Apollo 11 Lunar landing - 40th aniversary
Alan Browne
Photos by (and of) their modified Hasselblad cameras.
Not immune to flare!
Jeff R.
Thanks for the link Alan.
I wish they'd made those (and many other) shots more widely accessible a
long time ago.
(Funny thing is, imagine how they'd be received by the experts in this
group - "lousy composition, poor focus, obviously amateur material..."
Hehehe)
Brought back lots of happy moments.
Remember how quickly the whole Apollo sequence was over? Like a shot! One
every couple of months, then nothing. Sigghhh.
I wonder of OHS would allow Apollo moon shots nowadays.
--
Jeff R.
(lost somewhat in reverie)
J. Clarke
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> Photos by (and of) their modified Hasselblad cameras.
>> Not immune to flare!
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/science/20090713-moon-landing-hasselblad-photos/index.html?ref=science
>
>
> Thanks for the link Alan.
>
> I wish they'd made those (and many other) shots more widely
> accessible a
> long time ago.
FWIW, the mission reports and imagery are available for each of the Apollo
missions from Amazon, and have been for years--the images are on CD. The
one for Apollo 11 is at
http://www.amazon.com/Apollo-11-Mission-Reports-Apogee/dp/189652253X/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247626364&sr=1-11
Jeff R.
Thanks.
Now to go and blow my monthly download limit....
--
Jeff R.
Bill Graham
"Jeff R." <conta...@this.ng> wrote in message
news:4a5d3e25$0$3321$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> Photos by (and of) their modified Hasselblad cameras.
>> Not immune to flare!
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/science/20090713-moon-landing-hasselblad-photos/index.html?ref=science
>
>
> Thanks for the link Alan.
>
> I wish they'd made those (and many other) shots more widely accessible a
> long time ago.
>
> (Funny thing is, imagine how they'd be received by the experts in this
> group - "lousy composition, poor focus, obviously amateur material..."
> Hehehe)
Yes. - Too bad they couldn't have sent Ansel Adams to the moon.......
Bill Graham
"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:l_KdnZ1i_9o3z8DX...@giganews.com...
> Yes. - Too bad they couldn't have sent Ansel Adams to the moon.......
He would have come back with no pictures at all, and when they asked him
what happened, he would have said, "The light wasn't quite right."
Jeff R.
or:
"I was waiting for moonrise"
Walter Banks
that he wanted to bring his camera back.
w..
"Jeff R." wrote:
J. Clarke
> The real reason was Ansel's camera was as big as the LEM and Ansel
> insisted that he wanted to bring his camera back.
Been interesting if Ansel had consulted though and they'd come up with a
super lightweight 8x10 camera for the purpose.
OG
Just couldn't get the atmosphere
Annika1980
>
> Yes. - Too bad they couldn't have sent Ansel Adams to the moon.......
They were gonna send D-Mac, but all the pics would have come back
blurry and there would be lotsa galaxies coming out of the astronaut's
heads and stuff.
"One small step for man, one giant leap backwards for photography."
Savageduck
> Walter Banks wrote:
>> The real reason was Ansel's camera was as big as the LEM and Ansel
>> insisted that he wanted to bring his camera back.
>
> Been interesting if Ansel had consulted though and they'd come up with a
> super lightweight 8x10 camera for the purpose.
I understand Adams was using Hasselblads in the the 60's, so he would
probably chosen to travel light with a NASA provided custom Hassy.
>>>
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Walter Banks
Savageduck wrote:
> > Been interesting if Ansel had consulted though and they'd come up with a
> > super lightweight 8x10 camera for the purpose.
>
> I understand Adams was using Hasselblads in the the 60's, so he would
> probably chosen to travel light with a NASA provided custom Hassy.
I still cringe thinking about the Hasselblads that NASA used as disposable
cameras to be tossed out like last week's garbage. At the time thinking
some adventurer would return to retrieve it for a museum some time.
Sure didn't expect the 40 years gap
w..
J. Clarke
Considering the cost of a Moon shot the value of those cameras was peanuts.
And every pound of Hasselblad returned from the Moon was a pound of rocks
that couldn't be. They also left three hand-built custom-made electric cars
there, each of which was worth considerably more than a Hasselblad. Not to
mention the custom-made lightweight video cameras.
Alan Browne
>
> Savageduck wrote:
>
>>> Been interesting if Ansel had consulted though and they'd come up with a
>>> super lightweight 8x10 camera for the purpose.
>> I understand Adams was using Hasselblads in the the 60's, so he would
>> probably chosen to travel light with a NASA provided custom Hassy.
>
> I still cringe thinking about the Hasselblads that NASA used as disposable
> cameras to be tossed out like last week's garbage.
Even with the Hassy mods to the cameras, these were but a spec of dust
in the budget. Fuel/weight consideration even made the lunar module
itself half expendable as well as the "rovers" used on the last few
missions.
A chunk of stone from the moon was 10^6 x more valuable than those
hassy's. And you can touch a piece of moon rock at the Smithsonian in
DC (and other places I guess). Hasselblad's are everywhere for very
reasonable prices.
While in UT a few years ago I was shooting a 500 (C/M) and a fellow
drags his wife over all excited: "Look honey! That's the camera that
went to the moon!!!!" My explanations that the one that went to the
moon was heavily modified went unheard by him (and 10x less by his wife
who was not at all impressed...).
Walter Banks
Alan Browne wrote:
> Walter Banks wrote:
> >
> > Savageduck wrote:
> >
> >>> Been interesting if Ansel had consulted though and they'd come up with a
> >>> super lightweight 8x10 camera for the purpose.
> >> I understand Adams was using Hasselblads in the the 60's, so he would
> >> probably chosen to travel light with a NASA provided custom Hassy.
> >
> > I still cringe thinking about the Hasselblads that NASA used as disposable
> > cameras to be tossed out like last week's garbage.
>
> Even with the Hassy mods to the cameras, these were but a spec of dust
> in the budget. Fuel/weight consideration even made the lunar module
> itself half expendable as well as the "rovers" used on the last few
> missions.
>
> A chunk of stone from the moon was 10^6 x more valuable than those
> hassy's. And you can touch a piece of moon rock at the Smithsonian in
> DC (and other places I guess). Hasselblad's are everywhere for very
> reasonable prices.
The economics are clear. 300 feet of rocket left and maybe 10 feet
of it returned.
I have seen and touched the moon rock at the Smithsonian.
A friend of mine had the privilege of bring back one of the rock samples
to Canada for study (maybe 20 grams or so) and flying back tried to
decide how it should be reported to customs. After reviewing all her
options on place of origin, value and all the other difficult tariff questions
customs traditionally ask, she chose to not declare the sample and just
smuggle it in her briefcase.
w..
Alan Browne
>
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Walter Banks wrote:
>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Been interesting if Ansel had consulted though and they'd come up with a
>>>>> super lightweight 8x10 camera for the purpose.
>>>> I understand Adams was using Hasselblads in the the 60's, so he would
>>>> probably chosen to travel light with a NASA provided custom Hassy.
>>> I still cringe thinking about the Hasselblads that NASA used as disposable
>>> cameras to be tossed out like last week's garbage.
>> Even with the Hassy mods to the cameras, these were but a spec of dust
>> in the budget. Fuel/weight consideration even made the lunar module
>> itself half expendable as well as the "rovers" used on the last few
>> missions.
