Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: watsisname on October 08, 2009, 10:47:33 pm
-
Well, a tiny piece of it, anyway. ;) http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/05oct_lcrossvg.htm (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/05oct_lcrossvg.htm)
I have to say it's a pretty cool way to conduct an experiment, smashing a half-ton rocket booster into the moon at several kilometers a second. You get your scientific data and a nice fireworks show to boot. :D They hope to find signs of water-ice at the impact site (a deeply shadowed polar crater), and I expect that they'll find plenty. But frankly I look forward more to the pretty boom.
Impact is at ~11:30UT and will be broadcast on NASA TV.
-
Don't you know the moon is a hologram? :drevil:
Sooo I'm not sure what the mooncast is but will I be able to see it from my front porch? :D
-
Strange how my play list figured it was a good time to randomly pick Imperial Death March while reading this. Even stranger since I don't remember adding it to there in the first place. :nervous:
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWr72l22NV4
-
That's no moon.. that's a space station!
-
Weel, if they do find water there, it may very well destroy the entire premise for CoW2.
-
You can watch the thing here live:
http://www.slooh.com/special_feed.php
-
I can't, i'll be at work
-
NASA's coverage just began, you can stream it here: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html (http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html)
Update: Booooooo, that was dissapointing. Maybe Hubble got a good pic though. :x
Seeing a mission controller get denied a high five was hilarious though. What a dick move.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP64qqd88UI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP64qqd88UI)
-
It actually looked pretty good through the 26"...
WE HAVE DESTROYED THE CLANGERS!
-
NASA's war on the Moon begins
(http://www.blogtalkradio.com/pics/hostpics/eb53ad49-ec53-4127-8007-c56fedbb8a49mooninites8nw.png)
-
at least its a war on something tangible not a concept like Terror
-
WATER
UNGH
WHAT IT IS GOOD FOR
Absolutely!
Nothing!
-
I'd like to see you try and live without any water for forty days. :p
-
Janos....Jesus?
Coincidence, maybe he could live without for forty days?
Did this Moon-Splosion happen then?
I want screenies! If not a time of impact for GMT standard so i can watch it. If it falls at GMT standard night i mean.
-
(http://www.reallifecomics.com/comics/2009/20091009_2317.png) (http://www.reallifecomics.com/)
;)
-
This reminds me of something, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3zxDHsyKvs :D :D
-
Sky & Telescope had the photos from the 200" on Palomar up on their website for a bit (they've been replaced by other photos from the 70" planetary scope which are, perversely, better), taken at 10 seconds and 15 seconds after impact.
The photos are beautiful, you'd think they were taken from the next hill over. Unfortunately, they also show clearly the impact produced no plume of dust or debris.
-
Don't suppose you saved any?
Or a link :)
-
This was a fun read on the subject:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1478/1
-
Yeah, I was watching the live NASA TV feed from the sheparding spacecraft when the Centuar hit. You couldn't see a thing. I wonderd if the whole thing failed, but I guess not since they said it worked as planned.
-
Don't suppose you saved any?
Or a link :)
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/home/63766222.html (http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/home/63766222.html)
The shepard satellite did succeed in recording the impact flash with the thermal camera, but (from what I've heard at least) it appears the ejecta plume was not sighted. :/
-
In other words, this was almost a complete waste of time...:sigh:
NASA is losing it...no scratch that they lost it a long time ago...ossified fossil of a once great agency. They lost it once they started settling.
-
Well, they did learn a lot, just not on what they expected.
-
In other words, this was almost a complete waste of time...:sigh:
Just because you don't see some things with the naked eye on camera doesn't mean other instruments, spectrographs and whathaveyou won't. You really need to know something about the subject to be able to make a qualified statement on whether it was a waste of time or not. In the mean time, they're still going through the data, and until they make final statements on this mission I wouldn't jump to conclusions.
