YouTube Documentary of the Week
David Hatcher Childress
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6fzjp6bnQ8
For more info:
http://pindz.blogspot.com/2011/09/cities-and-pyramids-on-moon-mars-and.html
Showing posts with label Moon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Moon. Show all posts
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Moon Packed with Precious Titanium, NASA Probe Finds
11 October 2011 http://www.space.com/13247-moon-map-lunar-titanium.html
A new map of the moon has uncovered a trove of areas rich in precious titanium ore, with some lunar rocks harboring 10 times as much of the stuff as rocks here on Earth do.
The map, which combined observations in visible and ultraviolet wavelengths, revealed the valuable titanium deposits. These findings could shed light on some of the mysteries of the lunar interior, and could also lay the groundwork for future mining on the moon, researchers said.
"Looking up at the moon, its surface appears painted with shades of grey — at least to the human eye," Mark Robinson, of Arizona State University, said in a statement. "The maria appear reddish in some places and blue in others. Although subtle, these color variations tell us important things about the chemistry and evolution of the lunar surface. They indicate the titanium and iron abundance, as well as the maturity of a lunar soil."
A new map of the moon has uncovered a trove of areas rich in precious titanium ore, with some lunar rocks harboring 10 times as much of the stuff as rocks here on Earth do.
The map, which combined observations in visible and ultraviolet wavelengths, revealed the valuable titanium deposits. These findings could shed light on some of the mysteries of the lunar interior, and could also lay the groundwork for future mining on the moon, researchers said.
"Looking up at the moon, its surface appears painted with shades of grey — at least to the human eye," Mark Robinson, of Arizona State University, said in a statement. "The maria appear reddish in some places and blue in others. Although subtle, these color variations tell us important things about the chemistry and evolution of the lunar surface. They indicate the titanium and iron abundance, as well as the maturity of a lunar soil."
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Former NASA Employee Claims Alien Moon Cities
phunkychic666 on September 17, 2011
http://www.disinfo.com/2011/09/former-nasa-employee-claims-alien-moon-cities-exist/
Original Story at BeforeItsNews.com
Former National Aeronautics and Space Administration Data and Photo Control Department manager, Ken Johnston, who worked for the space agency’s Lunar Receiving Laboratory during the Apollo missions has been fired for telling the truth.
Johnston asserts NASA knows astronauts discovered ancient alien cities and the remains of amazingly advanced machinery on the Moon. Some of the technology can manipulate gravity. He says the agency ordered a cover-up and forced him to participate in it. Over the past 40 years other scientists, engineers and technicians have accused NASA of cover-ups and obscuring data.
The growing number of accusers’ allegations range from hiding information about anomalous space objects and lying about the discovery of artifacts on the surface of the Moon and Mars, to denying the evidence of life reported back by the Viking lander during the mid-1970s.
Full Story:
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1091/566/NASA_Whistleblower:_Alien_Moon_Cities_Exist.html
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Take That, Moon Hoax Conspiracists!
From the BBC:
Remarkable new images of the Apollo landing sites on the Moon have been released by Nasa.
The pictures clearly show the hardware left on the lunar surface by American astronauts in the 1960s and 70s, including Apollo 17's "Moon buggy".
The images were acquired by the robotic Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), which has been circling Earth's satellite since 2009.
Such shots have been returned before, but these are the best yet.
LRO has recently lowered its orbit from 50km above the Moon's surface to just 25km.
This makes it easier to see equipment, such as the descent stages that put the astronauts on the surface. Some of the science experiments are visible, also - as are the trails of bootmarks left in the dirt as the crews positioned these science packages...
Probe pictures Moon landing sites
Jonathan Amos
6 September 2011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14813043
Monday, September 27, 2010
China could make moon landing in 2025
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/20/china-could-make-moon-landing-by-2025
China could make moon landing in 2025
Country also plans space station within a decade and Mars and Venus probes to be launched in next five years
Tania Branigan in Beijing
guardian.co.uk, Monday 20 September 2010
China could put an astronaut on the moon in 2025 and launch probes to explore Mars and Venus within five years, according to the boss of a Chinese space programme.
Ye Peijian said China could make its first manned moon landing in 15 years, send a probe to Mars by 2013 and to Venus by 2015.
"China has the full capacity to accomplish Mars exploration by 2013," he added.
The remarks, by the commander in chief of the country's Chang'e lunar exploration project, were reported by the English language Global Times today and underscore the ambition of China's plans.
It was understood that Ye was speaking in his capacity as an academic at an aerospace engineering forum at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, rather than unveiling official policy.
It is seven years since China became only the third country to put one of its citizens in space. Another astronaut, Zhai Zhigang, conducted its first spacewalk in 2008.
Yang Liwei, China's first spaceman, confirmed this weekend that the country planned to set up its first orbital space station by around 2020, according to the People's Daily website.
Visiting the space centre in Xi'an, Yang said China would launch its first unmanned space laboratory, Tiangong-1, next year. It is expected to dock with the Shenzhou-8 craft in a first step towards building a space station.
"[The space programme] has been developing very quickly, but of course still lags far behind when compared with the US and Russia because they have the most advanced technology," Professor Fu Song, vice-dean of Tsinghua University's School of Aerospace in Beijing, told the Guardian.
He said of the proposed moon landing: "It is obviously a very difficult task, but I think in terms of technology, China can do it – the US was technically able to do that almost half a century ago. So for China now it is more about whether the government will make the decision to do it, or whether it is really necessary for the country."
He added: "The national pride part [of the programme] has always been one important reason, but it is more than that as well. The scientific value of space exploration is [im]measurable … The moon is an unknown world to us and there are a lot of things waiting to be explored."
He said there could be energy resources still awaiting discovery, and that the moon could help in the study of the state of the Earth and universe before the dawn of humanity.
Barack Obama has been criticised for dropping a plan to return Americans to the moon by 2020. Instead, the US president has announced an initiative aiming to see crewed missions beyond the moon by 2025.
Although China and the US remain suspicious of each other's space plans, particularly since much of the technology could have military applications, they agreed last year to open a dialogue on space exploration.
But China is also looking elsewhere for support. In late 2008, the Asia-Pacific Space Co-operation Organisation launched in Beijing.
Additional research by Lin Yi
China could make moon landing in 2025
Country also plans space station within a decade and Mars and Venus probes to be launched in next five years
Tania Branigan in Beijing
guardian.co.uk, Monday 20 September 2010
China could put an astronaut on the moon in 2025 and launch probes to explore Mars and Venus within five years, according to the boss of a Chinese space programme.
Ye Peijian said China could make its first manned moon landing in 15 years, send a probe to Mars by 2013 and to Venus by 2015.
"China has the full capacity to accomplish Mars exploration by 2013," he added.
