Moonpig Share Discussion Threads

[pmeas] 17/8/2005 22:41

NEW MOON FIRST QUARTER FULL MOON LAST QUARTER

d h m d h m d h m d h m

JAN. 3 17 46
JAN. 10 12 03 JAN. 17 6 57 JAN. 25 10 32 FEB. 2 7 27
FEB. 8 22 28 FEB. 16 0 16 FEB. 24 4 54 MAR. 3 17 36
MAR. 10 9 10 MAR. 17 19 19 MAR. 25 20 58 APR. 2 0 50
APR. 8 20 32 APR. 16 14 37 APR. 24 10 06 MAY 1 6 24
MAY 8 8 45 MAY 16 8 56 MAY 23 20 18 MAY 30 11 47
JUNE 6 21 55 JUNE 15 1 22 JUNE 22 4 14 JUNE 28 18 23
JULY 6 12 02 JULY 14 15 20 JULY 21 11 00 JULY 28 3 19
AUG. 5 3 05 AUG. 13 2 38 AUG. 19 17 53 AUG. 26 15 18
SEPT. 3 18 45 SEPT. 11 11 37 SEPT. 18 2 01 SEPT. 25 6 41
OCT. 3 10 28 OCT. 10 19 01 OCT. 17 12 14 OCT. 25 1 17
NOV. 2 1 24 NOV. 9 1 57 NOV. 16 0 57 NOV. 23 22 11
DEC. 1 15 01 DEC. 8 9 36 DEC. 15 16 15 DEC. 23 19 36
DEC. 31 3 12

[pvb] 07/8/2005 14:02

maestro,

What's with this FREEMASON hangup of yours?

[jami dodgers] 04/8/2005 21:20

Well, maestro, I've just watched that recording thru' and I have to say that it looks pretty damning to me.

[maestro.] 04/8/2005 20:17

LOOK AT THE UNHAPPY FACES OF THE ASTRONAUTS...DON'T FORGET ALL 3 WERE FREEMASONS AND SWORN TO SECRECY...HOW DO THEY LIVE WITH THEMSELVES...FRAUDSTERS!

[maestro.] 04/8/2005 17:49

THE ILLUMINATI WANT TO DESTROY AND DEMORALISE AMERICA HENCE THE FAKE MOON LANDINGS AND THEIR 911 SCAM...DON'T LET THESE EVIL BARSTARDS PULL THE WOOL OVER YOUR EYES...YOU CAN ALL SAVE AMERICA AND FREE YOURSELF IF YOU WANT THE TRUTH BUT MANY ARE IN DENIAL

[waldron] 12/6/2005 09:58

cheers xena.

at least they're 98% positive.

enjoy your day.

[xenawarriorprincess] 12/6/2005 09:06

The Bad News, just in case anyone thought that getting into space, let alone going to the Moon was easy......



and the Good News for all those potential asteroid insurance companies...

[waldron] 12/6/2005 06:52

Torino Scale

Assessing Asteroid And Comet Impact Hazard Predictions In The 21st Century


No Hazard
(White Zone) 0 The likelihood of a collision is zero, or is so low as to be effectively zero. Also applies to small objects such as meteors and bodies that burn up in the atmosphere as well as infrequent meteorite falls that rarely cause damage.
Normal
(Green Zone) 1 A routine discovery in which a pass near the Earth is predicted that poses no unusual level of danger. Current calculations show the chance of collision is extremely unlikely with no cause for public attention or public concern. New telescopic observations very likely will lead to re-assignment to Level 0.
Meriting Attention by Astronomers
(Yellow Zone) 2 A discovery, which may become routine with expanded searches, of an object making a somewhat close but not highly unusual pass near the Earth. While meriting attention by astronomers, there is no cause for public attention or public concern as an actual collision is very unlikely. New telescopic observations very likely will lead to re-assignment to Level 0.
3 A close encounter, meriting attention by astronomers. Current calculations give a 1% or greater chance of collision capable of localized destruction. Most likely, new telescopic observations will lead to re-assignment to Level 0. Attention by public and by public officials is merited if the encounter is less than a decade away.
4 A close encounter, meriting attention by astronomers. Current calculations give a 1% or greater chance of collision capable of regional devastation. Most likely, new telescopic observations will lead to re-assignment to Level 0. Attention by public and by public officials is merited if the encounter is less than a decade away.
Threatening
(Orange Zone) 5 A close encounter posing a serious, but still uncertain threat of regional devastation. Critical attention by astronomers is needed to determine conclusively whether or not a collision will occur. If the encounter is less than a decade away, governmental contigency planning may be warranted.
6 A close encounter by a large object posing a serious but still uncertain threat of a global catastrophe. Critical attention by astronomers is needed to determine conclusively whether or not a collision will occur. If the encounter is less than three decades away, governmental contigency planning may be warranted.
7 A very close encounter by a large object, which if occurring this century, poses an unprecendented but still uncertain threat of a global castastrophe. For such a threat in this century, international contingency planning is warranted, especially to determine urgently and conclusively whether or not a collision will occur.
Certain Collisions
(Red Zone) 8 A collision is certain, capable of causing localized destruction for an impact over land or possibly a tsunami if close offsore. Such events occur on average between once per 50 years and oncer per several 1000 years.
9 A collision is certain, capable of causing unprecendented regional devastation for a land impact or the threat of a major tsunami for an ocean impact. Such events occur on average between once per 10,000 years and once per 100,000 years.
10 A collision is certain, capable of causing global climatic catastrophe that may threaten the future of civilization as we know it, whether impacting land or ocean. Such events occur on average once per 100,000 years, or less often.
From Nick Greene,
Your Guide to Space / Astronomy