NASA is losing it...no scratch that they lost it a long time ago...ossified fossil of a once great agency. They lost it once they started settling.
I'm sure the whole of NASA will mark this sad day on their calendars, the day they failed to live up to the standards of Liberator, that foremost authority on rocket engineering and space exploration.
-
Ok people, don't lose it :)
So what's the next Nasa event?
-
In other words, this was almost a complete waste of time...:sigh:
NASA is losing it...no scratch that they lost it a long time ago...ossified fossil of a once great agency. They lost it once they started settling.
"From this moment on your agency has no goal except to launch shuttles. Oh and we cut some funding as well. Try to make yourself relevant somehow."
-
In other words, this was almost a complete waste of time...:sigh:
NASA is losing it...no scratch that they lost it a long time ago...ossified fossil of a once great agency. They lost it once they started settling.
The Mars rovers would like to have a word with you.
Oh, and Cassini.
And all there other incredible probes that have lasted well beyond design parameters.
-
Well, disregarding the denouncing of NASA, Liberator does bring up a valid point. One of the LCROSS mission objectives was to create an ejecta plume visible to earthbound observers, hubble, and the LRO. Most of the observatories have either reported failure to observe said plume or have yet to make an announcement, though the LRO captured signs of it, including the signature of sodium atoms which was a surprise.
That said, LCROSS had multiple objectives and already accomplished a great deal, and much of the data regarding the impact is still being analyzed.
-
But at this point who can claim that the objective failed because of a design flaw rather than the moon simply not being composed of what they thought it was?
Surprising results from an experiment do not automatically mean the experiment was wrong. It could simply mean your assumptions about the probable result were incorrect. In which case you've definitely learned something interesting.
-
I don't find fault with the science they actually do, but they've lost they're vision. Manned flights to the moon should never have stopped.
-
I don't find fault with the science they actually do, but they've lost they're vision. Manned flights to the moon should never have stopped.
More like 'lost their funding'.
For better or worse the unmanned exploration of the solar system is about ten thousand times as cost-efficient.
-
Do you think NASA didn't want to go anymore?
-
Yes, Blue, I think the leadership doesn't. They don't wanna be responsible for sending people into a situation where they might die. Exploration is inherently unsafe, but we're lost that desire as a species I think.
Efficiency has little to do with science, if there were manned missions, you could send at least twice as many experiments to be done because you'd have a human there to collect the data and make sure the mechanisms don't break down and you don't have to worry about the data quite so much since the data will be stored in a vessel that is coming back.
-
Yes, Blue, I think the leadership doesn't. They don't wanna be responsible for sending people into a situation where they might die. Exploration is inherently unsafe, but we're lost that desire as a species I think.
They must have spent the entire manned space program in a state of amnesia then.
-
Yes, Blue, I think the leadership doesn't. They don't wanna be responsible for sending people into a situation where they might die. Exploration is inherently unsafe, but we're lost that desire as a species I think.
Then why does NASA keep throwing out ideas for manned returns to the moon and just never gets the funding for them?
Efficiency has little to do with science, if there were manned missions, you could send at least twice as many experiments to be done because you'd have a human there to collect the data and make sure the mechanisms don't break down and you don't have to worry about the data quite so much since the data will be stored in a vessel that is coming back.
No, if there were manned missions, you could send a quarter as many experiments because you'd be wasting all this weight on life support and crew areas and water and all this **** like people that adds nothing to the mission.
Don't get me wrong, I love manned space exploration, but it's not done for science.
-
I don't find fault with the science they actually do, but they've lost they're vision. Manned flights to the moon should never have stopped.
That was because the country couldn't care less once we reached our goal. Ultimately it was a problem with our political leadership as well as the electorate itself. A lot of Americans don't really know how much we even spend on NASA (which is a fraction of 1% of the total federal budget), or even what NASA is doing. A couple of good articles worth reading.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/21/nasas-budget-as-far-as-americans-think/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/05/08/whence-nasa/
-
But at this point who can claim that the objective failed because of a design flaw rather than the moon simply not being composed of what they thought it was?
