Author Topic: NASA Considers Putting an Asteroid Into Orbit Around the Moon (Read 19766 times)

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #25 on:** January 08, 2013, 11:27 AM »

When I was a kid (I was born in '67, so I was 2 when Neil Armstrong walked on the moon), we used to have grand dreams. Science fiction novels were about wondrous galaxy-spanning civilizations, and the limits to what we'd eventually accomplish were dictated only by what we could dream. But somewhere along the way, we ran into a wall. We stopped dreaming grandly. The galactic civilizations were replaced by dystopian cyberpunk stories, in which we're trapped in a cesspool, with a dark future only as long as we can avoid our own self-destruction. I really appreciate what might be a return swing of the pendulum, replaced by big ideas again.
-CWuestefeld (January 08, 2013, 11:01 AM)

+1 - Well said (I was born in 65) ...We got to the moon and then just sat on our ass and started grumbling.

In the 70's every was sure we'd have flying cars by now.

wraith808 · « **Reply #26 on:** January 08, 2013, 11:28 AM »

That said, I completely don't trust NASA to do this. The overall structure of NASA (some specific success stories like the Mars Spirit rover not withstanding) is entrenched in the top-down risk-averse structure that's dedicated primarily to ensuring its own continued existence. I'd be much happier to see it being attempted by an organization like Space X, or Planetary Resources.
-CWuestefeld (January 08, 2013, 11:01 AM)

+1000. NASA is at its core a government agency. With all of the negatives that implies. I can't help but think that if they'd started incentives for private companies to get involved, we'd be much more advanced than we are today. Just the number of accidents that we've had doing what should be routine (not to say that they aren't incredible accomplishments, but still), says a lot about NASA IMO.

Renegade · « **Reply #27 on:** January 08, 2013, 08:09 PM »

In the 70's every was sure we'd have flying cars by now.
-Stoic Joker (January 08, 2013, 11:27 AM)

I remember reading old Popular Mechanics magazines with flying cars, jet packs, and underwater cities. The future then looked a lot better than the future we're looking at now.

wraith808 · « **Reply #28 on:** January 08, 2013, 08:25 PM »

In the 70's every was sure we'd have flying cars by now.
-Stoic Joker (January 08, 2013, 11:27 AM)

I remember reading old Popular Mechanics magazines with flying cars, jet packs, and underwater cities. The future then looked a lot better than the future we're looking at now.
-Renegade (January 08, 2013, 08:09 PM)

Then again, look at Popular Mechanics now, and you'll be saying that the Popular Mechanics then looked better than the Popular Mechanics now.

Renegade · « **Reply #29 on:** January 08, 2013, 09:24 PM »

In the 70's every was sure we'd have flying cars by now.
-Stoic Joker (January 08, 2013, 11:27 AM)

I remember reading old Popular Mechanics magazines with flying cars, jet packs, and underwater cities. The future then looked a lot better than the future we're looking at now.
-Renegade (January 08, 2013, 08:09 PM)

Then again, look at Popular Mechanics now, and you'll be saying that the Popular Mechanics then looked better than the Popular Mechanics now.
-wraith808 (January 08, 2013, 08:25 PM)

After a quick peek at their web site... well, yeah... Underwater cities and flying cars are just WWWAAAAYYYY cooler than DIY home theater systems and guides on cabling.

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #30 on:** January 09, 2013, 06:59 AM »

In the 70's every was sure we'd have flying cars by now.
-Stoic Joker (January 08, 2013, 11:27 AM)

I remember reading old Popular Mechanics magazines with flying cars, jet packs, and underwater cities. The future then looked a lot better than the future we're looking at now.
-Renegade (January 08, 2013, 08:09 PM)

Then again, look at Popular Mechanics now, and you'll be saying that the Popular Mechanics then looked better than the Popular Mechanics now.
-wraith808 (January 08, 2013, 08:25 PM)

I can't look ... I fear the trauma may be to great to cope with.

40hz · « **Reply #31 on:** January 09, 2013, 09:15 AM »

For less than one third the cost of an aircraft carrier* we might actually learn something new? Plus benefit from all the ancillary technology that would need to be developed to pull this off? Possibly even become inspired enough in the process to maybe pull our heads out of...um..the sand...and. as a nation, recapture our sense of adventure and scientific curiosity?

Now that is tempting...