[maywillow] 01/6/2005 19:24

Congressman Backs Asteroid Agency


02:00 AM Jun. 01, 2005 PT

The creation of a government agency to protect the Earth from a catastrophic asteroid strike is being endorsed by a senior member of the U.S. House Science Committee.

But a related space mission to track an asteroid that may hit Earth in 2036 can't seem to get off the ground.



Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) said in a phone interview on Friday that he supports former Apollo astronaut Russell Schweickart's proposal to create a federal asteroid-response agency. Rohrabacher said he will push Congress and the president to "take action on this by the end of the year."

The proposed agency would have the authority to deflect or destroy a threatening asteroid, most likely with the help of NASA and the Defense Department. It would also mobilize emergency-response teams if an asteroid impact could not be avoided.

Schweickart first proposed the idea last month, during a presentation at the International Space Development Conference in Arlington, Virginia.

Both Rohrabacher and Schweickart acknowledge the chance of an asteroid strike is extremely small. But they argue that the consequences of an impact make it necessary to prepare in advance.

"I think it's worthwhile for us," said Rohrabacher. "If something can destroy something the size of Rhode Island and disrupt the ecosystem of the world, it's important to us."

So far, NASA's response to the idea has been positive.

"Right now, NASA has a charter to find and track these objects, but if we do find something, who do we call?" said Donald Yeomans, manager of NASA's Near Earth Object program. "It would be nice if someone had the responsibility. The plans should be in someone's desk drawer."

Support for Schweickart's other proposal has not been so positive. Schweickart has called on Congress to authorize a $300 million mission to place a transponder on a 1,050-foot-wide asteroid known as 2004 MN4.

NASA scientists believe the asteroid has a roughly 1 in 14,000 chance of smashing into Earth when it comes around in 2036. Schweickart argues that a transponder would help refine that estimate and give the appropriate agencies time to react, should we learn that the chance is actually more like 1 in 10.

But Yeomans and other scientists believe ground-based studies over the next decade will be just as effective in determining whether 2004 MN4 will actually hit Earth.

"I would be of the mind to wait until 2013 and get the optical and radar data then," said Yeomans. "By far, the most probable situation is that this will go away. If it doesn't, then we still have time to do something about it."

Rohrabacher said he, too, preferred to wait before deciding whether a tracking mission to the asteroid was necessary.

"In terms of a specific assignment, I've got make a determination as to how we're going to deal with (a threatening asteroid) -- and who will deal with it -- before we make that kind of assignment," he said.

Rohrabacher already has two asteroid-related bills before the House. The Charles Conrad Astronomy Awards Act would reward amateur astronomers who find near-Earth objects like comets and asteroids.

The George E. Brown Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey Act would require NASA to expand its catalog of near-Earth objects to include objects down to 100 meters in diameter. The agency currently catalogs objects down to 1 kilometer in diameter.

Rohrabacher said he next plans to send a letter to NASA chief Michael Griffin, asking for his official stance on the creation of a federal asteroid-response agency. He said he hopes Congress or the president will appoint an agency by the end of the year.

[maywillow] 27/5/2005 19:58

May 26, 2005

Planetary Life Insurance

WorldChanging Essays Remember Asteroid 2004 MN4? Quite possibly not -- news about it was overshadowed by the late-December tsunami. 2004 MN4 is an Earth-orbit-crossing asteroid that, for several days in late December, appeared to be on target to hit the Earth in 2029. Early estimates of chances of impact grew higher as the orbital calculations improved, something that hadn't happened with previous asteroid early warnings; only after some slightly-panicked number crunching did astronomers figure out that 2004 MN4 wouldn't hit the Earth, but would instead come within 23,000 miles -- the astronomical equivalent of having a bullet whiz right past your ear.