Surprising results from an experiment do not automatically mean the experiment was wrong. It could simply mean your assumptions about the probable result were incorrect. In which case you've definitely learned something interesting.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not implying that the unexpected results are a bad thing. And in any experiment a lack of observation is still an important observation in itself. Also a major consideration is that this was the first time we've attempted such a mission, so there were a lot of uncertainties involved. But on the other hand, it seems to me a great deal of effort was spent in hopes of recording and analyzing the plume from multiple observatories, so that there'd be multiple data sets for either the detection or lack of detection of water or other materials. With the plume not being as prominent as expected, it is harder to make such a determination.
-
Yes, Blue, I think the leadership doesn't. They don't wanna be responsible for sending people into a situation where they might die. Exploration is inherently unsafe, but we're lost that desire as a species I think.
They have outright stated their willingness to send people to Mars. This was quite a big point in recent Augustine commission as well. The problem is that they don't have the funding to do so!
Efficiency has little to do with science, if there were manned missions, you could send at least twice as many experiments to be done because you'd have a human there to collect the data and make sure the mechanisms don't break down and you don't have to worry about the data quite so much since the data will be stored in a vessel that is coming back.
Efficiency has a lot to do with science. Robots and unmanned probes are simply, safe and cheap to send around the solar system. Their only limitation is that they can only perform tasks they have been programmed to do - a surprising situation means that the control team has to come up with ingenious plans or risk failure, or to lose potentially useful data because the collecting equipment does not suit that one part.
I am in favour of sending a team of scientists to Mars; they would probably discover stuff unmanned rovers can't. But that
-
I don't give a fig about going to Mars at this point in our technological development. All the design and development should be done in Earthspace with an eye toward colonization of the moon and perfecting the technologies required to go to Mars safely.
Basically, I don't want a repeat of Apollo, which is what they have on the board right now. I want the development of actual inter-orbit space craft and not some catchall ground to orbit hunk that tries to do everything and is actually reusable. Something that can go to the moon with 4 or 5 people in relative comfort and have a modular decent vehicle that would allow the EVA crew to go down and do things and then come back to the vessel and return to Earth.
And speaking of efficiency, the vast cost of spaceflight isn't from doing things in space, it's from getting there. So if you have a vehicle that operates exclusively in space you eliminate at least a portion of the cost of operation by leaving the tools and support systems in orbit instead of having to haul them up and down for every trip.
We have the technology, or are very close, to be able to operate in space without spending half a persons life making plans about it. We lack only the will and the drive to use it as it needs to be used.
-
Yeah, but that isn't NASA's problem. NASA consists of the people with the will.
-
They have outright stated their willingness to send people to Mars.
Bush announced this only after it several other country's space agencies started making major progress.
The other part of the problem is their next generation space vehicles are basically the same type as what we had in the Apollo project. The difference being that the Apollo project was awesome because it was rather new (making engines that big were a huge challenge). But what do we have today? The same old stuff. When they aren't willing to make real progress , it is hard to be an inspiration. The concept of the shuttle was a good idea, although its implementation was flawed. NASA's overall failure to develop an inexpensive launch system has kept our space program stagnant for nearly a generation.
Yeah, but that isn't NASA's problem. NASA consists of the people with the will.
True, but NASA is still chained to an electorate that by and large doesn't care. I was still in the US when Bush's plan to go to Mars was announced......and frankly no one I knew at school gave a damn, none of the adults I knew gave a damn, and even online no one seemed to give a damn outside of a few specialized space related websites. The spirit of the Apollo era is gone.
-
I don't give a damn about manned space flights either, because they are inherently ineffective and waste of resources and money. Unmanned exploration on the other hand is far more effective and safer. While doing unmanned exploration, we can learn much and keep researching new technology. Then one day, we may be able to establish a moon spaceport and colonize Mars. Let's talk about manned exploration and colonies in another hundred years, technology by that time might be cost-effective enough.
