September 2005 - Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

Re: [Utah-astronomy] NASA's plan to return to the moon
by Michael Carnes 21 Sep '05

21 Sep '05

>If we plan on establishing a permanent base station on the Moon, or if we plan >on travelling beyond the Moon to distant planets, we will need to know just >what medical effects long term exposure to zero gravity will have on the >human body. That's true Guy, but I think we've already gotten most of that from several years of Mir. Jerry Linengar's (sp?) book a few years back gave some nice detail about issues that came up after he spent several months up there. He was still suffering from bone demineralization a year after returning--even with a lot of advanced therapy. The Russian commander was nearly suicidal because the mission directors blamed him for a collision with a Progress capsule. I think we could still learn an awful lot from the Russians if we could get past our own technological snobbery. They actually learned a lot from a minimal, non-expandable platform (Mir). We built this great fancy, infinitely expandable boondoggle that requires constant attention from the 2 guys stuck up there. And we still depend on that clunky Russian stuff to take food to them. Skylab was a great example of well-applied cleverness. We cobbled the thing together out of available spare parts and got a lot of good out of it until it fell down. The ISS is the result of a unholy alliance among politicians, contractors and the careerists who took over NASA.

2 2

NASA's plan to return to the moon
by Dale Hooper 21 Sep '05

21 Sep '05

I must admit that I was a bit surprised by the look of the proposal for the new crew launch vehicle. But I am sure glad to see that there is finally a plan to separate the crew from the cargo. I think it will also benefit the USA to, once again, have a heavy lift booster. As Yogi Berra said, "It's Déjà Vu all over again". It sure looks like "reuse" is the key word to the new strategy. Also, if I'm not mistaken wasn't on-orbit staging of the vehicle what Von Braun had originally intended to use? I realize that there are a fair number of you that aren't too keen to the manned space program anymore. But, I think if we can get the infrastructure in place - then we can have a manned program that is well worth the cost. Clear skies, Dale. Reference articles, linked to in Patrick's News: http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/sep/HQ_05266_ESAS_Release.html http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050919/full/050919-1.html http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=dn8022

5 4

RE: NASA's plan to return to the moon
by Chuck Hards 21 Sep '05

21 Sep '05

> From: "Kim Hyatt" <kimharch(a)cut.net> > Which reminds me, no one has answered my > question: Just exactly > what purpose is the ISS supposed to serve, besides > justifying jobs, > politicians' rhetoric, and the infamous STS? An often unspoken, but nonetheless part of the international aspect of the ISS is to keep Russian engineers and scientists employed. Otherwise there is fear they may be lost to "The Dark Side", meaning terrorism, black-market interestes, etc. Although not as adept or inclined as Kurt at instantly citing sources, I have read this many times in the past. The politicians fear a repeat of the spreading of nuclear technology to third-world, less than stable governments- some already have the nukes, this would give them the delivery system. __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

RE: [Utah-astronomy] NASA's plan to return to the moon
by Dale Hooper 21 Sep '05

21 Sep '05

Hi Michael, I think you are certainly right about the problems with the shuttle. It was supposed be almost completely reusable with quick turnaround, reduced cost to orbit and be the all-in-one for delivering payloads to orbit. I don't think it really ended up delivering on many of the promises. It might be interesting to see a documentary on the decision making that gave us STS. As you mentioned they are using technology from both previous programs so you could possibly say this is the direct follow on. I think they are also going to have a lot more unmanned testing with this one which will be aided by our increased technical capabilities. I believe I saw something that said the Mars vehicle would be a "beefier" version that could hold six astronauts. So, hopefully they will still take some things in steps. I suspect there are several reasons concerning why it will take so long. Certainly there are now two major albatrosses (is that the correct way to pluralize albatross?) - namely ISS & the shuttle. The lack of major budget increases and lukewarm public & congressional support are probably additional reasons. I'm certainly with Joe on this also - I'm definitely excited to see NASA with a plan to FINALLY get out of low earth orbit. Who would have thought after Apollo 17 that it would be nearly the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11 before we would go back. Clear skies, Dale. > -----Original Message----- > From: utah-astronomy-bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu(a)mailman.xmission.com > [mailto:utah-astronomy- > bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu(a)mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Michael > Carnes > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 8:31 PM > To: Utah Astronomy > Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] NASA's plan to return to the moon > > I've certainly been clear in my dislike of the shuttle, but this is a > whole new kettle of fish. The problems with the shuttle are legion. > It's expensive, unnecessarily risky, and most importantly: doomed to > low earth orbit. The new plan looks to scrap a lot of that. In > retrospect, shuttle engineers may have been too eager for something > new and whiz-bang, and perhaps ignored many of the valuable lessons > from the Apollo program. I'm glad to see the new plan retain the > lessons and technology from BOTH previous programs. > > Still, there are two things that strike me as a bit odd. In the > lunar program, we went from Mercury, though Gemini, to Apollo. Each > program was intended to accomplish specific goals and to build > particular skills. I've only seen a little about the new NASA > direction, but it appears that they're going right for the complete > new crew vehicle all at once--one capable of going to the moon and > Mars. I wonder if it might make more sense to have a few > intermediate goals for preliminary versions of that vehicle. > > The other thing is this: When John Kennedy made his famous speech > about going to the moon, it was 1961. He set a goal of getting there > by the end of the decade. We did it, with half a year to spare. The > new plan is to get there by 2018, thirteen years away. We've already > been to the moon several times. Our basic technology and computer > abilities are orders of magnitude better than they were then. So why > is it going to take so long this time? > > I realize that there are a fair number of you that aren't too keen > > to the manned space program anymore. But, I think if we can get > > the infrastructure in place - then we can have a manned program > > that is well worth the cost.

