Nasa - Moon Mission Controller
Mike_GTN
Posts: 106
Hi All,
Realising that NASA might not have made it to the moon just yet. I'm thinking of building a controller that might help them. I did start to think of using a Basic Stamp but then thought that the Propeller might be the chip to Propell them forwards on this mission.
Mike.
Realising that NASA might not have made it to the moon just yet. I'm thinking of building a controller that might help them. I did start to think of using a Basic Stamp but then thought that the Propeller might be the chip to Propell them forwards on this mission.
Mike.
Comments
Are you talking about the NEW lunar mission?
Jim
Heh, even If I think this is just a bit ironic - I don't think that the Propeller
is suited for space applications (think of the conditions like temperature etc.)..
Take a look at the "Part Time Scientists" concept for more informations
on embedded systems for space applications. They have joined the Google
Lunar X prize contest. There is a lot of interesting concepts - even containing
some interplanetar communication systems (dealing with time slots, etc.)
Heck, if the earth bound telescopes could show the landers still on the moon they would all change their tunes!
Very nice find!
Wait...could they reproduce that on a sound stage?
I just poured a Coke, .... and Ahem, well ... If you took a picture of just the foam and converted it to gray scale. It looks very 'moon like' for lack of a better term. :smilewinkgrin:
The image on the right was cropped from the image of the coke foam on the left :-)
I think he's referring to moon landing hoax theories.
I for one also do not believe that humans have been to the moon.
Why not?
Mind you I do find it a puzzle that astronomical telescopes can get pictures of galaxies and such at distances from the earth that I cannot start to imagine but they can't get a recognizable image of the moon landing sites.
This has to do with focal length and all that.
A typical lens on a camera can't focus correctly on something that's too close, either.
And no, there's no such thing as a 'perfect lens' that can focus perfectly from zero to infinity. For practical purposes, the closest you can get today is pinhole cameras with lasercut holes in very thin foil. (We're talking F135 or even F200.)
A camera that needs 7 - 9 seconds to take a picture on a bright, sunny day isn't much use for astronomical use.
So, it may be possible to build a telescope that can indeed snap a picture of a bootprint on the moon, but it would almost certainly be useless for anything else. And who's going to build the NAFL(Neil Armstrong Footprint Locator)?
Besides, conspiracy theorists are going to come up with 'explanations' as to how this is fake, too... (Somebody sent a robot boot into space, the picture is painted on the lens or something just as daft)
If USA can put humans on the moon in 1969, by 2010 there must be at least 10 countries which can do that.
Currently not only no country can do it, even USA cannot repeat it.
Compare this to how many countries can make the atom bomb now.
Now imagine what it costs to lift a vessel(one or more astronauts, with supplies for over a week, fuel, shielding, landing gear... ) up there...
A Saturn V stack is very expensive to build, and even more expensive to develop.
(It only has two states, 'functioning properly' and BOOM!, which makes fault-finding more of a geographical issue... )
Feel free to mention 10 countries that has the economic clout to do this.
Yes, I know that there are private companies building 'spacecraft' and promising spaceflights for $200.000, but they (Including Virgin Galactic) doesn't even make it to LEO. They need a lot more thrust to do that.
Feel free to compare the power/weight/flight profile of the SpaceShip One/Two to the Mercury missions.
Note: If you want to list China as one of the 10, be aware that they're at the Mercury / Gemini level now. I don't think they're ready for the moon for nearly a decade, yet. And even they will need a good reason for it to get the funding.
I can't help but wonder if you are joking.
Your statements could equally well imply that:
1) There have not been and are not 10 countries that a) Want to go to the moon, or have a need to, and b) have the resources to do so.
2) 1969 was the peak of human achievement. It's all down hill from there. Especially as the human race sucks the planet dry of resources at an ever increasing rate.
3) It shows that making an atom bomb is actually easier than putting a man on the moon. After all the states did that 25 years earlier.
and so on...
It is less complicated to make a nuclear bomb then to put a person into LEO, and considerably so for the moon. With nominal investment in electronics, and resources, anyone can build a nuclear bomb.
Each Shuttle launch cost just near 1b dollars. EACH! How many countries do you know have that kind of capital for long term exploration investments? Only one: China. Russia is bankrupt, and no other country that has the ability to has more earthly bound problems.
The space race was inspired by the US government during the cold war to prevent Russia from getting there first and providing them with a nuclear platform. And to add, with that goal set in front of the economy in 1961(?) by President John F Kennedy, it created new resources, jobs and companies for the USA, add the inspiration for nearly 100% of everything you use today that has any form of a chip in it.
Do you really believe that nearly 2 million employees / workers of the various departments of US and private companies have lied? Or maybe you conspire to believe that just the men who walked on the moon and the NASA control room agents lied? Your case and opinion come from the opinion of people whom question everything, and to this point I will argue: I have proof that USA landed on the moon. You only have theory. Show me the sound stage where this "hoax" was created? You can't! I can show you pictures of the moon! Oh, you say that the pictures were doctored? Prove it! The negative's are on file with the US government, free for anyone to verify them. The images that provided proof of a "hoax" come from questionable resources, as documented by various news agencies AND the people who originally claimed it was a "hoax"! In short, THEY had doctored photos to start with, not the original photos; as proven in several court cases. I'll add this: The laser mirror placed on the moon, something that is visible from earth, didn't grow there and wasn't placed there by aliens. In conclusion the only one who lied to anyone about the Moon landings are the people whom claim it was a hoax.