>>
>> A chunk of stone from the moon was 10^6 x more valuable than those
>> hassy's. And you can touch a piece of moon rock at the Smithsonian in
>> DC (and other places I guess). Hasselblad's are everywhere for very
>> reasonable prices.
>
> The economics are clear. 300 feet of rocket left and maybe 10 feet
> of it returned.
>
> I have seen and touched the moon rock at the Smithsonian.
We've indirectly touched each other then. So, any infections I need to
know about? Want to know mine?
>
> A friend of mine had the privilege of bring back one of the rock samples
> to Canada for study (maybe 20 grams or so) and flying back tried to
> decide how it should be reported to customs. After reviewing all her
> options on place of origin, value and all the other difficult tariff questions
> customs traditionally ask, she chose to not declare the sample and just
> smuggle it in her briefcase.
Wise move. US Customs does not recognize Apollo.
Ray Fischer
They're still there waiting for you to go and pick them up. Not
nearly as vauable as the Apollo 11 flag that they left, though.
:-)
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
David J. Littleboy
I doubt that we'll be back on the moon any time soon.
In the meantime, used Hasselblads are pretty cheap here on earth. US$1000 or
so will get you a nice one from KEH. Unfortunately, the lenses other than
the 80/2.8 are still astronomically pricey.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Burt Johnson
Nice images, but I watch "The Big Picture" news photo feed 3 times a
week (MWF) and they often have fabulous images. Today they did a
historic "Remembering Apollo 11" set. Excellent stuff at:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/07/remembering_apollo_11.html
And I got to add a personal touch. I sent this email out to some
personal friends earlier tonight, many of which have known me for the
bulk of the past 40 years.
I have been a software developer for most of the past 37 years, but
started as a physics major in college. I have clipped the portion of
the email that pointed people to this site:
/<brag>
When looking at it, go to picture 29. See that "Laser Ranging
Retroflector"? That was my first professional job! I designed that
mirror as a Freshman working for NASA at University of Maryland. I was
a physics major back then, and convinced the professor that had the
contract that I was the only student that could accomplish his magic
feat.
This is a specially designed mirror that reflects the light back in the
direction of the incident light even if the mirror is up to 40 degrees
off-center. Think of a normal mirror. Shine a laser at it, and unless
the mirror is dead-straight, the returning light will return at an
angle. With the moon being 250,000 miles away, even the slightest tilt
would mean a normal mirror would bounce the returning beam so wide it
would miss the earth entirely. With my magic design, any telescope on
earth can shine a (very powerful) laser on the moon, and the return beam
will come back right down the throat of the sending telescope.
Using that mirror, they have measured the distance to the moon to within
1 cm (1/2 inch). After the first 30 years of measurements, they found
the moon is actually about 30 feet from where it should be... That fact
has been folded back into string theory and is considered current
evidence to support that gravity is actually an extra-dimensional force.
That in turn, was a significant extra push to get the Large Hadron
Collider project in Europe going, which is hoped will finally prove
multi-dimensions within the next few years.
By the way, there was a science show last year (can't remember which
one...) that actually had the reporters go to an observatory and watch
the measurements being made. The mirror is still in use today.
Not very many of my projects are still in use after 40 years... :-)
</brag?
--
- Burt Johnson
MindStorm, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html
John McWilliams
Burt Johnson wrote:
<< Snipped bits out >>
> By the way, there was a science show last year (can't remember which
> one...) that actually had the reporters go to an observatory and watch
> the measurements being made. The mirror is still in use today.
>
> Not very many of my projects are still in use after 40 years... :-)
>
>
> </brag?
This is the best brag I've ever read on usenet. Congratulations!
--
John McWilliams
Brian Reynolds
Burt Johnson <do-not...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
[very cool story snipped]
>
>By the way, there was a science show last year (can't remember which
>one...) that actually had the reporters go to an observatory and watch
>the measurements being made. The mirror is still in use today.
>
>Not very many of my projects are still in use after 40 years... :-)
The show is _Mythbusters_. The episode was "NASA Moon Landing",
during which they explored various claims by the folks who say the
lunar landings were a hoax. I think it was one of the best episodes
they've ever done. At least in the USA, the Discovery Channel will be
re-airing that episode on Monday, July 20, 2009.
--
Brian Reynolds | "It's just like flying a spaceship.
reyn...@panix.com | You push some buttons and see
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ | what happens." -- Zapp Brannigan
NAR# 54438 |
John McWilliams
> In article <1j2xe9p.sa6ilr1yhyp4uN%bu...@mindstorm-inc.com>,
> Burt Johnson <do-not...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> [very cool story snipped]
>> By the way, there was a science show last year (can't remember which
>> one...) that actually had the reporters go to an observatory and watch
>> the measurements being made. The mirror is still in use today.
>>
>> Not very many of my projects are still in use after 40 years... :-)
>
> The show is _Mythbusters_. The episode was "NASA Moon Landing",
> during which they explored various claims by the folks who say the
> lunar landings were a hoax. I think it was one of the best episodes
> they've ever done. At least in the USA, the Discovery Channel will be
> re-airing that episode on Monday, July 20, 2009.
>
request for recording it.
It's on at 6 PM PDT, Ch. 278, DirecTV.
OK, noonsio, I might have stock in DTV....
--
John McWilliams
Alan Browne
> angle. With the moon being 250,000 miles away, even the slightest tilt
> would mean a normal mirror would bounce the returning beam so wide it
> would miss the earth entirely. With my magic design, any telescope on
> earth can shine a (very powerful) laser on the moon, and the return beam
> will come back right down the throat of the sending telescope.
Not to diminish the engineering work on a space bound piece of
equipment, however, there is nothing fundamentally amazing (and esp. not
"magic") about a corner reflector array. Not now. Not then.
Alan Browne
> "Walter Banks" <wal...@bytecraft.com> wrote:
>> Savageduck wrote:
>>
>>>> Been interesting if Ansel had consulted though and they'd come up with
>>>> a
>>>> super lightweight 8x10 camera for the purpose.
>>> I understand Adams was using Hasselblads in the the 60's, so he would
>>> probably chosen to travel light with a NASA provided custom Hassy.
>> I still cringe thinking about the Hasselblads that NASA used as disposable
>> cameras to be tossed out like last week's garbage. At the time thinking
>> some adventurer would return to retrieve it for a museum some time.
>>
>> Sure didn't expect the 40 years gap
>
> I doubt that we'll be back on the moon any time soon.
2020 is the current plan.
>
> In the meantime, used Hasselblads are pretty cheap here on earth. US$1000 or
> so will get you a nice one from KEH. Unfortunately, the lenses other than
> the 80/2.8 are still astronomically pricey.
Not really. I got a very nice 120 f/4 Makro CF for CAD$1100 and a 150
f/4 (absolute great portrait lens) for much less than that (admittedly a
quite old Compur - but the optics are still great).
The "one" lens I really want is still pricey, the 40mm f/4 Distagon. I
rented one last year and it is a great lens. (Rental deposit was $5K).
Bill Graham
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:m8ednTW4yOoCL8LX...@giganews.com...
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> "Walter Banks" <wal...@bytecraft.com> wrote:
>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Been interesting if Ansel had consulted though and they'd come up with
>>>>> a
>>>>> super lightweight 8x10 camera for the purpose.
