Ice on the moon a "game-changer"

[tw]

Originally Posted by dar512

Just a couple of the many sites documenting the payoff from the space program.

And the myths live on. A few innovation that already existed.

Infrared thermometer
Launched to market in 1991, the device weighs only eight ounces and gives a reading in just two seconds.

Reality. It used the same component sold by Hamamatsu in the 1980s (and maybe earlier). How do I know? I designed a device using the same technology to detect a human body by remotely and passively detecting emissions (temperature) from warmer human skin. Same technology used in proximity switches that detect the human body, turn on lights, and detect motion in burglar alarm systems - in the early 1980s. What better promotes new products and innvoation (using your reasoning)? Crime.

In a Hitachi factory in the mid 1980s (during a fire alarm), we were playing with a device that measured infrared emissions and reported temperature. We (Americans and Japanese - some of whom could not speak English) were playing with it; measuring each other's body temperature from across the room.

Of course, in a million discoveries, we could find one or two had some basis in the space program - or would have happened anyway. Meanwhile, how many hundred discoveries were stifled because we were spending $billions on space programs that did no science? More rediculous are these electronics advances - that you are no longer preaching now that someone who actually did the stuff provided reality. Did you forget how many hundred new ideas could have happened if billions were actually being spent on science?

$8 billion for a Super Collider to actually do science in TX. Instead we killed science to spend $80billion keeping three men in space. Notice the longer list of innovations not existing because so many productive people were wasting $80billion doing no science. After $80billion, we could have a thermometer in 1991 that was doing what we were already doing in semiconductor fabs in the 1980s? You call that an innovation by simply ignoring that it already existed?

What is doing the best (productive) science? What creates far more innovations? The less than 10% of the space program that launches no humans. How many Hubbles could have been launched for the price of one year’s worth of shuttle launches? Many. Too many. The Martian Rovers alone do more science than any mission to the ISS over the last ten years – using only 8086 processors, standard solar cells, orbiting communication satellites, and electric motors - and no humans.

What was Columbia doing when it disintegrated? Columbia remained in service because it was the only space shuttle that could do any science - had no other mission. So we gave science the shittiest space shuttle. Did they forget to mentino that since propaganda rather than science is the purpose?

The best science means no humans, lots of machines, remote sensors, and robots. Same applies to undersea as well as outer space. So many innovations that do not exist because we wasted so much money putting man in space.

Who are the leaders in space launches? French. Russians. Why? Because the biggest spenders wasted so much good money and labor on something that provides so little science and innovation: manned space flight. So mismanaged is space research for a political agenda that we will soon be completely dependent on the Russians (and maybe the French) for access to the ISS. A reality when propaganda rather than reality and science pervert the exploration of space.

"Man to Mars" is a code word for one of the dumbest administrations in American history. An adminstration with so much contempt for science and innovation as to even have science papers rewritten by White House lawyers. Where is the best (almost all) science ongoing? Unmanned probes, sensors, and robots. Things that are productive and not hyped by myths. Things also subverted by that administration that only saw *glory* in "Man to Mars".

How to create so many new products and innovations? Using their reasoning: increase crime. Then lie about the infrared thermometer. Those who actually know better are not their target audience.

[Flint]

Public Service Announcement: The term "game changer" is on my list of over-used phrases which need to be forcibly eradicated. As is "sea change."

[Elspode]

Although this thread is going the "let's see who's for or against the space program" route, I'd like to stick to the original title. First off, they didn't discover that there was only 24 gallons of water on the Moon, they discovered that approximately 24 gallons of water was contained in the ejecta of the two LCROSS impacts. These were relatively small cratering events, so the amount of ejecta was relatively little. Since there wasn't a hell of a lot of stuff thrown up in the grand scheme of things, the fact that there was 24 gallons of water in it means that not only is there water in that crater, bound up with the lunar material, but there's relatively a lot of it.

Water on the moon means a couple of things. First, it means a source of water for possible human exploration. Second, it means a source of hydrogen for propulsion. The Moon can be a filling station for further exploration of space.

I'm a fan of the space program because of all the fascinating discoveries that have come out of it. The primary purpose of manned exploration is adventure, sure, but it is also true that a lot more science can be done by people than machines. Machines have to have a pretty narrow focus, able to do only a few tasks, and largely unable to respond to problems that arise. However, manned spaceflight is vastly more expensive, because people are fragile.

[Clodfobble]

Oh, so the 24 gallons was only the splash? That makes more sense. I was imagining this bathtub's worth of a puddle in the bottom of a crater.

