 What is the point of going on the moon? It just doesn't seem worth the effort and resources to me. Imagine what we could accomplish (in re: to space exploration) with an observatory or some high-powered radio telescopes on the moon. Hubble cracked the whole thing open for us when it was launched and it only went a few hundred miles up. That's just one potential application. I'm sure there are others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spinkle Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 soon we'll be building fleets of spacecraft in low- and zero-G environments =D I look forward to the unveiling of the Deathstar by 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevanA4 Posted December 29, 2005 Author Share Posted December 29, 2005 Imagine what we could accomplish (in re: to space exploration) with an observatory or some high-powered radio telescopes on the moon. Hubble cracked the whole thing open for us when it was launched and it only went a few hundred miles up. That's just one potential application. I'm sure there are others. that's right and with a base on the moon it would lend itself greatly to the study of cosmic events and the study oh how microorganisms Handel low gravity and many other applications I would imagine Although extended stays on a base like that aren't possible due to the fact that we haven't been able to counter the effects of bone loss during extended stays in outer space Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir-Vlada Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 50$ say that they won't get to Mars until, at least, 2050. Creating bases there is a good idea, but living there is a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevanA4 Posted December 30, 2005 Author Share Posted December 30, 2005 Creating bases there is a good idea, but living there is a problem. >_> I explained that already we won't live there anytime soon because 1. Extended stays in zero or low gravity result in bone loss 2. We can't counter that effect right now and vlad considering we only have a window to land (people) mars once every 5 years which means any mission to mars would be a 5 year mission and that is way too long for any human to survive in space with out major health issues as the result of bone loss so unless we effectively counter that I don't see us landing thier in the next 10 to 20 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir-Vlada Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 so unless we effectively counter that I don't see us landing thier in the next 10 to 20 years Well, just tell those Astronauts that when they land there, that they go towards the great valleys. When they get there, tell them that fuel and food are burried under the rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevanA4 Posted December 30, 2005 Author Share Posted December 30, 2005 Well, just tell those Astronauts that when they land there, that they go towards the great valleys. When they get there, tell them that fuel and food are burried under the rock. I'm afraid you don't understand the length at which they would be traveling. It literally would take about a year at our current level of propulsion to make the trip to mars. Which is far longer than the current limit set to protect the health of the astronauts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediKnight707 Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 soon we'll be building fleets of spacecraft in low- and zero-G environments =D I look forward to the unveiling of the Deathstar by 2010. It's not gonna be NASA, it's going to be MICROSOFT!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir-Vlada Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 I'm afraid you don't understand the length at which they would be traveling. It literally would take about a year at our current level of propulsion to make the trip to mars. Which is far longer than the current limit set to protect the health of the astronauts Hmm... You didn't exatcly saw it the way I meant for it to be seen. I meant for it to be something to do with a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 Well, the plans are interesting, but thats the only thing useful IMO. What is the point of going on the moon? It just doesn't seem worth the effort and resources to me. The guys at NASA are trying to prove that they're not sissies. They know they're sissies as they piss in their pants when it comes to getting to Mars. So, they think : Hey, the world hates us! What if we go back to the Moon, place a larger, newer flag? Maybe they'll call us heroes, pioneers and milestone-breakers again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevanA4 Posted December 30, 2005 Author Share Posted December 30, 2005 The guys at NASA are trying to prove that they're not sissies. They know they're sissies as they piss in their pants when it comes to getting to Mars. So, they think : Hey, the world hates us! What if we go back to the Moon, place a larger, newer flag? Maybe they'll call us heroes, pioneers and milestone-breakers again! I've explained the reason behind not going to mars YET twice already >_> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 I've explained the reason behind not going to mars YET twice already >_> Oh. Sry if they're contradictory. I just don't read entire threads any more. Maybe something wrong with my eyes? I'll probably get glasses soon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 And with all the money NASA is funneling into their manned missions they'll have to cut back funding to science missions, which in turn means I may be seeing a pay cut sometime in the forseeable future. Wooooo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediKnight707 Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 Were definately not going to Mars in the next decade or two. As RTG has already mentioned, bone loss, etc. But what about fuel? It takes $40 to fill up 20 gallons here in California, so imagine what it would cost to fill up a million gallons. A s**tload. