jimmytavino 16 #1 October 21, 2009 well the news reported that we 'bombed' one of the poles,,, of the Moon last week... the idea was to stir up a bunch of debris from below the surface...( sorta like when my wife asks about the weekend at the Dz ) Then they were going to fly a probe through that debris cloud, to analyze it for the presence or lack of, WATER...... NEVER heard anything about those results.... so what's the verdict??/ was our space program, "just blowing things UP"??? for fun and curiosity??? or was this 'experiment' successful ???? inquiring minds wanna know... jimmy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #2 October 21, 2009 Quotewas our space program, "just blowing things UP"??? for fun and curiosity??? or was this 'experiment' successful ???? The experiment was successful. NASA have not finished analyzing the data yet to determine that there is water on the moon.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #3 October 21, 2009 Anyone know how much it cost to determine this useless fact?I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #4 October 21, 2009 QuoteAnyone know how much it cost to determine this useless fact? I would hardly call the information useless. Finding water on the moon would be a valuable discovery. The cost of the mission was about $79 million.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #5 October 21, 2009 QuoteAnyone know how much it cost to determine this useless fact? According to some techno-geek I saw interviewed on TV yesterday (can't remember who/which show), it's far from useless. He advocated multiple such water-searching missions to the moon (since, just like prospecting for oil, you sometimes have to drill many dry wells before you hit jackpot). He said this mission cost about $78 million, but that that was a comparative "drop in the bucket", and well worth the cost, compared to the cost of transporting the water from Earth needed to sustain a long-term manned moon or deep-space mission - which could be saved if harvestable water is located on the moon. (Note, the interview did not discuss the issues of on-board recycling of water/water-waste, or deriving water as a byproduct of fuel cells, etc.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thedude325 0 #6 October 21, 2009 Quote Anyone know how much it cost to determine this useless fact? I do recall them saying this one was basically a shoestring budget job. It was put together quickly and executed with minimal personnel. Bottom line, don't worry. You'll still get your Obama money. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #7 October 21, 2009 QuoteQuoteAnyone know how much it cost to determine this useless fact? I would hardly call the information useless. Finding water on the moon would be a valuable discovery. The cost of the mission was about $79 million. Ha, we posted at the same time. Did you see the same interview I did? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skiskyrock 0 #8 October 21, 2009 QuoteAnyone know how much it cost to determine this useless fact? $79 million. Seems expensive until you realize that it would somewhere in around 10,000 to ship a liter of Perrier up there, and finding a source of water that is accessible would open up a lot of possibilities. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #9 October 21, 2009 OK, so I was off by one little million. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #10 October 21, 2009 QuoteHa, we posted at the same time. Did you see the same interview I did? No, but I've read basically the same things. The mission cost less than hauling 2100 gallons of H2O to the moon.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mutumbo 0 #11 October 21, 2009 Ok, can someone explain to me why its so expensive to transport water to the moon? $10,000 a liter? REALLY?? . . . .What am I missing here?Thanatos340(on landing rounds)-- Landing procedure: Hand all the way up, Feet and Knees Together and PLF soon as you get bitch slapped by a planet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #12 October 21, 2009 QuoteOk, can someone explain to me why its so expensive to transport water to the moon? $10,000 a liter? REALLY?? . . . .What am I missing here? Cost of the fuel to transport the weight away from Earth's gravity well and beyond its atmosphere, in large part. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mutumbo 0 #13 October 21, 2009 QuoteQuoteOk, can someone explain to me why its so expensive to transport water to the moon? $10,000 a liter? REALLY?? . . . .What am I missing here? Cost of the fuel to transport the weight away from Earth's gravity well and beyond its atmosphere, in large part. OOOHHH Ok, gotcha. Thanks.Thanatos340(on landing rounds)-- Landing procedure: Hand all the way up, Feet and Knees Together and PLF soon as you get bitch slapped by a planet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nutz 0 #14 October 21, 2009 It costs around $10,000.00 to lift one pound to low earth orbit. Getting it to the moon would be signifigantly more. "Don't! Get! Eliminated!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mutumbo 0 #15 October 21, 2009 QuoteIt costs around $10,000.00 to lift one pound to low earth orbit. Getting it to the moon would be signifigantly more. Wouldnt that be the expensive part? I mean once you get past earths gravity into space, where there is no gravity, it shouldnt cost very much to move things, all youd need wold be a short burst of speed, and according to Newton an object in motion will stay in motion until acted upon by an outside force. But then that is assuming the path to the moon is relatively straight, but either way, id say the brunt of it all would be overcoming earths gravity, right?Thanatos340(on landing rounds)-- Landing procedure: Hand all the way up, Feet and Knees Together and PLF soon as you get bitch slapped by a planet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #16 October 21, 2009 Quoteall youd need wold be a short burst of speed, and according to Newton an object in motion will stay in motion until acted upon by an outside force. It will require sufficient fuel to get past the point at which the earth and the moon's gravitation forces act equally on the vehicle.