Mars? After he guts the Space Program?

[American Horse]

What's this with Obama trying to reshoot Armageddon the movie?

Now the dip-shit wants us to fly to a friggen asteroid?

Is he smoking crack?

<SNIP>
Oh yea, especially when we KNOW that NEA's have precious metals and minerals, along with other unknowns. Not to mention many of them are closer and more easily accesible than the moon and could be better spots than the moon to launch to Mars from.
<SNIP>
Everyone talks about their being water on the moon so we should set up a base, but the amount of water that bomb showed is akin to dropping a bomb in the sahara and looking for water molecules. We need to know if there's more outside of that rather large basin or if its actually deceptively dry before we just start setting up moon bases.
<SNIP>

I'm taking issue with your description of the amount of water found on the moon November of 2009 in the LCROSS experiment

Based on the measurements, the team estimated about 100 kilograms of water in the view of their instruments &#8212; the equivalent of about a dozen 2-gallon buckets &#8212; in the area of the impact crater (about 66 feet, or 20 meters across) and the ejecta blanket (about 60 to 80 meters across), Colaprete said.

"I'm pretty impressed by the amount of water we saw in our little 20-meter crater," Colaprete said.

How much is that?

There appears to be about 24 gallons in an area of about 2,400 square feet or a gallon per 10-feet x 10-feet area (or 100 square feet)

This water finding doesn't mean that the moon is wet by Earth's standards, but is likely wetter than some of the driest deserts on Earth, Colaprete said. And even this small amount is valuable to possible future missions, said Michael Wargo, chief lunar scientist for Exploration Systems at NASA

Scientists also are looking to see if there is any link between the water observed by LCROSS and that discovered by Chandrayaan-1.

What about Chandrayaan-1?
"Their observation is entirely unique and complementary to what we did," Colaprete said. Scientists still need to work out whether the water observed by Chandrayaan-1 might be slowly migrating to the poles, or if it is unrelated.

Bottom line, the discovery completely changes scientists' view of the moon, Wargo said.

*The discovery gives "a much bigger, potentially complicated picture for water on the moon" than what was thought even just a few months ago, he said. "This is not your father's moon; this is not a dead planetary body."

LINK TO ABOVE QUOTES

Missions to the moon are off the table for NASA.
That's what the president said and we have to take that as gospel until another administration changes it, which is unlikely to happen.

What may happen, though, is that "commercialization" of manned bases on the moon could be leveraged with challenge prizes. For those of us who see the moon as a stepping stone too good to waste, we can still hope.

Mining Near Earth Asteroids offers the advantage for our craft and crews to be able to work in "micro gravity" making for a great reduction in fuel use. But these near Earth asteroids are not anywhere close to Earth, they have orbits around the sun, and we can rendezvous and depart at different locations in their orbits but the time the crews spend in orbit will probably be greater than a year, and may be up to 18 months. Some asteroids have orbits resonant with Earth's.

Here's one of those asteroids, 3753 Cruithne
which fits the criteria of an NEA able to be mined.

Cruithne appears to make a bean-shaped orbit
from the perspective of Earth

Cruithne is approximately 5 kilometres (3.1 mi) in diameter, and its closest approach to Earth is approximately thirty times the separation between Earth and the Moon.
Through 2015, Cruithne will make its annual closest approach to Earth every November.

More on Cruithne

Edit: Inserted this quote above *

 

[rdean]

rdean, you're a very interesting person sometimes.

You deplore Republicans for not being scientific. Yet, you aren't at all curious about further exploration of the moon. You dont care about the technological advancements we'd create in doing so. You claim we know whats on the moon already. It took thousands of years to explore the earth and there are still parts that no man has been to. Yet, less then 30 years and we have nothing more to learn from the moon?

How do you know we don't have some sort of amazing energy supply on the moon that is completely unknown to us now? How will we ever find out if we don't explore it more? How do you propose that we explore the rest of the universe if we dont have a steady presence on our closest neighbor?

This is one of the greatest areas of scientific exploration and you want to just stop it because Republicans support it? Take a step back and dont let your biases block you from seeing the great possibilities ahead of us.

The moon is a dead world with a cold center. We know that from several sources. First, the unchanging surface, second because it has no "magnetic field". Without any type of dynamic movement, what new "energy source" could we possibly find? And finally, because of the many bits of rock and dust brought back for examination and study.

In fact, because of the way the moon was formed and because it lacks a dynamic nature, it's not even good for mining. Without a dynamic process, the heavier and more valuable elements are probably buried deep below the surface.

Venus, although a similar size to earth, is the victim of runaway global warming. Surface temperature so hot and the pressure so great, the rivers aren't water, but molten lead. The clouds are made from acid. We could never visit there.

Mars, although lacking a magnetic field, meaning anyone living on it's surface would be victimized by "solar storms", still has visible water at the poles and a temperate climate. The "red dust" is iron, meaning that Mars definitely has all the qualities that would make a feasible outpost. Water, metal and climate.

Do you have a better understanding of my position? To me, yours seems to be "wishing" and "what if". Your position is much more political than mine because you didn't state a single fact or show the slightest understanding the issues. When you can debate this seriously, come back, I would like to hear a meaningful viewpoint.

 

[code1211]

rdean, you're a very interesting person sometimes.

You deplore Republicans for not being scientific. Yet, you aren't at all curious about further exploration of the moon. You dont care about the technological advancements we'd create in doing so. You claim we know whats on the moon already. It took thousands of years to explore the earth and there are still parts that no man has been to. Yet, less then 30 years and we have nothing more to learn from the moon?

How do you know we don't have some sort of amazing energy supply on the moon that is completely unknown to us now? How will we ever find out if we don't explore it more? How do you propose that we explore the rest of the universe if we dont have a steady presence on our closest neighbor?

