RE: We pay NASA to do this?

RE: We pay NASA to do this? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: We pay NASA to do this? (10/12/2009 2:50:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig OK Lisa, just what dire consequences "in the generations to come" do you foresee? Just what sorts of things might our little probe crash cause? That's what I keep wondering. How do you damage a planet with a piece of metal the size of a small car? What's the thinking here?

einstien5201 -> RE: We pay NASA to do this? (10/12/2009 5:16:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or The foremost of which is that the mass of the orbiting object matters. It does not at all. Without that important fact, a logical mind might go so far as to reason that the Earth and moon are an orbiting mass, and the lack of mass would send us shooting out into space. While it is true that the Earthe and moon are a single mass because they share a single orbital path, remember there are only a few things that matter to achieve a stable orbit. The mass of the object being orbited (i.e. the sun) which renders it's G force, which we may express as the G force of the Earth being one, but that is a subjective measurement. It can be expressed many ways, and in fact can be expressed simply as mass if the formula is written properly. The distance of the orbiting object to the one being orbited. The orbital speed. The last two render at what point the G force from the orbited object exactly counteracts the centripital force caused by the circular path taken by the orbiting object. So it does not matter if half the Earth is blown off, as long as what is left stays in place and keeps going around at the same speed, it will orbit. Simple satellite TV proves the point. The transmitters are about 23,000 miles from the Earth and their orbital speed is locked to the equator. They do not weigh all the same. One may be ten times the mass of another, but as long as they stay put they will still be there, along with some of the junk up there I might add. In this case the orbital speed matches the rotational speed of the Earth, but that is not true of the Earth vs the sun. If you look at the planets in the solar system, the farther out they are, the slower they go. T I'd just like to point out that this isn't true. While the systems mentioned do approximate this idea (that the mass of the secondary body won't affect the dynamics of the system), this is only because the mass of the secondary is insignificant compared to the mass of the primary. Newton's law of gravitational attraction (which I'll use because we don't need to involve Einstein in this) is F (force of attraction between two objects) = G (gravitational constant) times M1M2 (the product of the masses of the two objects) divided by R (the distance between the objects) squared. You'll see that both the mass of the primary (M1) and the secondary (M2) are present in this equation. The gravitational force between two objects directly determines what speed is required for a stable orbit at a specified distance.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: We pay NASA to do this? (10/12/2009 10:05:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AlwaysLisa Is it just me...or does anyone else think crashing a vehicle into the moon is a bad idea? We are so closely tied into the moons orbit, why are we meddling with the possibility of screwing things up even further on this planet? Lisa This was such basic science. Put a glass full of water in the freezer. Come back 10 months later. Ice (water) gone. Last time I checked....the moon was older than 10 months.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: We pay NASA to do this? (10/12/2009 10:07:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: AlwaysLisa Is it just me...or does anyone else think crashing a vehicle into the moon is a bad idea? We are so closely tied into the moons orbit, why are we meddling with the possibility of screwing things up even further on this planet? Lisa This was such basic science. Put a glass full of water in the freezer. Come back 10 months later. Ice (water) gone. Last time I checked....the moon was older than 10 months. Well, I don't think so. There's going to be a new one next Sunday!

Aylee -> RE: We pay NASA to do this? (10/12/2009 10:18:26 PM)
I think that I have it figured out! Lisa may be afraid that bombing the moon may lead to moonquakes. But see Lisa, you do not need to worry, the moon already HAS quakes! So. . . no more worries! [:)] At least I hope that it is this and not worry about our satilite being a "dinosaur killer" and a menace to the moons ecology.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: We pay NASA to do this? (10/12/2009 10:20:26 PM)
OK, seriously. On the subject of water on the moon... when Ken and I were discussing the South Pole-Aitkins Basin the other night, something rang a bell and I googled it. And I was right. They've already confirmed the existence of large quantities of frozen water trapped below the surface of the Aitkin Basin. So it's not like they don't already know there's a considerable supply of water there. Does anyone know the specific goal of this particular experiement?

Aylee -> RE: We pay NASA to do this? (10/12/2009 10:26:05 PM)
It is hoped that spectral analysis of the resulting impact plume will help to confirm preliminary findings by the Clementine and Lunar Prospector missions which hinted that there may be water ice in the permanently shadowed regions. Okay. . . that was from wiki but was the quickest place to look.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: We pay NASA to do this? (10/12/2009 10:35:08 PM)
Ah, OK - and i just found a webpage on the Clementine mission. Sounds like they still needed to confirm the quantities found by Clementine and Prospector.

