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."
I know (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I know (Score:2)
Re:I know (Score:2)
Contact (Score:5, Interesting)
Redundancy is always key and it is more efficient to built two highly probably successes than one extremely probably success.
Re:Contact (Score:2)
However, logistics becomes a problem. What if you're out of a crucial supply at the equator but the station at the pole has many of them. In order to transport the supplies you'd have to do a lot of work. Either build a rail line between the two, have astronauts/mooninites get in their buggies and meet half way, go across that huge expanse Lawrence of Arabia style a
Re:Contact (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Both (Score:2, Insightful)
Well that brings up the question... (Score:5, Funny)
Huh? Oh.
Nevermind.
Re:Well that brings up the question... (Score:2)
Well screw them anyways.
We'll build our own moon base! Only with blackjack and hookers!
Or maybe we will just 'liberate' their base.
Heh (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Heh or What I Wrote In Space Camp (Score:2)
Once every ten years or so, you mean?
We should land in the Tropics (Score:2, Funny)
Heck, we should think about making a Club Med on the Moon - we'll have lots of Lunar Tokens to buy water with - ok, dirty ice crystals from crevices, but the same concept.
And we should put up a big neon sign that says "UFOs Land Here! Interplanetary Spaceport! Have your Binary Passports ready!"
But whatever we do, let's just borro
Best spot for mass driver? (Score:2)
Why Not Have Both? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why Not Have Both? (Score:2)
Are you thinking of a tracked vehicle? That's an ambitious speed for rough terrain. Or maybe a hopper -- you'd be spending most of your time bouncing, anyway.
I've always wanted to know the answer to this: (Score:4, Interesting)
I've always wondered why the hell we can't prove or disprove the moon landing myth by just pointing a friggin' telescope at it? I mean, if there is any such astronaut junk...couldn't the Hubble or even some small terrestrial telescope pick it out? There's no wind on the moon, so shouldn't the footprints and tire tracks still be visible? Did Neil Armstrong leave the flag planted or bring it back?
Why have I never seen pictures of these features? We can see planets a brazilian light years away but we can't pick out a landing zone a few hundred thousand miles away? The pictures on moon.google.com don't appear to have any better resolution than my digital camera can produce.
So maybe someone can answer this question for me. What prevents us from looking at the moon's surface with any sort of detail, and since the moon is our next big destination resort, why haven't we sent a probe to do the same kind of high-resolution imaging of the surface like we have for every other planet in our solar system? We might need to know where the best places are to build those hydrogen refineries or whatever.
-JoeShmoe
.
Re:I've always wanted to know the answer to this: (Score:2)
And going to the moon and bringing something back would not counter any single argument. They will only say that put it there when we went to 'retrieve' it.
All the so called 'evidence' that we didn't go and easily be counter with basic physics, and photography.
Re:I've always wanted to know the answer to this: (Score:3, Informative)
how far away is the moon? very VERY far away.
How big are the landers? very VERY small.
How do I put that in terms you canunderstand?
Ok. You 2 miles away from a wall. on the wall is an gnat I squished. now using the best telescope you can find on this planet I DARE you to resolve the ant let alone even find it's location.
Optical resolution of our telescopes is far too low to resolve such detail. it's past the limits of our technology for magnification.
Spy sattelites are really stinking close to the
Re:I've always wanted to know the answer to this: (Score:2)
That said, NASA does have a satellite about to launch that will produce amazing high res pictures and topographical data of the moon in preperation of landers looking for ice and other goodies on the
Re:I've always wanted to know the answer to this: (Score:2)
It's a question of scale and resolving power. Current telescopes simply do not have the resolution to pick out obj
Re:I've always wanted to know the answer to this: (Score:5, Informative)
Pete Conrad and Alan Bean did that on Apollo 12. They landed within sight and easy walking distance of Surveyor III, which had landed a few years earlier, and cut off and brought back part of the scoop arm and the TV camera. They're in the Smithsonian.
Didn't convince anyone who wanted not to be convinced.
Oh, and the Hubble's software won't let it be pointed anywhere near the Moon (or Sun, or Earth) without closing the "lens cap" (sun shield), so as to avoid burning out extremely sensitive instruments.
However, with the right equipment you can bounce a laser off the laser retroreflector panels the Apollo missions left, and see that.
Re:I've always wanted to know the answer to this: (Score:3, Informative)
Splitting hairs here on an informative post, but it can be pointed at the moon. They recently started doing a few lunar observations with Hubble, as reported here [nasa.gov].
The resolution isn't great enough to see Apollo artifacts, however.
Re:I've always wanted to know the answer to this: (Score:2)
WHICH EVER IS EASIEST (Score:2)
Seriously. Rebuild the launch technology first, then follow it up with improvements and start planting bases and solar arrays and observatories like cigarette butts in the park.