This is one of the greatest areas of scientific exploration and you want to just stop it because Republicans support it? Take a step back and dont let your biases block you from seeing the great possibilities ahead of us.

The moon is a dead world with a cold center. We know that from several sources. First, the unchanging surface, second because it has no "magnetic field". Without any type of dynamic movement, what new "energy source" could we possibly find? And finally, because of the many bits of rock and dust brought back for examination and study.

In fact, because of the way the moon was formed and because it lacks a dynamic nature, it's not even good for mining. Without a dynamic process, the heavier and more valuable elements are probably buried deep below the surface.

Venus, although a similar size to earth, is the victim of runaway global warming. Surface temperature so hot and the pressure so great, the rivers aren't water, but molten lead. The clouds are made from acid. We could never visit there.

Mars, although lacking a magnetic field, meaning anyone living on it's surface would be victimized by "solar storms", still has visible water at the poles and a temperate climate. The "red dust" is iron, meaning that Mars definitely has all the qualities that would make a feasible outpost. Water, metal and climate.

Do you have a better understanding of my position? To me, yours seems to be "wishing" and "what if". Your position is much more political than mine because you didn't state a single fact or show the slightest understanding the issues. When you can debate this seriously, come back, I would like to hear a meaningful viewpoint.

How about Neil Armstrong's viewpoint? You don't need to be rocket scientist to know that this is about as stupid a decision as has ever been made. Armstrong happens to be a rocket scientist, but, as I said, you don't need to be one to understand foolish stupidity when you see it.

Almost everyday, I agree with one of the Big 0's decisions. Unfortunately, every time he leaves the White house, he returns.

Neil Armstrong | Obama's devastating Nasa cuts | Open letter | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

The United States entered into the challenge of space exploration under President Eisenhower's first term, however, it was the Soviet Union who excelled in those early years. Under the bold vision of Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, and with the overwhelming approval of the American people, we rapidly closed the gap in the final third of the 20th century, and became the world leader in space exploration.

America's space accomplishments earned the respect and admiration of the world. Science probes were unlocking the secrets of the cosmos; space technology was providing instantaneous worldwide communication; orbital sentinels were helping man understand the vagaries of nature. Above all else, the people around the world were inspired by the human exploration of space and the expanding of man's frontier. It suggested that what had been thought to be impossible was now within reach.Students were inspired to prepare themselves to be a part of this new age. No government programme in modern history has been so effective in motivating the young to do "what has never been done before".

World leadership in space was not achieved easily. In the first half-century of the space age, our country made a significant financial investment, thousands of Americans dedicated themselves to the effort, and some gave their lives to achieve the dream of a nation. In the latter part of the first half century of the space age, Americans and their international partners focused primarily on exploiting the near frontiers of space with the space shuttle and the International Space Station.

As a result of the tragic loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia in 2003, it was concluded that our space policy required a new strategic vision. Extensive studies and analysis led to this new mandate: meet our existing commitments, return to our exploration roots, return to the moon, and prepare to venture further outward to the asteroids and to Mars. The programme was named "Constellation". In the ensuing years, this plan was endorsed by two presidents of different parties and approved by both Democratic and Republican Congresses.

The Columbia Accident Board had given Nasa a number of recommendations fundamental to the Constellation architecture which were duly incorporated. The Ares rocket family was patterned after the Von Braun Modular concept so essential to the success of the Saturn 1B and the Saturn 5. A number of components in the Ares 1 rocket would become the foundation of the very large heavy lift Ares V, thus reducing the total development costs substantially. After the Ares 1 becomes operational, the only major new components necessary for the Ares V would be the larger propellant tanks to support the heavy lift requirements.

The design and the production of the flight components and infrastructure to implement this vision was well underway. Detailed planning of all the major sectors of the programme had begun. Enthusiasm within Nasa and throughout the country was very high.

When President Obama recently released his budget for Nasa, he proposed a slight increase in total funding, substantial research and technology development, an extension of the International Space Station operation until 2020, long range planning for a new but undefined heavy lift rocket and significant funding for the development of commercial access to low earth orbit.

Although some of these proposals have merit, the accompanying decision to cancel the Constellation programme, its Ares 1 and Ares V rockets, and the Orion spacecraft, is devastating.

America's only path to low Earth orbit and the International Space Station will now be subject to an agreement with Russia to purchase space on their Soyuz (at a price of over $50m per seat with significant increases expected in the near future) until we have the capacity to provide transportation for ourselves. The availability of a commercial transport to orbit as envisioned in the president's proposal cannot be predicted with any certainty, but is likely to take substantially longer and be more expensive than we would hope.

It appears that we will have wasted our current $10bn-plus investment in Constellation and, equally importantly, we will have lost the many years required to recreate the equivalent of what we will have discarded.

For the United States, the leading space faring nation for nearly half a century, to be without carriage to low Earth orbit and with no human exploration capability to go beyond Earth orbit for an indeterminate time into the future, destines our nation to become one of second or even third rate stature. While the president's plan envisages humans travelling away from Earth and perhaps toward Mars at some time in the future, the lack of developed rockets and spacecraft will assure that ability will not be available for many years.

Without the skill and experience that actual spacecraft operation provides, the US is far too likely to be on a long downhill slide to mediocrity. America must decide if it wishes to remain a leader in space. If it does, we should institute a programme which will give us the very best chance of achieving that goal.

Neil Armstrong
Commander, Apollo 11

James Lovell
Commander, Apollo 13

Eugene Cernan
Commander, Apollo 17

 

[HUGGY]

One would think that the anti big government tea baggers should be all over Obamas plan to make the space exploration program more privatized.

 

[mudwhistle]

One would think that the anti big government tea baggers should be all over Obamas plan to make the space exploration program more privatized.

Problem is he's canceled research on the new shuttle program so we have to hitch a ride with the Russians for the near future.