>>>> I understand Adams was using Hasselblads in the the 60's, so he would
>>>> probably chosen to travel light with a NASA provided custom Hassy.
>>> I still cringe thinking about the Hasselblads that NASA used as
>>> disposable
>>> cameras to be tossed out like last week's garbage. At the time thinking
>>> some adventurer would return to retrieve it for a museum some time.
>>>
>>> Sure didn't expect the 40 years gap
>>
>> I doubt that we'll be back on the moon any time soon.
>
> 2020 is the current plan.
Don't bet on it......The big spenders (of my money) are back in power......
Burt Johnson
> In article <1j2xe9p.sa6ilr1yhyp4uN%bu...@mindstorm-inc.com>,
> Burt Johnson <do-not...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> [very cool story snipped]
> >
> >By the way, there was a science show last year (can't remember which
> >one...) that actually had the reporters go to an observatory and watch
> >the measurements being made. The mirror is still in use today.
> >
> >Not very many of my projects are still in use after 40 years... :-)
>
> The show is _Mythbusters_. The episode was "NASA Moon Landing",
> during which they explored various claims by the folks who say the
> lunar landings were a hoax. I think it was one of the best episodes
> they've ever done. At least in the USA, the Discovery Channel will be
> re-airing that episode on Monday, July 20, 2009.
I thought that was it, but my wife and I couldn't remember why they
would be going to the telescope, so I opted with just saying "a science
show."
I do remember the episode now that you mention it.
Burt Johnson
There was lots of magic involved to an 18 y/o freshman that had just
landed his first professional job (I worked my way through college,
since my parents were dead broke).
And not 1 in 10 people I mention this too have any idea how it could
possibly be done.
piffle. I bet you don't even believe in Santa Claus or the Easter
Bunny...
'magic' was clearly used here in the romantic sense. Sorry you don't
have any imagination. Life must be miserable to be like that.
Charles E Hardwidge
news:1j2ykzi.1chztx81xufhn1N%bu...@mindstorm-inc.com...
> There was lots of magic involved to an 18 y/o freshman that had just
> landed his first professional job (I worked my way through college,
> since my parents were dead broke).
I thought what you said was amazing. I didn't have a clue that it could be
done let alone how to do it.
I knew Browne could be a patronising cunt but fucking hell. Dissing someone
for that then bragging in the next breath about hiring expensive lenses?
What an autistic twat.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> Burt Johnson wrote:
>>> angle. With the moon being 250,000 miles away, even the slightest tilt
>>> would mean a normal mirror would bounce the returning beam so wide it
>>> would miss the earth entirely. With my magic design, any telescope on
>>> earth can shine a (very powerful) laser on the moon, and the return beam
>>> will come back right down the throat of the sending telescope.
>> Not to diminish the engineering work on a space bound piece of
>> equipment, however, there is nothing fundamentally amazing (and esp. not
>> "magic") about a corner reflector array. Not now. Not then.
>
> There was lots of magic involved to an 18 y/o freshman that had just
> landed his first professional job (I worked my way through college,
> since my parents were dead broke).
>
> And not 1 in 10 people I mention this too have any idea how it could
> possibly be done.
I doubt it's 1 in 30.
> piffle. I bet you don't even believe in Santa Claus or the Easter
> Bunny...
... just what the hell! ... you don't mean to say ... ?
>
> 'magic' was clearly used here in the romantic sense. Sorry you don't
> have any imagination. Life must be miserable to be like that.
I have tons of imagination. Experience too.
When I saw what you wrote I immediately thought of radar corners,
something of which I have more than a passing knowledge. I was sure I
had seen the same for lasers as well and a few seconds Googling
confirmed that. I would see a lot of challenges in making such a
reflector for the moon, but I wouldn't apply any of the superlatives
that you did.
You maintain great bragging rights in any case.
My father was asked by NASA to bid on (as it happens a radar based)
system for the Apollo lander. For the weight budget, he (and others at
the co.) considered it too risky - another firm won by default. So he
missed out on the chance for those bragging rights.
Ray Fischer
>"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>> "Walter Banks" <wal...@bytecraft.com> wrote:
>>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Been interesting if Ansel had consulted though and they'd come up with
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> super lightweight 8x10 camera for the purpose.
>>>>> I understand Adams was using Hasselblads in the the 60's, so he would
>>>>> probably chosen to travel light with a NASA provided custom Hassy.
>>>> I still cringe thinking about the Hasselblads that NASA used as
>>>> disposable
>>>> cameras to be tossed out like last week's garbage. At the time thinking
>>>> some adventurer would return to retrieve it for a museum some time.
>>>>
>>>> Sure didn't expect the 40 years gap
>>>
>>> I doubt that we'll be back on the moon any time soon.
>>
>> 2020 is the current plan.
>
>Don't bet on it......The big spenders (of my money) are back in power......
No, the Republicans are OUT of power. They just like to pretend that
they don't spend money but if you look at historical records it turns
out that they spend even more.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Oh I dunno.
A corner reflector works by having the reflecting surfaces at right
angles to each other. Setting up three mirrors with the accuracy
necessary to bounce a collimated beam straight back down to the
sending site on the earth is a rather daunting task.
Eric Stevens
Alan Browne
The way you put it, it would be impossible to get the beam back at all.
Thankfully the beam widens considerably (several kilometers wide) on its
way to the moon, and even more on the way back. The detectors only see
a small number of return photons which is more than enough. (Probably a
very narrow range gate is used to filter out spurious as well).
Chris Malcolm
Having made a big one for fun I have to disagree with you. A big
optically accurate corner reflector is a mirror in which you can
always see your own face, no matter from where you look at it. Most
people find that very surprising and amazing and will spend quite a
while looking at it from various angles, going to get their friends to
show them, etc.. The words "magic" and "amazing" get used a lot.
On the other hand, I'd hesitate about employing an engineer so
ignorant he thought there was something new about the idea of a corner
reflector.
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris Malcolm
> Oh I dunno.
But easily enough accomplished by using a statistical approach. Make a
panel of lots of them, and the result in sum of their random
inaccuracies will be a reflected beam with a spread depending on the
manufacturing tolerances. Then you just have to juggle power and
tolerances to get enough back.
Not exactly a new or original idea. Every engineer probably sees
hundreds of those every week.
--
Chris Malcolm
Eric Stevens
wrote:
Burt Johnson never claimed there was anything new about the idea. He
merely said that it was difficult to build one which would work over
the distance between the earth and the moon. I understand his problem.
Eric Stevens
Walter Banks
Bill Graham wrote:
> >> I doubt that we'll be back on the moon any time soon.
> >
> > 2020 is the current plan.
>
> Don't bet on it......The big spenders (of my money) are back in power......
Might want to look at the totals for the last 8 years errr maybe
look at the real costs of the last 8 years. Take your stock portfolio
and multiply it by everyone like you.
J. Clarke
One way or another it was Bush that was backing a return to the Moon--you
really think that Obama is going to make that a priority? NASA is asking
that they be allowed to spend on developing their new launcher what they are
saving by discontinuing Shuttle operations. The obvious question that the
politicians are going to ask is "if you're doing without a Shuttle now, and
you don't have this follow-on system in operation, and the world hasn't come
to an end as a result, then why should we fund this when we can use that
money to buy more votes elsewhere?"
NASA never has grasped the notion of public relations.