We can all breathe a big sigh of relief, right? Well, not so fast. When something comes that close to a planet's gravity well, its path shifts. With our current observations about 2004 MN4, astronomers estimate that MN4 has a 1 in 23,000 chance of hitting the Earth in 2035 and a 1 in 14,000 chance of hitting in 2036. We'd be able to calculate precisely whether or not the asteroid will hit after it passes... but at that point, if we found that it would hit, six or seven years is simply not enough time to do anything about it. Hollywood notwithstanding, it really doesn't help to blow an asteroid up -- you just end up being hit by a larger number of chunks with the same energy. The real solution is pushing the rock off-course... but that would take longer than we'd have. And when 2004 MN4 hit, it would unleash nearly a gigaton of energy.

So Apollo astronaut Rusty Schweickart -- whom we've posted about before -- has a plan. Not to push the asteroid out of the way now, but to land a transponder on it:



[Schweickart] unveiled his proposal Friday at the International Space Development Conference in Arlington, Virginia.The proposal calls for a $300 million mission to land a transponder on the asteroid, a 1,050-foot-wide body known as 2004 MN4. Signals from the transponder would be used to pinpoint the asteroid's trajectory and determine whether it will strike Earth or simply zoom past.

[...] "This asteroid is exceptional in terms of the accuracy of the data that we need to have on it," he said. "Normal tracking will not do that job."

Schweickart himself believes that an impact is unlikely. However, in his report, he provides a rough estimate of the potential damages, noting that a splashdown in the Pacific Ocean could create a tsunami twice the size of the recent Indian Ocean tsunami.




As space missions go, $300 million isn't all that big -- it's less than the cost of a single (pre-Columbia) space shuttle launch. We're getting to be pretty good at aiming satellites at space objects like asteroids and comets; what would make this launch complex is the need for a relatively soft landing to keep the transponder intact.
But the bigger issue is getting people to think about long-payoff prevention. The reason we would need to launch a transponder soon is that, should we discover 2004 MN4 was going to impact the Earth, it would take steady pushing for months a decade or more in advance to make sure it missed. Moreover, it's not like we have ready-made asteroid pushing satellites on the shelf -- designing, testing and building something able to put out a steady impulse for weeks at a time would itself take years to do. Frankly, even if we launched a transponder this year, we would be cutting it close.
We can see the same logic at work with other large-scale geosystem threats, global warming being the most obvious. The real impact of global warming-induced climate disruption won't be felt for decades, but if we wait until it's starting to hit hard, it's far too late. As it stands now, it's likely already too late to prevent serious warming, but the difference between what would happen even if we make huge steps towards greenhouse gas emission reduction and what would happen if we continue to hesitate will be enormous -- in 50 years.
A common piece of reasoning among some denialists is that, if we wait before doing anything about global warming, the technologies available to reduce greenhouse gases and improve efficiency will be far better than what we have now. That's both true and irrelevant -- it's a kind of thinking based on short-term action-response cycles. If we wait until the technology is better (a perpetual wait, as even better technology can always be seen just over the horizon), we have also added more years' worth of unrestrained carbon load into the atmosphere, carbon that stays there for centuries, and will warm the Earth further, no matter how clean the future technology is.
And that, of course, depends on the future tech being significantly better than today's. WorldChanging often appears to be a technology enthusiasts' site, and that is partially true -- but we also recognize that technology is a social phenomenon, and quite often social factors can mitigate or reverse seemingly inevitable technological developments. In short, waiting for technology to get better before acting doesn't just allow the problem to get far worse, it runs the risk of the technology not getting better in time.
The same logic applies to dealing with 2004 MN4. Some will undoubtedly argue that spending $300 million now to improve our tracking of something that almost certainly won't hit the Earth is silly, given that our technological abilities for handling MN4 would be far greater in the 2030s. A tempting argument -- $300 million could go a long way to pay for other programs -- but an altogether dangerous one.
We need to be thinking in the long term not just to see opportunities down the road, but to see the ways in which acting now can forestall or prevent disaster later. Long-term thinking is by far the best possible form of planetary life insurance. We need more of it, and we need it soon. Posted by Jamais Cascio at May 26, 2005 12:43 PM

[maywillow] 26/5/2005 18:02

Objective, moon

May 26th 2005 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist


Ronald Grant Archive





Why is America returning to the moon, and what does the new "vision" for NASA mean for science?