This Asteroid nonsense is just a joke.

 

[rdean]

One would think that the anti big government tea baggers should be all over Obamas plan to make the space exploration program more privatized.

Problem is he's canceled research on the new shuttle program so we have to hitch a ride with the Russians for the near future.

This Asteroid nonsense is just a joke.

You have no opinion on this or you would have posted a fact. That's the problem with the anti Obama people. They just hate him. They say it's his policies, but they never post anything that has anything to do with any of his policies. Only what they "imagine" with no supporting data.

SpaceX Slips Falcon 9 Launch to May | SpaceNews.com

The Falcon 9's payload for the upcoming launch, which will take place from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla., is a prototype of the Dragon capsule the company has designed to carry cargo and eventually crew to the international space station.

NSS Press Release 2010-Apr-15

•dramatically increased robotic exploration and scouting missions,
•an advanced replacement for the Hubble Space Telescope,
•an array of expanded Earth/climate sensing work,
•extension of the life of the International Space Station and provision of funds to use it to the fullest,
•support for commercial transportation initiatives for cargo and crew,
•development of the Orion spacecraft to serve as a Space Station Crew Emergency Vehicle and its evolution to a Beyond Earth Orbit exploration vehicle,
•design completion for a Heavy Lift Launch capability no later than 2015 followed by the production of the vehicle,
•investment in the Technology, Research, and Development to enable the use of the material resources and energy in space and to address the challenges of the Beyond Earth Orbit space environment (such as radiation shielding, advanced propulsion, etc.), and
•human Beyond Earth Orbit missions to asteroids within the next two decades, Mars orbit by the mid-2030s, and the Martian surface in his lifetime.

 

[rightwinger]

&#8226;dramatically increased robotic exploration and scouting missions,
&#8226;an advanced replacement for the Hubble Space Telescope,
&#8226;an array of expanded Earth/climate sensing work,

Sensible and economic plan for space missions in the near future.

 

[rdean]

rdean, you're a very interesting person sometimes.

You deplore Republicans for not being scientific. Yet, you aren't at all curious about further exploration of the moon. You dont care about the technological advancements we'd create in doing so. You claim we know whats on the moon already. It took thousands of years to explore the earth and there are still parts that no man has been to. Yet, less then 30 years and we have nothing more to learn from the moon?

How do you know we don't have some sort of amazing energy supply on the moon that is completely unknown to us now? How will we ever find out if we don't explore it more? How do you propose that we explore the rest of the universe if we dont have a steady presence on our closest neighbor?

This is one of the greatest areas of scientific exploration and you want to just stop it because Republicans support it? Take a step back and dont let your biases block you from seeing the great possibilities ahead of us.

The moon is a dead world with a cold center. We know that from several sources. First, the unchanging surface, second because it has no "magnetic field". Without any type of dynamic movement, what new "energy source" could we possibly find? And finally, because of the many bits of rock and dust brought back for examination and study.

In fact, because of the way the moon was formed and because it lacks a dynamic nature, it's not even good for mining. Without a dynamic process, the heavier and more valuable elements are probably buried deep below the surface.

Venus, although a similar size to earth, is the victim of runaway global warming. Surface temperature so hot and the pressure so great, the rivers aren't water, but molten lead. The clouds are made from acid. We could never visit there.

Mars, although lacking a magnetic field, meaning anyone living on it's surface would be victimized by "solar storms", still has visible water at the poles and a temperate climate. The "red dust" is iron, meaning that Mars definitely has all the qualities that would make a feasible outpost. Water, metal and climate.

Do you have a better understanding of my position? To me, yours seems to be "wishing" and "what if". Your position is much more political than mine because you didn't state a single fact or show the slightest understanding the issues. When you can debate this seriously, come back, I would like to hear a meaningful viewpoint.

How about Neil Armstrong's viewpoint? You don't need to be rocket scientist to know that this is about as stupid a decision as has ever been made. Armstrong happens to be a rocket scientist, but, as I said, you don't need to be one to understand foolish stupidity when you see it.

Almost everyday, I agree with one of the Big 0's decisions. Unfortunately, every time he leaves the White house, he returns.

----------------

While the president's plan envisages humans travelling away from Earth and perhaps toward Mars at some time in the future, the lack of developed rockets and spacecraft will assure that ability will not be available for many years.

Without the skill and experience that actual spacecraft operation provides, the US is far too likely to be on a long downhill slide to mediocrity. America must decide if it wishes to remain a leader in space. If it does, we should institute a programme which will give us the very best chance of achieving that goal.

Neil Armstrong
Commander, Apollo 11

James Lovell
Commander, Apollo 13

Eugene Cernan
Commander, Apollo 17

These guys have a much different perspective than anyone under 70. For one, they are still talking about chemical rockets. To them, making rocket's "bigger" is "new technology".

I hate to say it, but their "perspective" may be a little "past it's prime".

"Without the skill and experience that actual spacecraft operation provides" - Spacecraft operation today and 30 plus years ago, I suspect, is much more different.

We learned more from the robots we put on Mars than all the moon trips put together.

And speaking of robots:

Robonaut ready for duty - Cosmic Log - msnbc.com

""This project exemplifies the promise that a future generation of robots can have both in space and on Earth, not as replacements for humans but as companions that can carry out key supporting roles," John Olson, director of NASA's Exploration Systems Integration Office, said in today's announcement about R2's itinerary. "The combined potential of humans and robots is a perfect example of the sum equaling more than the parts. It will allow us to go farther and achieve more than we can probably even imagine today."

The lessons learned on the final frontier could also be applied to factory floors on Earth - and that's why GM has been working so closely with NASA to get R2 ready for its tryout. Hand in robotic hand, so to speak.

