|
Post by sts60 on May 3, 2006 11:20:10 GMT -4
I don't think anybody would squabble over a few million dollars to do this.
More like a hundred million dollars, at least. In any case, LRO should do the trick in a few years, although of course it has real work to do - imaging Apollo artifacts will be a nice-to-have. (Repeating Apollo high-resolution imaging of some areas will, however, help determine the rate of small meteoroid impacts.)
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on May 3, 2006 11:23:05 GMT -4
The bottom line is nobody wants to image the landing sites. The cost argument is a joke. The cost of the Iraq war is predicted to reach 1 Trillion dollars. I don't think anybody would squabble over a few million dollars to do this. Think of the PR and the jobs created. Cost absolutely is the issue. It is a total waste of money to send a probe to the Moon dedicated to that one task. Now if the landing site images can be obtained as an add-on to a science mission, where the cost is nothing but operator time to point and shoot, then I would like to see the images obtained. But if any significant cost is needed above and beyond that required for the primary mission, such as an upgrade to the optics or extra propellant, then I do not support it. I'd rather see NASA spend that money on conducting useful science. Why don't you conduct your own random poll to find out how many people would support spending $250 million of their taxes to obtain images of the Apollo landing sites. Just make sure you ask the question in an unbiased way that does not lead the respondent to favor one particular answer. When the majority of respondents say that the images are worth $250 million, then you can come back and tell us we're wrong.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on May 3, 2006 11:57:12 GMT -4
Unfortunately, scientific programs don't get the kind of funding that the military does. If NASA wants to send a probe to the Moon they have to justify it. Perhaps we could claim the moon has WMD? How about its key role in illuminating late-night terrorist planning meetings?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on May 3, 2006 12:14:03 GMT -4
The bottom line is nobody wants to image the landing sites. The cost argument is a joke. Cost is always a consideration. NASA could not get approval of $15,000 for a book to debunk the hoax as it was considered a waste of money. The landing sites were imaged from the CSM, including quite high resolution for the final three missions with the mapping cameras that were good enough to pick out the LMs on the surface. Only the hoax believers discount these images and they would doubtless also discount any new images. No-one in their right mind is going to spend any money at all just to duplicate these images. The upcoming LRO is a mission to map the entire moon at high resolution, with spectrometers to characterise the surface composition. This is a valid scientific task, and LRO may well get better Apollo site pictures as part of performing its mission.
|
|
|
Post by asdf on May 3, 2006 12:58:58 GMT -4
All they would have do is start at the grass roots level with all of the school children around the country. Get them excited about revisiting this historic site. Tack on something else like searching for future landing sites for the extraction of Helium 3. It can be done.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 3, 2006 13:09:21 GMT -4
Why did the VLT team give up?
They didn't "give up". The original poster's claim was based on ideas given in a news report, not the sentiments or goals of the original team. The quotes from the team say they intended to test the instrument. One possible idea for doing that was to take pictures of the Apollo landing sites. It was the reporter, not the VLT team, who suggested such pictures could be used to debunk the hoax theory. That debunking was never VLT's goal. If they decided on a different way to test their instrument, that doesn't translate into some imaginary fear regarding the Apollo sites.
...in spite of 20M pixel digital cameras being available for $50 in ten years' time.
Irrelevant. Consumer technology is not suitable for use in space. A 20 megapixel CCD is useless if placed behind crappy optics, and unfortunately the size and composition of the necessary optics is dictated by strict laws of physics. The diffraction limit doesn't bow to advances in technology. If a 20-meter primary is required in 1870 to image to a certain resolution, that same size primary is required in 2070 to obtain it.
And how much you spend on the CCD is irrelevant to how much you have to spend on the launch vehicle, the spacecraft, and its support network, which is currently in the neighborhood of hundreds of millions of dollars.
You seem to think it would be relatively easy and cheap to take high-resolution pictures of the lunar surface, but you can't demonstrate that you know what all goes into doing that. Keep in mind you're talking to people who actually do this for a living.
...even though millions of people on earth would LOVE to see them.
Millions of people say they would love to see them until they are told how much it would cost to get them. Then they are less excited.
Apparently because 'the public's lost interest'... Yeah right.
Your disbelief doesn't change the documented opinion polls.
So I guess the billion or so people born since Apollo have elected you to be their spokespersons...
No more so than you. Aren't you also claiming to speak for the desires of the relevant public?
|
|
|
Post by asdf on May 3, 2006 14:12:14 GMT -4
They could sell these photos worldwide as commemorative memorabilia and for years to come. I' m sure they could capitalize off of this and recoup all money spent on a venture like this. What a way to get everybody excited about going to the moon again!