[Elspode]

Right, and the "splash" wasn't a splash in the normal sense of the word. It was a splash of lunar material, a cloud of regolith and rock, and part of that material is water. It is certain that there is no liquid water (no atmosphere = no atmospheric pressure = water sublimates and goes bye bye), and probably not even any ice on the macro scale, for the same reason. The water is bound up somehow, and preserved in that bound state by dint of the fact that this particular part of the moon is perpetually cold because no sunlight hits it.

[ZenGum]

In the Human Vs Machine debate, if the purpose is science, machines are better value. A human would only use fancy instruments anyway, so they might as well control the instruments from back on earth or via software.
A machine can stay so much longer. Consider the two Martian Rovers, Spirit and Opportunity. Despite their 90-martian-day design plan, they have been running for 2,092 and 2,071 days respectively. All this for well under a billion dollars. Love those little tigers.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by dar512

Really? When did you do the survey?

Sorta;
Hey, did you see the space shot?
Naw, I was watching Sponge Bob... There was a space shot?... Why, they all look the same?
Plus the TV ratings showed a precipitous drop.

If this does turn out to be true, then that just makes me sad as well. It means we really have turned into a nation of bean-counters.

No, it isn't the money, it's not good theater, unless you do an Apollo 13. You can't explore the moon, in a real time two hour show, minus 40 minutes of commercials.

They are only thinking about this to beat the Chinese there.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Elspode

Water on the moon means a couple of things. First, it means a source of water for possible human exploration. Second, it means a source of hydrogen for propulsion. The Moon can be a filling station for further exploration of space.

Hydrogen is not a fuel. That water means that with massive and extensive extraction equipment and with energy obtained from elsewhere, then some water may be extracted. Therefore an astronaut can have drinking water when he arrives to service machines that are doing science.

Limited water is only in deepest craters (that have no sun). Does not constitute sufficient water for anything major. And does not provide fuel - energy. It simply means frozen water can exist even on low gravity bodies that have no atmosphere. A major discovery along with living creatures that live in boiling sulfuric water. Facts necessary to learn more of god's laws.

Productive science means less men and more machines. Productive space science means NASA's budget should increase to as much as 50% devoted to science without launching humans. Science devoted to science; not to glory. Today we no longer send humans to deepest reaches of the ocean - because it is about science; not glory.

Why are the Martian Rovers so successful? Why is Hubble probably the most successful science tool in over 20 years? Because they are robots. Humans are back on earth. Who are the leaders in robot technology? Japanese. Why? Japanese are doing science for science - not for glory. Just another example of American job losses because too many would rather have glory than science.

Man in space means $80billion wasted on something that did near zero science. No way around that reality. $80billion of innovations that were stifled; that do not exist.

Again, water is not a fuel - does not provide energy. And requires massive energy to extract just enough for drinking water. Machines do not need drinking water. Are more productive in that same environment.

[ZenGum]

95% agree ... but you could use energy from sunlight, collected by photovoltaic cells, to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen, thus turning the lunar water into usable fuel, or oxygen for breathing. But, as you say, massively inefficient and pretty pointless.

Meanwhile, New scientist has a discussion on human space flight here.

It may simply be that space exploration is incompatible with US democracy. A Mars shot would take four presidential terms at least. No president will ask taxpayers to fund something he won't be around to take credit for.

Another big problem is the legacy of some terrible decisions that left NASA with the expensive, dangerous space shuttle and a white-elephant space station that manages the feat of making space seem as dull as cardboard. The whole thing is a mess.

but then

The act of putting a human into space remains a high-profile and politically potent showcase for the world's major industrial nations. What began as a race between the US and the Soviet Union has morphed into a multinational display of membership of the modern world. Like Olympic competition, human space flight has become one of the few acceptable outlets for overt displays of national pride. The fact that China has now entered the game virtually guarantees major western democracies won't back out.....
In the US, the jobs and material resources invested in human space flight are substantial and politically significant. As long as Florida plays a key role in determining who gets to be president, no US politician would lightly consider disbanding the programme.

[Undertoad]

massively inefficient

Moon's got nothing but time.

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by tw

Why is Hubble probably the most successful science tool in over 20 years? Because they are robots. Humans are back on earth.

I have to admit that I was pretty impressed by how Hubble serviced itself all those times.

[tw]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

Meanwhile, New scientist has a discussion on human space flight

From that article:

Another big problem is the legacy of some terrible decisions that left NASA with the expensive, dangerous space shuttle and a white-elephant space station that manages the feat of making space seem as dull as cardboard. The whole thing is a mess.