 

[American Horse]

<SNIIP>
How do you know we don't have some sort of amazing energy supply on the moon that is completely unknown to us now? How will we ever find out if we don't explore it more? How do you propose that we explore the rest of the universe if we dont have a steady presence on our closest neighbor?

This is one of the greatest areas of scientific exploration and you want to just stop it because Republicans support it? Take a step back and dont let your biases block you from seeing the great possibilities ahead of us.

The moon is a dead world with a cold center. We know that from several sources. First, the unchanging surface, second because it has no "magnetic field". Without any type of dynamic movement, what new "energy source" could we possibly find? And finally, because of the many bits of rock and dust brought back for examination and study.

In fact, because of the way the moon was formed and because it lacks a dynamic nature, it's not even good for mining. Without a dynamic process, the heavier and more valuable elements are probably buried deep below the surface.
<SNIP>
When you can debate this seriously, come back, I would like to hear a meaningful viewpoint.

(See my response below)

<SNIP> (to Mudwhistle )You have no opinion on this or you would have posted a fact. That's the problem with the anti Obama people. They just hate him. They say it's his policies, but they never post anything that has anything to do with any of his policies. Only what they "imagine" with no supporting data.

I realize that snippy retort was not aimed directly at me, but others like me.
Like them I have opinions on the decisions laid out in the new Obama/NASA plan, and because I differ from the President&#8217;s announced plan - when actually it is a plan generated from the report of Augustine Commission and others - you use the old clichéd arguments that any variance from Obama&#8217;s utterances are from Obama hatred; this is nonsense. My opinions come from years of sustained interest in the space program, an earnest effort to stay up to date on events and issues, a personal dream, and a desire to see that dream realized.

My opinion is that the recent decision to take the moon off the table and to choose to go to Mars without further expansion of our base of operations vis-à-vis the moon is because it (Mars) is the most romantically attractive option (to the general public) which seems new rather than same-old-same-old. (Why go to the moon, we&#8217;ve done that already, thus it has less appeal) and it is the more remote option (it is so far removed from the present that political exigencies will likely lead to its end without completion &#8211; we will never actually do it; in the end we will spare ourselves the effort)

( Here is a somewhat detailed response to your top-most post )

Here you will find that the Moon&#8217;s crust is mostly anorthosite

[The Moon&#8217;s] crust is mostly ANORTHOSITE and moon rock samples of the flood lavas erupted on the surface from partial melting in the mantle confirm the mafic mantle composition, which is more iron rich than that of Earth.

High-alumina orthopyroxene megacrysts (HAOM) have anomalously large amounts of aluminium (up to about 9%) in their atomic structure.

[HAOM's Source] - Because the solubility of aluminium in orthopyroxene increases with increasing pressure, many researchers, have suggested that the HAOM crystallized at depth, near the base of the Earth's crust. The maximum amounts of aluminium correspond to a 30&#8211;35 km [there](19&#8211;22 mi)

Elemental composition of the Moon's crust
Oxygen 41 &#8211; 46%, Silicon 21%, Iron 13%, Calcium 8%, Aluminum 7%, Magnesium 6%
The impact craters are pre-existing open pit mines with the minerals already exposed for access. The floors of craters are mostly flat and the contours of the crater walls are terraced and shelved exposing layers in turn for ready access.

There are many craters on the minimal size with their flat bottoms and walls which will provide ready shaped and contoured base structures for covering with domes made from the raw materials which are abundant. Everything is readily available for fabricating solar energy panels to power all the processes and living requirements.

- BELOW -
" A Spartan Scenario for a Lunar Mining Base - Dave Dietzler 2007

Primary Lunar Construction Materials

1) Iron (carbon free) from molten silicate electrolysis and iron fines mining. Nickel and cobalt can also be derived from iron fines.

2) Steel produced by the &#8220;blister&#8221; process, also called crucible or cementation process. Practicality of DRI is unknown.

3) Titanium from ilmenite separated electrostatically from mare regolith, reduced with H2 gas, yielding TiO2 and Fe, Fe removed with CO gas, TiO2 electrolyzed in FFC cells

4) Cast basalt

5) Glass from melted anorthite, volcanic glass deposits, possibly sulfuric acid leaching and vacuum volatilization from anorthite

6) Ceramics: TiO2, spinel-silicate blocks from magma electrolysis, fused calcium aluminate?

7) Glass-glass composites

8) Concrete inside of pressurized habitations and lava tubes made by high temp. roasting of anorthositic regolith to obtain cement, some calcium sulfate by acid leaching, and crushed slag, gravel, screened regolith for aggregate.


Secondary Materials
1) Aluminum for wiring by roasting anorthite to CaAl2O4 and fluxed electrolysis. Calcium can also be used for cables out-vac

10 gauge Al wire can carry 25 amps. At 14.2 gr/m we need 14.2 kg/1000m and only14.2 metric tons per 1000 km! We could do plenty of wiring with that.

0000 cable 165 amps 290 gr/m 290 kg/km 290 tons/1000 km

AWG 1000 cable 380 amps 1813 gr/m 1813 kg/km 1813 tons/1000 km


Enormous quantities of aluminum are not needed since it will be used mainly for wiring and cables rather than structural purposes. Thus, the masses of flux upported to the Moon will be limited and not represent an excessive cost.


2) Magnesium for mining explosives
3) Chromium, manganese, sodium, potassium, chlorine, flourine, phosphorus have important uses but will not be required in huge masses. Possibility for extraction from lunar regolith exists."

At the Moon we don't have to mine everything we need for our purposes; material resources are already positioned for ready access to the Moon
"Precious metals and other materials from scavenged satellites:
Orbital debris is becoming a real problem. It threatens expensive commercial and defense satellites. Any future space program must involve orbital debris removal. There are thousands of pieces of space junk from old upper stages to dead satellites in orbit. Proposals have been made to zap them with lasers and such, but it would be better to use electrodynamic tether systems to snare these objects and collect them and deliver them to lunar orbit. ED tethers require no propellant; only solar energy. A veritable mountain of gold is already in high orbit!

