Like it or not Euros, we're the best country in the world

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Oh, I won't deny you that, but to say that there is nothing to be gained from lunar missions is, in my mind, just silliness, and on par with saying that there's nothing to be gained from....say, tinkering with the notion of flight.

Tinkering with flight is cheap and easy.

Tinkering with moon landings costs billions. That is the difference.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Velociryx
::shrug:: Fair enough....but don't start complaining 'bout an "American Extra-Terrestrial Hegemony" if you're not even willing to try....

-=Vel=-

We are interested in space, but we are choosing a different method of (unmanned) exploration.

[flash9286]

umanned exploartion can only do so much.

[johncmcleod]

originally posted by Velociryx:
When it happens, the things we learned by making our lunar excursions will be the key building blocks for more advanced, more ambitious undertakings.

Amen!

[Velociryx]

::nodding in agreement::

Not a thing in the world wrong with launching unmanned missions to probe into new areas first. In fact, a study of NASA missions reveals that the US does the very same thing.

The difference is that the European Space Agency seems content with that for the foreseeable future. All well and good, but again, when US moon and mars colonies start springing up, don't start crying foul about an American hegemony in space....you guys have the technical know-how....if you elect not to use it, that's not our fault....

-=Vel=-

[Lemmy]

The difference is that the European Space Agency seems content with that for the foreseeable future. All well and good, but again, when US moon and mars colonies start springing up, don't start crying foul about an American hegemony in space....you guys have the technical know-how....if you elect not to use it, that's not our fault....

Does NASA have any concrete plans for Mars of Lunar bases?

[Adalbertus]

5) Advances in astronomy. The Hubble is pretty good at what it does, but imagine a lunar observatory and what it could do for our understanding of the stars.

A moon-based telescope is certainly inferior to Hubble. The atmospheric pressure on the moon is only 1/1000 of that of the earth (IIRC), but only after another 1/100-1/1000 you arrive at a pressure where the term "wind" doesn't make physical sense. And as long as you have wind, you have dust in the atmosphere. I don't really know the conditions on the moon, but I could guess that on a clean day on earth with little atmospheric disturbations you can get even better conditions than on the moon on an average day: The earth has water to bind the dust. For a telescope, I'd stay with satellite based.

[flash9286]

lemmy last time i heard was 2005 when the astronaouts whould leave but its probaly been changed

[Lemmy]

lemmy last time i heard was 2005 when the astronaouts would leave but its probaly been changed

would, or could?

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by Ming
Gee... johncmcleod, when I see threads like this, it makes be embarressed to be an American... It makes me want to start some American Bashing myself...

But that's ok, I don't think this thread is lasting too long anyway...

Bah...shall we call that a Ming Jinx?


However, the topic of the thread has changed...quite significantly.

[Lemmy]

However, the topic of the thread has changed...quite significantly.

no it hasn't, we're just exploring the different meanings of the word best, right now we're taking a spacy approach to it

Not a thing in the world wrong with launching unmanned missions to probe into new areas first. In fact, a study of NASA missions reveals that the US does the very same thing.

The difference is that the European Space Agency seems content with that for the foreseeable future.

http://www.esa.int/export/esaHS/ESA9I50VMOC_future_0.html

The search for life will be a major element in all future Mars missions, including the 2003 Mars Express and its Beagle 2 lander. In the longer term, it's also of interest to ESA's Aurora Programme, which has the task of taking human spaceflight beyond the ISS and out into the solar system over the next thirty years. Along the way, Aurora will be guiding the development of improved soft-landing technology and broadband interplanetary communications, as well as sophisticated robot science packages. But there is a limit to what robots can do. As a step towards its prime goal, Aurora might consider a sample return mission that could bring Mars rocks back for more thorough analysis on Earth.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by flash9286
lemmy last time i heard was 2005 when the astronaouts whould leave but its probaly been changed

Where do you get this rubbish from, or are you just making it up?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The difference is that the European Space Agency seems content with that for the foreseeable future. All well and good, but again, when US moon and mars colonies start springing up, don't start crying foul about an American hegemony in space....you guys have the technical know-how....if you elect not to use it, that's not our fault....

-=Vel=-

Not complaining at all, just stating my opinion.

If the US set up its own colonies on Mars and the Moon then the cost of making such bases would probablyl be significantly cheap and easy. ESA could easily follow suit.

If however the US had just spent a few thousand trillion dollars on the project, and ESA had to spend the same, I would say forget it, its not worth it.



If we compare to the exploration and colonization of the 1500s onward, England was centuries behind Spain, didn't turn out to bad in the end.

[flash9286]

well i just learned it was set for 2005 but congress cut backs changed the date to bring back rock samples from mars in 2011

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_2005_mars_001026.html

[Lemmy]

where did you get that info from?
a link maybe??