----------------------------
*Ford Class carrier: $5 billion R&D + $9 billion each to produce. One (Gerald R. Ford CVN-78) has already been built. Two additional have been budgeted and scheduled to enter service in 2013 (John F. Kennedy CVN-79) and 2018 (Enterprise CVN-80).

SeraphimLabs · « **Reply #32 on:** January 09, 2013, 12:02 PM »

For less than one third the cost of an aircraft carrier* we might actually learn something new? Plus benefit from all the ancillary technology that would need to be developed to pull this off? Possibly even become inspired enough in the process to maybe pull our heads out of...um..the sand...and. as a nation, recapture our sense of adventure and scientific curiosity?

Now that is tempting...

----------------------------
*Ford Class carrier: $5 billion R&D + $9 billion each to produce. One (Gerald R. Ford CVN-78) has already been built. Two additional have been budgeted and scheduled to enter service in 2013 (John F. Kennedy CVN-79) and 2018 (Enterprise CVN-80).
-40hz (January 09, 2013, 09:15 AM)

When you put that on the table for comparison, space suddenly has a lot more reason to be visited. We won't need to worry about the Chinese taking over when we can divebomb them from space, and have colonies on other planets to support ourselves with if they decide to nuke the mainland.

Both result in the same thing though- workers being employed building these vessels, researchers being employed developing the designs further, an all kinds of industries growing up around the demand and spinoff products they will yield.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #33 on:** January 09, 2013, 12:34 PM »

When you put that on the table for comparison, space suddenly has a lot more reason to be visited. We won't need to worry about the Chinese taking over when we can divebomb them from space, and have colonies on other planets to support ourselves with if they decide to nuke the mainland.

Both result in the same thing though- workers being employed building these vessels, researchers being employed developing the designs further, an all kinds of industries growing up around the demand and spinoff products they will yield.
-SeraphimLabs (January 09, 2013, 12:02 PM)

LOL - put like that it is a great idea - but how many of the components will be sourced from China - most of the electronics I would guess.

Was watching a video about the recent Mars lander - that is an awesome bit of technology and the landing technique stunning!

40hz · « **Reply #34 on:** January 09, 2013, 01:56 PM »

We really do need to start looking beyond this one planet again. If for no other reason than embracing the wisdom of not keeping all your eggs in one basket. I personally think of the various manned space efforts as the ultimate embodiment of an "off premise" backup system.

40hz · « **Reply #35 on:** January 09, 2013, 02:02 PM »

When you put that on the table for comparison, space suddenly has a lot more reason to be visited. We won't need to worry about the Chinese taking over when we can divebomb them from space, and have colonies on other planets to support ourselves with if they decide to nuke the mainland.
-SeraphimLabs (January 09, 2013, 12:02 PM)

But why would they want to - or we ever need to? Isn't space a big enough adventure and challenge that it could easily use up those extra 'defense' dollars plus all that excess testosterone and estrogen? Why bother with fighting over a hunk of miserable dirt in some back corner of the globe when the entire universe is out there waiting to be explored and colonized?

Who knows? Assuming we're not alone, there's also the chance we may finally meet somebody really interesting to talk to.

wraith808 · « **Reply #36 on:** January 09, 2013, 02:34 PM »

We really do need to start looking beyond this one planet again. If for no other reason than embracing the wisdom of not keeping all your eggs in one basket. I personally think of the various manned space efforts as the ultimate embodiment of an "off premise" backup system.

-40hz (January 09, 2013, 01:56 PM)

+1

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #37 on:** January 09, 2013, 03:40 PM »

Who knows? Assuming we're not alone, there's also the chance we may finally meet somebody really interesting to talk to.
-40hz (January 09, 2013, 02:02 PM)

Hmmm - but would they find us interesting enough to talk too - or would we be their equivalent of primordial ooze $:-\$

Renegade · « **Reply #38 on:** January 09, 2013, 05:07 PM »

Well, bringing in budgetary considerations... not sure if this is sobering, or just throwing gas on the fire:

http://demonocracy.info/

Lots of excellent graphics there to put money in perspective. However, one needs to wrap one's mind around money in terms of pallets of $100 bills and football stadiums full of pallets of money or towers of money that dwarf skyscrapers.

$2.6 billion is about 1% of the US debt annual interest payments (which is still far more than is spent on education). Or perhaps over 50,000 US jobs (which we might imagine is about 500,000 Chinese jobs).

