Kadmos: Here's one for you and your dislike of NASA

[Krupski]

[Kadmos]

Wow.
Yah ok, that's worth the cost.

My big issue with NASA is the lack of forward progress.

I missed the moon landing, on account of not being born yet. My earliest NASA memory was watching Challenger explode along with the rest of the school and millions of other children...followed by mostly decades of going up and down from low earth orbit, which was lame.

For me the shining moments were Hubble, which needed immediate repair (but I forgave that), and the first good rover.

It's a totally different experience than people just 20 years older, the ones who got to watch from Sputnik to the moon landings, etc. The real "space race".

[Krupski]

Wow.
Yah ok, that's worth the cost.

My big issue with NASA is the lack of forward progress.

I missed the moon landing, on account of not being born yet. My earliest NASA memory was watching Challenger explode along with the rest of the school and millions of other children...followed by mostly decades of going up and down from low earth orbit, which was lame.

For me the shining moments were Hubble, which needed immediate repair (but I forgave that), and the first good rover.

It's a totally different experience than people just 20 years older, the ones who got to watch from Sputnik to the moon landings, etc. The real "space race".

I was 12 when Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. So, yeah I am 100% pro-NASA.

As far as the Shuttle being an overpriced space taxi, you can't blame NASA for that. The Shuttle design was a compromise to (what else?) save money.

Ever since Apollo, NASA has never gotten anywhere near the funding that it should have. As it is, we have benefited from NASA research more than most people know.

America leads the world in electronics and technology because of the huge head start we got from the Apollo program (which we are now slowly pissing away).

Read the next line carefully:

From the inception of NASA (1958, Eisenhower) to TODAY, the TOTAL money that NASA has received and spent is LESS than ONE YEAR'S WORTH of defense spending.

And, what kind of technology spinoffs do we get, how does America's technological lead benefit from sending 20 year old kids to a desert to blow shit up?

I'm not anti-military, but I am anti "perpetual war to keep defense contractors in business".

America needs NASA... more than ever.

[Kadmos]

America needs NASA... more than ever.

On that you are preaching to the converted.

I love the idea of NASA, and I don't mind the financial cost, I just hate that it got stuck it a rut for most of my lifetime.

It's not a money issue, it's a time issue...I only get so long on this earth, I want them to do better stuff while I am here.

If you want to send up a better version of Hubble, I'm all for it. If you want to land a rover on Saturn's moons, or Pluto or whatever...go for it, I'm with you. You want to send updated faster probes into deep space, cool, let's do it.

But if you want to build another space shuttle to go into low earth orbit, or send another rover to Mars...I'm just not interested, you're wasting my time.

[Krupski]

On that you are preaching to the converted.

I love the idea of NASA, and I don't mind the financial cost, I just hate that it got stuck it a rut for most of my lifetime.

It's not a money issue, it's a time issue...I only get so long on this earth, I want them to do better stuff while I am here.

If you want to send up a better version of Hubble, I'm all for it. If you want to land a rover on Saturn's moons, or Pluto or whatever...go for it, I'm with you. You want to send updated faster probes into deep space, cool, let's do it.

But if you want to build another space shuttle to go into low earth orbit, or send another rover to Mars...I'm just not interested, you're wasting my time.

Well, a lot of the benefits we got from NASA came from the Apollo program where a LOT of brand new technology needed to be invented and perfected, and money was no object.

This was, of course, a result of Kennedy's goal to land on the moon by the end of the decade.

Without a NEW NASA goal, we aren't going to see the inventions and creativity that we had before.

And, what goal is there? Lots of people say "land a man on Mars". The big problem is that Mars is in it's own independent orbit. Unlink the Moon, Mars doesn't stay with us.

So, to get there we would have to wait for a proper alignment, then go there, then safely land, then STAY THERE (alive of course) until the next alignment, then come home.

Due to the greater distances involved, the mass ratio problem becomes many orders of magnitude greater. And due to the Mars gravity being twice that of the Moon, the mass ratio problem becomes worse yet.

Translation: You would need a booster the size of Texas to send three or so men, plus all their consumables (food, water, electricity, propellant, etc...) to Mars, as well as having the whole system be man-rated reliable for the length of the mission, which would be around 18 months due to the alignments of Earth and Mars.

So, build a rocket as big as Texas? Not any time soon. Make it reliable for almost 2 years years? Possibly. Find three people willing to live in a tin can for three months flying to Mars, then living three more months on the surface, then three more months in the tin can again for the return trip? Not likely.

So the answer is either (A) we will never land a man on Mars or (B) we will invent some new and exotic propulsion technology. If it's (B) then I suspect Mars will be so close as to not be worth the bother to visit (other than to grab the old rovers for the Smithsonian).