And yes, I realize that we may have the know-how to establish a Luna spaceport today. But would it be cost-effective to do so? No, absolutely no. Same goes for manned spaceflights, there is nothing to gain by manned flights as opposed to unmanned. ISS is waste of money and resources as well. The only useful scientific research from manned SS is further research on human body in space. Other than that, it could have been fully unmanned save for maintenance.
-
But without further development of manned flight, even that maintenance becomes a life threatening endeavour. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
-
Blaming NASA for not returning to the moon after the apollo program is short sited, to say the least; if you look at the political situation of that age, you'll find all the answers you need. Nobody lost the will to explore; but how come they were there in the first place? One thing that needs to be said is, in 1969 humans barely had the technology to send someone to the moon. Meaning it was a risky and expensive venture (just look at all the problems apollo 11 had - among other things, there was a good chance the astronauts will remain stranded on the moon - they worked out 50-50 chances that the engine of the Eagle would fire at all; Nixon already had a speech prepared for the event the astronauts do remain stranded). The fact they repeated it lots of times after this is a testament to the engineering skills of the people working on the project - but in any case, it doesn't change the fact that had it not been for the space race with the Soviet Union, they wouldn't have gone up there until the technology to do so matured a bit. After Korolev's death and 4 failures of the russian N-1 rocket, and the american success in 1969, the soviet moon program crumbled, and with it most of america's reasons to compete in a space race. After this there was no further need to prove to the world they can do it - so they naturally turned to the practical application of manned space travel; and that translates into orbital and sub orbital missions, mostly dealing with sattelites and space stations - first Mir, then the ISS.
Nobody lost the will to explore - all the unmanned probe missions all around the solar system are a testament to that. As for the moon, we've been there - and like it or not, there has been little reason to return there until now. Liberator says they should never have stopped the lunar missions - what would be the purpose of said missions? Hop out of the module, pick up some rocks, and stick a flag? Been there, done that. We have the technology to go to the moon - we've proven that. What we don't have is the technology to make the trip cost effective and worthwhile - moon's practical use may come into play if they do indeed find sufficient water for a moon base, in which case it would be an excellent launch base for manned missions to the planets. As I said, back in 1969 we barely had the technology to send a man to the moon. Now, I'm not sure we even barely have the technology for a safe manned trip to Mars - this mission would be endlessly more complex and risky then a moon mission. This isn't just sticking a few men on top of a rocket, and hoping that everything would go ok for the next few days.
At any rate, the technology advancement curve isn't a straight line going upwards - you always have a major technology boom, after which you don't get any dramatic new stuff for a while, but the technology does mature, making it better and safer. Space exploration ain't like dusting crops, it's the most complicated, dangerous and expensive venture humanity has undertaken. It's only been 40 years since the first moon mission - nobody's given up on space, but things like manned interplanetary travel take time.
-
I don't give a damn about manned space flights either, because they are inherently ineffective and waste of resources and money. Unmanned exploration on the other hand is far more effective and safer.
Can robots do zero or low g research? No? The fact is there are things involved in exploration and research that robots simply aren't capable of (or can't do it within a reasonable amount of time). That's not to say we shouldn't have unmanned exploration, we do. They both have their place.
While doing unmanned exploration, we can learn much and keep researching new technology.
The single biggest driver of technological development has been need. Here is a list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off) of things that have come from NASA, and much of it was from the manned portion of it.
But would it be cost-effective to do so? No, absolutely no.
Because we didn't bother to develop cost effective methods to launch stuff?
As I said, back in 1969 we barely had the technology to send a man to the moon.
