Nasa returning to the moon

[Zyraz]

Cape Canaveral - Nasa is returning to the moon four decades after landing men there.

A set of robotic twins will measure lunar gravity while chasing one another in circles around the moon. The two spacecraft are each about the size of a washing machine and will be launched together.

They are due to blast off on Thursday aboard an unmanned rocket and will separate an hour into the flight. After travelling independently to the moon, they will circle the planet for three months.

By creating the most precise lunar gravity map ever, Nasa scientists hope to figure out what's beneath the lunar surface, all the way to the core.

Since the Space Age began in 1957, 109 missions have targeted the moon and 12 men have walked its surface during six landings.

 

[mikeyb]

Our moon might just be the most boring thing in our Solar system. They should spent the time and money focusing more on other things. (Jupiter moons and mars for example)

 

[carstensdj]

My question is, if we could land men on the moon in the 60's, why the hell has it taken 40years to go back??? Not sure if i believe the whole first moon landing story :erm:

 

[Avenue]

My question is, if we could land men on the moon in the 60's, why the hell has it taken 40years to go back??? Not sure if i believe the whole first moon landing story :erm:

they just want to go plant that flag before other countries get there and catch them out

 

[waynegohl]

why test the gravity now? Has it changed or could it have changed in 40 years?

going to watch Apollo 18 later maybe. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1772240/

 

[Ripykin]

lol they have never been there, why do you think they are sending robots

 

[Kosmik]

Our moon might just be the most boring thing in our Solar system. They should spent the time and money focusing more on other things. (Jupiter moons and mars for example)

It is the ideal launch location for inner and outer solar system exploration.

 

[Archer]

My question is, if we could land men on the moon in the 60's, why the hell has it taken 40years to go back??? Not sure if i believe the whole first moon landing story :erm:

Sigh :/ Maybe, just maybe it has to do with not having any real motivation to go there?

why test the gravity now? Has it changed or could it have changed in 40 years?

going to watch Apollo 18 later maybe. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1772240/

You've missed the point. By mapping the gravity of the entire moon accurately they can find out whats underneath the surface.

It is the ideal launch location for inner and outer solar system exploration.

This.

 

[waynegohl]

Thanks Archer.

If the moon is sometimes closer to earth and sometimes further away, would that affect it's gravity or not?

 

[Messugga]

Thanks Archer.

If the moon is sometimes closer to earth and sometimes further away, would that affect it's gravity or not?

It would affect its gravity just as much as it affects our gravity, which may be significant, depending on what you're dealing with. I mean, it causes the ocean tides, so it's definitely pulling at us somewhat strongly and vice versa. Whether this is a problem, as I said, really depends on what you're doing.

 

[waynegohl]

yeah with earth being bigger than the moon I am sure it would a stronger affect on the moons gravity if it were closer and likewise if it were further away.

Thanks Messugga

 

[carstensdj]

Sigh :/ Maybe, just maybe it has to do with not having any real motivation to go there?

We're in the Technology era now, and with so much being done at the moment about finding out whats actually happening out there, i can think of PLENTY of reasons why they would have sent people to the moon... My other argument is that we know NOTHING about the moon, so if we can "send man to the moon", why the hell are they sending robots??? To truly gauge whats happening, we need to send PEOPLE there, but they're sending robots because we CANT actually send man there. There is no logical explanation as to why it could be done in the 60's, when home PC's were not even around, but now with all that we have, we cant do it?!?!?! Agree, disagree?

 

[Messugga]

yeah with earth being bigger than the moon I am sure it would a stronger affect on the moons gravity if it were closer and likewise if it were further away.

Thanks Messugga

Having just reread my post, I might've been somewhat vague and not technically correct enough in answering your question. Gravity is a function (G x m1 x m2)/r^2, where G is a constant, m1 is the mass of body 1 and m2 is the mass of body 2. r is the distance between the centres of the two masses.
The earth pulls on the moon just as much as the moon pulls on the earth but since the moon has a much smaller mass, the effects you'll notice, will be larger than what we see here.
Now, this doesn't really bring into consideration bodies on the surface of the moon. If you were to stand on the moon with the earth right above you and you jumped, you'd be able to jump a teensy tiny bit (A VERY little bit) higher than if you were on the opposite side of the moon, due to the earth pulling you towards it. Because the moon is relatively light compared to the earth, the same effect would be much smaller on earth, though still present, as is proved by the presence of ocean tides.