[Kadmos]

Without a NEW NASA goal, we aren't going to see the inventions and creativity that we had before.

I think you nailed it with that.

There was an article in Popular Science some months back talking about a ship that would get to Mars in six weeks, if that's viable, then ok, lets consider that idea.

But I don't even really care if we send up people or not, we could totally drop the "manned" stuff for a while and still do awesome things. But those things to to go farther, see farther, go elsewhere, or go faster.

Another rover on Mars is kind of like the new Corvette body style, sure it's new and improved, but it's still a Vette, it's still going the places a Vette goes, etc. I can only get so excited about it.

Obviously Mars is big and we could send thousands of rovers there before we drive over every inch of it...but what would be the point? Ok, we might learn a few new things...but wouldn't we learn a ton more if we dropped on on Ganymede?

Yeah, we have some plans to do that stuff, but it pisses me off that most of my life was shuttles going up and down when we could have dropped probes and rovers all over the solar system

[Krupski]

I think you nailed it with that.

There was an article in Popular Science some months back talking about a ship that would get to Mars in six weeks, if that's viable, then ok, lets consider that idea.

But I don't even really care if we send up people or not, we could totally drop the "manned" stuff for a while and still do awesome things. But those things to to go farther, see farther, go elsewhere, or go faster.

Another rover on Mars is kind of like the new Corvette body style, sure it's new and improved, but it's still a Vette, it's still going the places a Vette goes, etc. I can only get so excited about it.

Obviously Mars is big and we could send thousands of rovers there before we drive over every inch of it...but what would be the point? Ok, we might learn a few new things...but wouldn't we learn a ton more if we dropped on on Ganymede?

Yeah, we have some plans to do that stuff, but it pisses me off that most of my life was shuttles going up and down when we could have dropped probes and rovers all over the solar system

Well, the series of rovers is not simply one after another. Different areas are being explored, different landing techniques are being tested and different methods of providing power are being tested.

The first rover used the "bouncy ball" method of landing and solar panels for power. It had almost nothing in the way of instruments. It was appropriately named "Pathfinder".

The next ones had more instruments.

The latest rover has a lot of scientific instruments on board, landed in a completely different way (rockets vs. protective balloons) and has an RTG for power, meaning it won't have to worry about dust covering solar panels, the lack of sun or the extreme cold of winter.

As far as how many rovers are sent, they are landed in places that are most likely to answer particular questions. They're not just "dropped" anywhere.

The only thing that bothers me about NASA is why they are ignoring the "moon" Iapetus (orbiting Saturn)?

It seems to be way too light (low density) to hold it's shape (it should collapse into a denser, smaller sphere under it's own gravity), it seems to have flat faceted sides and hexagonal craters (impossible for a natural object). It has a huge "seam" right around it's equator, it's orbit is highly inclined relative to Saturn (while all it's other moons are aligned - more or less) and it has optical signatures of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and water on it's surface.

WTF is it? Was it a huge spacecraft? Are the organic remnants on the surface the result of a structural failure and resulting explosive decompression and deaths of LIFE aboard?

All this is odd enough, but NASA seems to be purposely ignoring Iapetus. They had several economical (propellant-wise) opportunities to change the orbit of the Cassini spacecraft to image Iapetus in radar and optical - up close, yet they didn't do it. Nor is there any info on any NASA site about Iapetus other than a few blurry photos.

I hate to ask, but what are they hiding?

[Kadmos]

[Broondog]

that's no moon, it's a space station!

[FunkyPertwee]

I hate to ask, but what are they hiding?

They're hiding something, thats for sure.

Possibly something which they think would too drastically alter the public conscious. In regards to this "moon" in particular, maybe its aliens, maybe pre-historic humans of Earth origin, maybe humans as a part of a spacebound civilization (or perhaps grown by a superior intelligence), maybe something totally alien like the "ship" itself is organic or partially organic. Maybe its even the fucking Annunaki.

Not just because of this one thing, its just a feeling I have. I certainly think they are trying to save face for the new global religion of atheism and socialism.

[Silentkilla01]

that's no moon, it's a space station!

It's the fuckin Death Star!!!!!

[N/A]

I no longer have the link, but there is a company in Britain developing a hybrid jet/rocket engine that can go from earth to space and return. They have also proposed a plan to send teams to Mars that looks logical and doable.

http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/

[imanaknut]

Ever notice that there is an A as well as an S in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration? They do a lot more than just throw rockets into the sky, they are playing a big part in the future of commercial aviation, looking into aircraft designs of the future. These designs are more aerodynamic, more fuel efficient, more cleaner, less weight and will play a big part into keeping air travel safe and affordable. Some of the biggest and most advanced windtunnels in the world are run by NASA.