The remarks, by the commander in chief of the country's Chang'e lunar exploration project, were reported by the English language Global Times today and underscore the ambition of China's plans.
It was understood that Ye was speaking in his capacity as an academic at an aerospace engineering forum at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, rather than unveiling official policy.
It is seven years since China became only the third country to put one of its citizens in space. Another astronaut, Zhai Zhigang, conducted its first spacewalk in 2008.
Yang Liwei, China's first spaceman, confirmed this weekend that the country planned to set up its first orbital space station by around 2020, according to the People's Daily website.
Visiting the space centre in Xi'an, Yang said China would launch its first unmanned space laboratory, Tiangong-1, next year. It is expected to dock with the Shenzhou-8 craft in a first step towards building a space station.
"[The space programme] has been developing very quickly, but of course still lags far behind when compared with the US and Russia because they have the most advanced technology," Professor Fu Song, vice-dean of Tsinghua University's School of Aerospace in Beijing, told the Guardian.
He said of the proposed moon landing: "It is obviously a very difficult task, but I think in terms of technology, China can do it – the US was technically able to do that almost half a century ago. So for China now it is more about whether the government will make the decision to do it, or whether it is really necessary for the country."
He added: "The national pride part [of the programme] has always been one important reason, but it is more than that as well. The scientific value of space exploration is [im]measurable … The moon is an unknown world to us and there are a lot of things waiting to be explored."
He said there could be energy resources still awaiting discovery, and that the moon could help in the study of the state of the Earth and universe before the dawn of humanity.
Barack Obama has been criticised for dropping a plan to return Americans to the moon by 2020. Instead, the US president has announced an initiative aiming to see crewed missions beyond the moon by 2025.
Although China and the US remain suspicious of each other's space plans, particularly since much of the technology could have military applications, they agreed last year to open a dialogue on space exploration.
But China is also looking elsewhere for support. In late 2008, the Asia-Pacific Space Co-operation Organisation launched in Beijing.
Additional research by Lin Yi
Saturday, April 24, 2010
40 years after Apollo 13, five words remain linked to city
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6955858.html
NASA HISTORY
40 years after Apollo 13, five words remain linked to city
MAGGIE GALEHOUSE
April 12, 2010
Moments after Apollo 13 crew members heard a sharp bang, the phrase that Space City can't seem to shake entered the atmosphere: “Houston, we've had a problem.”
Forty years ago today, a loud bang and vibration transformed a smooth flight to the moon into one of NASA's most successful failures. We remember the sentence that captured that catastrophe as “Houston, we have a problem,” but the correct version uses the past tense.
Presumably, some people knew and even used the phrase in the years after the Apollo 13 crew members miraculously — and heroically — made their way back to Earth.
But it was Ron Howard's 1995 film, Apollo 13, that cemented the misquoted version in our minds.
“The movie simplified the sentence for dramatic purposes,” says Charles Dove, director of Rice Cinema and a film lecturer at Rice University. “Most of the big 20th century phrases come from film.”
Indeed, “Houston, we have a problem” is No. 50 on the American Film Institute's list of top 100 movie quotes, behind other catch phrases we like even better: “Here's looking at you, kid” (No. 5); “Go ahead, make my day” (No. 6); and “You talking to me?” (No. 10).
Mother of all chichés
In real-life, the space scene went something like this: Jack Swigert — played by Kevin Bacon in the movie — saw a warning light that accompanied the sharp bang and said, “Houston, we've had a problem here.” When Houston base asked for clarification, Jim Lovell — played by Tom Hanks in the movie — repeated, “Houston, we've had a problem.”
Today, the phrase has become the mother of all clichés, repeated and tweaked ad nauseum. It has been:
• A headline for stories about anything that goes right or wrong in Houston — particularly in politics or sports. “Houston, we have a pennant” was a Chronicle headline in 2005.
• A headline for gossip about singer Whitney Houston, whose had her share of problems (husband, drugs) in recent years.
• A song title by The Queers and by Oliver Twizt; an album title from Chingo Bling; a CD compilation from Lil' Flip.
• A funny quip on T-shirts.
• A book by Houston author Gwendolyn Zepeda: Houston, We Have a Problema.
And more. So much more.
Dove says the strength of the phrase comes from its brevity and simplicity.
“There's a thing that Tom Wolfe talks about in The Right Stuff,” Dove says. “He attributes it to Chuck Yeager — that drawly, safe, comforting way of talking that airplane pilots use when speaking to passengers.”
When you consider the truth behind Apollo 13's memorable phrase — three men hurtling through space, 200,000 miles from Earth, losing electricity, water and oxygen —you realize just how cool it is.
“Houston, we've had a problem” may be the biggest understatement of the 20th century.
maggie.galehouse@chron.com
NASA HISTORY
40 years after Apollo 13, five words remain linked to city
MAGGIE GALEHOUSE
April 12, 2010
Moments after Apollo 13 crew members heard a sharp bang, the phrase that Space City can't seem to shake entered the atmosphere: “Houston, we've had a problem.”
Forty years ago today, a loud bang and vibration transformed a smooth flight to the moon into one of NASA's most successful failures. We remember the sentence that captured that catastrophe as “Houston, we have a problem,” but the correct version uses the past tense.
Presumably, some people knew and even used the phrase in the years after the Apollo 13 crew members miraculously — and heroically — made their way back to Earth.
But it was Ron Howard's 1995 film, Apollo 13, that cemented the misquoted version in our minds.
“The movie simplified the sentence for dramatic purposes,” says Charles Dove, director of Rice Cinema and a film lecturer at Rice University. “Most of the big 20th century phrases come from film.”
Indeed, “Houston, we have a problem” is No. 50 on the American Film Institute's list of top 100 movie quotes, behind other catch phrases we like even better: “Here's looking at you, kid” (No. 5); “Go ahead, make my day” (No. 6); and “You talking to me?” (No. 10).
Mother of all chichés
In real-life, the space scene went something like this: Jack Swigert — played by Kevin Bacon in the movie — saw a warning light that accompanied the sharp bang and said, “Houston, we've had a problem here.” When Houston base asked for clarification, Jim Lovell — played by Tom Hanks in the movie — repeated, “Houston, we've had a problem.”
Today, the phrase has become the mother of all clichés, repeated and tweaked ad nauseum. It has been:
• A headline for stories about anything that goes right or wrong in Houston — particularly in politics or sports. “Houston, we have a pennant” was a Chronicle headline in 2005.
• A headline for gossip about singer Whitney Houston, whose had her share of problems (husband, drugs) in recent years.
• A song title by The Queers and by Oliver Twizt; an album title from Chingo Bling; a CD compilation from Lil' Flip.
• A funny quip on T-shirts.
• A book by Houston author Gwendolyn Zepeda: Houston, We Have a Problema.
And more. So much more.