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on May 3, 2006 14:15:07 GMT -4
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think NASA is allowed to profit from the images taken by their various space programs.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on May 3, 2006 16:30:15 GMT -4
They could sell these photos worldwide as commemorative memorabilia and for years to come. I' m sure they could capitalize off of this and recoup all money spent on a venture like this. What a way to get everybody excited about going to the moon again! Are you willing and able to put up a substantial deposit for the marketing rights? If not then your proposed fund raising method is just useless speculation.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on May 3, 2006 16:48:33 GMT -4
They could sell these photos worldwide as commemorative memorabilia and for years to come. I' m sure they could capitalize off of this and recoup all money spent on a venture like this. What a way to get everybody excited about going to the moon again!
NASA can't fund missions that way. A private venture could, but please read my response to mosis2 on that subject and tell me why no one has done it yet if it's such a sure-fire money fountain.
|
|
|
Post by asdf on May 3, 2006 18:39:28 GMT -4
Nasa could easily fund something like this if they wanted to. No question about it. Look what they sell their memorabelia for. People are willing to pay $20,000,000 to ride up to the International Space Station. They should be able to send a few people to the ISS themselves rather than having people ride Soyuz. There losing out on all the PR. Pepsi is trying to work out a deal a Soyuz ride also. Going to the moon again getting some new pictures. Now that's PR.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 3, 2006 19:26:45 GMT -4
Nasa could easily fund something like this if they wanted to.
No. NASA's budget is controlled by Congress, not only in its amount but in what it can be spent on. I'm not which which "memorabilia" you believe can be sold so as to raise hundreds of millions of dollars, even if such a thing were lawful.
People are willing to pay $20,000,000 to ride up to the International Space Station.
And the money goes to cover the cost of sending that person to the ISS.
There losing out on all the PR.
NASA's raison d'etre is not "P.R".
Going to the moon again getting some new pictures. Now that's PR.
Yes -- absurdly expensive PR. You haven't told us exactly how that financing works, except to handwave and assure us it's a no-brainer.
NASA is a federal agency. It may not arbitrarily increase its budget and extend its mandate substantially through private solicitations. That would violate the check on the size and nature of the Executive. Congress regulates what NASA does and how NASA pays for it.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on May 3, 2006 20:10:00 GMT -4
NASA is a federal agency. It may not arbitrarily increase its budget and extend its mandate substantially through private solicitations. That would violate the check on the size and nature of the Executive. Congress regulates what NASA does and how NASA pays for it.
All to prove that there was no hoax, even if to anybody who knows what they are talking about the evidence of a hoax is laughable, and even if true-blue hoax believers will discount the images regardless, and all in the name of potential 'PR"?
Okey dokey. Why do I get the impression that NASA is in a lose-lose situation with these conspiracy theorists?
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on May 3, 2006 21:40:13 GMT -4
Why doesn't NASA just outsource its space program to the Chinese? Based on these figures and using my own brand of pseudomathemagics I calculate that NASA hiring China to take some snaps of Apollo sites at 6000 Yankee dollar. PS. An additional fee would be charged on takeaway photo's. www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?rep=2&aid=253306&ssid=27&sid=env
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on May 3, 2006 22:44:27 GMT -4
Nasa could easily fund something like this if they wanted to. No question about it.
There is no question about it - that's simply flat wrong. Maybe you haven't been paying attention to the acrimonious battles over the NASA budget, but many of us have.
Look what they sell their memorabelia for.
Wrong. NASA doesn't sell memorabilia; private vendors do.
People are willing to pay $20,000,000 to ride up to the International Space Station.
That's with the Russians. NASA doesn't sell rides to space.
They should be able to send a few people to the ISS themselves rather than having people ride Soyuz.
That's what the Shuttle is for. If this summer's flight clears the issues still lingering from Columbia, the Shuttle will ferry astronauts most of the time until the CEV is ready.
There losing out on all the PR. Pepsi is trying to work out a deal a Soyuz ride also.
NASA gets plenty of PR. The rest of your statement is irrelevant; NASA doesn't sell advertising, and as a taxpayer I don't feel advertising is appropriate on national assets.
Going to the moon again getting some new pictures. Now that's PR.
Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will get some PR, but that will be in a scientific and exploration context, not some ridiculous stunt like imaging Apollo artifacts to "prove" it happened. Until you show any indication that you've read what we said and understand the topic, there's not much point in discussing it further.
|
|