I have for years challenged people to list the 3 biggest accomplishments of the Space Lab mission the previous year and never get anything near some great discovery. We were supposed to get all these new drugs and new metals and whatnot. All I see are some people up there having fun floating around and costing us billions to do so.
They figured out what happened NASA Delays Artemis Launch After Realizing Female Astronaut Forgot To Fill The Rocket With Fuel After Last Trip ORLANDO, FL — NASA officials were forced to postpone the eagerly anticipated Artemis launch after discovering a female astronaut had failed to refuel the rocket following its last mission. "We had everything prepared and made sure the rocket was fully equipped for its trip to orbit the moon, but we were left scrambling for solutions when we realized the fuel tank was left nearly empty," NASA engineer Blake Rumsey said in a prepared statement announcing the delay. "We've lost count of how many times we've reminded her to make sure the rocket is gassed up after using it." Katie Schmidt, the astronaut responsible for refueling the rocket after its last mission, maintained that she was certain there was enough fuel left after parking the rocket last time. "I could have sworn I made sure it was full," Schmidt told reporters assembled at the Kennedy Space Center when asked about the discrepancy. "And this isn't that big of a deal, right? I mean, it's totally different from that time I spilled my latte on the controls and caused, like, a million dollars in damage." At publishing time, NASA engineers were working to nail down a new date for the launch of the moon-orbiting Artemis mission and using the extra time provided by the delay to give their female astronaut additional training. "It's an ongoing struggle," Rumsey said. "We're still not sure how she managed to actually back the simulator into the wall while she was putting on her makeup. I mean, it's stationary. How is that even possible? Anyway…diversity, right?" https://babylonbee.com/news/nasa-de...e=The Babylon Bee Newsletter&utm_medium=email
Remember I'm not talking about the few isolated individuals such as u might be, I'm talking about the overwhelming majority of people in the world. Generally, people like to be able to move about, to explore, to know what's out there. Naturally the world's a big place and there will always be a few basket cases who don't want to see beyond the next meal handed to them; and my heart goes out to those poor folk.
Water is the power. If there is sufficient water there is limitless power. Most of what they want to accomplish initially could be done remotely. But the main goal of all of this is to find some supporting evidence for the panspermia theory. They believe the odds are better if they get the right scientists to Mars. This isn’t about living on Mars. Nobody wants to live there.
We don't need to send humans to Mars to prove the theory. So if I put water in my gas tank I can use it for fuel and never have to refill it?
But that doesn't answer the question. How does sending humans to Mars make life here more worthy and what is then cost/benefit?
Well we’ve tried the other way without success. There is a bit of desperation. There will be no gasoline powered spacecraft or other equipment on lunar or Mars missions. But if we find water on the moon there will be a lot of hydrogen powered spacecraft and equipment. Water will be split into hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis powered by solar arrays. Your car would not work at all with a full tank of gas on the moon. You would never have to refill it with gas because there is no oxygen for combustion.
Perhaps we're running into confusion of what "worthy" means. My take is that a life that's worth living to most people may not be a life that's worth living to some of the others. There's even more controversy concerning what makes a life worth living. If you & I don't have a meeting of the minds on that one then any convo referencing that won't make sense. We may not be clicking on this & we may not be able to agree.
Wait a minute, aren't you one of the MMT posters? I thought you guys believed there was no end to money?