The development of electrodynamic/momentumn exchange tether systems would be of immense value not only for orbital debris removal but for transportation of cargos to LLO without propellant. See: SpaceTethers.comhttp://www.spacetethers.com/ "

AND FINALLY
Dave Dietzler 2007
" We will build mass drivers to launch lunar materials into space for the construction of solar power satellites, robotic asteroid mining ships and even spaceship fleets for the colonization and terraforming of the planet Mars and exploration of the solar system. Someday we will even engage in megascale engineering in space and interstellar travel. The Moon truly is our platform to the galaxy."

 

[HUGGY]

<SNIIP>
How do you know we don't have some sort of amazing energy supply on the moon that is completely unknown to us now? How will we ever find out if we don't explore it more? How do you propose that we explore the rest of the universe if we dont have a steady presence on our closest neighbor?

This is one of the greatest areas of scientific exploration and you want to just stop it because Republicans support it? Take a step back and dont let your biases block you from seeing the great possibilities ahead of us.

The moon is a dead world with a cold center. We know that from several sources. First, the unchanging surface, second because it has no "magnetic field". Without any type of dynamic movement, what new "energy source" could we possibly find? And finally, because of the many bits of rock and dust brought back for examination and study.

In fact, because of the way the moon was formed and because it lacks a dynamic nature, it's not even good for mining. Without a dynamic process, the heavier and more valuable elements are probably buried deep below the surface.
<SNIP>
When you can debate this seriously, come back, I would like to hear a meaningful viewpoint.

(See my response below)

<SNIP> (to Mudwhistle )You have no opinion on this or you would have posted a fact. That's the problem with the anti Obama people. They just hate him. They say it's his policies, but they never post anything that has anything to do with any of his policies. Only what they "imagine" with no supporting data.

I realize that snippy retort was not aimed directly at me, but others like me.
Like them I have opinions on the decisions laid out in the new Obama/NASA plan, and because I differ from the President’s announced plan - when actually it is a plan generated from the report of Augustine Commission and others - you use the old clichéd arguments that any variance from Obama’s utterances are from Obama hatred; this is nonsense. My opinions come from years of sustained interest in the space program, an earnest effort to stay up to date on events and issues, a personal dream, and a desire to see that dream realized.

My opinion is that the recent decision to take the moon off the table and to choose to go to Mars without further expansion of our base of operations vis-à-vis the moon is because it (Mars) is the most romantically attractive option (to the general public) which seems new rather than same-old-same-old. (Why go to the moon, we’ve done that already, thus it has less appeal) and it is the more remote option (it is so far removed from the present that political exigencies will likely lead to its end without completion – we will never actually do it; in the end we will spare ourselves the effort)

( Here is a somewhat detailed response to your top-most post )

Here you will find that the Moon’s crust is mostly anorthosite

[The Moon’s] crust is mostly ANORTHOSITE and moon rock samples of the flood lavas erupted on the surface from partial melting in the mantle confirm the mafic mantle composition, which is more iron rich than that of Earth.

High-alumina orthopyroxene megacrysts (HAOM) have anomalously large amounts of aluminium (up to about 9%) in their atomic structure.

[HAOM's Source] - Because the solubility of aluminium in orthopyroxene increases with increasing pressure, many researchers, have suggested that the HAOM crystallized at depth, near the base of the Earth's crust. The maximum amounts of aluminium correspond to a 30–35 km [there](19–22 mi)

Elemental composition of the Moon's crust
Oxygen 41 – 46%, Silicon 21%, Iron 13%, Calcium 8%, Aluminum 7%, Magnesium 6%
The impact craters are pre-existing open pit mines with the minerals already exposed for access. The floors of craters are mostly flat and the contours of the crater walls are terraced and shelved exposing layers in turn for ready access.

There are many craters on the minimal size with their flat bottoms and walls which will provide ready shaped and contoured base structures for covering with domes made from the raw materials which are abundant. Everything is readily available for fabricating solar energy panels to power all the processes and living requirements.

- BELOW -
" A Spartan Scenario for a Lunar Mining Base - Dave Dietzler 2007

Primary Lunar Construction Materials

1) Iron (carbon free) from molten silicate electrolysis and iron fines mining. Nickel and cobalt can also be derived from iron fines.

2) Steel produced by the “blister” process, also called crucible or cementation process. Practicality of DRI is unknown.

3) Titanium from ilmenite separated electrostatically from mare regolith, reduced with H2 gas, yielding TiO2 and Fe, Fe removed with CO gas, TiO2 electrolyzed in FFC cells

4) Cast basalt

5) Glass from melted anorthite, volcanic glass deposits, possibly sulfuric acid leaching and vacuum volatilization from anorthite

6) Ceramics: TiO2, spinel-silicate blocks from magma electrolysis, fused calcium aluminate?

7) Glass-glass composites

8) Concrete inside of pressurized habitations and lava tubes made by high temp. roasting of anorthositic regolith to obtain cement, some calcium sulfate by acid leaching, and crushed slag, gravel, screened regolith for aggregate.


Secondary Materials
1) Aluminum for wiring by roasting anorthite to CaAl2O4 and fluxed electrolysis. Calcium can also be used for cables out-vac

10 gauge Al wire can carry 25 amps. At 14.2 gr/m we need 14.2 kg/1000m and only14.2 metric tons per 1000 km! We could do plenty of wiring with that.

0000 cable 165 amps 290 gr/m 290 kg/km 290 tons/1000 km

AWG 1000 cable 380 amps 1813 gr/m 1813 kg/km 1813 tons/1000 km


Enormous quantities of aluminum are not needed since it will be used mainly for wiring and cables rather than structural purposes. Thus, the masses of flux upported to the Moon will be limited and not represent an excessive cost.


