Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To bad a planet of people couldn't put money aside and work for the betterment of it's own species. I would volunteer my off time in a heart beat. I do live right down the street from NASA.
To bad a planet of people couldn't put money aside and work for the betterment of it's own species. I would volunteer my off time in a heart beat. I do live right down the street from NASA.
No can do, we have too many wars to fight, people to kill and billions of dollars to spend on drones and government websites that don't work.
I see China has put a robotic rover on the moon, the first one since 1976. Kudos to them (even with the help of the European Space Agency). I guess Americans can go back to arguing about health insurance and buying cheap junk from China for Christmas.
Of course the average American will say about the Chinese Rover "Been there done that. It is just a rock why go back?"
Or the ever present argument "Are YOU going to pay for an American rover on the moon?"
Well, I kind of did pay for the Chinese Rover on the moon, seeing as China has most of our manufacturing jobs (and sells us raw goods and manufactured goods) and owns a lot of America's debt.
We'd be much more further along in our explorations if the world got together on a dedicated effort, a large base on the moon a smaller one on mars perhaps a very large orbiting human habitat or two would definitely be within in our technological abilities but the current direction of humans seems to be directed toward war rather than space.
We were able to put men on the moon back in 1969. It's now some 45 years later. If we had had the ambition to push ahead with the same intensity of effort that we put into getting a man on the moon, could we have had a man, or even a sustainable colony on Mars by now? Could we have sent a man to one of the moons of Jupiter?
We were very lucky between 1969 and 1972 when we briefly visited the moon. That was before we were monitoring the sun 24/7. Had Apollo 11 left just a week later, none of the astronauts would have made it back to Earth alive. We were very lucky not to have a single astronaut lost to radiation in that three year period. Even in low-Earth orbit, the astronauts in Skylab and the International Space Station receive between 150 and 375 times more radiation than people on the surface of the planet.
A trip to Mars was, and still is, out of the question. No human could survive the journey. We still do not have an effective means to shield astronauts from solar radiation or cosmic rays. There are a lot of universities working on the problem, from Stanford and Purdue universities to MIT among others, but nobody has anything that could be put into production yet.
Space is a very hostile place. We either need to add a great deal of additional weight (and cost) to our spacecraft in order to shield astronauts, or develop a means to generate a strong magnetic field around the spacecraft, like Earth.
We were very lucky between 1969 and 1972 when we briefly visited the moon. That was before we were monitoring the sun 24/7. Had Apollo 11 left just a week later, none of the astronauts would have made it back to Earth alive. We were very lucky not to have a single astronaut lost to radiation in that three year period. Even in low-Earth orbit, the astronauts in Skylab and the International Space Station receive between 150 and 375 times more radiation than people on the surface of the planet.
A trip to Mars was, and still is, out of the question. No human could survive the journey. We still do not have an effective means to shield astronauts from solar radiation or cosmic rays. There are a lot of universities working on the problem, from Stanford and Purdue universities to MIT among others, but nobody has anything that could be put into production yet.
Space is a very hostile place. We either need to add a great deal of additional weight (and cost) to our spacecraft in order to shield astronauts, or develop a means to generate a strong magnetic field around the spacecraft, like Earth.
Fun fact: the cameras used for photography and video on the ISS almost all have dead pixels all over the frame caused by the radiation they receive up there.
In related news, I hope the planned spacewalk to repair the faulty pump goes well. I'm sure it will.
Fun fact: the cameras used for photography and video on the ISS almost all have dead pixels all over the frame caused by the radiation they receive up there.
In related news, I hope the planned spacewalk to repair the faulty pump goes well. I'm sure it will.
I am not the least bit surprised. We receive between 2.4 and 6.2 millisieverts (mSv) per year in the US. At the same time, the ISS receives between 400 and 900 mSv per year.
1-3 Sv: humans will experience mild to severe nausea, loss of appetite, infection; more severe bone marrow, lymph node, and spleen damage. Recovery is probable, but not assured.
3–6 Sv: Severe nausea, loss of appetite; hemorrhaging, infection, diarrhea, skin peels, sterility; death if untreated.
6–10 Sv: Above symptoms plus central nervous system impairment; death is expected.
We were able to put men on the moon back in 1969. It's now some 45 years later. If we had had the ambition to push ahead with the same intensity of effort that we put into getting a man on the moon, could we have had a man, or even a sustainable colony on Mars by now? Could we have sent a man to one of the moons of Jupiter?
If we had maintained the same intensity, we would have a permanently manned (and properly shielded) torus space station usable as a deeper space construction and launch platform--that would be the general money-maker. We would also have a permanent moon base.
We might still have held off on the manned mission to Mars, but with an orbital construction platform the concept of a much more massive space vehicle to resolve issues such as long-term radiation.
The huge mistake was not using the space shuttle to build that torus station as the next step after the moon landing stunt.
If we had maintained the same intensity, we would have a permanently manned (and properly shielded) torus space station usable as a deeper space construction and launch platform--that would be the general money-maker. We would also have a permanent moon base.
We might still have held off on the manned mission to Mars, but with an orbital construction platform the concept of a much more massive space vehicle to resolve issues such as long-term radiation.
The huge mistake was not using the space shuttle to build that torus station as the next step after the moon landing stunt.
The Space Shuttle was not capable of leaving Earth's atmosphere, much less Earth's orbit. When the shuttle placed the Hubble Space Telescope in orbit, it was only 615 km (382.1 miles) from the surface of the planet which is in Earth's Thermosphere. Earth's outer most atmospheric layer is the Exosphere, which is greater than 700 km (435 miles) above the surface of the planet.
The Space Shuttle was not capable of leaving Earth's atmosphere, much less Earth's orbit. When the shuttle placed the Hubble Space Telescope in orbit, it was only 615 km (382.1 miles) from the surface of the planet which is in Earth's Thermosphere. Earth's outer most atmospheric layer is the Exosphere, which is greater than 700 km (435 miles) above the surface of the planet.
The shuttle as eventually designed could not reach a high enough orbit for a stabile space station.
But it did not have to be designed with that limitation.
The shuttle as eventually designed could not reach a high enough orbit for a stabile space station.
But it did not have to be designed with that limitation.
I will grant you that the Space Shuttle's maximum ceiling was designed into the craft. It did not need to go any higher to complete its missions. However, if the mission had been to assemble a permanent space station in one of the Lagrange Points between the Earth and the moon, then the Space Shuttle would have been designed differently.
Such an enterprise would have been enormously expensive. Since we still do not possess the technology to shield astronauts from radiation, we would have to go "old school" and use very dense (and very heavy) material to block the energetic particles. In order to rotate the craft, to simulate one gravity, would require a great deal of fuel due to its mass. Fuel could be mined and refined then shipped to the space station from the moon. That would certainly be cheaper than sending the fuel from Earth.
If NASA had a budget similar to the Department of Defense for the last 45 years, then something like that could have been possible.
I do not know about a trip to Mars just yet. It would certainly be cheaper and easier to construct a Mars craft in the rotating space station mentioned above. However, it would still need to be well shielded against solar radiation and cosmic rays, and that brings the fuel issue into the equation again. We would not be able to obtain the dense material needed for the shielding from the Moon. Those dense materials can only come from Earth. Some very close asteroids may also contain the dense materials needed, but in a matter of days they will be out of range, so they are not a viable consideration.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