Neither one (Score:2)
Why the moon? (Score:2)
Re:Why the moon? (Score:2)
Re:Why the moon? (Score:2)
Can we get there again at all? (Score:2, Insightful)
Trick Question? (Score:2, Insightful)
Well how about.... (Score:3, Funny)
If the landing is as crewed as they say... (Score:2, Funny)
It's easier to LEAVE the moon from the equator (Score:3, Interesting)
whiners (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html [thespaceplace.com]
Educate yourselves.
For those of you that are too freakin lazy to go to the site here is a sample of what we get from the space program:
- Computer Technology - NASA Spinoffs
- Advanced keyboards, Customer Service Software, Database Management System, Laser Surveying, Aircraft controls, Lightweight Compact Disc, Expert System Software, Microcomputers, and Design Graphics.
- Consumer/Home/Recreation - NASA Spinoffs
- Dustbuster, shock-absorbing helmets, home security systems, smoke detectors, flat panel televisions, high-density batteries, trash compactors, food packaging and freeze-dried technology, cool sportswear, sports bras, hair styling appliances, fogless ski goggles, self-adjusting sunglasses, composite golf clubs, hang gliders, art preservation, and quartz crystal timing equipment.
Now quit whining and go back to your boring job like the rest of us. Quit wasting your employers money here whining.My Answer (Score:3)
Yes!
Probes vs. Astronauts (Score:3, Interesting)
First, you get much more solar power by sitting up there. Second, you are always in communication with the Earth. Third is the possibility of water ice which--if confirmed--could supply water and oxygen to the base. This is the winner, in my book. Of course, if there is no water ice, then all bets are off.
While the "manufacturing" possibilities are better at the equator, the first requirement to me is to get people to the moon and figure out how to keep them alive without having to ship everything they need from Earth. Once that's done, we can start thinking about other sites for doing other things. Heck, there might be a migration away from the poles if the hydrogen/oxygen potential of the rocks at the equator are realized. Though you'd probably still want that sunlight from the poles for power, that could be beamed via satellite eventually.
Rockets don't work in a vacuum (Score:4, Funny)
http://it.is.rice.edu/~rickr/goddard.editorial.htm l [rice.edu]
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:Dark Side of The Moon (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Dark Side of The Moon (Score:2)
Re:Dark Side of The Moon (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Dark Side of The Moon (Score:5, Funny)
Really, the poles seem an obvious choice to me - constant light, constant dark, potential ice, new ground to explore - why not? Besides, it would be neat to have a simple pole near your complex plane.
Re:Dark Side of The Moon (Score:2)
* groan *
Re:Dark Side of The Moon (Score:2)
Interesting wikipedia pages (Score:4, Informative)
Far side of the moon [wikipedia.org]
Libration [wikipedia.org]
As a matter of fact... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Dark Side of The Moon (Score:5, Interesting)
It's the most earthlike planet in the solar system barring earth, and it appears to have formerly supported an atmosphere and liquid water, meaning it could possibly do so again. It's the only planet in the solar system that we could have a reasonable expectation of terraforming on a reasonable timescale. I'd say that's the long-long-long-term purpose.
On a shorter timescale, we'll certainly learn a lot, and a lot of it will be stuff we can't learn on the moon. However, we need to step up operations on both of them. What we learn from comparing similar surveys of three planets (or at least, two planets and a moon) will tell us a lot more than what we'll learn looking at two, and it won't be linear, because of the added basis for comparison.
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)
Everywhere (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Everywhere (Score:5, Insightful)
you do realize that airplanes don't work without air, right?
Re:Everywhere (Score:2)
Re: Mars (Score:2)
Re: Mars (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Mars (Score:2)
Re: Mars (Score:2)
Mons Veneris, AKA Mons Venis is the pubic mound.
"In females this fleshy area above the vulva is also called the mons veneris (Latin, mound of Venus)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mons_veneris [wikipedia.org]
Re:Dark Side of The Moon (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Dark Side of The Moon (Score:5, Insightful)
The advancement of the species.
Not everything has to have an "end game."
Not true (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Dark Side of The Moon (Score:5, Interesting)
put a radio telescope array or use a nuke to carve out a crater that makes arecibo look like a childs toy.
Imagine the sensitivity and possibilities with a dish the size of France unencumbered by the twits on the planet broadcasting at massive wattage AND having a nice big RF sink to your back between you and the noisy planet.
That would rock, be relatively easy compared to a regular observatory and probably only take very few launches to get all the parts on location.
Re:Dark Side of The Moon (Score:3, Informative)
Somehow, on the Moon, that seems a bit redundant.
Re:Dark Side of The Moon (Score:3, Interesting)
Focus, schmocus; even assuming that 100% of the energy yield of every nuclear bomb on earth goes into shifting the Moon, with none at all wasted in light or heat, it wouldn't affect it noticeably. The Moon is really, really heavy.
Sit down some time and work out the kinetic energy of the Moon. It masses 7.36E22 kilos, and is moving at about 1 km/s. That's 7.36E28 joules, or 1.75E13 megatons. The entire population of the earth is only some 6E9 people, so perhaps if eve
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:Dark Side of The Moon (Score:2)
No, because the dark side of the moon is exposed to as much light as the non-dark side of the moon.