I remember reading a rather interesting story about the first landing on the moon. Today's typical digital wristwatch has more computing power than the Apollo capsule, and your laptop has far more power than all the mainframes of the Johnson Space Center. Computing power was obviously very limited, so much so that when the lander was making its approach to the moon the crew turned on the radar to get a good look at the lunar surface........except that the radar crashed the lander's computers so they flew in blind and got lucky.
but things like manned interplanetary travel take time.
It also takes effort. We've been rather long on time but short on effort. Look at the miniscule amount of funding these projects get compared with what is actually being spent on other things. We've spend more than a trillion dollars bombing Iraq and another trillion bailing out failed financial institutions. We've had all these resources all this time and yet what we spend on NASA is still very small. Our priorities certainly are not getting us up there.
-
And yes, I realize that we may have the know-how to establish a Luna spaceport today. But would it be cost-effective to do so? No, absolutely no.
[russian_accent]
Capitalist pig! Do you see nothing but money?
VE do eet FOR SCIENCE!!!!
[/russian_accent]
-
The biggest issue I see with manned space flight is propulsion. While rocketry did advance, the basic technological principles remain the same - burn lots of chemical propellant to generate enough trust to lift the desired mass into orbit, or beyond. The problem with that is, it's complicated, very expensive, and somewhat impractical when you start going further into space. Sure, we could send people to say, Mars, and if we're lucky we may even get them back alive. But then we'd be stuck with the same thing that happened when we got to the moon - yea we can get there again but why would we spend billions and risk lives of astronauts to do so? Without new, better, more efficient propulsion technologies, manned exploration of the solar system remains impractical. Rocketry is now a bit like cars - sure today's cars have advanced, but the basic principle - the internal combustion engine - remains the same since Ford model T. We need another technological boost to get things really going, and we won't achieve it by constantly sending astronauts to the moon and beyond on top of ridiculously large rockets - this will be achieved in advanced propulsion laboratories.
-
We need another technological boost to get things really going, and we won't achieve it by constantly sending astronauts to the moon and beyond on top of ridiculously large rockets - this will be achieved in advanced propulsion laboratories.
We will achieve it when it becomes clear there is a real need for it. For example, in the 1960's NASA was developing a nuclear rocket. While it wasn't ready yet, it still was making progress. The project was canned because there was no demand for it (since we stopped sending people to the moon). The concept was revived with project timberwind, which was markedly more successful thanks to various tech advances, but again the project was cancelled again because of no demand.
-
A nuclear jet would be effective in space travel, but how useful would it be in propelling ships into orbit? That's where the biggest problem with space travel is now, getting things into space itself.
-
Space elevator!
-
We need another technological boost to get things really going, and we won't achieve it by constantly sending astronauts to the moon and beyond on top of ridiculously large rockets - this will be achieved in advanced propulsion laboratories.
We will achieve it when it becomes clear there is a real need for it. For example, in the 1960's NASA was developing a nuclear rocket. While it wasn't ready yet, it still was making progress. The project was canned because there was no demand for it (since we stopped sending people to the moon). The concept was revived with project timberwind, which was markedly more successful thanks to various tech advances, but again the project was cancelled again because of no demand.
They already use electric drives in satellites and have experimenting with ion drives; there are many other methods except the chemical propulsion but I can't be bothered to search Wikipedia again for a technofetishist listing of different engines :p . However, none of these are suitable for reaching the space and many of them are yet so weak as to be inferior to chemical drives in pretty much every aspect, but alternative propulsion does exist already.
The problems are A) leaving the planet and B) accelerating to achieve sufficient speeds for whatever is considered sufficient.
-
Space elevator!
's all well and good until it crashes on your city...
-
Two words:
Orbital Elevators
You want a meaningful reason to go to space? How about near limitless, free(at least for the next 4 billion years or so) energy. Enough to solve all the energy worries mankind will have for the next 1000 years.
Here's another one: Living space
A ring constructed at geo-stationary altitude and orbital velocity and connected to the Earth with 3 or more orbital elevators would provide a significant amount of space that can be turned over to industrial, commercial and residential interests.