Dove says the strength of the phrase comes from its brevity and simplicity.
“There's a thing that Tom Wolfe talks about in The Right Stuff,” Dove says. “He attributes it to Chuck Yeager — that drawly, safe, comforting way of talking that airplane pilots use when speaking to passengers.”
When you consider the truth behind Apollo 13's memorable phrase — three men hurtling through space, 200,000 miles from Earth, losing electricity, water and oxygen —you realize just how cool it is.
“Houston, we've had a problem” may be the biggest understatement of the 20th century.
maggie.galehouse@chron.com
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Was the Moon created by a nuclear explosion?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1246872/Was-moon-created-nuclear-explosion-Earth.html
Was the Moon created by a nuclear explosion on Earth?
By Daily Mail Reporter
29th January 2010
How the Moon was created and came to orbit the Earth has long puzzled scientists.
The most commonly held theory is that when the solar system was first formed, an object collided with Earth, knocking off a chunk of rock that fell into orbit around it.
But now two scientists have come up with a new explanation. They believe the Moon did not break away from the Earth because of an impact or an explosion in space, but because of a nuclear explosion on Earth itself.
Their idea is based on the fission theory which was first outlined in the 19th century.
The fission theory suggested that the Earth and Moon were both created out of the same blob of spinning molten rock - with a part becoming separated which later became the moon.
However, aside from an impact, scientists couldn't explain how the blob which became the moon spun off.
Rob de Meijer at University of the Western Cape and Wim van Westrenen at VU University in Amsterdam believe the Moon was blasted out of the Earth by a nuclear explosion on our planet.
In their research paper, 'An alternative hypothesis for the origin of the Moon', they explain that if the moon had been separated from the Earth by an impacting external force, the moon would be composed of whatever knocked into it and the Earth.
'Models of solar system evolution show that it is highly unlikely for the chemical composition of the Earth and impactor to be identical,' they state.
Yet recent lunar samples show that the moon is almost identical in chemical composition to the Earth - suggesting there was no impactor involved.
'A more likely possibility for the large degree of compositional similarity... is that the moon derives directly from terrestrial material,' the research paper states.
They believe that the energy that caused the moon to break into orbit around Earth was 'supplied by a supercritical georeactor in Earth’s core-mantle boundary producing sufficient heat to vaporize and eject part of the bulk silicate earth'.
Clay Dillow from Popular Science supports the theory. He states: 'According to their explanation, the centrifugal forces on Earth concentrated heavier elements like uranium and thorium near the surface around the equatorial plane.
'Enough of these elements in high enough concentrations could set off a runaway nuclear chain reaction, similar to the kind that cause nuke plant meltdowns.
'In this way, a natural-born nuclear georeactor was pushed to supercritical levels and: BOOM! The moon was cleaved from the Earth and rocketed into orbit by a massive nuclear explosion.
'It’s a tough theory to test, but we do know that nuclear georeactors existed, their legacy left behind in the uranium we mine from the Earth today. '
De Meijer and van Westrenan conclude that proving their theories will depend on future moon missions returning lunar samples from greater depths.
Was the Moon created by a nuclear explosion on Earth?
By Daily Mail Reporter
29th January 2010
How the Moon was created and came to orbit the Earth has long puzzled scientists.
The most commonly held theory is that when the solar system was first formed, an object collided with Earth, knocking off a chunk of rock that fell into orbit around it.
But now two scientists have come up with a new explanation. They believe the Moon did not break away from the Earth because of an impact or an explosion in space, but because of a nuclear explosion on Earth itself.
Their idea is based on the fission theory which was first outlined in the 19th century.
The fission theory suggested that the Earth and Moon were both created out of the same blob of spinning molten rock - with a part becoming separated which later became the moon.
However, aside from an impact, scientists couldn't explain how the blob which became the moon spun off.
Rob de Meijer at University of the Western Cape and Wim van Westrenen at VU University in Amsterdam believe the Moon was blasted out of the Earth by a nuclear explosion on our planet.
In their research paper, 'An alternative hypothesis for the origin of the Moon', they explain that if the moon had been separated from the Earth by an impacting external force, the moon would be composed of whatever knocked into it and the Earth.
'Models of solar system evolution show that it is highly unlikely for the chemical composition of the Earth and impactor to be identical,' they state.
Yet recent lunar samples show that the moon is almost identical in chemical composition to the Earth - suggesting there was no impactor involved.
'A more likely possibility for the large degree of compositional similarity... is that the moon derives directly from terrestrial material,' the research paper states.
They believe that the energy that caused the moon to break into orbit around Earth was 'supplied by a supercritical georeactor in Earth’s core-mantle boundary producing sufficient heat to vaporize and eject part of the bulk silicate earth'.
Clay Dillow from Popular Science supports the theory. He states: 'According to their explanation, the centrifugal forces on Earth concentrated heavier elements like uranium and thorium near the surface around the equatorial plane.
'Enough of these elements in high enough concentrations could set off a runaway nuclear chain reaction, similar to the kind that cause nuke plant meltdowns.
'In this way, a natural-born nuclear georeactor was pushed to supercritical levels and: BOOM! The moon was cleaved from the Earth and rocketed into orbit by a massive nuclear explosion.
'It’s a tough theory to test, but we do know that nuclear georeactors existed, their legacy left behind in the uranium we mine from the Earth today. '
De Meijer and van Westrenan conclude that proving their theories will depend on future moon missions returning lunar samples from greater depths.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Moon hole might be suitable for colony
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/space/01/01/moon.lava.hole/Moon hole might be suitable for colony
January 1, 2010
Scientists report finding a lunar hole that might make a good candidate for a moon colony.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Scientists find deep hole on moon that could be suitable for colony
Discovery of "lava tube" is published in journal of American Geophysical Union
Lava tubes have been found before, but this one is protected by "lava sheet"
Report says that shield protects hole from meteorites and harsh temperatures
(CNN) -- Building a home near a moon crater or a lunar sea may sound nice, but moon colonists might have a much better chance of survival if they just lived in a hole.
That's the message sent by an international team of scientists who say they've discovered a protected lunar "lava tube" -- a deep, giant hole -- that might be well suited for a moon colony or a lunar base.
The vertical hole, in the volcanic Marius Hills region on the moon's near side, is 213 feet wide and is estimated to be more than 260 feet deep, according to findings published in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.
More important, the scientists say, the hole is protected from the moon's harsh temperatures and meteorite strikes by a thin sheet of lava. That makes the tube a good candidate for further exploration or possible inhabitation, the article says.
"Lunar lava tubes are a potentially important location for a future lunar base, whether for local exploration and development, or as an outpost to serve exploration beyond the Moon," writes the team, led by Junichi Haruyama, a senior researcher with the Japanese space agency JAXA.