2) Magnesium for mining explosives
3) Chromium, manganese, sodium, potassium, chlorine, flourine, phosphorus have important uses but will not be required in huge masses. Possibility for extraction from lunar regolith exists."

At the Moon we don't have to mine everything we need for our purposes; material resources are already positioned for ready access to the Moon
"Precious metals and other materials from scavenged satellites:
Orbital debris is becoming a real problem. It threatens expensive commercial and defense satellites. Any future space program must involve orbital debris removal. There are thousands of pieces of space junk from old upper stages to dead satellites in orbit. Proposals have been made to zap them with lasers and such, but it would be better to use electrodynamic tether systems to snare these objects and collect them and deliver them to lunar orbit. ED tethers require no propellant; only solar energy. A veritable mountain of gold is already in high orbit!

The development of electrodynamic/momentumn exchange tether systems would be of immense value not only for orbital debris removal but for transportation of cargos to LLO without propellant. See: SpaceTethers.comhttp://www.spacetethers.com/ "

AND FINALLY
Dave Dietzler 2007
" We will build mass drivers to launch lunar materials into space for the construction of solar power satellites, robotic asteroid mining ships and even spaceship fleets for the colonization and terraforming of the planet Mars and exploration of the solar system. Someday we will even engage in megascale engineering in space and interstellar travel. The Moon truly is our platform to the galaxy."

I work in metal forging and manufacturing and it is clear that you do not. I won't call you a moron but your knowledge came from a comic book. Proccesing raw ores into machinable metals would take thousands of trips to the moon and thousands of people to build your huge domes. The costs would truly be astronomical..no pun intended. We don't even know if there is enough accessable ores to justify building something the size of an automobile let alone something the size of a football stadium or ten times that size.

 

[rdean]

<SNIIP>
How do you know we don't have some sort of amazing energy supply on the moon that is completely unknown to us now? How will we ever find out if we don't explore it more? How do you propose that we explore the rest of the universe if we dont have a steady presence on our closest neighbor?

This is one of the greatest areas of scientific exploration and you want to just stop it because Republicans support it? Take a step back and dont let your biases block you from seeing the great possibilities ahead of us.

The moon is a dead world with a cold center. We know that from several sources. First, the unchanging surface, second because it has no "magnetic field". Without any type of dynamic movement, what new "energy source" could we possibly find? And finally, because of the many bits of rock and dust brought back for examination and study.

In fact, because of the way the moon was formed and because it lacks a dynamic nature, it's not even good for mining. Without a dynamic process, the heavier and more valuable elements are probably buried deep below the surface.
<SNIP>
When you can debate this seriously, come back, I would like to hear a meaningful viewpoint.

(See my response below)

<SNIP> (to Mudwhistle )You have no opinion on this or you would have posted a fact. That's the problem with the anti Obama people. They just hate him. They say it's his policies, but they never post anything that has anything to do with any of his policies. Only what they "imagine" with no supporting data.

I realize that snippy retort was not aimed directly at me, but others like me.
Like them I have opinions on the decisions laid out in the new Obama/NASA plan, and because I differ from the President’s announced plan - when actually it is a plan generated from the report of Augustine Commission and others - you use the old clichéd arguments that any variance from Obama’s utterances are from Obama hatred; this is nonsense. My opinions come from years of sustained interest in the space program, an earnest effort to stay up to date on events and issues, a personal dream, and a desire to see that dream realized.

My opinion is that the recent decision to take the moon off the table and to choose to go to Mars without further expansion of our base of operations vis-à-vis the moon is because it (Mars) is the most romantically attractive option (to the general public) which seems new rather than same-old-same-old. (Why go to the moon, we’ve done that already, thus it has less appeal) and it is the more remote option (it is so far removed from the present that political exigencies will likely lead to its end without completion – we will never actually do it; in the end we will spare ourselves the effort)

( Here is a somewhat detailed response to your top-most post )

Here you will find that the Moon’s crust is mostly anorthosite

[The Moon’s] crust is mostly ANORTHOSITE and moon rock samples of the flood lavas erupted on the surface from partial melting in the mantle confirm the mafic mantle composition, which is more iron rich than that of Earth.

High-alumina orthopyroxene megacrysts (HAOM) have anomalously large amounts of aluminium (up to about 9%) in their atomic structure.

[HAOM's Source] - Because the solubility of aluminium in orthopyroxene increases with increasing pressure, many researchers, have suggested that the HAOM crystallized at depth, near the base of the Earth's crust. The maximum amounts of aluminium correspond to a 30–35 km [there](19–22 mi)

Elemental composition of the Moon's crust
Oxygen 41 – 46%, Silicon 21%, Iron 13%, Calcium 8%, Aluminum 7%, Magnesium 6%
The impact craters are pre-existing open pit mines with the minerals already exposed for access. The floors of craters are mostly flat and the contours of the crater walls are terraced and shelved exposing layers in turn for ready access.

There are many craters on the minimal size with their flat bottoms and walls which will provide ready shaped and contoured base structures for covering with domes made from the raw materials which are abundant. Everything is readily available for fabricating solar energy panels to power all the processes and living requirements.

- BELOW -
" A Spartan Scenario for a Lunar Mining Base - Dave Dietzler 2007

Primary Lunar Construction Materials

1) Iron (carbon free) from molten silicate electrolysis and iron fines mining. Nickel and cobalt can also be derived from iron fines.

2) Steel produced by the “blister” process, also called crucible or cementation process. Practicality of DRI is unknown.