So before jumping on them for ignoring outer space, take a look at what they are doing for us lowlifes who will never get the opportunity to venture into the airless area above our atmosphere.

[Kadmos]

I hate to ask, but what are they hiding?

I think the real reason is a bit more practical, Iapetus has a rather large orbit, it's nearly impossible to plot a course to Saturn that will come anywhere near it. You pretty much would have to aim for it, rather than Saturn.

Saturn having rings and all, and being Saturn...well we pretty much go out there to see Saturn.

It's kinda of like, what's the mountain right next to Everest? And the answer is "Who gives a fuck?"

Not that nobody should give a fuck about Iapetus, it's just that people would be like "We went all that way but didn't go to Saturn?"

[LAGC]

It's kinda of like, what's the mountain right next to Everest? And the answer is "Who gives a fuck?"

I must say, Kadmos, you do have a way with analogies.

Not that nobody should give a fuck about Iapetus, it's just that people would be like "We went all that way but didn't go to Saturn?"

NASA hasn't totally ignored that moon. Back in September 2007 the Cassini probe did a pretty close fly-by:

http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/science/moons/iapetus/

It does seem like quite the curious body, half-dark and half-light. Various theories as to what the "dark" stuff could be made of.

I think it would be worthwhile to send a dedicated rover to the surface to check it out, but understandably there are higher priorities.

NASA really does need a bigger budget -- there's no reason we couldn't do "all of the above."

[Krupski]

I no longer have the link, but there is a company in Britain developing a hybrid jet/rocket engine that can go from earth to space and return. They have also proposed a plan to send teams to Mars that looks logical and doable.

http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/

Well, that's quite interesting stuff. It's certainly more efficient (using air as oxidizer when possible).

[Krupski]

I think the real reason is a bit more practical, Iapetus has a rather large orbit, it's nearly impossible to plot a course to Saturn that will come anywhere near it. You pretty much would have to aim for it, rather than Saturn.

Saturn having rings and all, and being Saturn...well we pretty much go out there to see Saturn.

It's kinda of like, what's the mountain right next to Everest? And the answer is "Who gives a fuck?"

Not that nobody should give a fuck about Iapetus, it's just that people would be like "We went all that way but didn't go to Saturn?"

The reason I focus on Iapetus is that it looks artificial and therefore (IMO) warrants study.

As far as Cassini "visiting" Iapetus, there were opportunities where a moon's gravity and a small propellant use would have changed the orbit to allow a close flyby of Iapetus.

Making what seems to be a large maneuver can sometimes be done with very little propellant if the geometry and timing is right.

For example, when Apollo went to the moon, it did not reach "escape velocity" as a lot of people think. All they did was do a "Hohmann transfer" which is nothing more than an elliptical orbit who's apoapsis (formerly called "apogee") was as high as the moon's orbit distance. The spacecraft flew across the LEADING edge of the moon to do a reverse slingshot (remove velocity instead of adding it). Then, a small engine burn slowed them enough to go into lunar orbit. If they did nothing, the spacecraft would have simply looped around the moon and headed back towards earth (called a "free return trajectory").

So, to transfer an orbit to Iapetus, all NASA needed to do was wait until Cassini was near a moon, do a small engine burn and slingshot into a new orbit that intersected Iapetus. As I recall, NASA had two or three opportunities to do this in 2004 (I think), but far as I know, they didn't.

I would love to see radar and optical images of Iapetus. What's inside? What's keeping a sphere with the density of water intact and preventing it from collapsing into a smaller sphere with the density of rock? Are there structures are inside? Why are elements like carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and water condensed on it's surface? Where did it come from? Why are impact craters hexagonal shaped? Is there a geometric structure beneath?

I agree, Saturn's rings are awfully pretty, but I REALLY want to know what's up with Iapetus.

[Krupski]

Ever notice that there is an A as well as an S in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration? They do a lot more than just throw rockets into the sky, they are playing a big part in the future of commercial aviation, looking into aircraft designs of the future. These designs are more aerodynamic, more fuel efficient, more cleaner, less weight and will play a big part into keeping air travel safe and affordable. Some of the biggest and most advanced windtunnels in the world are run by NASA.

So before jumping on them for ignoring outer space, take a look at what they are doing for us lowlifes who will never get the opportunity to venture into the airless area above our atmosphere.

Very good point.

And, I'm not blaming NASA in any way. I blame our government for giving them such pathetically small funding. NASA is probably THE ONLY government agency that gives back more than it consumes.

[Krupski]

I think I have just seen THE most awesome video on YouTube.... ever......

[5.56NATO]

Nasa ain't doin nuf for tha muslims, yo.