"Any intact lava tube could serve as a shelter from the severe environment of the lunar surface, with its meteorite impacts, high-energy UV radiation and energetic particles, and extreme diurnal temperature variations."
Lava tubes have previously been discovered on the moon, but the scientists say the new hole is notable because of its lava shield and because it does not appear to be prone to collapse.
Lave tubes exist on Earth and also have been found on Mars. The cylinder-shaped caverns can be carved out by lava flows, volcanic eruptions, seismic activity or ground collapse resulting from meteoroid strikes.
The scientists used high-resolution images from a Japanese moon orbiter called SELENE to discover this lunar lava tube. The findings were published November 12, but they grabbed the attention of the public this week.
NASA is reportedly working on plans to return to the moon by 2020 and to set up a temporary lunar colony by 2025 as part of the Constellation Program. Funding for the program, however, remains somewhat in question.
The American space agency could not be reached for comment.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Water on the Moon Confirmed by NASA Crashes
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/11/091113-water-on-the-moon.html
Water on the Moon Confirmed by NASA Crashes
Ker Than for National Geographic News
November 13, 2009
It's official: There's water on the moon—and a "significant amount" of it, too, members of NASA's recent moon-crash mission, LCROSS, announced today.
In October, NASA crashed a two-ton rocket and the SUV-size LCROSS (Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite) into the permanently shadowed crater Cabeus on the moon's south pole.
The crashes were part of an effort to kick up evidence of water on the moon.
Despite disappointing many amateur astronomers on Earth, who had been expecting to see a giant plume of lunar dust and ice crystals, the moon-water mission was a success, NASA says.
The LCROSS team took the known near-infrared light signature of water and compared it to the impact spectra LCROSS near-infrared recorded after the probe had sent its spent rocket crashing into the moon.
A spectrometer helps identify the composition of materials by examining which wavelengths of light they emit or absorb.
"We got good fits" for the data graphs, said Anthony Colaprete, LCROSS's principal investigator, at today's press conference at the NASA Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California.
"We could not put other compounds [in] and generate the same fit."
Water on the Moon—Buckets of It
Additional evidence of water on the moon came from LCROSS's ultraviolet spectrometer, which detected energy signatures associated with hydroxyl, a byproduct of the breakup of water by sunlight.
The amount of moon water kicked up by the LCROSS crashes could fill about a dozen 2-gallon (7.6-liter) buckets, said Colaprete, adding that this is just a conservative estimate.
"Not Your Father's Moon," Water Discovery Suggests
The confirmation of water on the moon raises the possibility that humans may one day be able to extract drinking water or breathable oxygen as well as the raw ingredients for rocket fuel from moon rocks, Michael Wargo, chief lunar scientist for Exploration Systems at NASA headquarters in Washington, D.C., said at the conference.
Samples of water on the moon might also help shed light on the early history and evolution of the solar system, said physicist Greg Delory, a senior fellow at the Space Sciences Laboratory and Center for Integrative Planetary Sciences at the University of California, Berkeley.
"This is not your father's moon," Delory said at the conference.
"Rather than a dead and unchanging world, it could be a very dynamic and interesting one."
Water on the Moon Confirmed by NASA Crashes
Ker Than for National Geographic News
November 13, 2009
It's official: There's water on the moon—and a "significant amount" of it, too, members of NASA's recent moon-crash mission, LCROSS, announced today.
In October, NASA crashed a two-ton rocket and the SUV-size LCROSS (Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite) into the permanently shadowed crater Cabeus on the moon's south pole.
The crashes were part of an effort to kick up evidence of water on the moon.
Despite disappointing many amateur astronomers on Earth, who had been expecting to see a giant plume of lunar dust and ice crystals, the moon-water mission was a success, NASA says.
The LCROSS team took the known near-infrared light signature of water and compared it to the impact spectra LCROSS near-infrared recorded after the probe had sent its spent rocket crashing into the moon.
A spectrometer helps identify the composition of materials by examining which wavelengths of light they emit or absorb.
"We got good fits" for the data graphs, said Anthony Colaprete, LCROSS's principal investigator, at today's press conference at the NASA Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California.
"We could not put other compounds [in] and generate the same fit."
Water on the Moon—Buckets of It
Additional evidence of water on the moon came from LCROSS's ultraviolet spectrometer, which detected energy signatures associated with hydroxyl, a byproduct of the breakup of water by sunlight.
The amount of moon water kicked up by the LCROSS crashes could fill about a dozen 2-gallon (7.6-liter) buckets, said Colaprete, adding that this is just a conservative estimate.
"Not Your Father's Moon," Water Discovery Suggests
The confirmation of water on the moon raises the possibility that humans may one day be able to extract drinking water or breathable oxygen as well as the raw ingredients for rocket fuel from moon rocks, Michael Wargo, chief lunar scientist for Exploration Systems at NASA headquarters in Washington, D.C., said at the conference.
Samples of water on the moon might also help shed light on the early history and evolution of the solar system, said physicist Greg Delory, a senior fellow at the Space Sciences Laboratory and Center for Integrative Planetary Sciences at the University of California, Berkeley.
"This is not your father's moon," Delory said at the conference.
"Rather than a dead and unchanging world, it could be a very dynamic and interesting one."
Monday, October 12, 2009
Moon crash: the search for water
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2009/10/091009_mooncrash_nh_sl.shtml9 october, 2009
Moon crash: the search for water
The American space agency, Nasa, says two unmanned spacecraft have crashed into the moon as planned in an experiment seeking evidence of water.
However, live pictures of an expected plume of debris failed to materialise.
A rocket was steered into a crater near the lunar south pole at a speed of 8,000km/h, followed by a satellite probe equipped with cameras and other instruments.
The probe was designed to analyse debris thrown up by the impact, and send the results back to Earth, before it too crashed into the moon.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Adolf Hitler alive: weird conspiracy theories
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/6242144/Adolf-Hitler-alive-weird-conspiracy-theories.htmlAdolf Hitler alive: weird conspiracy theories
The discovery that the skull believed to be Adolf Hitler's was actually a woman's has reignited conspiracy theories.
By Tom Chivers
29 Sep 2009
Rumours of Hitler’s survival have been widespread for years, with some even claiming he is alive today.
While that is unlikely – the Nazi leader would celebrate his 121st birthday in April – the possibility that he made it out of the Berlin bunker has been seriously put forward on several occasions. Here are four of the strangest theories.
Hitler fled on a 'ghost convoy' to Argentina
Several prominent Nazis – including 'architect of the Holocaust' Adolf Eichmann and Dr Josef Mengele, the 'Angel of Death' – certainly did flee to Argentina.
And the arrival of two U-Boats in the South American country in the weeks after the war led to more speculation that Hitler joined his former underlings there. But Heinz Schäffer, one of the officers on the U-Boats, has alwas strenuously denied being part of a 'ghost convoy'.