3) Titanium from ilmenite separated electrostatically from mare regolith, reduced with H2 gas, yielding TiO2 and Fe, Fe removed with CO gas, TiO2 electrolyzed in FFC cells

4) Cast basalt

5) Glass from melted anorthite, volcanic glass deposits, possibly sulfuric acid leaching and vacuum volatilization from anorthite

6) Ceramics: TiO2, spinel-silicate blocks from magma electrolysis, fused calcium aluminate?

7) Glass-glass composites

8) Concrete inside of pressurized habitations and lava tubes made by high temp. roasting of anorthositic regolith to obtain cement, some calcium sulfate by acid leaching, and crushed slag, gravel, screened regolith for aggregate.


Secondary Materials
1) Aluminum for wiring by roasting anorthite to CaAl2O4 and fluxed electrolysis. Calcium can also be used for cables out-vac

10 gauge Al wire can carry 25 amps. At 14.2 gr/m we need 14.2 kg/1000m and only14.2 metric tons per 1000 km! We could do plenty of wiring with that.

0000 cable 165 amps 290 gr/m 290 kg/km 290 tons/1000 km

AWG 1000 cable 380 amps 1813 gr/m 1813 kg/km 1813 tons/1000 km


Enormous quantities of aluminum are not needed since it will be used mainly for wiring and cables rather than structural purposes. Thus, the masses of flux upported to the Moon will be limited and not represent an excessive cost.


2) Magnesium for mining explosives
3) Chromium, manganese, sodium, potassium, chlorine, flourine, phosphorus have important uses but will not be required in huge masses. Possibility for extraction from lunar regolith exists."

At the Moon we don't have to mine everything we need for our purposes; material resources are already positioned for ready access to the Moon
"Precious metals and other materials from scavenged satellites:
Orbital debris is becoming a real problem. It threatens expensive commercial and defense satellites. Any future space program must involve orbital debris removal. There are thousands of pieces of space junk from old upper stages to dead satellites in orbit. Proposals have been made to zap them with lasers and such, but it would be better to use electrodynamic tether systems to snare these objects and collect them and deliver them to lunar orbit. ED tethers require no propellant; only solar energy. A veritable mountain of gold is already in high orbit!

The development of electrodynamic/momentumn exchange tether systems would be of immense value not only for orbital debris removal but for transportation of cargos to LLO without propellant. See: SpaceTethers.comhttp://www.spacetethers.com/ "

AND FINALLY
Dave Dietzler 2007
" We will build mass drivers to launch lunar materials into space for the construction of solar power satellites, robotic asteroid mining ships and even spaceship fleets for the colonization and terraforming of the planet Mars and exploration of the solar system. Someday we will even engage in megascale engineering in space and interstellar travel. The Moon truly is our platform to the galaxy."

What you write truly "sounds" good, on the surface. Then you take a "deeper" look and it's not nearly so cut and dried.

What is the number one variable missing from your equation?

Energy.

No refining. No melting. No nothing without energy. The most obvious way to get massive amounts of energy is to use solar to separate water into O and H. What better energy source than oxygen and hydrogen? Safe and dependable.

A couple of problems with that. That technology still isn't at the level to make that feasible here on earth, much less the moon, otherwise, we would be doing it for our own energy needs.

Another issue, to build a massive base on the moon requires a "station" between earth and the moon. Station, as in "space station".

So that brings up another point. If we need a platform outside of earth's gravity, why does it have to be the "moon"? Why not expand the space station or even build another one? We develop rockets that can carry massive loads that only need to go a few hundred miles NOT a few hundred thousand. They just need to get to the space station and back. The best possible rocket that would go from an "orbiting" object to the surface of a planet. Orbiting, like from the earth to the space station, or from a vehicle to the surface of Mars.

Then, consider Mars itself. Terra forming is the stuff of science fiction. Not only that, but the fact that Mars has no magnetic field that would protect any living thing "on the surface" from solar winds and cosmic rays, it's obvious that the only feasible place to live on Mars is "under ground". With a dynamic world, such as earth, that has moving continents, massive underground building is simply not feasible. Not so with Mars.

So while you did a great job of laying out the chemical composition of the moon, you really didn't lay out a feasible "plan". Can you see the difference? Not trying to be a "smart ass", but it you want to pick apart the weak points in my proposal and your proposal, you need more of a "proposal".

 

[American Horse]

I work in metal forging and manufacturing and it is clear that you do not. I won't call you a moron but your knowledge came from a comic book. Proccesing raw ores into machinable metals would take thousands of trips to the moon and thousands of people to build your huge domes. The costs would truly be astronomical..no pun intended. We don't even know if there is enough accessable ores to justify building something the size of an automobile let alone something the size of a football stadium or ten times that size.

Actually we do know what the crust of the moon is composed of, and that knowledge is not out of &#8220;Comic Books.&#8221;

Please go deeper than the surface of my post and look at some of the source material, and the credentials of the authors of the ideas presented above. Since you bothered to &#8220;quote,&#8221; and critique it, doesn&#8217;t it deserve at least a complete examination?

And thousands of trips to transport the raw materials from the Earth to the moon will be cut to fraction of the number you&#8217;ve suggested based on what we can accomplish there by staging our efforts to advance into the solar system from the development of a base on the moon.

Don't forget that the propulsion needed to lift material into Earth orbit from the moon is a fraction of what it is from Earth to Earth orbit. It is so much less that once built mass drivers could deliver materials into orbit leaving just the more refined products necessary to be up-lifted from Earth.

I&#8217;m thinking of (and I believe the authors of my referenced material are thinking of) all of our future space efforts, not just a few trips to Mars.

Going directly to Mars rather than staging from the moon means that our presence on Mars will be more like our presence was on the moon during the Apollo era.

Take some time out from just being the &#8220;hardnosed critic&#8221; because you have specialized knowledge, and consider some alternate possibilities; that&#8217;s all I ask.