Termyn8or -> RE: We pay NASA to do this? (10/13/2009 10:33:07 PM)
"The gravitational force between two objects directly determines what speed is required for a stable orbit at a specified distance" ZZACTLY. If the moon loses half of it's mass, it will stay put. If the Earht/moon orbiting mass loses mass it will stay put. However if the Earth loses a lot of mass, the moon will be gone, just as if the sun lost a lot of mass, we would be gone. But our mass does not matter. Back figuring, we are not only but a small fraction of the mass of the sun, and at a 93 million mile orbit. However I did not say that about the moon's orbit around the Earth. Alot closer and less disproportionate, of course there would be an effect. But still if half the moon just got shot off into space, the orbit itself is not likely to change signifigantly. More aptly put the orbit of the moon, what's left of it. Of course then noone would dispute the moon's mass has probably decreased over the millenia. With all those craters, some of the dust must have been thrown out into space far enough so the gravity of the moon would be unable to recapture it. And then we see craters, what happened to what made the craters ? They blew up. Some people think it is our atrmosphere that causes that, but in reality comets and other crater making bodies (for lack of a word) do store heat quite well. There is no convection nor conduction, so there is nowhere for the heat to go. In some cases the moondust might have provided fuel for an explosion brought on by bringing in all this heat energy. Of course I realize that this points to the possibility that there is water below the surface on the moon. Thus the experiment. I really have no problem with it except that we have alot bigger problems right here, and I think things like this should be back burnered until we make some headway regarding the human condition. That is my sole objection really. NASA is one of the best research facilities in the world, but I bet they can't even design a decent can opener. Everything is too specialized. You don't want to fire them all, so why don't we put them to work on something more "at home" so to speak ? All of this exploration costs an enourmous amount of money. I don't know about you, but my gas tank reads an eigth of a tank, so I won't be going joyriding because I have to get to work tomorrow. Kapeesh ? Maybe later, after I fill up some excursion is possible, but for now screw it. Why should I complicate things ? Are priorities a thing of the past now ? T

variation30 -> RE: We pay NASA to do this? (10/14/2009 12:04:50 AM)
NASA is a waste of money. I doubt many people would willingly give up money to someone who said they were raising it so they could build a space vehicle, ram it into the moon, and see if they find evidence of water. though at least this is less wasteful than sending humans into space.

Cheyenne1989 -> RE: We pay NASA to do this? (10/14/2009 12:52:20 AM)
I agree that it is more than likely a waste of money to spend probably millions of dollars (I'm assuming somewhere in there, seeing as it is a space trip) to crash a piece of metal into the moon. But I have to say that NASA is not a waste of money. Ever been to the NASA space center in Huntsville? It's so cool :D

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: We pay NASA to do this? (10/14/2009 12:53:36 AM)
Where would our civilization be without Tang?

Cheyenne1989 -> RE: We pay NASA to do this? (10/14/2009 1:08:40 AM)
Panda, I really think we would be okay without Tang. And SunnyD and every other fake orange juice out there lol

Ialdabaoth -> RE: We pay NASA to do this? (10/14/2009 1:25:19 AM)
... NASA is less a waste of money than the National Endowment for the Arts, and certainly less a waste of money than some of the absurd defense contracts we flush down the toilet every few years. And remember... NASA's budget it miniscule. And even if the work they do has no practical results in our lifetime, it's still good for the soul. People are way too wrapped up in their own tiny little corners of this dust-speck.

Termyn8or -> RE: We pay NASA to do this? (10/14/2009 7:17:33 AM)
NASA a waste of money ? Hardly. The same has been said of Nascar. But both have produced technology that has trickled down into common use. However I agree that this particular endevor is a waste of money. The boost NASA gave to technology may be good or bad, some of us liked it the old way. However kevlar comes to mind. Mind you I don't agree with it's use to wrap up new houses, I simply do not believe a hermetically sealed dwelling is good for you. But it was developed for, and in conjunction with NASA. There are many other examples. What Nascar has done has done wonders for the efficiency of automobiles. There is always some tradeoff between performance and other factors like mileage and so forth. But to win races they had to push the envelope. Races are held with strict parameters on the engines and even the body, the wind resistance must be relatively closely matched. Some even have fuel rationing, but I haven't heard of it lately. When confronted by all the constraints, they have only one place to go; make the engine more efficient. NASA's requirements were similar on the technological side. Even if they didn't directly participate in the research, they are the ones that impelled it. Many parts of the budget are infinitesimal, but note the word many there. Welfare is a drop in the bucket, the viaducts for the squirrels to cross the bridge - infinitesimal. The problem is that one times a million still equals a million. There are too many things going on, things that should not be. Of course nothing in the Constitution authorizes any of this spending, but that is out the window. Since we have it how it is now, NASA is not one of the entities on which the axe should fall IMO. I just think that those resources should, for a time, be turned to solving some of the problems right here at home. Take an old saying and turn it around. If I had a nickel for every time somone ..........., OK change that to If I had to pay a nickel for every time someone........., you will run out of nickels. A very rich Man once said "Watch the nickels and dimes, and the dollars will take care of themselves". Whatever my opinion of that, it is true that if you have a dollar it is very easy to find twenty people who need a nickel. After that your dollar is gone. Oh, someone mentioned the National Endowment for the Arts ? As far as I am concerned they can burn that to the ground. As far as I am concerned that entity exists to give Bubba who just got out of prison a chance to paint the Sistene Chapel - with a broom ! Art should not cost money unless it is really good. But then government does sometimes reflect the will of those governed. They are like people who need to buy that video game rather than pay the rent. Or some anonymous people mentioned by a contractor years ago - the people had cable TV but no house insurance. I guess they could have the cable shut off once the house burnt to the ground, but the phone was melted LOL. In that case the house was a total loss, you think they might've learned anything about priorities ? That is anyopne's guess. Of course in the case of government there are never any consequences, so they are never going to learn. They have a limitless pot of other people's money to work with. Things like this make me want to break Trafficant out of prison and run him for President. Note I was also against most of the subsequent man on the moon shots after they got it done once. We proved our point, that is done. Then it just became a drag, on the environment as well I might add. Enough for now. T