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevanA4 Posted December 30, 2005 Author Share Posted December 30, 2005 And with all the money NASA is funneling into their manned missions they'll have to cut back funding to science missions, which in turn means I may be seeing a pay cut sometime in the forseeable future. Wooooo. sarcasm alert actually nasa tends to make manned missions into scientific missions already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC-1162 Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 Well, the plans are interesting, but thats the only thing useful IMO. What is the point of going on the moon? It just doesn't seem worth the effort and resources to me. exactly. and it doesnt seem worth to the apollo astronauts either. one of them said on BBC that they wanted to see man setting foot on Mars in their lifetime and that this desicion to go back to the moon was a great disappiontment. i mean, think about it this way, if you wanted to see the world, would you go to the same location twice? not necessarily. even if you did, that would be after you saw the world. in the same way, NASA should wait to go to the moon and do it after they finish walking on at least all the planets in the solar system (or their moons, since jupiter and saturn have liquid cores) Imagine what we could accomplish (in re: to space exploration) with an observatory or some high-powered radio telescopes on the moon imagine what we could accomplish if we set foot on another planet. that is far more incredible than setting foot on a tiny old moon. Creating bases there is a good idea, but living there is a problem answer: Arboretums. climate conrtolled environments on other planets. it looks like a large dome under which life can exist by means of atmosphere control, soil replacements and water sources. gravity can be brought by over-eating . seriously though, if the whole apparatus was set to rotate freely in its spot, artificail gravity could be made. It literally would take about a year at our current level of propulsion to make the trip to mars actually, i heard that it was approximatley 6 months, not a year. 1. Extended stays in zero or low gravity result in bone loss 2. We can't counter that effect right now what they need to stock is a large quantity of calcium rich milk and lots and lots of calcium supplements, that thing is solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedHawke Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 imagine what we could accomplish if we set foot on another planet. that is far more incredible than setting foot on a tiny old moon. Ever heard the term "you have to learn to crawl before you learn to walk"? Going to the Moon is paramount in so much as necissary practice before going to another planet... like Mars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alegis Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 what they need to stock is a large quantity of calcium rich milk and lots and lots of calcium supplements, that thing is solved. If the answer was that simple they might have already done it Until somewhere around your 18th birthday the bones are formed and strengthened. While your bones continue to rebuild slowly after that; it is not regeneration. There's a difference in healing a wounded arm, and regenerating a lost arm. We're talking about bone loss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 Sounds like a colossal waste of my money to me. Oh yeah, it also sounds like bull**** propaganda to generate interest, and in turn revenue, for the floundering, wack-ass space program. None for me thanks. Yeah, I know. We need to learn more about space so that long after I'm dead and not giving a ****, fat, rich, white men can have a way off this rock. Yes. I want to be taxed to hell so that possibilty can become a reality. Awesome. Where do I sign up? Birth? Sweet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC-1162 Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 Going to the Moon is paramount in so much as necissary practice before going to another planet... like Mars hellooooooo. they already went to the moon. I find your lack of knowledge on this subject... disturbing! -RH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChAiNz.2da Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 hellooooooo. they already went to the moon. hellooooooo.. perhaps you didn't notice the "practice" part? We've not landed on the Moon since 1972 (Apollo 17).... Of those trips, Apollo 1 was destroyed killing the astronauts, Apollo 13 & Apollo 16 both had critical engine problems that resulted in either emergency procedures or "turning back". The last 3 trips scheduled after Apollo 17 were cancelled because of public vs political concerns... Call me "crazy" but I sure as hell wouldn't be planning (much less going on) a 1+ year trip in space with our current record... that, BTW hasn't been done or even attempted in 33 years Exactly ChAiNz! -RH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 what they need to stock is a large quantity of calcium rich milk and lots and lots of calcium supplements, that thing is solved. Uh, no. It's because the bones don't recieve resistance that gravity brings on, the bones don't have any pressure being applied to force them to strengthen. This in turn means the calcium wouldn't be put to use. The solution to this is to create a device that adds pressure to the bones, and produces artificial gravity. They've currently got quite a few designs, but nothing that'd work well enough to last them a trip to Mars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.