THE name Eugene Cernan means little to most people, though space nerds may remember it. Along with more famous astronauts such as Neil Armstrong, Mr Cernan played a role in the annals of space exploration by walking on the moon. And he was the last to do so, which is fame of a sort. If George Bush gets his way, however, this claim to fame may vanish. That is because Mr Bush has a vision. He wants humans to return to the moon by 2020. The questions are, first, what for? And, second, having been given such orders, what will Mike Griffin, the new boss of America's space agency, NASA, do to execute them?

The second question seems more urgent because Mr Bush's initial goal is to reinvigorate an agency that is facing both the withdrawal of its flagships, the still-grounded space shuttles, and the failure of the international space station to deliver anything remotely approaching an interesting scientific result.



He played upon a ladle



The White House outlines Mr Bush's vision for space exploration. NASA announced the MoonROx challenge on May 19th. The agency plans to launch the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission in 2008. See also the Space Frontier Foundation and papers submitted to the International Space Development Conference






Some of the details about how Dr Griffin proposes to execute Mr Bush's vision emerged at the International Space Development Conference held in Washington, DC, last week. For example, NASA announced a $250,000 prize for extracting oxygen from the lunar regolith.

Where the Earth has soil, other rocky bodies in the solar system have regolith. Soil is, in part, the product of biological activity (all those earthworms, and so on). Regolith is a fine powder formed by a constant rain of small meteorites that breaks up the rocks at the surface. Analysis of lunar regolith brought back by Apollo missions shows it contains lots of oxygen. Existing ways of extracting this oxygen, however, are too slow to be useful. So a competition called the MoonROx challenge is being mounted. The prize will go to the first person to come up with a way of quickly extracting an adequate amount of oxygen from simulated lunar regolith (volcanic ash is being used as a stand-in).

Oxygen, though, is only the beginning, according to Paul Spudis, a planetary scientist at Johns Hopkins University who was a member of the president's vision commission (yes, there really was one). As he puts it, a cubic metre of regolith contains, besides the necessary oxygen, enough hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, potassium and other trace elements to make two cheese sandwiches on rye, two colas and two large plums. Despite mythology to the contrary, though, the moon isn't actually made of cheese. So extracting this bounty is another matter. Whether the moon's natural resources can be used profitably remains, says Dr Spudis with nice understatement, a "key question".

Those resources consist of a lot of rock, a lot of sunlight that could be used to generate electricity to process the rock and, at least in the dreams of many lunar scientists, some 20 billion tonnes of frozen water believed to lie at the bottoms of craters near the poles, where it is sheltered from the evaporative effects of sunlight. In addition to these goodies, the solar wind carries light elements such as helium to the moon's surface and leaves them there. Some visionaries think that this helium might find a market on Earth, though its main use would be in fusion reactors that do not yet exist. And there are also likely to be deposits of platinum and other valuable metals contained in asteroids that have crashed into the moon.

The least certain item on this list is the water. Evidence, but not proof, of its existence was found by two earlier missions. So the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter that NASA plans to launch in 2008 will search more thoroughly, and will also make detailed maps that should help to find good spots to land. Dr Spudis, though, already has a favourite. A crater at the south pole called Shackleton has a rim that is bathed in sunlight for more than three-quarters of the time (as opposed to half the time for most of the moon's surface). That makes it easier to generate electricity. The bottom of the crater, by contrast, is perpetually dark and, with luck, ice-bound.

It all sounds jolly ambitious. But establishing a human presence on the moon itself is not, actually, Mr Bush's ultimate ambition. He wants humans to explore the cosmos-or, at least, Mars. The moon is merely a stepping-stone; a place to teach people about living on other worlds. New survival technologies and systems developed on the moon will then be employed on Mars. These include better collaboration between people and robots, durable technologies for survival in hostile environments, better "closed-loop" recycling systems for the re-use of resources, and improved telemedicine. Practising on the moon makes sense because it is only three days travel from Earth.

According to Rick Tumlinson, president of the Space Frontier Foundation, a space advocacy group, this difference of emphasis between going to the moon for its own sake, and using it as a stepping-stone, illustrates a wider problem for NASA, which is that people disagree about what the vision really means. Since it was announced, says Mr Tumlinson, the vision has been an "all-spin zone", with everyone spinning his own version. To some, it means mining the moon for helium or platinum. To others it is about building a lunar observatory. A third group wants to collect solar power and beam it to Earth. To the most ambitious, such as Mr Bush himself, it means that humanity is going to explore the rest of the solar system in person. And Mr Tumlinson's particular spin? "It's about permanence. We go to stay. It's about settlement and changing our culture. What you don't do is Apollo on steroids."