DomKen -> RE: We pay NASA to do this? (10/14/2009 2:58:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: variation30 NASA is a waste of money. I doubt many people would willingly give up money to someone who said they were raising it so they could build a space vehicle, ram it into the moon, and see if they find evidence of water. though at least this is less wasteful than sending humans into space. Do you understand that the computer you typed this post on is a product of research done in support of the Apollo Program? As a matter of fact the integrated circuit chip, central to virtually all modern technology, only became economically feasible due to the advances made in the development of the Apollo Guidance Computer.

Aylee -> RE: We pay NASA to do this? (10/14/2009 3:17:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: variation30 NASA is a waste of money. I doubt many people would willingly give up money to someone who said they were raising it so they could build a space vehicle, ram it into the moon, and see if they find evidence of water. though at least this is less wasteful than sending humans into space. Do you understand that the computer you typed this post on is a product of research done in support of the Apollo Program? As a matter of fact the integrated circuit chip, central to virtually all modern technology, only became economically feasible due to the advances made in the development of the Apollo Guidance Computer. And don't forget velcro and ball-point pens. Also. . . a huge amount of medical technology.

AlwaysLisa -> RE: We pay NASA to do this? (10/14/2009 5:49:30 PM)
Lets not forget food in a tube. [:)] I think exploration has it's good points..that was never my concern and no, Im not worried about moon quakes, whomever stated that, lol Ever watch Sci Fi? You know the ones where they go back in time? A simple act like squashing a bug, can have a ripple effect on the planet for years to come. I still think we are an arrogant lot to assume our actions have no lasting effects, no matter how minute and unimportant we think they are. Ok, enough bandwidth wasted on this, time for more important things....like baseball playoffs. Since my team is out of the running, I suppose I will wave the Anahiem Angels flag. Always liked Mike. Baaaaatter up!

Muttling -> RE: We pay NASA to do this? (10/14/2009 9:18:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AlwaysLisa Ever watch Sci Fi? You know the ones where they go back in time? A simple act like squashing a bug, can have a ripple effect on the planet for years to come. I still think we are an arrogant lot to assume our actions have no lasting effects, no matter how minute and unimportant we think they are. ummm....it's called science FICTION for a reason.

Termyn8or -> RE: We pay NASA to do this? (10/14/2009 10:01:37 PM)
Mutt, I have given that some thought and even wrote a book pretty much about it. Yes it is fiction, but so are alot of things. The thought is intriguing and stimulating, and I think such things lead to higher thought process' in the brain. As such they are like an exercise. Many things that used to be fiction are now fact. Watch an old Star Trek and their communicators. Now have a look at your modern cellphone. But the fact is that we do make the future, for better or worse. In my fictional book I broke the law (of course) because I went back in time to advance technology. However there were ramifications. Problems with a few "excursions". Thinking all this through was interesting to say the least. Of course in this way we should realize that we have the exclusive right (and responsibility) to shape the future. This type of fiction is incorporated into my reasoning process. If I do this now, what happens tomorrow ? This little bomb on the moon means nothing really, but with each step, there are some who will push the envelope further. I disapprove of FDR's decision to go ahead with Manhattan. There was a percieved chance that it could be catastophic. His position that if it saves US lives it was worth the risk was well beyond his authority IMO, but he went ahead anyway. This was wrong IMO. Who knows what they will do next ? T

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875