Oh well METEORITE YIELDS EVIDENCE OF PRIMITIVE LIFE ON EARLY MARS A NASA research team of scientists at the Johnson Space Center (JSC), Houston, TX, and at Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, has found evidence that strongly suggests primitive life may have existed on Mars more than 3.6 billion years ago. The NASA-funded team found the first organic molecules thought to be of Martian origin; several mineral features characteristic of biological activity; and possible microscopic fossils of primitive, bacteria-like organisms inside of an ancient Martian rock that fell to Earth as a meteorite. This array of indirect evidence of past life will be reported in the August 16 issue of the journal Science, presenting the investigation to the scientific community at large for further study. The two-year investigation was co-led by JSC planetary scientists Dr. David McKay, Dr. Everett Gibson and Kathie Thomas-Keprta of Lockheed-Martin, with the major collaboration of a Stanford team headed by Professor of Chemistry Dr. Richard Zare, as well as six other NASA and university research partners. "There is not any one finding that leads us to believe that this is evidence of past life on Mars. Rather, it is a combination of many things that we have found," McKay said. "They include Stanford's detection of an apparently unique pattern of organic molecules, carbon compounds that are the basis of life. We also found several unusual mineral phases that are known products of primitive microscopic organisms on Earth. Structures that could be microsopic fossils seem to support all of this. The relationship of all of these things in terms of location - within a few hundred thousandths of an inch of one another - is the most compelling evidence." "It is very difficult to prove life existed 3.6 billion years ago on Earth, let alone on Mars," Zare said. "The existing standard of proof, which we think we have met, includes having an accurately dated sample that contains native microfossils, mineralogical features characteristic of life, and evidence of complex organic chemistry." https://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/snc/nasa1.html That organic molecules do form under the right conditions and those lead to basic amino acids and those lead to proteins and before you know it, it the terms of time on the scale of the Universe, you got walking talking making tools civilizing and advancing themselves into what we have now. And that's just for carbon based life, scientist predict there could be other based life such as silicone, but that does get into theory we've never observed or been able to replicate. And as we send more and better telescopes and far space satellites out I expect we will be able to detect and confirm clear signs of life on distance planets in far away galaxies. Study Says 40 Billion Planets In Our Galaxy Could Support Life A new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds that roughly 1 in 5 stars, like our own sun, have an Earth-like planet orbiting around it. That's about 40 billion planets that could support life in the Milky Way galaxy. Melissa Block talks to co-author Geoff Marcy, an astronomy professor at the University of California-Berkeley, about the latest numbers. https://www.npr.org/2013/11/05/2432... Galaxy Could Support,in the Milky Way galaxy. The numbers almost get beyond the range off comprehension don't they. I just got a new VR app "SpaceEngine". Have you ever tried it, it's was ported over from 2D to VR. It is amazing with the known unaverse mapped out and "flyable" to. As you pick a star and hit go you can control how fast you fly there from a couple of meters until you look down and you are doing hundreds of light years a second and your still not there.....the vastness takes your breath away. Yea Briggs and Stratton were bidding on that contract for rocket engines but that place in Huntsville beat them out. But even on the Moon or Mars just putting water into your take ain't gonna run anything. And you can do all that when you have a full scale mining operation up there and the ability to support and maintain that equipment in that environment, you can't just call up the local Motion Industries and have them rush you a new bearing over, along with all the equipment in the electrolysis plants and the power house to power them, you don't just run a wire over from the solar panels and the ability to supply and maintain them along with the hundreds of people you have to feed and provide some type of life while they are there. I mean the cost get astronomical. And to store enough such fuel to get you there, stop you when you get there, back towards here and stop you when you get here. It limits your cargo and the time factors are killer for the support that would be needed. I was a child of the space program and watched EVERY launch I mean EVERY. Built all the models of the rockets and capsules as fast as Revell put them out. And we went the moon and we went again and again and again and pretty much did what we could and they cancelled that last few flights. And that left us with a well what next. We can only do so much at low earth orbit, can't recall the last great discovery from the research they are supposed to be doing up there. Satellites do the work up there. Space travel will be like the Concord for years to come. They don't run on water on the moon either, they would run on hydrogen under your plan.
Well your original post What are you basing your measurement of worth on? You know that early exploration was profit based, trade based. It was about expanding trade and treasure. It wasn't just to explore. It was to find valuable and scarce resources and wealth. And they weren't going to where they could not sustain themselves on what was there already for the pickin's. As long as you stay between certain longitudes you'd be able to find fresh water and animals and plants to live off. We are talking HUGE sums of the national treasure and surely a cost in lives. If we are going to talk worth shouldn't there be some tangible measurement of that other than making us feel good?
--and what is the worth of all of the graves at Arlington National Cemetery or what is the value of all the works of art at the Smithsonian Institution? What is the Statue of Liberty worth? How about we agree that this discussion is becoming tedious? Huh, sure trade/resources played a part but my thinking is it was small potatoes compared to territorial expansion. Even that may not be an issue in the present age, my thinking of like Antarctica, no territorial conquest there. Let's understand that the entire NASA budget for 2021 is not even 4 tenths of one percent of the entire 2021 Fed budget. Seriously.
The Mars meteorite was not the real deal. https://amp.theguardian.com/science...eorite-debunks-myth-of-ancient-life-on-planet You are the only one wishing to put water in a gas tank. Everyone else is interested in splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen for fuel. Again, you are the only one at all interested in running things on water. None of this is my idea. I’m just explaining the facts to you. It’s NASA’s plan, not mine. But yes, reacting hydrogen and oxygen derived from electrolysis of water will power the spacecraft. Not water, and not gasoline. It doesn’t matter if you or I like the idea or wish our taxes to support it or not. Electrolysis of lunar water is the plan. Electrolysis is very simple. I was making hydrogen and oxygen on the dining room table at age 7 with miner’s light batteries, a plastic tub, some scrap wire and a couple baby food jars.