6 8

RE: [Utah-astronomy] NASA's plan to return to the moon
by Dale Hooper 21 Sep '05

21 Sep '05

I think you are both right that they are symbiotic parasites. But playing the devil's advocate - I think that having the shuttle really did help with the HST. The ISS still has the potential to help with future mission staging and "might" actually produce some real science. But, mangling an old saying: a wounded bird in the hand may be better than two proposed by Pres. Bush. In other words, I wouldn't cancel anything while this is still a paper only project. You never know what can happen to these things when congress-critters and NASA bureaucrats get their hands on them. [I think the aforementioned groups are what screwed up ISS]. However - I am excited that there is finally a plan. > -----Original Message----- > From: utah-astronomy-bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu(a)mailman.xmission.com > [mailto:utah-astronomy- > bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu(a)mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Michael > Carnes > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 5:15 AM > To: Utah Astronomy > Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] NASA's plan to return to the moon > > You're right in the money in both your posts, Kim. The shuttle and > the ISS form one of those unhealthy co-dependent relationships the > psychologists talk about. They both need each other, and none of the > rest of us need either one. The standard excuse is that we have > "international obligations" with the ISS. Seems liked we've managed > to ditch most of our other international obligations over the last > half-dozen years. Why does this one matter? > > > One more thing. (OK, so I had too much caffeine before trying to > > get to > > bed.) Don't you love the reasoning of the people who keep these > > boondoggles > > alive? "We can't get rid of the shuttle yet - we need it to keep > > the ISS > > alive. Of course, we can't get rid of the ISS yet, either. We need > > it to > > justify the shuttle." Go figure. > >

1 0

Nobel Winners Defend Evolution
by Patrick Wiggins 20 Sep '05

20 Sep '05

http://cbsnews.cbs.com/stories/2005/09/16/tech/main854519.shtml

1 0

RE: [Utah-astronomy] Experiment
by David Dunn 19 Sep '05

19 Sep '05

Joe, I did a save picture and opened it with Microsoft Photo Editor. I blew it up to 400% and could just make out the big dipper stars. They were very dim. They appear to be the same color and brightness as medium blue above the cloud. Dave -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+david.dunn=albertsons.com(a)mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+david.dunn=albertsons.com@mailman.xmissio n.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 8:57 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Experiment Hi, I am trying to add some stars-with-landscape shots to my gallery. But I can't see the stars with this @#$ID& computer at work. Could someone please look at the photo I just put in and let me know if the Big Dipper shows up on the screen? Thanks, Joe _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] aurora?
by David Dunn 19 Sep '05

19 Sep '05

I wonder if the IDA could help us. We at least need the moon turned down for certain events. It is far too bright. Of course I guess we would obuse the rule and keep the Moon turned down from first quarter until last quarter. Dave

3 4

Obs Rep - Lunar - SPOC Ealing 9/15/2005
by Canopus56 18 Sep '05

18 Sep '05

Observing Report SPOC Ealing 9/15/2005 K. Fisher 20050915 11pm MDT - 20050916 1:15am Targets - Lunar 100 for lunar day 12-13 L100Id Name Type Comment 43 Wargentin Crater Crater filled to brim w lava and many wrinkles adjacent to unfilled craters 39 Schickard Crater Crater with Orientale Basin ejecta albedio contrast on crater floor. S.E. albedio contrast seen. 57 Reiner Albedio Only magnetic swirl on Gamma contrast near side of moon. n/a Procellarum Wrinkles west of Reiner Gamma. W. Basin 62 Rumker Hills Volcano Dome - Canopus56(Kurt) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1

Telescope for sale
by Jim Gibson 15 Sep '05

15 Sep '05

Anyone interested in a Celestron Nextstar 114G? See: http://centre.net.au/Celestron_Nexstar_114GT_Telescope_000837.html for picture and stats. Call John Woffinden at Work (801) 522-3585 Home (801) 756-9574 --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

1 0