Dr Griffin, therefore, has the difficult job of charting a course among these competing mini-visions. For, while Mr Bush and his vision are obviously going to be in the driving seat for now, that will not always be true. As Admiral Craig Steidle, the associate administrator of NASA's office of exploration systems, observes, the most difficult aspect of the vision is "sustainability". By this he means keeping it intact through successive Congresses, administrations and NASA chiefs, who may have different visions, and also in the face of an increasingly vocal lobby that feels the private sector is being overlooked, visionwise.



A little science on the side, sir?
Perhaps, though, whether the vision can be realised or not is beside the point. The actual point is to give a drifting agency some focus, Mr Bush's initial goal. This re-focusing will have profound consequences for the agency's scientific mission-which some people feel is what it should be concentrating on, and isn't. Admiral Steidle told the meeting that the vision was "first and foremost" about advancing science. That, though, looks like disingenuous spin.

NASA will undoubtedly need science to achieve the vision, whatever it turns out to be. And there is undoubtedly lots of interesting science to be done on the moon. But if scientists were running the show, and acquisition of knowledge were NASA's top priority, they would be unlikely to spend $64 billion over the next 15 years on a manned trip to the moon.

Instead, scientists would prefer to build space telescopes to probe the origins of the universe and search for Earth-like planets around other stars, launch an unmanned mission to Jupiter's fascinating moon Europa, and fund the Glory mission, which is designed to answer crucial questions about the Earth's climate. And they would still have a lot of money left over.

But lunar science, and lots of it, is what they are going to get. For the real point of the vision, whatever form it takes in detail, is to put human exploration first and scientific discovery second. And that truly is back to the future for NASA, for the Apollo project had exactly the same priorities. Harrison Schmitt, Eugene Cernan's even more forgotten companion on the last Apollo mission, was the first and only scientist to make the trip. Even in the agency's heyday, NASA's scientists came second.

[maywillow] 23/5/2005 20:11

Private Moon Trips Forecast
By Leonard David

posted: 23 May 2005
10:43 am ET


ARLINGTON, Virginia – The day of private-sector spaceships leaping from low Earth orbit to the Moon is not too far off.



That's the vision of Peter Diamandis, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the X Prize Foundation. He was the sparkplug behind the $10 million Ansari X Prize claimed last year by the back-to-back flights to the edge of space by the piloted SpaceShipOne – built and backed by private funds.



In early October, Diamandis is leading the "Countdown to the X Prize Cup" – a showcasing of the emerging personal spaceflight era, to be held in southern New Mexico.



"For the first time ever...the power to go to space is now resident within the hands of individuals, not in the hands of governments," Diamandis explained before an audience attending the closing ceremonies of the 24th International Space Development Conference (ISDC), held here May 19-22, and sponsored by the National Space Society.



Bee-line for the Moon



The personal spaceflight revolution now underway is spawning a suborbital travel market that will lead to passenger traffic headed into Earth orbit, Diamandis said. "In the next five to eight years we will have the first private orbital flights occurring," he predicted.



Diamandis added that something very natural will happen when private orbital flights arise. "When you're in orbit you are two-thirds of the way to anywhere," he said.



"I predict that within about three years of private human orbital flights...you'll have the first private teams of people stockpiling fuel on orbit and making a bee-line for the Moon," Diamandis said.



"They'll not ask for permission...maybe cryptically hiding what they are doing...but there will be somebody making a bee-line to the Moon," Diamandis said. The first private team to reach the lunar landscape will stake out the ground. "They'll say this is ours. Stay away. I claim this for my company...my new nation," he said.



Millionaires and billionaires



Diamandis said that the wealth of individuals is rapidly increasing thanks to the evolving power of the Internet, and very shortly through breakthroughs in nanotechnology. Billionaires and multi-billionaires are making their own future happen, he said.



"At the same time the number of millionaires and billionaires are very rapidly increasingly...the price for getting into space is coming down. We're at that crossing point right now," Diamandis said.



Once private operators routinely gain access to orbit, the momentum forward is unstoppable, Diamandis said. "We cannot depend upon on the government to do this."



While wishing NASA and its new leader, Mike Griffin, good luck, Diamandis said, the space agency is subject to Congressional start-stop, start-stop funding. The fact that there are four to six human flights to orbit a year "is pathetic...and pathetically small."



That many flights departing Earth per day will signal robust and economically viable public space transportation, Diamandis argued. "It is the time. It is the moment of our calling. We're at the point in history where the human race is coming off the planet once and forever."