I'll concede the point I missed the latest on it. You Water is not a fuel source. Well let's send a bunch of miners batteries and plastic tubing and scrap wire and baby food jars to the Moon and problems solved. Yes just as in high school experiments you can produce a small amount of hydrogen which quickly burst into a flame and amaze your friends but if you are not careful can be quite dangerous. That has nothing to do with industrial scale production. What percent of our hydrogen production is by electrolysis?
As I said, there is desperation. Desperation makes people misinterpret what they see. That’s the danger of “consensus” science. Once “consensus” is reached few continue to search for truth. It devolves into bias confirmation hunting expeditions. Nope. I’m just pointing out the plan is to use lunar water to produce hydrogen and oxygen for rocket fuel. Water is not an energy source. The components are a great fuel source. I doubt that’s how NASA plans to do it, but you are welcome to advise them of your ideas. Close to zero. But we have natural gas on earth. If they find large volumes of natural gas or organic matter that can be converted to methane on the moon NASA will probably abandon the electrolysis of water method.
Like the human caused global warming consensus? Yes. Water is not the fuel. Correct water is not an energy source, except for kenetic energy. The hydrogen and oxygen as but when they are in the H2O state far from it. And you don't just dig a well on the moon and upncomes pure water. It's in tiny crystals in the VERY dirty lunar soil. So it has to he mined and separated and purified before you can even think about splitting. Any contamination would bond with the hydrogen and quite possibly cause explosions. Hydrogen does not like being in a free state. Here is an MIT paper discussing some of the issues and how far off the theory is considering the hostilities of the environment. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/05/19/1001857/how-moon-lunar-mining-water-ice-rocket-fuel Me too, doubt they will the technology you talked about. How much hydrogen do we produce here for commerical use through hydrololysis I asked But we have a HUGE abundance of water and in liquid form here on earth so why don't we produce hydrogen using water as you propose on the moon.
No. But like many of the “accepted” proposed consequences of AGW. Nobody but you claimed it is. I’m aware of that article. I’ve known about this plan of NASA’s for a long time. I’m not just now discovering this. Water only has kinetic energy if some external energy source has set it in motion. That is the current plan. If you think they should use natural gas or methane you are welcome to point them to sources on the moon. Or if you have a better method of separating water into hydrogen and oxygen with solar energy speak up. Let them know. I just explained that to you. Because it’s easier (more efficient) to use methane from abundant natural gas on earth. Unfortunately nobody has discovered any natural gas or organic matter on the moon. When you advise NASA on sources of natural gas or organic matter on the moon, I’m sure they will be happy to abandon the current plan. None of this is my proposal. I’m simply informing you of NASA’s plans. If you have a problem with NASA you need to stop addressing your concerns to me. I’m not the source of these plans nor have I endorsed them.
Well I think the we'll just use the water crystals on the lunar surface concept is not quite "accepted" yet. There are MAJOR hurdles as the MIT paper I cite discusses. You don't just load up some Caterpillar heavy equipment into a rocket and send it to the moon. WE don't build factories here in the worst of our deserts of coldest of our poles for a reason. Trying to work heavy equipment in those environments is EXTREMELY difficult and EXTREMLEY subject to breakdowns due to the environments and on the lunar surface the equipment will be going through cycles of EACH. Heck it might be cheaper and more efficient just to fill up bunches high pressure tanks of hydrogen onto cheap heavy lift vehicles and launch them to the Moon and build up a storage to fuel some deeper inner system vehicle. Yoiu could automate lots of that with a minimal maintenance and a few operational people. But where are we going to go other than Mars and what on earth, excuse the pun, do we need to go to Mars for when any scientific exploration can be done now by robots and that technology is advancing everyday. Colonizing Mars is folly. If some system event threatens the earth Mars will certainly not be some safe haven. Mining resources at the expense to do so? What is there that we don't have here or would be cheaper to get there? Water does not equal fuel or a power source, the hydrogen and oxygen in the water molecule on their own cause or support combustion. So just because you can find some water crystals does not mean you now have fuel. Yet you seem to imply this is a done deal, have I read you wrong? Yes like gravity when we use the kinetic energy in the water to turn turbine blades. I don't think that's going to work on the lunar surface. You can't use water as fuel, you have to split the water and THEN you can use the hydrogen and oxygen to create a combustion when you recombine them. But then there is that nasty energy loss thing. I don't think it is quite etched in stone, they have LOTS of technological concepts to develop and prove before we can invest the BILLIONS into such a project. And again what are the TANGIBLE results we expect to get for that HUGE investment? Well it isn't easy to do here on earth will all the abundant liquid water we have is it going to get any easier on the lunar surface? It's EXPENSE to do HERE. Imagine how expensive is will be to do on the lunar surface. We're just having a conversation.