Walter Banks
"J. Clarke" wrote:
> One way or another it was Bush that was backing a return to the Moon--you
> really think that Obama is going to make that a priority? NASA is asking
> that they be allowed to spend on developing their new launcher what they are
> saving by discontinuing Shuttle operations. The obvious question that the
> politicians are going to ask is "if you're doing without a Shuttle now, and
> you don't have this follow-on system in operation, and the world hasn't come
> to an end as a result, then why should we fund this when we can use that
> money to buy more votes elsewhere?"
I have been a big shuttle supporter and am one that isn't real happy to see
them go. However there is some light on the horizon as well.
Spacex http://www.spacex.com now seems to be getting to the point
of having an alternative to the cold war era boosters used for much of
the space program.
For people I would like to see where Rutan can go with some of his hybrid
approaches for getting people up to the space station and back.
He has always had a lot of innovation in his work. His simple re-startable
and throttlable solid fuel engine has a lot going for it. Going straight up
may not be the best way to clear the atmosphere.
> NASA never has grasped the notion of public relations.
Unfortunately public relations for NASA has sometimes dominated science.
30 years ago a company I was a part of looked seriously at leasing the
Shuttle for what could be best described as a commercial publicity stunt.
At the time all NASA wanted was $21M / flight. It took about 2 days
to raise commitments for about $15M, NASA was more than interested.
Looking back it might have been a good thing to go ahead with the project
to commercialize space. The value of science is a hard sell.
There isn't much stomach for human space exploration right now, I think
that will change as the chinese start ramping up their moon program. NASA
has said they want to be back on the moon in about a decade.
w..
Ray Fischer
> Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
Half a million miles isn't exactly the same as across town, is it?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO...@scs.uiuc.edu
>
>> NASA never has grasped the notion of public relations.
>
> Unfortunately public relations for NASA has sometimes dominated science.
> 30 years ago a company I was a part of looked seriously at leasing the
> Shuttle for what could be best described as a commercial publicity stunt.
> At the time all NASA wanted was $21M / flight. It took about 2 days
> to raise commitments for about $15M, NASA was more than interested.
>
> Looking back it might have been a good thing to go ahead with the project
> to commercialize space. The value of science is a hard sell.
>
> There isn't much stomach for human space exploration right now, I think
> that will change as the chinese start ramping up their moon program. NASA
> has said they want to be back on the moon in about a decade.
>
NASA has long since stopped being interested in manned space science
trips; the Hubble repair was a serious aberration caused by overwhelming
public demand. Neither the Shuttle nor the Space Station have anything
to do with science. It is not clear that they have anything to do with
anything at all!
Doug McDonald
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO...@scs.uiuc.edu
>
> Half a million miles isn't exactly the same as across town, is it?
>
Yes, it is. Given the size of the corner cubes used on the Moon,
the diffraction limit is reached by "across town".
Doug McDonald
Ray Fischer
Alan Browne
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Alan Browne <alan....@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> Burt Johnson wrote:
>>> angle. With the moon being 250,000 miles away, even the slightest tilt
>>> would mean a normal mirror would bounce the returning beam so wide it
>>> would miss the earth entirely. With my magic design, any telescope on
>>> earth can shine a (very powerful) laser on the moon, and the return beam
>>> will come back right down the throat of the sending telescope.
>
>> Not to diminish the engineering work on a space bound piece of
>> equipment, however, there is nothing fundamentally amazing (and esp. not
>> "magic") about a corner reflector array. Not now. Not then.
>
> Having made a big one for fun I have to disagree with you. A big
> optically accurate corner reflector is a mirror in which you can
> always see your own face, no matter from where you look at it. Most
> people find that very surprising and amazing and will spend quite a
> while looking at it from various angles, going to get their friends to
> show them, etc.. The words "magic" and "amazing" get used a lot.
Wrong premise. It does not need to be "optically accurate" for ranging.
The point of a corner reflector (whether radar or laser) for _ranging_
is to return individual photons for counting, not correct image.
Get the basic goal right before its specification.
See my reply to Eric as well.
Alan Browne
The difficulties have to do with packaging for the mission (weight
budget, rigidity, cleanliness, setup in the environment and in pressure
suits and heavy gloves, etc), not the geometry of the array.
Re-read what he wrote - he's alluding to the nature of corner reflectors
to take a widely off array axis beam and return portions of it towards
the sender. And I mean a very tiny portion reflected and a VERY, VERY
tiny portion detected at the receiver.
Alan Browne
They should just ask the Russians to set up launch operations in
Florida. NASA would _love_ that :/ -
The Russians might be happy to get their launch operations out of
Kazakstan as well as to a more southern launch location (higher initial
velocity vector as you get closer to the equator means more cargo can be
launched).
Alan Browne
>
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>
>> One way or another it was Bush that was backing a return to the Moon--you
>> really think that Obama is going to make that a priority? NASA is asking
>> that they be allowed to spend on developing their new launcher what they are
>> saving by discontinuing Shuttle operations. The obvious question that the
>> politicians are going to ask is "if you're doing without a Shuttle now, and
>> you don't have this follow-on system in operation, and the world hasn't come
>> to an end as a result, then why should we fund this when we can use that
>> money to buy more votes elsewhere?"
>
> I have been a big shuttle supporter and am one that isn't real happy to see
> them go. However there is some light on the horizon as well.
>
> Spacex http://www.spacex.com now seems to be getting to the point
> of having an alternative to the cold war era boosters used for much of
> the space program.
>
> For people I would like to see where Rutan can go with some of his hybrid
> approaches for getting people up to the space station and back.
>
> He has always had a lot of innovation in his work. His simple re-startable
> and throttlable solid fuel engine has a lot going for it.
When it doesn't explode and kill everyone near the test stand (happened
to the Rutan team). Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge Rutan fan, but crap
will happen.
> Going straight up
> may not be the best way to clear the atmosphere.
None of the manned mission rockets "go straight up". They pitch quite
quickly to somewhat close to horizontal. Orbital velocity is parallel to
the earth's surface.
In fact, where the Saturn rockets went into earth orbit prior to boost
to the moon, Rutan's rocket actually did go quite pretty much straight
up after being launched from the "carrier" craft. And it had nowhere
near the energy to get into LEO. From LEO the issues of manned flight
re-entry come into play and that requires vehicle protection that the
Rutan vehicle did not have. That protection has weight and hence even
more energy is required to get something into LEO... everything
compounds up fast.
>> NASA never has grasped the notion of public relations.
>
> Unfortunately public relations for NASA has sometimes dominated science.
> 30 years ago a company I was a part of looked seriously at leasing the
> Shuttle for what could be best described as a commercial publicity stunt.
> At the time all NASA wanted was $21M / flight. It took about 2 days
> to raise commitments for about $15M, NASA was more than interested.
They are poor at finance as well. The overall cost per flight on a
program basis is closer to $500M. That would be the "commercially"
accounted cost basis.
>
> Looking back it might have been a good thing to go ahead with the project
> to commercialize space. The value of science is a hard sell.
It is a good thing to commercialize. The hard fact remains that it is
very expensive to lift a Kg to orbit, never mind higher orbits or
beyond. (Part of the reason that future US systems will use separate
launch systems for the crew and for the inter body vehicle. They will
meet up in space).
Innovators like Rutan (and Orbital Sciences and many others) are not
tied to the old NASA culture and can do more with less. But there are
still very high expenses and risks to do viable (other than tourist
ballistic) commercial shots.
