Should We Land on the Moon's Poles or Equator? 408
Cujo writes "There is at present a lively controversy about sites for a crewed lunar landing. Advocates for landing near the poles, possibly on a mountain, point out the advantages of much higher sunlight availability and possible water resources in nearby cold traps. However, there may be more interesting geology and better mineral resources near the better-explored equator. NASA's Exploration Systems Architecture report lays out some of the tradeoffs."
Both (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:promise me the moon (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Everywhere (Score:5, Insightful)
you do realize that airplanes don't work without air, right?
Re:an unpopular opinion (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not a lack of agricultural production or transportation capacity that causes famines anymore, it's politics. In recent times, India has had food supply shortages but no famine due to good management of available resources. And Somalia has had food supply surpluses but rampant famine due to bad management of available resources. And that's just one example.
I figure, politics is good for solving a lot of problems in the world, but not all of them. It also causes a lot of problems. And since it's not going away, at least it can give us some space research as a side effect.
Re:Contact (Score:5, Insightful)
Even space launches are not immune to the economics of scale. A large portion of operating costs stem from ground crews and service techs who work to get these birds in the air. The more you can launch in a shorter period of time, the more money you save on labor. The Space Shuttle was intended to take advantage of those economics, but fell down for political (no customers) and technical (long turnaround) reasons. That's why the price of a Shuttle flight increased from 200 million to 500 million as the number of flights declined.
Re:Dark Side of The Moon (Score:5, Insightful)
The advancement of the species.
Not everything has to have an "end game."
Re:Dark Side of The Moon (Score:4, Insightful)
Robert Burns figured it out in the 1700s.
"A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"
Re:Easy answer: Land near the poles... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm, I'm curious, where does this technology actually exist (other than on paper and figments of engineer imaginations). The last time I checked 'we' dont have the technology to get humans reliably to/from low orbit, never mind anywhere near the moon.
So many folks seem to think that just because it was done in the 60's, it's easy, trivial, and a no brainer to go land on the moon. It's hard, expensive, and currently the technology to do it doesn't exist except on paper and in sci-fi literature. The closest thing the usa has to a manned lunar capabable piece of hardware is some rusty old Saturn V hulks sitting outside of some museums that relish 'the good old days' when america was actually a leader in the space race.
In the 60's the landing was equatorial for a lot of technical reasons. Today, moon landings are sci-fi, for a lot more technical (combined with political and financial) reasons. Politicians may talk about going to the moon, but follow the money, it's not going to the moon, it's going to wars overseas. The talk of moon landings is nothing more than political rhetoric designed to gather up votes from folks that cant see the forest for all the trees, and actually believe that such things are in the plans of the administration. If it was actually in the administration plans, the mandate would be such as it was in the 60's, to get far enough into the program that it could NOT be cancelled at the expiry of the 8 year term, to much already invested. In reality, this administration is neatly talking the talk that allows for more talk, but not actually allocating funds to make it happen, then putting on schedules such that all the talk becomes a financial responsibility for a future administration. In laymans terms, that means, not gonna happen.
This article on /. is a perfect example of the propoganda working. So many folks seriously considering where a moon landing should occur, keeps the grassroots talk happening. Reality is, talk is cheap, and if the hardware is not being designed and built at this stage of the game, there is no program that needs to survive the change of administration coming in a relatively short timeframe (next election). That's when reality will start to hit home, talk is cheap, but it takes money to buy rockets, and, there isn't going to be any money for rockets. This administration is so adamant about that, they have neatly scheduled the shuttle out of existance to happen in the early years of the next administration, and, there is nothing of substance happening on a replacement.
This administration has neatly set the stage to wash the manned space program out of existence. Big noises about safety, and shedules for shuttle retirement, virtually guarantees the shuttle will be history after 2010. Potential replacements are not yet under construction, and, the big bills to be paid for that construction are scheduled to be postponed into the next administration, where somebody else will be responsible for axing the program. The end result, no manned capability at all, and the USA will be on par with Europe for space exploration ability. The current administration is pouring just enough money into the shuttle program that it can limp along on the occaisional launch, so that they dont get the brand as the ones that axed it. At the same time, they are creating a political and financial environment where it's impossible for the program to survive, and impossible to get a replace ment program into the phases of actually doing something other than talk and paperwork. That talk and paperwork will continue until the cost of actually constructing hardware is somebody elses problem.
I'm old enough that I was able to watch the lunar landings of the 60's live on tv. As a child, I thought it was the beginning of a whole new world, and I would be able t
Can we get there again at all? (Score:2, Insightful)
Trick Question? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:an unpopular opinion (Score:1, Insightful)
So, you'd be all in favor of spending billions of taxpayer dollars to fund my proposal to get a goldfish to survive while swimming in a uranium-lined-bowl-of-kerosene-fired-at-Mach-4 into-an-active-volcano.
I promise you, lots of interesting technological snin-offs are bound to occur.
Re:an unpopular opinion (Score:2, Insightful)
and besides would you argue as vehemently for war as you
would for space exploration when you find out how much
war made our technology progress??
false dichotomy (Score:2, Insightful)
you see, you assume that we EITHER go to the moon OR 'get our house in order first'. Why can't we do both simultaneously...hmmm...
And, this is definitely not a budget issue [whitehouse.gov]. DoD spending vs. Nasa spending...it's a joke.
Who goes on holiday when their house is a mess eh?
You're not joking, are you? Some (most?) slashdot readers ALWAYS have a messy house, holiday or not...I know I wouldn't let a messy house keep me from going on a weeklong heli-boarding trip in Alaska...
Not true (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Rockets don't work in a vacuum (Score:2, Insightful)
BS about science in the 1920s.
BS about politics in the 21st century.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A gentle reminder, dear Slashdaughters (Score:3, Insightful)
By the way, global warming, environmental damage, oil reserves, financial problems, overpopulation, and the like aren't new. Every one of them existed 40 years ago. Every one of them will exist 40 years from now, although what we are doing about each can, will, and does change constantly.
And they didn't stop us before and they aren't going to stop us now. We also don't need to stop doing other things to focus on those problems -- that's why we have different agencies and companies and the like that have different foci. Each has specialized resources and experience. Each has its own job to do.
You may not be a troll, but you're not well informed.
Re:Not true (Score:3, Insightful)
People will only spend money if they have a perceived benefit. You and I both agree that space exploration will provide a benefit, long-term. Therefore we think money should be spent on it.
We won't wander or meander out into space. We will only go for a purpose or a reason. That reason will be very specific and will be very goal oriented. Another space race (think China), an opportunity for significant profits (think tourism or mining), survival (think ELE).
In your original post "the advancement of the species" will not cause any human being to move an inch or spend a buck. There has GOT to be a more practical objective.
Not worth it (Score:3, Insightful)
The most valuable things you can get on the moon, we already have: nice pictures of Earth.
Good idea: Going to the moon in 1969. It showed the Russians who was in charge.
Bad idea: Going back. The moon is dusty, boring, and useless.
Re:Not true (Score:1, Insightful)
Same could be said for the Olympics, well except its every four years.
Re:Dark Side of The Moon (Score:3, Insightful)
In that case, they're worrying about the entirely wrong thing. The process of the solar wind stripping away a planets atmosphere is _slow_; it happens on a timescale of millions of years. Geomagnetic reversals only take a few hundred to a few thousand years to complete.
Re:Dark Side of The Moon (Score:3, Insightful)