There, aside from cost, I've killed virtually any argument against expanding into the local space surrounding Earth and exploiting it for the improvement and enjoyment of mankind.
-
Here we were, debating Obama's Peace Prize . . . and Obama attacks the moon! Take that!
-
Two words:
Orbital Elevators
You want a meaningful reason to go to space? How about near limitless, free(at least for the next 4 billion years or so) energy. Enough to solve all the energy worries mankind will have for the next 1000 years.
Here's another one: Living space
A ring constructed at geo-stationary altitude and orbital velocity and connected to the Earth with 3 or more orbital elevators would provide a significant amount of space that can be turned over to industrial, commercial and residential interests.
There, aside from cost, I've killed virtually any argument against expanding into the local space surrounding Earth and exploiting it for the improvement and enjoyment of mankind.
Y'know, if you actually read threads, you'd see that was brought up not three posts ago.
And I don't know who you think is against expanding into and exploiting space. But, uh, lay into the straw man if you like...
-
But, uh, lay into the straw man if you like...
S'what I do apparently.
-
Sorry. But, seriously, nobody in this thread has seriously suggested (I think?) that space exploration is a bad idea. This is a FreeSpace fansite, after all.
-
Sorry. But, seriously, nobody in this thread has seriously suggested (I think?) that space exploration is a bad idea. This is a FreeSpace fansite, after all.
Humanity is a blight on existence and shouldn't be allowed to spread. Just say no to Space Exploration. :P
-
Sorry. But, seriously, nobody in this thread has seriously suggested (I think?) that space exploration is a bad idea. This is a FreeSpace fansite, after all.
Humanity is a blight on existence and shouldn't be allowed to spread. Just say no to Space Exploration. :P
really? what stopping aliens from doing even worse, maybe one alien planet blew itself up with nukes, and the other one is still in dark ages.
assuming there are only 2 other planets with civilizations out there..
if that's true, then i'd say we're doing pretty good so far!
-
To those who claim that we lack the proper engines to reach Mars: The Hell, you say (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion).
-
I think VASIMR and its derivatives are probably a better bet.
-
Sorry. But, seriously, nobody in this thread has seriously suggested (I think?) that space exploration is a bad idea. This is a FreeSpace fansite, after all.
I am. If we do, we risk finding the Shivans much earlier than we should have.
-
Sorry. But, seriously, nobody in this thread has seriously suggested (I think?) that space exploration is a bad idea. This is a FreeSpace fansite, after all.
I am. If we do, we risk finding the Shivans much earlier than we should have.
Silly goose. It will be centuries before we expand enough for the Shivans to start destroying us.
-
To those who claim that we lack the proper engines to reach Mars: The Hell, you say (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion).
Yes, Project Orion. Loading a spaceship with a few hundred nukes that have to be transferred into orbit safely first. I can see that going down well with the security crowd.
-
Sorry. But, seriously, nobody in this thread has seriously suggested (I think?) that space exploration is a bad idea. This is a FreeSpace fansite, after all.
I am. If we do, we risk finding the Shivans much earlier than we should have.
Silly goose. It will be centuries before we expand enough for the Shivans to start destroying us.
We already attacked the moon, creating an alternate reality in which the Shivans may be really more angry!
-
To those who claim that we lack the proper engines to reach Mars: The Hell, you say (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion).
I can see that going down well with the security crowd.
And that has to do with my point... because?
-
Why would we even need nuclear or ion drives for a Mars mission? A direct Hohmann transfer takes less than a year and little more than 3km/s delta-v. Perfectly within capabilities of conventional rockets I'd wager. Now if you intended to send humans to NEPTUNE, then that's a different matter. xD
-
Sorry. But, seriously, nobody in this thread has seriously suggested (I think?) that space exploration is a bad idea. This is a FreeSpace fansite, after all.