How much is $2.6 billion? Well, if you went on a crazy spending spree shopping every day, and managed to spend $10,000 a day, it would take you over 700 years (260,000 days) to spend. Just how many big screen TVs do you need?

(But think about it - if you went to the mall, could you spend $10,000 a day - without hitting the jewelry store - in normal shopping?)

Would that have any kind of impact on this:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Well, that's just so hopeless that it wouldn't really matter much at all.

But this kind of sounds like helping a cocaine addict stop shooting by teaching them how to crack cocaine or introducing them to meth. Hey, it's cheaper.

Or perhaps it's more like trying to resolve bankruptcy problems by getting another credit card?

Here's a pretty visualisation of the US debt as a percentage of GDP:

http://visual.ly/uni...entage-gdp-1940-2012

(It's rather large, so I'll not post the image. And I'm lazy.

)

Some more pretty charts:

http://www.usgovernm...art_1997_2017USb_G0f

As for simply spending as being good for jobs, well, not all spending is really equal:

https://duckduckgo.c...ood+for+economy+myth

I'm all for space exploration and research, but good grief... Wouldn't it actually be nice to be able to afford it?

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #39 on:** January 09, 2013, 05:50 PM »

Who knows? Assuming we're not alone, there's also the chance we may finally meet somebody really interesting to talk to.
-40hz (January 09, 2013, 02:02 PM)

Hmmm - but would they find us interesting enough to talk too
-Carol Haynes (January 09, 2013, 03:40 PM)

(hell) No ... But if we're lucky they might keep us as pets..

Ah... A dogs life!

IainB · « **Reply #40 on:** January 10, 2013, 02:01 AM »

...Who knows? Assuming we're not alone, there's also the chance we may finally meet somebody really interesting to talk to.
-40hz (January 09, 2013, 02:02 PM)

Heh.
I once saw this scrawled on a gents' lu wall in a corporation's offices:

"Is there intelligent life on earth?"

- and underneath it, in an entirely different hand:

"Yes, but I'm just passing through."

IainB · « **Reply #41 on:** January 10, 2013, 02:03 AM »

I vote we consider putting NASA into orbit around the moon.

Renegade · « **Reply #42 on:** January 10, 2013, 03:17 AM »

Hahahahaha~!

Good ones, Iain!

40hz · « **Reply #43 on:** January 10, 2013, 07:02 AM »

I vote we consider putting NASA into orbit around the moon.
-IainB (January 10, 2013, 02:03 AM)

That was sorta part of NASA's original plan.

Unfortunately, the L5 space station was scrapped back in the mid-60s because the money was needed for "programs for the poor." One "socially responsible" senator of that era characterized NASA as an agency "using tax dollars to indulge in feats of stratospheric jugglery designed to impress children and fools."

Enough otherwise intelligent people apparently agreed with him on that point, such that the US space program was effectively gutted within ten years.

But what comes around goes around. Because any available money is now being channeled into homeland security and global military operations. So much so that there's nowhere near enough left over for infrastructure maintenance, education, research, or subsidized medical care.

Apparently somebody took to heart the attitude of the Senator Jack S. character in Al Capp's famous Lil Abner comic strip. In one scene, the Senate is debating spending bills and has just unanimously passed without debate an appropriation for a few million dollars to replace a swimming pool at a minor US embassy because the previous one "had been stolen." When the next agenda item - a vote to approve $50 to buy books for a rural library comes up - it provokes Senator Jack S. to snatch the paper out of the speaker's hands and rip it into tiny pieces while shouting "Nay! Nay! Nay! I'm against spending American money on Americans!!!"

IainB · « **Reply #44 on:** February 03, 2013, 12:44 AM »

50 years of space exploration.
Huge image - really quite detailed.
You could also download it and then zoom into it to read the detail.
(Right-click image to expand/minimise.)

NASA Considers Putting an Asteroid Into Orbit Around the Moon

Renegade · « **Reply #45 on:** February 03, 2013, 01:38 AM »

50 years of space exploration.
Huge image - really quite detailed.
You could also download it and then zoom into it to read the detail.
(Right-click image to expand/minimise.)
(see attachment in previous post)
-IainB (February 03, 2013, 12:44 AM)

That was a pretty darn cool graphic!