At the Full Moon, the dark side doesn't see the Sun.
At the New Moon, the dark side does see the Sun.
What was the scientific end game of Columbus's voyage to the Americas ?
Re:Dark Side of The Moon (Score:5, Interesting)
Although science is a nice side-benefit, the main reason for going to the Moon this time around is to learn how to live there and make use of the local resources, as a step towards making humanity a space-faring species.
Re:Dark Side of The Moon (Score:2)
Re:Dark Side of The Moon (Score:2)
Re:Dark Side of The Moon (Score:3, Informative)
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 ar
Re:promise me the moon (Score:5, Informative)
You have a funny definition of the word 'finally'.
"Congress voted Saturday to give NASA all of the $16.2 billion it sought for 2005" [space.com]
"Congress on Wednesday approved a $16.5 billion budget for NASA, fully funding the administration's moon-Mars exploration initiative for a second consecutive year." [govexec.com]
Re:promise me the moon (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:promise me the moon (Score:2)
Of course giving money to NASA makes up for all the other terrible situations he has caused.
Also, to pay gor his little oil protection war, the feds want to take 247 million of fed funding from the state I live in, so again, he impacts me on a real and meaningfull way. Every fucking day.
Anyone who says they wil lower taxes whilee allocating money for a war is an idiot.
Re:an unpopular opinion (Score:2)
Re:an unpopular opinion (Score:2)
*Meaning for every tax dollar spent, it has returned around 15 in tax dollars.
Re:an unpopular opinion (Score:2)
Little benefit. Such as: pacemakers, scratch-resistant lenses, nitinol for dental braces, improved fire-retardant materials, composites, teflon, smoke detectors, battery-powered tools, "memory"
Re:an unpopular opinion (Score:2)
Besides, I said "direct benefit".
Re:an unpopular opinion (Score:2)
Instead of researching on handful of technologies, the NASA budget delivers over 30,000 separate spinoffs over the last 30 years in fields such as health and medicine, environment, public safety, consumer/home/recreation, transportation, computer technology and industrial productivity. I call that a pretty damn good investment. By the way, you are aware that NASA's budget is less than %0.5 of the total federal budg
Re:an unpopular opinion (Score:2)
Whether you think NASA's budget warranted or otherwise, once you allocate resources one way, you can't continue figuring down any other path.
Anyone who speaks in any detail about what we (c|w)ould or (c|w)ould not have accomplished had the government not spent this money on NASA is simply making stuff up or guessing.
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??
Re:an unpopular opinion (Score:2)
Re:an unpopular opinion (Score:2)
Let us not forget though that some people still believe that the entire justification for travelling to the moon was an extension of the cold war.
Re:an unpopular opinion (Score:2)
"Here is a way to spot space-research spinoffs: If it involves microminiaturization of any sort, minicomputers, miniaturized long-life power sources, highly reliable microswitches, remotely-controlled manipulators, image enhancers, small and sophisticated robotics or cybernetics, then, no matter where you find the item, at a critical point in its development it was part of our space program.
The most ironical thing about our space program is that there are thousands of people alive to
Re:an unpopular opinion (Score:2)
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
I just about agree... (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps we would get more out of sending a few people into the
Re:an unpopular opinion (Score:5, Funny)
"The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!"
-- Larry Niven, quoted by Arthur Clarke in interview at space.com, 2001
Re:an unpopular opinion (Score:2)
Why do you think early man migrated from continent to continent? Because their caves were a mess!
It has been the desire to not clean up our own messes which has driven mankind to the ends of the Earth. It only makes sense that getting out of cleaning up our messes should be what drives us into the solar system.
"Clean out the gutters? But honey! I'm going to the moon!"
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
Re:an unpopular opinion (Score:3, Informative)
Think about it. What do you have to do to travel through space? Clean air, recycle waste, use energy efficent designs, and improve communications.
To go farther then the moon, or stay on the moon longer, better batteries and improved techniques for creating electricity will be needed.
What we have is an agency that can have the opportunity to create technologies to help 'clean our house'.
Plus, tyhe governemt got back more then it
Re:Helium-3 (Score:2)
Oh that's right, we don't have any or even any real idea how to build them... I forgot.
Re:not sure about the difference... (Score:2)
Re:not sure about the difference... (Score:2)
Private spaceflight entails much more than Rutan's suborbital flights:
http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/archive/SpecialT
Re:The Poles!???!!! (Score:2, Funny)
And occasionally, I think... a screen door really would help keep the fish and seaweed out of the lockout chamber when the frogmen are out on the mission.
And then I just shake my head and say "How wo
Re:Land near the cheese deposits (Score:5, Funny)
Already found it.
Look here [google.com] zoom in completely on point D.
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
Re:The Moon - A rediculous Republican Myth (Score:2)
Re:The Moon - A rediculous Republican Myth (Score:2)
Variations of this post have been around for years. It was very funny for the first few months, but the trolls should really get some new material.
Problems with spaceflight and Fuel (Score:3, Interesting)