Re: OT: The end of the world in roughly 3 hours

On Sep 26, 7:43 am, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 25, 8:38 pm, AEF <spamsink2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 25, 6:43 pm, AEF <spamsink2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Uh, you can get a lot more science from unmanned probes, though the
moon rocks were rather useful, but expensive. Also, Hubble was worth
it, IMO. But going to the moon is expensive and we already have some
moon rocks. Going further to Mars? Talk about expensive! (And that
leaves out all the other major obstacles and risk.)

AEF- Hide quoted text -

Adding to your points, look at how much science is coming from Spirit
and Opportunity. A manned mission to MARS would have been limited to
the amount of time men could survive there (as well as the orbital
positions or Earth and Mars). Spirit and Opportunity were designed to
last 3 months but are now into their 4 year.

You know, to be honest, I'm beginning to think that these estimates of
the lifetime of space stuff are deliberately and grossly
underestimated. Then they can say, "Look, it was only supposed to last
for. . . ."


The volume of science from Hubble is embarrassingly huge. Hubble is
probably the most productive scientific experiment ever built and
given humanity the enigma of "dark energy" and, to a lesser extent,
"dark matter". (FYI: the beginnings of "dark matter" come from Fritz
Zwicky in 1933 and Vera Rubin in 1970)

On the flip-side, I would like to see a permanent manned base on the
moon (which is only 3 days away if a rescue is required; While
machines will always be able to deliver more science for the invseted
dollor, there is something compelling about a permanent human lunar
settlement. Also, building really large optical observatories (mirrors
could be manufactured "up there") is one possibility; large radio
telescopes on the dark side of the moon (shielded from Earth) is
another possibility. Unlike the ISS, a lunar observatory would yield a
larger volume of science.

The only problem with this is that for the same cost you could do a
LOT more unmanned stuff. But Hubble is the counterexample. Also, I
remember reading a sci-fi story about doing astronomy on the moon with
someone saying something like, "I can't imagine how astronomy ever got
started on Earth with all that atmospheric distortion." But I don't
know if this would be any better than the Hubble.

AEF

Neil Rieck
Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,
Ontario, Canada.http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: The end of the world in roughly 3 hours
    ... moon rocks were rather useful, ... But going to the moon is expensive and we already have some ... look at how much science is coming from Spirit ... The volume of science from Hubble is embarrassingly huge. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: OT: The end of the world in roughly 3 hours
    ... moon rocks were rather useful, ... But going to the moon is expensive and we already have some ... Going further to Mars? ... look at how much science is coming from Spirit ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: did man walk on the moon...and creationism.
    ... never walked on the moon. ... We should be able to turn the Hubble telescope onto the moon landing ... Surely the Hubble Space Telescope could photograph the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Telescope photos of the moon?
    ... It doesn't sound like Hubble has enough resolution to see a teeny tiny flag ... would probably need one of the CIA's spy sattelites orbiting the moon to get ... description is excerpted from NASA's original picture captions. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Bad News for Moon Hoax Buffs
    ... Hubble has imaged the moon. ... "Cosmic upheaval is not so moving as a little child pondering the death ...
    (sci.astro)