It's not a question of space exploration in general, it is a question of having people in space.
However, none of these are suitable for reaching the space and many of them are yet so weak as to be inferior to chemical drives in pretty much every aspect, but alternative propulsion does exist already.
True they can't reach space on their own, but they can be paired with other launch technologies. If you have something like a maglev launch assist ramp combined with a small chemical rocket, the nuclear rocket can take over once the craft is past a certain point in the upper atmosphere.
Actually NERVA was originally intended to be the upper stage of the Saturn V, which would let it be able to send out stuff to other planets.
The biggest problem with nuclear rockets (even though we need them to make interplanetary trips feasible) is the anti-nuclear scare mongering. Anyone remember the big hoopla 10 years ago when NASA launched Cassini, a probe with an RTG?
-
Why would we even need nuclear or ion drives for a Mars mission? A direct Hohmann transfer takes less than a year and little more than 3km/s delta-v. Perfectly within capabilities of conventional rockets I'd wager. Now if you intended to send humans to NEPTUNE, then that's a different matter. xD
With a VASIMR derivative (hypothetically) you could do it in weeks.
-
Indeed, and that would greatly come in handy for any manned interplanetary mission, but the point I'm making is that with Mars being just one planet over, I don't understand the /need/ for the advanced drives to get there when we have more efficient means which are still reasonably fast enough.
If we were considering manned missions to an outer planet, let's say Jupiter, then it'd be a much bigger issue. With conventional rockets, we don't have the capability to take a faster path and then slow down upon arrival, which means a ridiculously long trip and the problems of life-support, solar storms, radiation, etc.
-
Well, it hugely cuts down on your life support requirements and even puts a Mars 'base' in reasonable rescue range if something goes awfully wrong.
-
Didn't the europeans or India or something already find water on the moon? Is NASA just trying to upstage them with this little "let's make a crater" thing???
-
Didn't the europeans or India or something already find water on the moon? Is NASA just trying to upstage them with this little "let's make a crater" thing???
Yes.
-
No. Making a debris plume allows for spectroscopic analysis of all kinds of stuff.
-
And this mission wasn't about proving "water on the Moon" in general so much as it was about proving the existence of significant amounts of ice in the permanently-dark regions of polar craters.
-
What I'm wondering about is why NASA didn't send someone up there to scoop up a few containers of moon.
-
What I'm wondering about is why NASA didn't send someone up there to scoop up a few containers of moon.
They did. But they could never prove that they weren't contaminated so they couldn't be certain it was water from the moon.
And this mission wasn't about proving "water on the Moon" in general so much as it was about proving the existence of significant amounts of ice in the permanently-dark regions of polar craters.
It was about that. They're just saying something different now cause they're annoyed the Indians beat them by a few weeks. :p
-
They're just saying something different now cause they're annoyed the Indians beat them by a few weeks. :p
More like three and a half decades given the huge head-start the U.S. had over India. :p
-
And this mission wasn't about proving "water on the Moon" in general so much as it was about proving the existence of significant amounts of ice in the permanently-dark regions of polar craters.
It was about that. They're just saying something different now cause they're annoyed the Indians beat them by a few weeks. :p
Except that the instrument on the Indian satellite that discovered it was NASA-built (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090923-moon-water-discovery.html), and the corroborating evidence was provided by two NASA probes (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hLBM9BvkGLquVcjYI96_y2mQs6OgD9AT9B4O1), with Cassini's observations taking place ten years ago. :p
-
Ok where did I go wrong. I watched the sloosh and youtube versions of 10 minute long impact video. I saw a waving moon at the same distance for 10 minutes straight.
I saw no impact, no explosion or anything. Just a shimering moon.
What did i miss?
Any short versions of the exact clip of what happened?
-
And this mission wasn't about proving "water on the Moon" in general so much as it was about proving the existence of significant amounts of ice in the permanently-dark regions of polar craters.