> There isn't much stomach for human space exploration right now, I think
> that will change as the chinese start ramping up their moon program. NASA
> has said they want to be back on the moon in about a decade.
Another thing the US does very badly at is ITAR regulations that prevent
the sharing of space vehicle technology with others. It is so over
tightly regulated that other countries (notable France, Russia and
China, but others as well) have developed the technologies themselves
thereby depriving the US industries of export opportunities. This
situation is absurd to the point where a mechanical fitting (or a photo,
mockup, drawing or illustration of same ) designed for a satellite
cannot be exported from the US without a State Department license (6 -
12 months to get) even if the part itself is something a garage hobbyist
could make. The situation is such that exporting weapons systems for
F-16's to marginal countries is easier than exporting simple systems and
parts for rocket launch and orbiting systems to friendly countries.
Lost sales by US space manufacturers have made them more and more
dependent on US government (and some but not much US commercial) space
business that they are cornered into a less innovative envelope.
Russia, France, China and others will forge ahead on dual purpose space
technology and leave the US behind.
Paranoia has a price.
frank
wrote:
> Eric Stevens wrote:
> > On 17 Jul 2009 08:18:11 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
> > wrote:
>
I forgot how many millions of photons were shot to the moon, tens were
returned. Pretty difficult to get the data, took an incredibly large
astronomical telescope to do it. There used to be a video of the
operations when Ft Davis at U Texas was doing it, the operators pretty
much had a good idea of where to aim due to practice. I don't know if
its been uploaded to U Tube. I forgot who used to be in on the data
collection, Texas was one, I seem to remember there was at least a
European University in on it.
frank
>
> Russia, France, China and others will forge ahead on dual purpose space
> technology and leave the US behind.
>
> Paranoia has a price.
Part of that price is keeping technology away from those that would
steal it. Or use it against us.
I don't see Windows giving free software or Dell handing out
computers, or my phone company giving out free internet access. Part
of commercial is making money. There is a huge infrastructure to get
things into space, usually borne by governments. How much they
underwrite depends on what they charge.
frank
> When it doesn't explode and kill everyone near the test stand (happened
> to the Rutan team). Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge Rutan fan, but crap
> will happen.
>
that pretty much killed that project.
Nice idea, but probably not something you'd want to sit on or carry.
I will admit though, explosions on test stands do scare the crap out
of you.
Bill Graham
<"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:h3qcci$304$1...@news.acm.uiuc.edu...
Right! People think I am against space exploration......Not the case! I was
just against spending billions to put a dozen pretty boys on the moon. - A
totally useless endeavor which sapped lots of money away from real planetary
exploration. Now the democrats are making noises about continuing this
ridiculous crap. The moon is basically useless.....It is way too far away to
be used as a working space station. There is nothing we found out by going
there that we couldn't have found out by putting some "astronauts" in a tent
on the Sahara desert. It was useless in the 60's and it is just as useless
in the 2020's. There are lots cheaper ways to capture Nancy Pelosi's
imagination. (You could do that with a Barbie doll)
Bill Graham
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:h3q1t...@news1.newsguy.com...
> One way or another it was Bush that was backing a return to the Moon--
Just because Bush did some idiotic things, does that give you demo's an
excuse to throw away billions (or trillions) of my hard earned money on
ridiculous BS? A pox on both your houses! Just let me live out my retirement
in peace with what little money I have left......
Floyd L. Davidson
You're right. It reminds me of those idiots who wanted, a
few years back, to sail east across the ocean. Too far
away, worthless, and a waste of resources. I'm sure glad
they put a stop to it, aren't you?
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Bill Graham
"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87tz1ac...@apaflo.com...
I don't see the parallel, myself, but whatever turns you on. I said that I
am all in favor of planetary exploration.......But putting men on the moon
just isn't the same thing. It's kind of like Columbus suddenly deciding to
turn South and go to the South Pole in 1492..........
Floyd L. Davidson
>Just because Bush did some idiotic things, does that give you demo's an
>excuse to throw away billions (or trillions) of my hard earned money on
>ridiculous BS?
Wrong, wrong, WRONG. What Bush did is exactly the
reason we are now *forced* to spend a great deal more
money than would have been necessary if only Bush had
spent it when it was needed. Instead it was wasted on
ridiculous BS during the Bush years, and now we have to
clean up the mess by applying far more than would have
been spent to begin with. And we don't have it only
because Bush spent it on other things that had *no*
benefit at all.
Get it straight, Bush did do idiotic things, and
continuing with his idiocy would merely make it either
more expensive to correct, and impossible. In either
case the problem is that Bush did idiotic things. Don't
blame the recovery efforts, blame the idiot!
Noons
>>>
>>> Not very many of my projects are still in use after 40 years... :-)
>>
>> The show is _Mythbusters_. The episode was "NASA Moon Landing",
>> during which they explored various claims by the folks who say the
>> lunar landings were a hoax. I think it was one of the best episodes
>> they've ever done. At least in the USA, the Discovery Channel will be
>> re-airing that episode on Monday, July 20, 2009.
>>
> Thanks for the mention. I definitely want to see it, and just sent a web
> request for recording it.
>
> It's on at 6 PM PDT, Ch. 278, DirecTV.
>
> OK, noonsio, I might have stock in DTV....
>
Couldn't care less, I'm still taping it.
Noons
> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> Burt Johnson wrote:
>>> angle. With the moon being 250,000 miles away, even the slightest tilt
>>> would mean a normal mirror would bounce the returning beam so wide it
>>> would miss the earth entirely. With my magic design, any telescope on
>>> earth can shine a (very powerful) laser on the moon, and the return beam
>>> will come back right down the throat of the sending telescope.
>> Not to diminish the engineering work on a space bound piece of
>> equipment, however, there is nothing fundamentally amazing (and esp. not
>> "magic") about a corner reflector array. Not now. Not then.
>
> landed his first professional job (I worked my way through college,
> since my parents were dead broke).
>
> And not 1 in 10 people I mention this too have any idea how it could
> possibly be done.
>
> piffle. I bet you don't even believe in Santa Claus or the Easter
> Bunny...
>
> 'magic' was clearly used here in the romantic sense. Sorry you don't
> have any imagination. Life must be miserable to be like that.
>
Please! Just ignore that twerp. Alan Browne is a well known troll who knows
everything about anything and has done so better than anyone else. We all know
who these were in school days: the ones measuring dick sizes in the bathroom
corners. He just never left those days...
Alan Browne
>> Russia, France, China and others will forge ahead on dual purpose space
>> technology and leave the US behind.
>>
>> Paranoia has a price.
>
> Part of that price is keeping technology away from those that would
> steal it. Or use it against us.
You have no idea what is really of going on.
a) the parts being denied export are not particularly daunting from an
engineering or manufacturing standpoint. But other companies would
rather buy what's developed, tested and certified than waste money
developing it themselves. So, State denies export, or causes long
delays and this causes other companies to develop the product for
themselves. Parity - but US manufacturers lose business and thence
depend more and more on US government business for a narrower technology
base - they lose out in commercial business.
b) most of the parts concerned are barred from export solely because
they form part of a space based (or launch) system. The vast majority
of these parts are at best 1980's technology. The State Department's
approach is to deny everything until the vendor goes through hoops to
show that it will not harm US technology domination. This is 6 months
to a year or more of red tape of the most frustrating kind. (Esp. when
bureaucrats move on to other things and you have to re-state your case).