The two U-Boats, U-530 and U-977, surrendered at Mar del Plata in Argentina in July and August 1945 respectively.
Hitler 'fled to Antarctica in a U-Boat'
Among the theories of Hitler's whereabouts after the fall of Nazi Germany in 1945 was that he was smuggled out of Germany and onto a U-Boat.
From there, the story goes, the Nazi leader was taken to a secret military base in Antarctic. In the late 1950s British and American forces found the base and destroyed it with atomic weapons.
The theory falls down on three major points. One, there was never a German military presence in Antarctica, despite a pre-war mission there to see whether a whaling base would be feasible.
Two, while the two U-Boats mentioned above did arrive in Argentina after the war, they could not possibly have made it to Antarctica. The sea ice in the winter blocks all access to the land where any base would have been.
Three, while atomic bombs were detonated in the southern hemisphere in 1958, they were atmospheric tests, hundreds of miles above the surface of the Earth. All three took place between 1400 and 2150 miles north of Antarctica.
Using secret rocket technology, Hitler fled to a Nazi base on the moon
The point when Hitler conspiracy theories lose touch with reality altogether. The Nazis' development late in the war of high-technology weapons – including the V2, an early ballistic missile, and the Me 262 jet fighter – inspired some to believe that Germany had secretly won the space race.
It was also suggested that the Nazis had made contact with UFOs and that they had made it to the Moon as early as 1942. Furthermore, Russian and American astronauts actually made it there in the 1950s, and stayed at a Nazi lunar base.
For added measure, it is claimed that the Moon is perfectly habitable for humans, but that NASA claims it is barren and airless in order to stop Third World countries visiting it.
Hitler is alive and well and staying in San Diego
Well, not really. This one is a joke – but there is a structure, visible on Google Maps, that might make you think otherwise. A barracks building in the US Navy base in San Diego's Coronado island, known as the 'Seal's Lair', is very definitely in the shape of a swastika.
In 2007, the US Navy said it was going to redesign the 1960s-built edifice, spending around $600,000 (£375,000) to make it less master-racy. They admitted they noticed the shape when it was built, but didn't think anyone would spot it from the ground.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Water On The Moon
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=water-on-the-moon-09-09-24
September 24, 2009
Water On The Moon
Studies in the journal Science report that instruments on three different spacecraft have found evidence for widespread trace amounts of water on the moon. Karen Hopkin reports.
For all you space buffs who like to keep track of where the water is, it looks like you can add our very own moon to your list. Because according to a trio of papers appearing in the journal Science, the lunar surface is wetter than we realized.
Forty years ago, Apollo astronauts brought a bunch of moon rocks back home. For the most part those samples showed no traces of water whatsoever. Those that seemed even the slightest bit moist were thought to have been contaminated by water from Earth—because the containers they were stored in turned out to be leaky.
But now scientists say they’ve spotted water right on the moon’s surface. Using instruments on three different spacecraft, the scientists detected the chemical signature of good old H2O. And they think the water springs from the moon itself. The lunar soil is nearly 50 percent oxygen, and the scientists think that hydrogen comes from the solar wind that pounds the moon’s surface.
Put the two together and you get wet. Not too wet, of course. There’s probably only about a quart of water in every ton of lunar soil. That’s dryer than the Sahara. But wetter than we thought.
September 24, 2009
Water On The Moon
Studies in the journal Science report that instruments on three different spacecraft have found evidence for widespread trace amounts of water on the moon. Karen Hopkin reports.
For all you space buffs who like to keep track of where the water is, it looks like you can add our very own moon to your list. Because according to a trio of papers appearing in the journal Science, the lunar surface is wetter than we realized.
Forty years ago, Apollo astronauts brought a bunch of moon rocks back home. For the most part those samples showed no traces of water whatsoever. Those that seemed even the slightest bit moist were thought to have been contaminated by water from Earth—because the containers they were stored in turned out to be leaky.
But now scientists say they’ve spotted water right on the moon’s surface. Using instruments on three different spacecraft, the scientists detected the chemical signature of good old H2O. And they think the water springs from the moon itself. The lunar soil is nearly 50 percent oxygen, and the scientists think that hydrogen comes from the solar wind that pounds the moon’s surface.
Put the two together and you get wet. Not too wet, of course. There’s probably only about a quart of water in every ton of lunar soil. That’s dryer than the Sahara. But wetter than we thought.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Thought of the Day
David McGowan
Distance the Apollo astronauts would have had to travel to reach the surface of the Moon: approximately 234,000 miles.
Apart from Apollo, the furthest distance any man at any time has traveled from the surface of the Earth: about 350 miles.
Distance the Apollo astronauts would have had to travel to reach the surface of the Moon: approximately 234,000 miles.
Apart from Apollo, the furthest distance any man at any time has traveled from the surface of the Earth: about 350 miles.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
6 Craziest Conspiracy Theories
6 Craziest Conspiracy Theories
1. The 1969 NASA moon landing was faked. Skeptics point to everything from missing blueprints to lunar footprints to the mysterious flapping flag in the absence of wind as evidence of NASA pulling the wool over the world’s eyes. Even proof that flags can flap in space without wind (the momentum of planting the flagstaff caused the flapping motion) and thorough examinations of the supposed fake moon recordings cannot placate the naysayers.
2. Secret societies run the world. Behind every successful man and woman is a mysterious cult. At least, that’s what the theory states. Freemasons, the Illuminati, the Skull and Bones Society, and others are all potential secret world powers. Knowing that some leaders were in fact members of such organizations – George W. Bush and John Kerry were both Skull and Bones members – only adds fuel to this occult-fearing paranoia.
3. Lizard people run the world. Followers of British reporter David Icke’s reptilian overlord theory believe that an alien race of reptiles have cross-bred with humans to create shape-shifting creatures that can assume humanoid form. The alien race controls these humanoid half-breeds, some of whom have included Queen Elizabeth and Bill Clinton, and infiltrates them into the unsuspecting human society in an effort to dominate the planet.
4. Paul McCartney is dead and has been replaced by a doppelganger. Forget about Elvis impersonators, the “other” Sir Paul has taken looking like the beloved Beatle to a whole new level. Conspiracy theorists say that the original beloved Beatle died in 1966 in a car crash and was instantly replaced with a lookalike for the recording of Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, and Lennon sprinkled clues to that fact into every post-1966 Beatles recording.
5. Microsoft embeds secret messages of hate in Wingdings font. In 1992’s release of Windows 3.1, users discovered that typing in “NYC” in Wingdings produced the symbols of a skull, the Star of David, and a thumbs up gesture. Font conspiracy theorists accused Microsoft of secretly approving the killing of Jews in New York City. Then, after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, users found that typing in “Q33NY” produced what looked like a plane flying into the Twin Towers, followed by a skull and Star of David. The holes with this theory were that “Q33” did not relate to the attacks despite rumors that it was the bus route or flight numbers of the hijacked planes, and the attacks did not target the Jewish community.