It was about that. They're just saying something different now cause they're annoyed the Indians beat them by a few weeks. :p
Except that the instrument on the Indian satellite that discovered it was NASA-built (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090923-moon-water-discovery.html), and the corroborating evidence was provided by two NASA probes (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hLBM9BvkGLquVcjYI96_y2mQs6OgD9AT9B4O1), with Cassini's observations taking place ten years ago. :p
Actually 6 out of 11 components were "gifts" from foreign space agencies. When someone on the universetoday comments section in the article about the India probe's premature demise said "it showed us what a creative nation can do", I wondered how does having more than 50% of your probe not even be yours make you creative.......
-
Actually 6 out of 11 components were "gifts" from foreign space agencies. When someone on the universetoday comments section in the article about the India probe's premature demise said "it showed us what a creative nation can do", I wondered how does having more than 50% of your probe not even be yours make you creative.......
Figuring out how to get other nations to pay for your space program is pretty creative. :p
-
I saw no impact, no explosion or anything. Just a shimering moon.
They say you need a very powerful telescope in order to see what was going on.
-
Actually 6 out of 11 components were "gifts" from foreign space agencies. When someone on the universetoday comments section in the article about the India probe's premature demise said "it showed us what a creative nation can do", I wondered how does having more than 50% of your probe not even be yours make you creative.......
Figuring out how to get other nations to pay for your space program is pretty creative. :p
lol, true, although it doesn't help to advance your nations tech capability.
-
Actually 6 out of 11 components were "gifts" from foreign space agencies. When someone on the universetoday comments section in the article about the India probe's premature demise said "it showed us what a creative nation can do", I wondered how does having more than 50% of your probe not even be yours make you creative.......
Figuring out how to get other nations to pay for your space program is pretty creative. :p
lol, true, although it doesn't help to advance your nations tech capability.
Yes, you have to pay 15 gold per year to research Future Tech
-
Ok where did I go wrong. I watched the sloosh and youtube versions of 10 minute long impact video. I saw a waving moon at the same distance for 10 minutes straight.
I saw no impact, no explosion or anything. Just a shimering moon.
What did i miss?
Any short versions of the exact clip of what happened?
Your question's already been answered earlier in this thread, but here's the rundown. Impact occured exactly as planned, but the ejecta plume was nowhere near as prominent as had been hoped. The flash of impact was recorded though and there's data from LRO and a few other observing platforms, which is still being analyzed. We'll find out more when they make another announcement.
-
AE and watsisname: Thanks for the replies.
I find it funny that if 'you need a better telescope to see whats going on'... why they had a 10 minute video of (almost) nothing then.
But I'll have to re watch to see the ..impact flash? (something watsisname stated)
-
Think about it this way: the moon is very small, smaller than a ping-pong ball, so if NASA wanted to achieve a visible impact, they'll need to blow up at least half the moon for it to be visible to the naked eye and some regular telescopes. they were also aiming for a crater if I remember correctly, so I think the effects are much lesser because most of it is contained within that crater.
-
Update! :D
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LCROSS/main/LCROSS_impact.html (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LCROSS/main/LCROSS_impact.html)
"There is a clear indication of a plume of vapor and fine debris," said Colaprete. “Within the range of model predictions we made, the ejecta brightness appears to be at the low end of our predictions and this may be a clue to the properties of the material the Centaur impacted.”
...
"With the spacecraft returning data until virtually the last second, the thermal and near-infrared cameras returned excellent images of the Centaur impact crater at a resolution of less than 6.5 feet (2 m). The images indicate that the crater was about 92 feet (28 m) wide."
Images of the impact here:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LCROSS/main/LCROSS_impact_images.html (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LCROSS/main/LCROSS_impact_images.html)
edit: durr, I'm tired. Fixed the link.
-
:wtf:
My title bar says "Imageshack - orionsketch3zo1.jpg" when I view that image.