"We are the payloads of the future," Diamandis concluded.



Critical strategy



At a May 21 gala of the ISDC, held at the Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center, Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary Norman Mineta also highlighted the emerging public space travel sector.



Utilizing the commercial sector is "a critical strategy" for the future of the space in the United States, Mineta said, with commercial enterprises providing goods and services.



NASA needs low-cost, reliable space transportation to transfer both hardware and crew to the International Space Station, Mineta pointed out. Similarly, as the United States looks to resume the exploration of the Moon and eventually sending crews to Mars, there is also the need for private sector launch capability, he said.



Groups such as Virgin Galactic and Space Adventures, Mineta said, "are champing at the bit" to get the first tourists into space. "Suborbital space will be the first step for some of these companies...but orbital tourism is the ultimate goal," he added.



"We have entered a new era where entrepreneurial space businesses are being unleashed to do what American businesses do best: to innovate, to create and to drive quality up and cost down to the efficiencies of the marketplace," Mineta said.



New guidelines



Mineta said that he was enthusiastic about the Department of Transportation's growing involvement in space, pointing to last year's licensing of SpaceShipOne, the reusable launch vehicle. He also spotlighted the first inland spaceport license ever granted to a launch and reentry site operator in the United States – the Mojave, California spaceport.



"More and more states are seeing the potential and working to attract and develop new launch capabilities in their own states," Mineta said.



In the offing, Mineta said, are new ground rules for the eager inventors who are pushing the boundaries of public space travel. Later this week, he said, a set of guidelines are to be unveiled by the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation within DOT's Federal Aviation Administration.



The guidelines "will shorten the time and lessen the burden on launch vehicle developers much like the aviation community has for experimental aircraft," Mineta said.



While his office has the responsibility to protect public safety, "our approach at the Department of Transportation is to allow this industry the freedom to develop, mindful that it is still in its infancy," Mineta said.



Leonard David is SPACE.com's Senior Space Writer.

[grupo] 23/5/2005 05:55

NASA Unveils Lunar O2 Challenge By Amit Asaravala
Story location:

02:00 AM May. 20, 2005 PT

The first team of scientists to invent a way to extract breathable oxygen from lunar soil will be awarded $250,000, NASA announced on Thursday.

The technology could be used by astronauts during a long-term stay on the moon or modified to support a trip to Mars. The Bush administration has made both missions a priority for NASA in a road map called the Vision for Space Exploration.

"The use of resources on other worlds is a key element of the Vision for Space Exploration," said NASA Associate Administrator for Exploration Craig Steidle in a statement. "This challenge will reach out to inventors who can help us achieve the vision sooner."

Inventors who attempt the Moon Regolith Oxygen (or MoonROx) challenge will have just eight hours to extract at least 11 pounds of breathable oxygen from a simulated form of lunar soil.

Most participants are likely to build devices that use heat and chemicals to coax the minerals in the soil into releasing the oxygen molecules bound to them.

The teams have until June 1, 2008, to come up with the technology, or the $250,000 prize is off the table, according to NASA.

The MoonROx contest is the third to be unveiled under the space agency's new Centennial Challenges program. NASA hopes the program will spark technical innovations, in the same way last year's independent Ansari X Prize spurred the first private flight into space.

In March, NASA announced awards of $50,000 each to the first teams to develop a space-age tether and a wireless method for powering robots.

[waldron] 22/5/2005 08:57

Europe to hitch space ride on Russia's rocket

Robin McKie, science editor
Sunday May 22, 2005
The Observer

European space scientists are planning to join Russia in constructing an ambitious new manned spaceship, the Clipper. The craft, which would be launched on a standard rocket, would carry up to six astronauts into Earth orbit and return them by gliding back down.
The Clipper has been designed to fly to and from the International Space Station and take crews to spacecraft being assembled in orbit as parts of future manned missions to the Moon and Mars.

Crucially, co-operation with Russia would give Europe some independence in manned space flight. At present, the European Space Agency (ESA) - of which Britain is a key member - has to request seats on US or Russian spacecraft.

'We have to go cap in hand and say, "Please, sir, can we put one of our people in space" and often get told no,' said Alan Thirkettle, of the ESA's directorate of human spaceflight. 'Europe is going to have to take the next step and develop a way to put men and women into space on our own. The alternative will be to sit back and watch countries like China get to the Moon while we do nothing.'

If Europe decides to join Russia's Clipper project, a proposal to be outlined before the ESA council in the next week, it will mark a turning point in relations among space powers.