6. KFC or Church’s fried chicken is full of chemicals made to sterilize black men. In both versions, the chicken chains are covertly run by Ku Klux Klan members bent on halting the reproduction of African Americans by pumping the food full of drugs that would make men impotent. Any research into the ownership of the chains would prove this rumor false. No word yet on how the drugs are able to only target African American consumers.
This post was contributed by Amber Hensley, who writes for http://www.online-college-reviews.com
She welcomes your feedback at AmberHensley1980@yahoo.com
1. The 1969 NASA moon landing was faked. Skeptics point to everything from missing blueprints to lunar footprints to the mysterious flapping flag in the absence of wind as evidence of NASA pulling the wool over the world’s eyes. Even proof that flags can flap in space without wind (the momentum of planting the flagstaff caused the flapping motion) and thorough examinations of the supposed fake moon recordings cannot placate the naysayers.
2. Secret societies run the world. Behind every successful man and woman is a mysterious cult. At least, that’s what the theory states. Freemasons, the Illuminati, the Skull and Bones Society, and others are all potential secret world powers. Knowing that some leaders were in fact members of such organizations – George W. Bush and John Kerry were both Skull and Bones members – only adds fuel to this occult-fearing paranoia.
3. Lizard people run the world. Followers of British reporter David Icke’s reptilian overlord theory believe that an alien race of reptiles have cross-bred with humans to create shape-shifting creatures that can assume humanoid form. The alien race controls these humanoid half-breeds, some of whom have included Queen Elizabeth and Bill Clinton, and infiltrates them into the unsuspecting human society in an effort to dominate the planet.
4. Paul McCartney is dead and has been replaced by a doppelganger. Forget about Elvis impersonators, the “other” Sir Paul has taken looking like the beloved Beatle to a whole new level. Conspiracy theorists say that the original beloved Beatle died in 1966 in a car crash and was instantly replaced with a lookalike for the recording of Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, and Lennon sprinkled clues to that fact into every post-1966 Beatles recording.
5. Microsoft embeds secret messages of hate in Wingdings font. In 1992’s release of Windows 3.1, users discovered that typing in “NYC” in Wingdings produced the symbols of a skull, the Star of David, and a thumbs up gesture. Font conspiracy theorists accused Microsoft of secretly approving the killing of Jews in New York City. Then, after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, users found that typing in “Q33NY” produced what looked like a plane flying into the Twin Towers, followed by a skull and Star of David. The holes with this theory were that “Q33” did not relate to the attacks despite rumors that it was the bus route or flight numbers of the hijacked planes, and the attacks did not target the Jewish community.
6. KFC or Church’s fried chicken is full of chemicals made to sterilize black men. In both versions, the chicken chains are covertly run by Ku Klux Klan members bent on halting the reproduction of African Americans by pumping the food full of drugs that would make men impotent. Any research into the ownership of the chains would prove this rumor false. No word yet on how the drugs are able to only target African American consumers.
This post was contributed by Amber Hensley, who writes for http://www.online-college-reviews.com
She welcomes your feedback at AmberHensley1980@yahoo.com
Sunday, August 23, 2009
NASA can't afford return to moon by 2020
http://www.mercurynews.com/nationworld/ci_13103724
Presidential panel concludes NASA can't afford return to moon by 2020
08/14/2009
WASHINGTON — NASA's Constellation program, conceived four years ago to return Americans to the moon by 2020, can't afford to do that — and the agency's budget won't allow humans to explore beyond the international space station for two decades, a presidential panel has concluded.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's annual budget of about $18 billion will pay to keep astronauts flying — albeit aboard Russian rockets — to the space station through 2020, the panel said Wednesday.
But that would leave no money for the moon, Mars or exploring other parts of the solar system for at least two decades.
"We haven't found a scenario that includes exploration that's viable," said former astronaut Sally Ride, one of 10 committee members who have until Aug. 31 to present President Barack Obama with future options for NASA.
Panel chairman Norm Augustine, the retired CEO of Lockheed Martin, said NASA is the victim of both budget cuts and technical problems with its Constellation program of new rockets and capsules that are supposed to return humans to the moon.
"The money available has declined considerably since the program began," he said. "On the other hand, the Constellation program has proven to be more difficult than it was thought to be."
Augustine added, "It will be difficult with the current budget to do anything that's terribly inspiring in the human spaceflight area. On the other hand, there are things you can do to prepare. ... It just won't come as soon."
The panel said it would take at least $3 billion more per year for NASA to have a "reasonable chance" of getting to the moon or elsewhere in the solar system before 2030.
And while committee members seemed to support more money, it's not clear where, in a time of trillion-dollar-plus federal deficits, the cash would come from.
The panel's pessimistic assessment of NASA's manned-space future contradicts years of assertions by the agency that despite budget cuts totaling about $30 billion over the next decade, its moon-landing program was on track and within budget.
Presidential panel concludes NASA can't afford return to moon by 2020
08/14/2009
WASHINGTON — NASA's Constellation program, conceived four years ago to return Americans to the moon by 2020, can't afford to do that — and the agency's budget won't allow humans to explore beyond the international space station for two decades, a presidential panel has concluded.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's annual budget of about $18 billion will pay to keep astronauts flying — albeit aboard Russian rockets — to the space station through 2020, the panel said Wednesday.
But that would leave no money for the moon, Mars or exploring other parts of the solar system for at least two decades.
"We haven't found a scenario that includes exploration that's viable," said former astronaut Sally Ride, one of 10 committee members who have until Aug. 31 to present President Barack Obama with future options for NASA.
Panel chairman Norm Augustine, the retired CEO of Lockheed Martin, said NASA is the victim of both budget cuts and technical problems with its Constellation program of new rockets and capsules that are supposed to return humans to the moon.
"The money available has declined considerably since the program began," he said. "On the other hand, the Constellation program has proven to be more difficult than it was thought to be."
Augustine added, "It will be difficult with the current budget to do anything that's terribly inspiring in the human spaceflight area. On the other hand, there are things you can do to prepare. ... It just won't come as soon."
The panel said it would take at least $3 billion more per year for NASA to have a "reasonable chance" of getting to the moon or elsewhere in the solar system before 2030.
And while committee members seemed to support more money, it's not clear where, in a time of trillion-dollar-plus federal deficits, the cash would come from.
The panel's pessimistic assessment of NASA's manned-space future contradicts years of assertions by the agency that despite budget cuts totaling about $30 billion over the next decade, its moon-landing program was on track and within budget.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
40 years after Apollo 11: What's our next step?