Technical details. Probably the most difficult part of Man to Mars (or living on the moon) is genetically destructive radiation. We have no theoretically reasonable solution. Only solution was to surround a spacecraft with six feet of water - at something like $1000 or $10,000 per oz (forgot the exact number).

To solve this problem will require solutions probably located in quantum physics. But America has killed numerous research projects because $80billion was burned to keep men unproductively in space. That $8billion Super Collider that would now be doing years of quantum physics research. But was quashed to pay for an $80billion ISS. Damning numbers.

Numerous other problems are best solved first on earth. Most solutions to space are first developed on earth. Only then might men be sent to Mars or the Moon to service machines. IOW science must be defined by scientists - not by a political agenda or 'glory'.

Kennedy was so much different than George Jr. Kennedy did due diligence when deciding we could put a man on the moon. He question those who actually knew how things work. The project even came in under budget. George Jr did what he always does. Looked into someone's eyes to see his spirit. Then know we could put a man on Mars. IOW he decided using a political agenda. Unfortunately our space program is now dominated by a political agendas. People who think like George Jr.

America has already lost the satellite launching business to other nations that made decisions productively based upon numbers and science - France and Russia. Leadership lost only because 'glory' was more important than the science.

That New Scientist article demonstrates the problem. But I fear it is too restrained. America's space program is so mismanaged by politics that only Russian and French rockets will get to the ISS. A problem created by classic American political agendas - not by science and numbers.

That New Scientist article describes what has been obvious long before Columbia disintegrated - because management could not be bothered to listen to scientists and engineers.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Elspode

I have to admit that I was pretty impressed by how Hubble serviced itself all those times.

It did that repeatedly for years until eventually man went to service a 1970s technology. 30 years later and we still had nothing better? Well, $80billion was wasted to keep men unproductively in space.

Sky could have had complete coverage with multiple later generation Hubbles easily serviced by robots if $80billion was not wasted on something that does no science. Then we had to spend even more to send humans to fix an old technology Hubble. No replacement existed. Technologies that could have done the work better still do not exist. Instead we spent $80billion dollars for a political agenda - science and innovation be damned.

[Elspode]

Ah. So Hubble is both a brilliant example of robotic science, and a dismal failure at the same time. Got it.

[TheDaVinciChode]

TW - From your posts, I can tell that your head is (very firmly) shoved right up your arse. Please, remove it.

$80 Billion? For a new frontier? For exploration? For science? Seems great.

Compare that to one year of America's swelling military budget. Compare it to federal bail-outs.

Still a big number? No.

The benefits of finding water on the moon? Using it as a staging post for future missions to other planets. A high theoretical possibility, especially now that we have discovered water, regardless of the limited quantities.

Science is not all about facts and figures. It's about EXPLORATION. This is what defines us, as a species. Our intelligence, our ability to question, or desire to know more... You cannot truly know something, until you see it for yourself, until you touch it, feel it, smell it. Having a billion rovers on Mars, will still not tell us about it, not on a human level. GOING there, a manned mission, will change it, it'll change everything about it.

More money, the world over, should be spent on such endeavours... Exploration vs War... it's a no-brainer, really. The more we strive to reach the stars, to question, to understand, the less we'll feel the need to attack one another, over meaningless, stupid lines on a map, or points of view.

United through exploration. That's humanity. That's mankind.

Bean-counters like yourself, who deny the human impact, and requirement... are the people holding back true exploration... holding back the social advancement of our entire species, simply because you're so out of touch with the true essence of humanity. What a waste, what a shame.

When we look up at the stars, we seek understanding. When we run out of questions, we ask new ones. It's not about the cost, it's NEVER about the cost. It's about the questions, the understanding... The thrill of something new.

Are you even human? Do you even care?

Okay, you may now re-insert your head into your anal cavity. Enjoy your closed world.

--

EDIT: The above is all true, too, in regards to the ISS... We have men, and women, of multiple nations... living together... working together... in space. How can you deny the amazing impact that this has, on the whole world? Doesn't do much in terms of "science," by your definition? Big deal. It's astonishing, that it's there... They are living OUT OF THIS WORLD. That's the human spirit, in full force. That's exploration. That's pushing boundaries. That's exploring new frontiers. That's growth.

You know what else? It's science, too... They may not perform amazing experiments, all the time, nor produce entirely new ideas, nor test every possible theory... but they do experiment, test, and theorise... The money is not a factor that should ever be placed, on such an amazing achievement... on such a leap towards the stars.

And, again - It's nothing, in comparison to a warmongering nation's military budget, so... why fret over pennies?