Europe has usually allied itself with the US in setting up space projects but has become disappointed with the behaviour of the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Nasa). For example, the delay in resuming space shuttle launches after the Columbia disaster in 2003 has cost the ESA £100m in maintenance costs for the space station sections it has built and which should have been put into orbit by now.

In addition, the agency's administrators have become irritated by the bureaucratic attitude of Nasa officials who have threatened to refuse European astronauts full access to some space station equipment on the grounds that this might contravene US technology-transfer laws.

As a result, the ESA has been quick to respond to an approach from the Russians to co-operate in the development of a new space vehicle, which it has decided to build to replace its fleet of Soyuz capsules designed more than 40 years ago. Current design costs are estimated at around £3 billion, and Russia is keen to share the burden. It has asked Japan to join and may also approach India and Canada.

Unlike the space shuttle, the Clipper would carry no cargo, and is intended only to put men and women in space. 'This will be a people carrier, it is as simple as that,' said Thirkettle.

The Clipper plan will not be cheap, however. It is estimated that it will cost the ESA an extra £100m a year for the next decade to participate in the Clipper programme.

Not every nation will be willing to provide its share of the cash. France, Germany and Italy will most likely be enthusiastic. But Britain will probably decline. For the past two decades the UK has refused to put money into manned space programmes and as a result has no representatives among the ESA's 14-strong astronaut corps.

The key decision on Europe's future involvement in Clipper will be made in December when European government ministers responsible for space will meet to decide whether to commit to the project.

'I am fairly confident they will say yes,' said Daniel Sacotte, the ESA's director of human space flight. 'It's not just that Clipper is a good political deal or provides us with a powerful piece of technology. It will give us a vision, a scientific goal that young Europeans badly need today.'

[e-mail]

[ariane] 24/4/2005 07:43

Biography
The men who fell to Earth

Nine astronauts who walked on the Moon are still alive, but their clouds of glory have gone dark. Andrew Smith tracks them down in Moondust

Robin McKie
Sunday April 24, 2005
The Observer


Buy Moondust at the Guardian bookshop

Moondust
by Andrew Smith
Bloomsbury 308pp, £17.99
In a moment of unusual frankness, Neil Armstrong once recalled standing on the Moon and noticing he could blot out the Earth with his thumb. Did that make him feel really big, he was asked? 'No,' the great astronaut replied. 'It made me feel really, really small.'

Armstrong was undergoing an awareness of human insignificance - albeit with unprecedented vividness. Few others have shared such a vantage point, after all. As Smith notes: 'Of over 400 people who have now into space, only 27 have ever left Earth orbit and seen her from the perspective of Deep Space - all American and all between the Christmases of 1968 and 1972.'

In those four wonderful Apollo years, it seemed that the post-war sci-fi visions of Arthur C Clarke and Isaac Asimov would be realised overnight. Then came the Vietnam war's final throes and Watergate. America's mood darkened, its public got bored with the Moon and the final missions were cancelled. 'The best of times for America was also the worst of times,' as Nasa flight director Chris Kraft noted.

Today many people doubt if we even visited the Moon, a piteous state of affairs given the magnitude of the achievement. Worst still, of the 12 men who actually landed (the majority of Apollo astronauts merely orbited it), three are dead and the rest are ageing. At 69, Charlie Duke of Apollo 16, is now the youngest.

Hence, Smith's mission - gloriously realised in this spellbinding book - to seek out the last nine and discover how the decades have treated the only humans to have walked on another world. 'I wondered whether the Moonwalkers had reconciled themselves to being Earthbound; whether they'd made peace with their world or continued to mourn their strangled hopes,' says Smith as he begins his quest.

And so he stalks them, with intriguing results. John Young (Apollo 16), who later flew the first space shuttle, gives an interview in which he directs every remark to the wall behind Smith, while Armstrong, a legend in reticence, offers a few emails, some details of his mission's technical parameters and little else.

Of course, it cannot be easy continually answering the same daft question: what's it like to walk on the Moon? The late Pete Conrad (Apollo 12), got round the problem by answering: 'Super! Really enjoyed it!' on every occasion. On the other hand, the level of dysfunction uncovered by Smith is astonishing.

Buzz Aldrin simply plunged into a bout of alcoholism. 'He resents more not being the first man on the Moon more than he appreciates being the second,' as a fellow astronaut observed. Hence the absence of lunar pictures of Armstrong. Even when specifically requested, he refused to take a single snap of his commander, because he was 'too busy'.