The sum result is that the US industry has lost international primacy
while the aforementioned countries have forged ahead.
>
> I don't see Windows giving free software or Dell handing out
> computers, or my phone company giving out free internet access. Part
> of commercial is making money. There is a huge infrastructure to get
> things into space, usually borne by governments. How much they
> underwrite depends on what they charge.
Who said free? Who said giving away anything? These are very high
value parts that employ American workers at very high salaries.
The US sells arms (with technologies WAY BEYOND MOST SPACE BASED TECH)
to countries like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Pakistan, Venezuela (though
that's a bit chilled at present), Indonesia, Taiawn ...... long list.
But the US will block a high reliability power supply (used in many
apps) just because it's also used on a space vehicle. It's 1980's
technology, everyone knows how to make them but a US exporter loses
business over it.
Talk to anyone in the space industry over this issue and they will make
it clear that these policies have harmed US interests, not protected them.
And really it is due to paranoid policy over common sense just because
of the way parts muct be declared under ITAR. As soon as the word
"space" appears the flags go up ... for a fastener.
Peter
news:__qdnXFCL70u4vzX...@giganews.com...
>> few years back, to sail east across the ocean. Too far
>> away, worthless, and a waste of resources. I'm sure glad
>> they put a stop to it, aren't you?
>
> I don't see the parallel, myself, but whatever turns you on. I said that I
> am all in favor of planetary exploration.......But putting men on the moon
> just isn't the same thing. It's kind of like Columbus suddenly deciding to
> turn South and go to the South Pole in 1492..........
And you don't see a possible use of the moon as a base.
You don't think nothing about planetary exploration can be learned from moon
exploration.
Gosh! those Azores should be ignored.
--
Peter
Floyd L. Davidson
If he can't see that parallel, then we should simply
ignore his opinions on exploration of any kind. He may
be a lot of good things, but visionary isn't one of
them.
David J. Littleboy
"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>
> If he can't see that parallel, then we should simply
> ignore his opinions on exploration of any kind. He may
> be a lot of good things, but visionary isn't one of
> them.
But the comparison is irrelevant. If we really want to do a good job
exploring the solar system, it's much cheaper and much better to do it with
unmanned vehicles.
For any real scientific goal, putting warm bodies up there is no help, is
extremely expensive, and adds constraints that make the science harder or
not as good. The Hubble repair missions cost more than the Hubble, the
Hubble is in the wrong orbit (since it had to go up in the shuttle), is the
wrong size (since it had to fit in the shuttle cargo bay), and was two years
delayed while they fixed the shuttle tiles. It's amazing in spite of, not
because of, manned flight.
Apollo was neat at the time. But we've been there and done that. Real
exploration can be done better without the warm bodies.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Peter
news:KLqdnR-zxcKpaPzX...@giganews.com...
Yes, robots can and should be used, when appropriate. Humans are not robots
and are subject to psychological and biological stress. Also, robots are
only as good as their programs. There are observations that cannot be made
by robots.
--
Peter
From Girdwood, AK
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO...@scs.uiuc.edu
> "Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>> If he can't see that parallel, then we should simply
>> ignore his opinions on exploration of any kind. He may
>> be a lot of good things, but visionary isn't one of
>> them.
>
> But the comparison is irrelevant. If we really want to do a good job
> exploring the solar system, it's much cheaper and much better to do it with
> unmanned vehicles.
>
> For any real scientific goal, putting warm bodies up there is no help, is
> extremely expensive, and adds constraints that make the science harder or
> not as good. The Hubble repair missions cost more than the Hubble, the
> Hubble is in the wrong orbit (since it had to go up in the shuttle), is the
> wrong size (since it had to fit in the shuttle cargo bay),
That last is arguably false. I suspect that there are substantially larger
telescopes in orbit. This should be, however, known to the "in-group"
of amateur satellite gazers since a larger object would be readily visible
to both optical and radar observations with amateur instruments. The Hubble
itself is resolvable with amateur earth based telescopes, so a larger
one would be easily seen. These scopes would be of course classified, as they
would, if they exist, look down, not up.
How would you get a larger mirror up? Of course, you don't. You use multiple
mirrors arrayed to be in exact phase, which is doable these days with
laser interferometry. 200 or even 300 inches is doable with a military budget.
But it could not be hidden if a spy satellite, since any scope
on the ground whose aperture was larger than its resolution could resolve it!
This is all, of course, speculation.
Doug McDonald
Peter
Too quick on the send button.
I am about to explore Prince William Sound. I can see its beauty and
character by seeing photos and videos. Somehow I don't think I will
appreciate it's true character until I do a personal observation.
--
Peter
Peter
Uhm! Look at the birds eye view in Bing.
--
Peter
Alan Browne
With a lot of limitations and inflexibility.
The recent extensive overhaul of the Hubble would not have been possible
without astronauts. One could say, "design space vehicles to be
maintained by robots" but then there is always room for the failure case
not covered by the robots.
Mars has been explored for over three decades by landed systems. A lot
has been learned, but a leap of learning needs boots on the ground.
Man has progressed by exploring and pushing the edges of envelopes not
by standing still.
The US has spent a lot of money on a war it did not have any
justification for pursuing (combined costs are estimated to be in excess
of $3T for the Iraq mis-adventure).
And that amount is much more than all of the real costs of the shuttle
program combined + the total cost of the international space station.
J. Clarke
While a space program is a good idea, the way Apollo was pursued was a
stunt, not an exploration program. The Air Force has a much smaller, more
gradual program in place that was intended to provide proven, reliable
capability rather than propaganda, but Apollo pulled the rug out from under
that one.
As for Columbus and the Azores and the like, you put a man on the Azores
butt naked and he'd survive, he might not be too comfortable, but if he
didn't meat with an accident he could live out a normal life span there
without further intervention. The same is not true of the Moon--anything
human presence there is going to depend on a continuing and expensive train
of supplies from Earth, and so far there is equivalent of Incan gold there
to repay the expense.
Suppose Columbus had found the Azores but they were barren rocks and when he
got to the New World it turned out to be an uninhabitable desert? You
really think that there would have been another expedition?
Alan Browne
The longer view is to use the very plentiful solar energy on the moon
and establish closed cycle food supplies (which will also provide
oxygen). The same applies to Mars. Further out it becomes much more
daunting. On the the other hand, the notion of travel from Europe to
Asia westward was once considered daunting as well as horrendously
expensive. Manned flight absolutely impossible.
There is no telling what mineral resources can be mined from the
asteroids. Getting to Mars is a first step towards that step. With the
asteroids the launch cost towards earth is quite minimal. IMO this will
be commonplace in 2200 or so (and not manned once worked out).
Propulsion will be solar powered ion drives (very slow, but once the
train is in place of no matter).
> Suppose Columbus had found the Azores but they were barren rocks and when he
> got to the New World it turned out to be an uninhabitable desert? You
> really think that there would have been another expedition?
Eventually yes. Africa has desert right to the shore as well as lush
forests. Recognition of that fact would apply to any newly discovered
continent that was initially found as "desert". There is likely a more
lush and inviting part as well.
Of course Columbus was not the first to discover America... the
"Indians" were there long before and the Vikings had settlements all
over Newfoundland and Nova Scotia long before Columbus.