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

We're in the Technology era now, and with so much being done at the moment about finding out whats actually happening out there, i can think of PLENTY of reasons why they would have sent people to the moon... My other argument is that we know NOTHING about the moon, so if we can "send man to the moon", why the hell are they sending robots??? To truly gauge whats happening, we need to send PEOPLE there, but they're sending robots because we CANT actually send man there. There is no logical explanation as to why it could be done in the 60's, when home PC's were not even around, but now with all that we have, we cant do it?!?!?! Agree, disagree?

Jirreee...don't even dare to go there on this site...I got flamed to a crisp. Just wait for Dixie, Nick333 and alf101 to crawl out of the woodwork. Luckily the 3 of them have been to the moon so that tha crackpots can be proved wrong.

 

[Messugga]

why the hell are they sending robots??? To truly gauge whats happening, we need to send PEOPLE there, but they're sending robots because we CANT actually send man there. There is no logical explanation as to why it could be done in the 60's, when home PC's were not even around, but now with all that we have, we cant do it?!?!?! Agree, disagree?

Why send people when machines will do? Machines make less mistakes and can operate the same equipment humans would've, continuously, 24/7, for three months, without the need for food or water, not to even mention exercise requirements to cope with the effects of dealing with lack of gravity for such a long time, which you most certainly can't manage as cheaply with humans.
If you think humans are superior to machines with basic data gathering like this, you're sorely mistaken.

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

Why send people when machines will do? Machines make less mistakes and can operate the same equipment humans would've, continuously, 24/7, for three months, without the need for food or water, not to even mention exercise requirements to cope with the effects of dealing with lack of gravity for such a long time, which you most certainly can't manage as cheaply with humans.
If you think humans are superior to machines with basic data gathering like this, you're sorely mistaken.

100% correct. Sending man to the moon had nothing to do with science...it was Kennedy's way to boost US solidarity during Cold War era.

 

[waynegohl]

Having just reread my post, I might've been somewhat vague and not technically correct enough in answering your question. Gravity is a function (G x m1 x m2)/r^2, where G is a constant, m1 is the mass of body 1 and m2 is the mass of body 2. r is the distance between the centres of the two masses.
The earth pulls on the moon just as much as the moon pulls on the earth but since the moon has a much smaller mass, the effects you'll notice, will be larger than what we see here.
Now, this doesn't really bring into consideration bodies on the surface of the moon. If you were to stand on the moon with the earth right above you and you jumped, you'd be able to jump a teensy tiny bit (A VERY little bit) higher than if you were on the opposite side of the moon, due to the earth pulling you towards it. Because the moon is relatively light compared to the earth, the same effect would be much smaller on earth, though still present, as is proved by the presence of ocean tides.

having read this post I passed out from all the technical terms.

 

[waynegohl]

Why send people when machines will do? Machines make less mistakes and can operate the same equipment humans would've, continuously, 24/7, for three months, without the need for food or water, not to even mention exercise requirements to cope with the effects of dealing with lack of gravity for such a long time, which you most certainly can't manage as cheaply with humans.
If you think humans are superior to machines with basic data gathering like this, you're sorely mistaken.

and machines can be switched off at any time and their data an be manipulated. They also cannot write books about what really happened up there. If we send humans we have to watch them 24/7 and if one even thinks of telling a story and his/her car brakes should suddenly malfunction, then the crackpots will all over it like flies on dog doo.

 

[carstensdj]

Jirreee...don't even dare to go there on this site...I got flamed to a crisp. Just wait for Dixie, Nick333 and alf101 to crawl out of the woodwork. Luckily the 3 of them have been to the moon so that tha crackpots can be proved wrong.

Hahahaha, watching my back here

 

[carstensdj]

Why send people when machines will do? Machines make less mistakes and can operate the same equipment humans would've, continuously, 24/7, for three months, without the need for food or water, not to even mention exercise requirements to cope with the effects of dealing with lack of gravity for such a long time, which you most certainly can't manage as cheaply with humans.
If you think humans are superior to machines with basic data gathering like this, you're sorely mistaken.

I hear your point, but surely when it comes to explaining what was found, and to truly understand the environment of the moon, man would need to be there? Yea ofcourse machines can gather data, but can they be as descriptive in their findings? At the end of the day, what they find gets deciphered by humans... Just a question...

I think what im trying to say is that we can send robots where ever we want, and they are capable of doing all the manual labour of gathering resources and such, but can we truly understand an environment without having been there? Just to use an example, you can hear about an earthquake on the news and read all the statistical data you want, but can you truly understand in depth the experience of what happened by not actually having been there? <-- Terrible example, but do you get where im going with it?