 

[American Horse]

What you write truly "sounds" good, on the surface. Then you take a "deeper" look and it's not nearly so cut and dried.

What is the number one variable missing from your equation?

Energy.

No refining. No melting. No nothing without energy. The most obvious way to get massive amounts of energy is to use solar to separate water into O and H. What better energy source than oxygen and hydrogen? Safe and dependable.

Just one quick response before I go do something more useful:

There is abundant energy on the moon which can be used to create more energy and that primary energy source is solar energy.

I realize that most of what we need to do there can not be done solely by means of solar energy, but solar energy can be used in connection and in tandem with other souirces to boost the energy output to levels useful for those more demanding needs. It will be a stepped or staged process. An engineer knows that much more can be accomplished by staging than by a single massive effort.

(I'll get into the rest of your reply a little later)

EDIT: Oxygen is super-abundant on the Moon, add to that hydrogen.......

 

[American Horse]

One would think that the anti big government tea baggers should be all over Obamas plan to make the space exploration program more privatized.

And I am (not a "tea bagger," but) encouraged by the privatization/commercialization effort, which is for me the saving grace (and I said that in some of my earlier posts), although I am skeptical that he will deliver on that.

Once the space industry pullls out of the constituencies of congress people who are its defenders and becomes more disparate and scattered out in many parts of the economy, it will be much easier to disassemble the whole thing.

The challenge-and-prize system came out of the Bush Administration; hopefully that will be extended comprehensively so that we don&#8217;t follow a development path that is too narrow.

 

[rdean]

What you write truly "sounds" good, on the surface. Then you take a "deeper" look and it's not nearly so cut and dried.

What is the number one variable missing from your equation?

Energy.

No refining. No melting. No nothing without energy. The most obvious way to get massive amounts of energy is to use solar to separate water into O and H. What better energy source than oxygen and hydrogen? Safe and dependable.

Just one quick response before I go do something more useful:

There is abundant energy on the moon which can be used to create more energy and that primary energy source is solar energy.

I realize that most of what we need to do there can not be done solely by means of solar energy, but solar energy can be used in connection and in tandem with other souirces to boost the energy output to levels useful for those more demanding needs. It will be a stepped or staged process. An engineer knows that much more can be accomplished by staging than by a single massive effort.

(I'll get into the rest of your reply a little later)

EDIT: Oxygen is super-abundant on the Moon, add to that hydrogen.......

Oxygen is a very poor energy source. Solar power just isn't "high output".

To build factories on the moon is a very "long term" project. Especially since you would have to import "water". No way to make water "smaller". It's not something you could freeze dry.

But a space station on the other hand.

There are alloys you can make in zero gravity you can't easily make on earth. Think oil and vinegar. In space, they wouldn't separate.

Something as simple as "ball bearings". In space, you can make absolutely perfect ball bearings of any size, because they won't be distorted by gravity. Why would that be important? Perfect ball bearings require only a fraction the energy to start moving. Perfect ball bearings reduce the static friction coefficient.

Those are just two examples. There are hundreds more covering everything from composites to medicine to chemicals.

And the best part, it's only a couple of hundred miles overhead. The distance from Chicago to the space station could be less than the distance from Chicago to London.

The problems with the moon are many. It's not zero gravity, it's very far away, it has no "real" water.

A space station is right over head, you can get to it in less than two hours and it has zero gravity. With a commercial fleet of space shuttles, you can certainly turn the space station into a money making and lucrative venture, not to mention the possibility of "tourism".

The moon program may have spurred the necessity of the computer, but it was computer games and movies that made computers what they are today. It wasn't until computers became a "consumer" item that there was unlimited money to develop it.

The moon is just too far away and dangerous. We can make a "safe" space station.

You know, I would have thought Republicans would be all over this because of the money making potential. But, because of the science, maybe not. They're not very fond of "science".

 

[JenyEliza]

Obama: Americans to Mars within his lifetime - Yahoo! News

Not likely, he gutted the program and expects us to reach Mars? He MUST mean SOME OTHER Country.

Not likely. He'll be dead by 2044. After gutting the program, it's gonna take decades upon decades--well beyond 2044--to fully fund and properly rebuild it.

What a dumbfuck....he SO in over his head and refuses to see it.

 

[Rick]

why go to mars anyway?

 

[JenyEliza]

why go to mars anyway?

One day we are going to either outgrow planet earth (ie, population explosion), or it will become uninhabitable due to nuclear war, a meteor strike, attacking aliens from other planets or some act of God we are unable to foresee at this time.

We will need to send humans from planet Earth somewhere so that we survive. It's called Colonization and the United States wouldn't exist had Colonists not been sent ahead to explore the New World.

Same concept.

 

[rdean]

Obama: Americans to Mars within his lifetime - Yahoo! News

Not likely, he gutted the program and expects us to reach Mars? He MUST mean SOME OTHER Country.

Not likely. He'll be dead by 2044. After gutting the program, it's gonna take decades upon decades--well beyond 2044--to fully fund and properly rebuild it.

What a dumbfuck....he SO in over his head and refuses to see it.

"why go to mars anyway?"

The dumbfucks are you two dipshits. We were having a great discussion and the only thing the two of you added was ignorance.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...-he-guts-the-space-program-5.html#post2218862

 

[JenyEliza]

Obama: Americans to Mars within his lifetime - Yahoo! News

Not likely, he gutted the program and expects us to reach Mars? He MUST mean SOME OTHER Country.

Not likely. He'll be dead by 2044. After gutting the program, it's gonna take decades upon decades--well beyond 2044--to fully fund and properly rebuild it.

What a dumbfuck....he SO in over his head and refuses to see it.

"why go to mars anyway?"

The dumbfucks are you two dipshits. We were having a great discussion and the only thing the two of you added was ignorance.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...-he-guts-the-space-program-5.html#post2218862