Our government may withhold information from us; they may even redirect information to or from us, to protect our nation from others whom would see it devastated or destroyed. But to boldly claim that all of the history books, writers and what ever that reported or written about the moon landings; the men whom were there, and the sacrifices they made are a lie created and supported by our government is the same as claiming the holocaust was faked as well; and we all know that wasn't faked, don't you?
KK
That makes some sense to me. I just hadn't thought of the the moon as "near". That a telescope could be so long sighted that the moon is too close.
I'm all for firing all "moon landing is hoax" proponents at the moon so that they can check for themselves. Along with all holocaust deniers and those that claim that Stalin was a nice guy.
KK
Heater;
Sending all the "the moon landing was a hoax" people to the moon would not only bankrupt us, but probably the whole world. Far better to put them all to work in some gulag building the rocket that would send 3 representatives, perhaps using the very design that originally sent men to the moon. Then we could put them to work rebuilding the twin towers, so we could test the "9-11 was as inside job" theories.
Also, to figure out why we can't see lunar footprints with telescopes on Earth, use the rule that the practical magnification of a telescope is 60x(the diameter of the objective in inches). I did this once to explain to a friend why we can't actually read the time on somebody's watch with spy sattelites. You figure a reasonable maximum objective size, determine the comparable distance without magnification and ask them to read your watch. Or make out your footprints, I suppose.
-phar
-phar
"What powered the air conditioner for 17 hours since there was no visible solar panels on the lander?"
The answer the astronaut gave was "We had batteries..."
I almost died laughing.
Of course I don't mean to hurt the feelings of American forumers here, just pointing out the improbabilities....
water is passed with a internal cooling loop and that is ran trugh a radator taht is kinda covered with water . like a wick humidifier on steroids. then its evprated in to space . Yes the radiint heat can be high in space . but the " dark area " temp is far lower /
its like fall in iowa . its cold outside but because we have radinet heat from the sun I can wear shorts in the daytime but not at night .
the sublmator was not exposed to warm direct sunlight .
Thus it was quite cold at full tilt .
PLSS diagram
((during the summer months this year I spent doing research on the heat suit design I spent over 80 Hours looking at space suit design gathered every pic and PDF I could find on the web .))
You are right but I was thinking more in terms of using Hubble to pick up foot prints on the moon rather than Earth bound telescopes. I think Gadgetman nailed it with his focal length argument.
Bart Sibrel's interview with Neal Armstrong was like that of a teenager asking their great grand father to explain the "wild west"... ZERO understanding of what, how or why things happened. As detailed years after that interview, documented by NBC's 60 minutes about the Apollo missions (either Feb or March of 1987, I forget it was a very long time ago), Mr. Armstrong set the record right. Batteries.
As for laughing about batteries... Did you know they calculated to the uWatt the electrical consumption of EVERYTHING in each segment (portion) of the entire Rocket / Lander / Rover / Suits / etc? An example, and I quote: "We knew how many watts an indicator light used when it flashed for 30 seconds. We had to. We needed to make sure there was enough power to get our men there and back again. We needed to know because weight was such a critical factor; adding additional batteries was out of the question. This was why we had to determine the proper start up sequence, so we didn't melt anything or use up precious amps."
Why is that a quote you ask? Simply put; My Uncle worked on the lander. When he came home, he had stories to tell. Until I got older I couldn't sit in, and by the time I could, his medical condition was not very good. I payed VERY close attention to what he had to say; his diaries and notes; detailed engineers "hand scribbled" notes of things to "watch out for". Through him I was able to live that time period (I was only 5 at the time) as he told the stories, introduced us (my brother and I) to various other major contributing people in the program. And remember, all of this was during the cold war; in a nation healing from war; everyone was fearful of the Russian's and a bomb; NO ONE shared information; Something most of the young people in the USA just don't understand or can handle.
You say you don't mean to offend the American Forum users, but denying one of the many accomplishments that define the USA is offensive.
Instead of relying on another person's opinion and lack of knowledge, try to take a few steps back, do some reading, maybe some research into what your saying BEFORE you say it.
Round 2: The Non believers are still defending, unable to mount any form of attack while the believers continuously land deadly blow's into the non believers theories. Who knows how or when this will end? Stay tuned for Round 3!
They should be asked about the pre-drill of filming and setting things up. Is a very convincing argument that the moon has not yet been walked by man. Well anyway forging ahead as we experimenters do, I have a washing machine as my main capsule at the moment. Obviously have disregarded the 8051 contol panel. Plan to get another and bolt them together - using shake proof washers obviously. I think a quick lick of "Red oxide paint" and will be ready to rumble. Is the control system that is holding me back at present. I think to go with the Propeller with some Pic Chips (dedicated as I2C temp sensors) Have taken apart the family hoover - Oh I see that as a thrust mechanism. Oh dear this Moon landing thing could be very expensive. Advice sought.....
No longer active. They didn't get to the moon, but progressed somewhat beyond the washer tub and vacuum cleaner stage.
-phar