Alan Browne
> Peter wrote:
>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:__qdnXFCL70u4vzX...@giganews.com...
>>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:87tz1ac...@apaflo.com...
>>>> You're right. It reminds me of those idiots who wanted, a
>>>> few years back, to sail east across the ocean. Too far
>>>> away, worthless, and a waste of resources. I'm sure glad
>>>> they put a stop to it, aren't you?
>>> I don't see the parallel, myself, but whatever turns you on. I said
>>> that I am all in favor of planetary exploration.......But putting
>>> men on the moon just isn't the same thing. It's kind of like
>>> Columbus suddenly deciding to turn South and go to the South Pole in
>>> 1492..........
>>
>> And you don't see a possible use of the moon as a base.
>> You don't think nothing about planetary exploration can be learned
>> from moon exploration.
>> Gosh! those Azores should be ignored.
>
> While a space program is a good idea, the way Apollo was pursued was a
> stunt, not an exploration program.
Rubbish.
frank
> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...@cox.net> wrote in message
Well you could sell all your camera gear, sell your computer, get off
the internet.
That would give you some cash.
We wouldn't have to listen to you as we fund your social security.
frank
Sure it is. You know how far the other planet are?
Do you have any idea how hard it is going to be to get there? Building
and launching from the moon would be far cheaper and easier than going
from Earth. Not to mention we have no idea what months in
interplanetary space will be like.
It ain't getting in the Model T and going to the mall.....
frank
wrote:
Its a bit more than that. I've worked in the field.
And I do know what is exported.
frank
Think the size of a railroad boxcar. You'll get an idea.
Couple of big problems, rockets have no idea what fragile means. You
have to figure out stuff like if you think dust off an SLR is a
problem....not to mention the whole 'space rated' thingie. And no
local repair shop. That they last as long as they do is amazing. Some
just keep going and going and going......
frank
Probably not, but the first time some savage kid showed up with solid
gold toys......
Alan Browne
I work in this area. And yes it's not only a "bit more than that" it's
a LOT MORE THAN THAT and it's killing the US space industry by cornering
them into a limited area of work. This has allowed other countries
companies to produce systems that do the same thing - or better - where
those same customers would have preferred the off the shelf US solution
(again: nothing terribly sophisticated).
What you "know is exported" is meaningless to the thousands of people in
the industry who have left (often involuntarily) it because of what has
not been exported due to the onerously heavy handed State application of
ITAR.
J. Clarke
Well, find us that savage kid on the Moon then if you want a space program.
Eric Stevens
<jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
--- snip ----
>Suppose Columbus had found the Azores but they were barren rocks and when he
>got to the New World it turned out to be an uninhabitable desert? You
>really think that there would have been another expedition?
I don't know about Columbus but that's what happened when the norse
first discovered North America. Of course the desert was icy and stony
(Helluland => Baffin Island) but that didn't stop them from pressing
on.
Eric Stevens
David J. Littleboy
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:Or6dnVX-S4Lynv_X...@giganews.com...
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>> If he can't see that parallel, then we should simply
>>> ignore his opinions on exploration of any kind. He may
>>> be a lot of good things, but visionary isn't one of
>>> them.
>>
>> But the comparison is irrelevant. If we really want to do a good job
>> exploring the solar system, it's much cheaper and much better to do it
>> with unmanned vehicles.
>>
>> For any real scientific goal, putting warm bodies up there is no help, is
>> extremely expensive, and adds constraints that make the science harder or
>> not as good. The Hubble repair missions cost more than the Hubble, the
>> Hubble is in the wrong orbit (since it had to go up in the shuttle), is
>> the wrong size (since it had to fit in the shuttle cargo bay), and was
>> two years delayed while they fixed the shuttle tiles. It's amazing in
>> spite of, not because of, manned flight.
>>
>> Apollo was neat at the time. But we've been there and done that. Real
>> exploration can be done better without the warm bodies.
>
> With a lot of limitations and inflexibility.
No. It's putting the warm bodies up their that imposes the limitations and
inflexibility.
> The recent extensive overhaul of the Hubble would not have been possible
> without astronauts.
They could have put up a new Hubble for what it cost to do that. And it
would have been in a better orbit for astronomy.
The amount of money it costs to put men up there is obscene.
> One could say, "design space vehicles to be maintained by robots" but
> then there is always room for the failure case not covered by the robots.
There have been many space vehicles that did a lot more, and for a lot
longer, than what they were designed for. For free.
> Mars has been explored for over three decades by landed systems. A lot
> has been learned, but a leap of learning needs boots on the ground.
Trying to put boots on the ground will put real learning back decades.
> Man has progressed by exploring and pushing the edges of envelopes not by
> standing still.
I'm not talking about standing still, I'm talking about doing better science
and doing a better job of exploration.
> The US has spent a lot of money on a war it did not have any justification
> for pursuing (combined costs are estimated to be in excess of $3T for the
> Iraq mis-adventure).
Hey, don't blame me; I'm from Massachusetts...
> And that amount is much more than all of the real costs of the shuttle
> program combined + the total cost of the international space station.
Your argument here, unfortunately, isn't logical. It doesn't work that way.
Just because we were really really stupid with $3T, doesn't mean either that
we would have used any of that money for something you think sensible had we
not done that stupidity, nor does it mean we have similar amounts of money
to spend on, again, something you think sensible.
frank
Yeah, right. A lot more have left due to companies doing the merger
and acquisition and the fact that projects are not funded anymore.
That's a function of Congress wanting to play lets get the money to
Wall Street. With a bit of help from the Executive branch.
There hasn't been a major new aerospace program in a good 20 plus
years. Its dead. There are NO aero jobs in Southern California
anymore.
Whining about ITAR just tells me you don't know what its about.
Bill Graham
"frank" <dhssres...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:5902f14f-0ee8-416f...@18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
It's coming to that.......Just wait another 5 years or so, and I'll be in
the poorhouse. (A place my dad used to talk about, that I thought was
obsolete.....)
We wouldn't have to listen to you as we fund your social security.
My social security is only about 25% of my income.....Most of my income
comes from my own efforts, independent of the taxpayers.....(Isn't that
unique?)
Bill Graham
"Peter" <pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4a61ebbb$0$23024$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...
> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:__qdnXFCL70u4vzX...@giganews.com...
>>
>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>> news:87tz1ac...@apaflo.com...
>>> You're right. It reminds me of those idiots who wanted, a
>>> few years back, to sail east across the ocean. Too far
>>> away, worthless, and a waste of resources. I'm sure glad
>>> they put a stop to it, aren't you?
>>
>> I don't see the parallel, myself, but whatever turns you on. I said that
>> I am all in favor of planetary exploration.......But putting men on the
>> moon just isn't the same thing. It's kind of like Columbus suddenly
>> deciding to turn South and go to the South Pole in 1492..........
>
>
> And you don't see a possible use of the moon as a base.
Nope. - It's too far away.....A much better base would be an orbiting space
station about 100 miles up.
> You don't think nothing about planetary exploration can be learned from
> moon exploration.
Nope.......Very little, and at great cost.
> Gosh! those Azores should be ignored.
Yup.......They should have been.
>
>
> --
> Peter
Bill Graham
Well, you're way ahead of the game, Floyd.....You've been ignoring my
opinions for a long time now.......