Similarly, Charlie Duke (Apollo 16) became a drunken, rage-filled bully who persecuted his children until he and his wife, Dotty, found God, eventually becoming the Lord's Sonny and Cher, as Smith puts it. Which leads us to another Apollo theme: the epiphanies. While Ed Mitchell returned in his Apollo 14 capsule, he glimpsed 'an intelligence in the Universe and felt connected to it'. He then set up the Institute of Noetic Sciences which is as potty as it sounds.

Similarly, Al Bean (Apollo 12) gave up flying to become an artist, though he paints variations of only one scene - the lunar surface - while Jack Schmitt (Apollo 17) became a Republican Senator who lasted a single term in office. There seems little to connect these men apart from the fact that they were all either eldest siblings or only sons, nearly all chose country-and-western tapes as music for their Apollo voyages, and, of course, that they walked on the Moon.

Perhaps the saddest case is that of David Scott (Apollo 15), who was disgraced for smuggling stamped letters to the Moon and had his reputation trashed in the Daily Mail after a dalliance with newsreader Anna Ford five years ago. In fact, his plan to sell the letters, although dodgy, was legal and intended to raise cash to send his children through college, something he could not have contemplated on his astronaut's salary.

And here we come to another startling theme. Nasa sent men to the Moon on a meagrely-tested tower of high explosives and gave them a navigational computer with less memory than a mobile phone. They were paid $8 a day minus deductions for their free bed on Apollo. Aldrin still has a framed receipt on his wall: 'From Houston to Cape Kennedy, Moon, Pacific Ocean. Amount claimed: $33.31.'

Having created these heroes and used them to glorify America, Nasa paid them a pittance then dumped them, leaving them to struggle with the consequences of their fame and their physical and spiritual achievements. None was properly equipped to deal with his fall to Earth. What, after all, can you do with rest of your life, once you have been to the Moon? Not a lot is the simple answer provided by Smith. On the other hand, cash and counselling would surely have helped.

Not that such bleak images should deter readers from a wonderful collective biography written with deftness, compassion and humour. The Apollo programme - 'the most mind-blowing theatre ever created' - may not have told us much about the Moon but, as Smith says, it gave us a unique opportunity to look at ourselves.

[maywillow] 21/4/2005 19:10

New Asteroid Threat to Earth
From Nick Greene,
Your Guide to Space / Astronomy.
FREE GIFT with Newsletter! Act Now!

Impact Potential in 2014 - Updated; No Threat
Although scientists have basically cleared us from any danger from asteroid 2002 NT7, which originally had been reported as an impact hazard for the year 2019, a newer space rock has been spotted, which may pose a threat even sooner.
At around 1.2 km in width, 2003 QQ47 is substantially smaller than 2002 NT7 (2km), but has been called "an event meriting careful monitoring" by astronomers. If an impact does occur, it could be on March 21, 2014.

Discovered on August 24, 2003, by the Lincoln Near Earth Asteroid Research Project (an MIT Lincoln Laboratory program funded by the United States Air Force and NASA) in New Mexico, 2003 QQ47 has been classified as a 1 on the Torino scale of impact hazards. Scientists are urging calm, however, saying the odds of a catastrophic collision are only around 1 in 909,000.

The orbit of this asteroid has been calculated on only 51 observations during a seven-day period and require further observations to determine if any danger does exist. It will be monitored closely over the next two months. Astronomers expect the risk of impact to decrease significantly as more data is gathered.

If it does strike Earth, the impact could have the effect of over 20 million Hiroshima style atomic bombs. As Billy Bob Thornton says in Armageddon, "It's what we call a Global Killer....the end of mankind. Half the world will be incinerated by the heat blast.....the rest will freeze to death in a nuclear winter. Basically, the worst part of the Bible!"

Asteroids are rocks and debris which are the leftovers of the construction of our solar system nearly 5 billions years ago. Most are in a belt, which orbits the sun between Mars and Jupiter. However, the gravitational influence of the gas giant planets, like Jupiter, or an impact by a comet can knock these large rocks out of their safe orbit.

Needless to say, we will be monitoring this situation very closely.


Update:
Once again, the planet can breathe a sigh of relief. After making further observations of asteroid 2003 QQ47, astronomers now say there is no threat from this rock. It has been downgraded to a zero (0) on the Torin scale, which says, "The likelihood of a collision is zero, or well below the chance that a random object of the same size will strike the Earth within the next few decades. This designation also applies to any small object that, in the event of a collision, is unlikely to reach the Earth's surface intact."
While this particular asteroid appears to not be a threat to Earth at this time, the Near Earth Object Program and other agencies continue to monitor space for other threats. After all, it is a big universe, and there are a lot of asteroids and comets out there.