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #17 October 21, 2009 >I mean once you get past earths gravity into space, where there is no >gravity, it shouldnt cost very much to move things . . . You still have to get them into and out of gravity wells. In cislunar navigation the important thing is called "delta-vee" or the change in speed you need to get from one place to another. To get from the earth's surface to orbit you need a delta vee of about 18,000 MPH - in other words, you have to be able to change your speed by 18,000 MPH. To reach escape velocity (i.e. leave the earth's gravitational well and never return) you need 25,000 MPH delta vee. To get to the moon you need a little less than escape velocity, since the moon 'helps' you by having its own gravity well. This delta vee comes from engine burns, and thus the more delta-vee you need the more fuel you need (and the bigger the spacecraft.) That's why the Saturn 5's used for Apollo had to be so much larger than the Atlas rockets used to orbit (for example) the Gemini spacecraft. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mutumbo 0 #18 October 21, 2009 QuoteQuoteall youd need wold be a short burst of speed, and according to Newton an object in motion will stay in motion until acted upon by an outside force. It will require sufficient fuel to get past the point at which the earth and the moon's gravitation forces act equally on the vehicle. But once you get past earths gravity, then the gravity of the moon would be pulling you toward it, which would be a benefit, since thats where youre going?Thanatos340(on landing rounds)-- Landing procedure: Hand all the way up, Feet and Knees Together and PLF soon as you get bitch slapped by a planet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mutumbo 0 #19 October 21, 2009 Quote>I mean once you get past earths gravity into space, where there is no >gravity, it shouldnt cost very much to move things . . . You still have to get them into and out of gravity wells. In cislunar navigation the important thing is called "delta-vee" or the change in speed you need to get from one place to another. To get from the earth's surface to orbit you need a delta vee of about 18,000 MPH - in other words, you have to be able to change your speed by 18,000 MPH. To reach escape velocity (i.e. leave the earth's gravitational well and never return) you need 25,000 MPH delta vee. To get to the moon you need a little less than escape velocity, since the moon 'helps' you by having its own gravity well. This delta vee comes from engine burns, and thus the more delta-vee you need the more fuel you need (and the bigger the spacecraft.) That's why the Saturn 5's used for Apollo had to be so much larger than the Atlas rockets used to orbit (for example) the Gemini spacecraft. Gotcha! i understand(i think). Thanks guys.Thanatos340(on landing rounds)-- Landing procedure: Hand all the way up, Feet and Knees Together and PLF soon as you get bitch slapped by a planet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #20 October 21, 2009 >H2O ...on the Moon..Yes or No???? Yes. Evidence of water has been found in moon rocks returned to earth and during other missions to the moon. The Chandrayaan-1, Cassini and Deep Impact spacecraft have all detected water signatures on the moon. (Note that Deep Impact was not the mission that just hit the moon; it's a comet penetrator.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkeenan 14 #21 October 21, 2009 QuoteQuoteall youd need wold be a short burst of speed, and according to Newton an object in motion will stay in motion until acted upon by an outside force. It will require sufficient fuel to get past the point at which the earth and the moon's gravitation forces act equally on the vehicle. And it costs extra to stop when you get to the moon - or rather to slow down before you stop - something that the LCROSS probe didn't have to pay extra for. It stopped, but the way you would stop a freefall if you didn't use a parachute. Kevin K._____________________________________ Dude, you are so awesome... Can I be on your ash jump ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkeenan 14 #22 October 21, 2009 Quote...the Saturn 5's used for Apollo had to be so much larger than the Atlas rockets used to orbit (for example) the Gemini spacecraft. I hate to be a picky space geek, but that would be: Atlas - Mercury spacecraft Titan II - Gemini spacecraft_____________________________________ Dude, you are so awesome... Can I be on your ash jump ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #23 October 21, 2009 Why did we bomb the moon? A valid question. We know nothing about their language, their history or what they look like. But we can assume this: they stand for everything we don’t stand for. Also they told me you guys look like dorks!Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mutumbo 0 #24 October 21, 2009 QuoteWhy did we bomb the moon? A valid question. We know nothing about their language, their history or what they look like. But we can assume this: they stand for everything we don’t stand for. Also they told me you guys look like dorks! More than enough reason for me. I say nuke the bastards!!Thanatos340(on landing rounds)-- Landing procedure: Hand all the way up, Feet and Knees Together and PLF soon as you get bitch slapped by a planet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #25 October 21, 2009 >I hate to be a picky space geek, but that would be: >Atlas - Mercury spacecraft >Titan II - Gemini spacecraft You're right. I always make the mistake that Redstone=Mercury, Atlas=Gemini. (Yes, I know that the Mercury program used both.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