The money for moon exploration has already been spent. It's too late
now....All I'm trying to do is stop them from spending it all again.
Bill Graham
>>
>> If he can't see that parallel, then we should simply
>> ignore his opinions on exploration of any kind. He may
>> be a lot of good things, but visionary isn't one of
>> them.
>
> But the comparison is irrelevant. If we really want to do a good job
> exploring the solar system, it's much cheaper and much better to do it
> with unmanned vehicles.
Exactly right. And that was just as true in 1960 as it is today
> For any real scientific goal, putting warm bodies up there is no help, is
> extremely expensive, and adds constraints that make the science harder or
> not as good. The Hubble repair missions cost more than the Hubble, the
> Hubble is in the wrong orbit (since it had to go up in the shuttle), is
> the wrong size (since it had to fit in the shuttle cargo bay), and was two
> years delayed while they fixed the shuttle tiles. It's amazing in spite
> of, not because of, manned flight.
>
> Apollo was neat at the time. But we've been there and done that. Real
> exploration can be done better without the warm bodies.
Apollo was not, "neat" at the time......There was an excellent article in
Look magazine at the time that said so, and gave the reasons why.....The
same ones that you outlined above.....What would have been lost in the field
of space medicine would have more than been made up in the field of
robotics.....
Bill Graham
Robots also include photography.....What's wrong with taking a stereo
sequence and bringing/sending it back to Earth?
Bill Graham
Couple of big problems, rockets have no idea what fragile means. You
have to figure out stuff like if you think dust off an SLR is a
problem....not to mention the whole 'space rated' thingie. And no
local repair shop. That they last as long as they do is amazing. Some
just keep going and going and going......
Speaking of going and going......How about the advance in battery technology
that robotic exploration would yield?
Bill Graham
Bill Graham
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:Or6dnVX-S4Lynv_X...@giganews.com...
> for pursuing
How about explaining that to the relatives of the 3000 odd people who were
lost on 9/11?
Bill Graham
Oh, but it really captures Nancy Pelosi's imagination! (As long as they do
it with my money.)
Eric Stevens
wrote:
I don't think it would be any more effective than the present pressure
from the automotive industry.
Eric Stevens
Bill Graham
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:h3t0r...@news2.newsguy.com...
> Peter wrote:
>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:__qdnXFCL70u4vzX...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:87tz1ac...@apaflo.com...
>>>> You're right. It reminds me of those idiots who wanted, a
>>>> few years back, to sail east across the ocean. Too far
>>>> away, worthless, and a waste of resources. I'm sure glad
>>>> they put a stop to it, aren't you?
>>>
>>> I don't see the parallel, myself, but whatever turns you on. I said
>>> that I am all in favor of planetary exploration.......But putting
>>> men on the moon just isn't the same thing. It's kind of like
>>> Columbus suddenly deciding to turn South and go to the South Pole in
>>> 1492..........
>>
>>
>> And you don't see a possible use of the moon as a base.
>> You don't think nothing about planetary exploration can be learned
>> from moon exploration.
>> Gosh! those Azores should be ignored.
>
> While a space program is a good idea, the way Apollo was pursued was a
> stunt, not an exploration program. The Air Force has a much smaller, more
> gradual program in place that was intended to provide proven, reliable
> capability rather than propaganda, but Apollo pulled the rug out from
> under
> that one.
Back in the 60's all the universities had programs getting ready to go in
the field of planetary exploration. That had to be scrapped when Kennedy
decided to put, "men on the moon". Now, the second round is going to be
scrapped for the same reason......When will you guys ever learn?
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>
>"Peter" <pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>news:4a61ebbb$0$23024$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...
>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:__qdnXFCL70u4vzX...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:87tz1ac...@apaflo.com...
>>>> You're right. It reminds me of those idiots who wanted, a
>>>> few years back, to sail east across the ocean. Too far
>>>> away, worthless, and a waste of resources. I'm sure glad
>>>> they put a stop to it, aren't you?
>>>
>>> I don't see the parallel, myself, but whatever turns you on. I said that
>>> I am all in favor of planetary exploration.......But putting men on the
>>> moon just isn't the same thing. It's kind of like Columbus suddenly
>>> deciding to turn South and go to the South Pole in 1492..........
>>
>>
>> And you don't see a possible use of the moon as a base.
>
>
>Nope. - It's too far away.....A much better base would be an orbiting space
>station about 100 miles up.
Oh I don't know. An electric launch catapault on the moon would beat
anything you could do from a space station.
>
>
>> You don't think nothing about planetary exploration can be learned from
>> moon exploration.
>
>Nope.......Very little, and at great cost.
>
>> Gosh! those Azores should be ignored.
>
>Yup.......They should have been.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peter
Eric Stevens
Bill Graham
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> While a space program is a good idea, the way Apollo was pursued was a
>> stunt, not an exploration program.
Absolutely correct.....And it cost us billions, and stopped all the real
solar system exploration programs that the universities had ready to go at
the time.....It was a monstrous boondoggle, and that writer for Look
magazine knew it and told it to boot......A message that fell on deaf
Democratic ears......(I wonder if Nancy Pelosi's mom was in politics back
then?)
Bill Graham
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:abu465tnq2dmc06vi...@4ax.com...
What, "Automotive industry?" It's now in government receivership, the last I
heard.....
Bill Graham
> Well, find us that savage kid on the Moon then if you want a space
> program.
Even if the moon were solid gold, it wouldn't pay to go there to get
it.....The postage costs would be more than $1000 an ounce.......
Bill Graham
> On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 18:17:00 -0700, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Peter" <pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>news:4a61ebbb$0$23024$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...
>>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:__qdnXFCL70u4vzX...@giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:87tz1ac...@apaflo.com...
>>>>> You're right. It reminds me of those idiots who wanted, a
>>>>> few years back, to sail east across the ocean. Too far
>>>>> away, worthless, and a waste of resources. I'm sure glad
>>>>> they put a stop to it, aren't you?
>>>>
>>>> I don't see the parallel, myself, but whatever turns you on. I said
>>>> that
>>>> I am all in favor of planetary exploration.......But putting men on the
>>>> moon just isn't the same thing. It's kind of like Columbus suddenly
>>>> deciding to turn South and go to the South Pole in 1492..........
>>>
>>>
>>> And you don't see a possible use of the moon as a base.
>>
>>
>>Nope. - It's too far away.....A much better base would be an orbiting
>>space
>>station about 100 miles up.
>
> Oh I don't know. An electric launch catapault on the moon would beat
> anything you could do from a space station.
Until you got your monthly electric bill.......
Bill Graham
Do you have any idea how hard it is going to be to get there? Building
and launching from the moon would be far cheaper and easier than going
from Earth. Not to mention we have no idea what months in
interplanetary space will be like.
Building and launching from a space station about 150 miles up would be lots
cheaper......Months in interplanetary space will be there no matter where we
launch from. Compared to planetary distances, the moon and the earth are the
same place......
tony cooper
wrote:
>
How many of the 3,000 were brought back to life by the unnecessary
deaths of the thousands that followed in that misbegotten war?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Annika1980
>
> > The US has spent a lot of money on a war it did not have any justification
> > for pursuing
>
> How about explaining that to the relatives of the 3000 odd people who were
> lost on 9/11?
So when do we attack Saudi Arabia?
J. Clarke
Besides, robotic exploration has been using nuclear anyway.