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2009-07-16-nasamoon_N.htm
40 years after Apollo 11: What's our next step?
By Traci Watson, USA TODAY
7-16-9
Forty years ago Monday, Neil Armstrong made his "giant leap for mankind." Since that triumphant moment, astronauts in the U.S. space program have gone no farther.
The first footsteps on the moon — made by Armstrong on July 20, 1969, on the mission known as Apollo 11— came 3½ years before the last ones. Since then, astronauts have been stuck close to the Earth, mostly circling a few hundred miles overhead in a spacecraft that's little more than a glorified cargo truck.
So now what?
That question preoccupies NASA and worries the Obama administration. The president said in March that NASA is beset by "a sense of drift." Even some of the men who once walked on the moon are divided on how to proceed. Options could include going back to the moon, landing on an asteroid, shooting for Mars or even ending human exploration of space altogether.
Former president George W. Bush tried to give NASA a sense of purpose, ordering the agency in 2004 to retire the space shuttle and return humans to the moon. The public yawned. Bush never publicly mentioned the plan again and didn't add much to NASA's budget for it.
NASA is still trying to carry out Bush's goals, but the effort is in doubt. At the White House's request, a panel of independent space experts is giving NASA's human spaceflight program a top-to-bottom review. The panel, which will make recommendations at the end of the summer, could tell Obama that NASA is on track. Or, it could send the agency back to the drawing board.
No matter what the panel decides, the federal deficit and competition from programs such as health care mean that NASA is unlikely to get enough money to do anything truly ambitious. Already Obama's proposed budget for 2010 shows that the administration plans to slash funding later this decade for the rocket and spacecraft needed to take astronauts back to the moon.
If that stands, it's a "an absolutely going-out-of-business budget," says former NASA official Scott Pace, now at George Washington University.
Many space historians and even NASA veterans agree that the glory days of Apollo — which spawned countless songs, movies and books — can't be recaptured. Gone is the vast budget for building spaceships. Gone is the Cold War with the Soviet Union, which unified the nation and lent urgency to the effort to put an American on the moon.
"The Apollo program was such a success because it did have complete support," Aaron Cohen, a top Apollo official, said last month at an MIT symposium on the 40th anniversary of man's first step on the moon. "This may be very difficult to achieve in the near future."
America "is a different place" now than during Apollo, says Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., head of the House Science and Technology Committee. "We were in a space race with the Soviet Union. (Apollo) was about geopolitics, not space exploration."
All the same, polls regularly show that Americans have a warm feeling for the human spaceflight program and don't want it to end. That means figuring out what astronauts should do next. Should they forge outward into the solar system, despite the huge cost and a soaring deficit? And if so, where?
The decision is not just technical, says David Mindell, who directs MIT's Department of Science, Technology and Society.
"It's emotional and it's political, because human spaceflight is primarily a symbolic activity," he says. "If you really are looking strictly (at the) technical, you wouldn't be sending people."
Some possible destinations for human space explorers include:
The moon
Yes, America has been there. That doesn't mean it's not worth going back, say scientists and an astronaut who's been to the lunar surface. Humans went to the moon six times from 1969 to 1972, spending fewer than 13 days there. Lunar advocates say that's hardly time enough to plumb the moon's mysteries.
Sending humans back to the moon could help unlock the secrets of the early solar system, says Jack Burns, a University of Colorado astronomer. The forces that shaped the Earth have not scarred the lunar surface, making the moon a pristine record of how planets formed, he says.
Burns scoffs at the idea that because Americans have landed on the moon, there's no reason to go back. "It's like Thomas Jefferson sending Lewis and Clark to the West, and … people saying, 'We're done, we don't need to go there anymore,' " he says.
NASA's plans for the moon include not just short, Apollo-style stopovers but eventually a moon base. The agency hopes to send the astronauts back to the moon around 2020.
Operating a moon base would allow astronauts to practice living on another planet, NASA's Jeff Hanley says. Crews would need that experience before pressing on to Mars, the long-term goal of most space enthusiasts.
"The fastest way to get to Mars is through the moon," says Harrison Schmitt, who in 1972 was one of the last two men on the moon. "We need to learn how to work in deep space again. That's what the moon does for us."
An asteroid
It may sound crazy, but preliminary NASA studies indicate it's possible to send humans to visit asteroids, huge chunks of rock and gravel that orbit the sun.
Telescopes have spotted at least nine asteroids that astronauts could reach using the spaceship and giant rocket NASA is designing to return humans to the moon, says the space agency's Rob Landis, who headed a study of such missions. Total travel time would be 90 to 180 days, he says. That's much longer than the six-day round trip to the moon but much shorter than the one-year round trip to Mars.
Asteroids, unlike the moon, have negligible gravity, so a spaceship could fly to an asteroid and just pull up next to it. Then an astronaut could clamber out and explore. Going to the moon requires not just a spaceship but an expensive lander, one equipped with rockets so it could blast off from the lunar surface.
There's a big incentive to learn more about asteroids: They could wipe out humanity. A wallop from even a medium-size asteroid could unleash as much energy as a large nuclear bomb, NASA says. Many scientists blame a collision with a huge asteroid for the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.
Asteroids also are of interest because they're loaded with minerals that could be useful for space crews headed into the solar system, says Russell "Rusty" Schweickart, who flew on the 1969 Apollo 9 mission that tested the lunar module.
"Asteroids are a combination of long-term resource, potential threat and great scientific interest," he says. "In my mind, (that) sells a heck of a lot better to the general public than going back to the moon."
Mars
Scientists have debated the existence of life on Mars for more than a century. Mars boosters say it's time to settle the arguments by sending humans to the Red Planet. Humans would learn "whether we're … in a living universe, where life is common, or a dead universe," says Robert Zubrin, president of the Mars Society, a group dedicated to Mars exploration.
In all the vast universe, the Earth is the only place known to support life. Mars may be the next best place to nurture living things. It's not only the most Earth-like planet but also has stores of water, as confirmed by a NASA robot last year.
Two of Apollo 11's three crewmembers are Mars partisans. "As celestial bodies go, the moon is not a particularly interesting place, but Mars is," Apollo 11 astronaut Michael Collins said in a statement from NASA.
A return to the moon is "not very attractive," says Buzz Aldrin, who was the second man on the moon. "After 50 years, do we want to be known for returning to the moon?"
He favors human colonization of Mars. He envisions crews testing their skills and spaceships on Phobos, a Mars moon, before pushing on to the Red Planet.
A Mars trip may seem far-fetched, but such a mission was proposed by the first President Bush in 1989. The idea went nowhere then, but the younger President Bush's 2004 plan for NASA also included the goal of sending humans to Mars.