NASA has been sponsoring annual competitions for tech universities to compete in lunar water extraction methods. Been going on since 2017. Here’s a link. https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/university-teams-practice-drilling-for-water-on-the-moon-and-mars I’m quite sure none of them are using Caterpillar equipment, especially since I think we’ve established there are no hydrocarbon deposits known to exist on the moon. MIT is one of the universities competing in NASA’s competition. Nothing much about space exploration is simple. Well, do the math and convince the rocket scientists they are incorrect and should ferry fuel to the moon. I’m ambivalent but pretty sure the math supports their plan. I’m sure someone at NASA thought of hauling Jerry cans to the moon. Again, I think going to Mars is dumb. If someone wants to do so it should be done with private money, not tax dollars. Like I said, nobody really wants to live on Mars. It’s a hellhole. Some people say we need to move there because the climate here will cease to be livable. Anyone saying such things has never experienced climate or weather anywhere near that of Mars. If water were combustible I wouldn’t have been wasting my time performing electrolysis as a kid. I would have been torching and blowing stuff up with water. If you have sunlight you can turn water into fuel. I grow a lot of corn to fuel vehicles. But none of those vehicles put #2 yellow corn in their fuel tanks. With some work and some energy input, both corn and water can become very useful fuels. At the end of the day, hydrogen, ethanol, hydroelectric etc. are ALL really just “batteries” storing solar power. I’ve stated this is NASA’s plan. It is their plan. They have been working on the details for years as shown above. Who knows if it will come to fruition. If it does, being a government deal it will probably come in over budget! Since lunar water is ice “underground” and gravity on the moon is about 1/6th that on earth, it looks like back of the napkin math gives photovoltaic solar a slight edge over hydroelectric on the moon. Not nearly the energy loss of trying to move tons of fuel out of earth’s nearly 10 m/s/s gravity. They want evidence of panspermia and money is no object. The details are already being worked out. They can take whatever money they need from you and I or “print” some. If you and I could take other people’s money to buy what we want, we both might own more frivolous amenities. As of right now, hydrogen and oxygen from lunar water is what NASA wants. The cost doesn’t matter when it’s someone else’s money you are using. Yeh. It’s an interesting one. Incidentally, last night I was out in a hay field waiting for the dew to come on so I could bale some hay. I didn’t want to try and sleep for 45 minutes till when NOAA said the dew point would be reached, so I sprawled out on the ground and looked at the stars for 45 minutes. There’s no light pollution where I was so even the the Milky Way was vividly bright. I thought a bit about your comments in this thread about the value or lack thereof in just exploring for “fun” or to satisfy curiosity. As someone who spent hours and hours as a young person going places inside the earth no human had been before and doing hard manual labor to get to more places nobody had been before, I can understand the desire to go to the moon or Mars—just for the experience. The experience can’t be described really. It’s exciting, frightening, rewarding, and addictive. And the addiction can lead to contemplation of making decisions that are not based entirely on evidence or logic. I suspect some of that is at play with those intimately involved in manned missions outside our atmosphere. It’s just normal human reaction. I just don’t think anyone should be able to take my money or your money to fund the joyride. The things I did I pursued economically with our own family’s funds. I didn’t expect my neighbors or complete strangers to fund my pursuits. Unfortunately government and supporters of government feel differently. And there is nothing you and I can do about it.
No, the question is why the sudden hype? Why is it all over the media? Why hype an unmanned mission to the moon, in the past 5 years several nations have orbited or landed on the moon. Because the Democrats want to say they are successful. Propaganda.
Yes sudden. Not a peep about it and then it’s hyped like it was Apollo 11. Artemis is BS. This is the very first sentence in NASAs official description https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/ With Artemis missions, NASA will land the first woman and first person of color on the Moon, ...... Compare that to JFKs explanation for going to the moon Artemis is more woke crap from NASA.