NASA took that directive so seriously that its engineers started work on a giant rocket so powerful it could launch spacecraft not just to the moon but also to Mars. Work on the rocket is on hold while the Obama administration sorts out its plans for space.
Nowhere
Even some strong supporters of space exploration say the best place to send America's astronauts would be nowhere at all.
Opponents of human spaceflight say robots can do the job just as well as astronauts, pose no safety worries and work cheaply. Sending humans into space isn't worth it, they say.
"The cost and risks are just too high," says physicist Robert Park of the University of Maryland, who wants NASA's manned program to be phased out.
Human space exploration also has run into trouble in Congress. In its spending bill for 2008, lawmakers ordered NASA not to spend any money to study sending humans to Mars.
"Manned space travel adds far more cost than is justified in terms of scientific return," says Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. Frank says he doesn't want to end the astronaut program but doesn't want to send humans to Mars or the moon. He'd restrict astronauts to tasks robots can't handle, such as the recent upgrade of the Hubble Space Telescope by a seven-astronaut team.
Opposition to NASA's astronaut program stretches across the political spectrum. Republican Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the House, wrote in Aviation Week & Space Technology last year that NASA should get out of the business of sending humans to space to make way for private space entrepreneurs.
For NASA, the most opposition may be from the people who pay the bills: the public. In a 2005 USA TODAY poll, 58% opposed spending money on a human mission to Mars.
Americans may support human spaceflight, but they don't make it a high priority, says historian Roger Launius of the Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum. Nor do political leaders, he says. "That leaves us in low-Earth orbit for the foreseeable future," Launius says "I hope it doesn't come to that, but I'm afraid it might."
40 years after Apollo 11: What's our next step?
By Traci Watson, USA TODAY
7-16-9
Forty years ago Monday, Neil Armstrong made his "giant leap for mankind." Since that triumphant moment, astronauts in the U.S. space program have gone no farther.
The first footsteps on the moon — made by Armstrong on July 20, 1969, on the mission known as Apollo 11— came 3½ years before the last ones. Since then, astronauts have been stuck close to the Earth, mostly circling a few hundred miles overhead in a spacecraft that's little more than a glorified cargo truck.
So now what?
That question preoccupies NASA and worries the Obama administration. The president said in March that NASA is beset by "a sense of drift." Even some of the men who once walked on the moon are divided on how to proceed. Options could include going back to the moon, landing on an asteroid, shooting for Mars or even ending human exploration of space altogether.
Former president George W. Bush tried to give NASA a sense of purpose, ordering the agency in 2004 to retire the space shuttle and return humans to the moon. The public yawned. Bush never publicly mentioned the plan again and didn't add much to NASA's budget for it.
NASA is still trying to carry out Bush's goals, but the effort is in doubt. At the White House's request, a panel of independent space experts is giving NASA's human spaceflight program a top-to-bottom review. The panel, which will make recommendations at the end of the summer, could tell Obama that NASA is on track. Or, it could send the agency back to the drawing board.
No matter what the panel decides, the federal deficit and competition from programs such as health care mean that NASA is unlikely to get enough money to do anything truly ambitious. Already Obama's proposed budget for 2010 shows that the administration plans to slash funding later this decade for the rocket and spacecraft needed to take astronauts back to the moon.
If that stands, it's a "an absolutely going-out-of-business budget," says former NASA official Scott Pace, now at George Washington University.
Many space historians and even NASA veterans agree that the glory days of Apollo — which spawned countless songs, movies and books — can't be recaptured. Gone is the vast budget for building spaceships. Gone is the Cold War with the Soviet Union, which unified the nation and lent urgency to the effort to put an American on the moon.
"The Apollo program was such a success because it did have complete support," Aaron Cohen, a top Apollo official, said last month at an MIT symposium on the 40th anniversary of man's first step on the moon. "This may be very difficult to achieve in the near future."
America "is a different place" now than during Apollo, says Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., head of the House Science and Technology Committee. "We were in a space race with the Soviet Union. (Apollo) was about geopolitics, not space exploration."
All the same, polls regularly show that Americans have a warm feeling for the human spaceflight program and don't want it to end. That means figuring out what astronauts should do next. Should they forge outward into the solar system, despite the huge cost and a soaring deficit? And if so, where?
The decision is not just technical, says David Mindell, who directs MIT's Department of Science, Technology and Society.
"It's emotional and it's political, because human spaceflight is primarily a symbolic activity," he says. "If you really are looking strictly (at the) technical, you wouldn't be sending people."
Some possible destinations for human space explorers include:
The moon
Yes, America has been there. That doesn't mean it's not worth going back, say scientists and an astronaut who's been to the lunar surface. Humans went to the moon six times from 1969 to 1972, spending fewer than 13 days there. Lunar advocates say that's hardly time enough to plumb the moon's mysteries.
Sending humans back to the moon could help unlock the secrets of the early solar system, says Jack Burns, a University of Colorado astronomer. The forces that shaped the Earth have not scarred the lunar surface, making the moon a pristine record of how planets formed, he says.
Burns scoffs at the idea that because Americans have landed on the moon, there's no reason to go back. "It's like Thomas Jefferson sending Lewis and Clark to the West, and … people saying, 'We're done, we don't need to go there anymore,' " he says.
NASA's plans for the moon include not just short, Apollo-style stopovers but eventually a moon base. The agency hopes to send the astronauts back to the moon around 2020.
Operating a moon base would allow astronauts to practice living on another planet, NASA's Jeff Hanley says. Crews would need that experience before pressing on to Mars, the long-term goal of most space enthusiasts.
"The fastest way to get to Mars is through the moon," says Harrison Schmitt, who in 1972 was one of the last two men on the moon. "We need to learn how to work in deep space again. That's what the moon does for us."
An asteroid
It may sound crazy, but preliminary NASA studies indicate it's possible to send humans to visit asteroids, huge chunks of rock and gravel that orbit the sun.
Telescopes have spotted at least nine asteroids that astronauts could reach using the spaceship and giant rocket NASA is designing to return humans to the moon, says the space agency's Rob Landis, who headed a study of such missions. Total travel time would be 90 to 180 days, he says. That's much longer than the six-day round trip to the moon but much shorter than the one-year round trip to Mars.
Asteroids, unlike the moon, have negligible gravity, so a spaceship could fly to an asteroid and just pull up next to it. Then an astronaut could clamber out and explore. Going to the moon requires not just a spaceship but an expensive lander, one equipped with rockets so it could blast off from the lunar surface.
There's a big incentive to learn more about asteroids: They could wipe out humanity. A wallop from even a medium-size asteroid could unleash as much energy as a large nuclear bomb, NASA says. Many scientists blame a collision with a huge asteroid for the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.
Asteroids also are of interest because they're loaded with minerals that could be useful for space crews headed into the solar system, says Russell "Rusty" Schweickart, who flew on the 1969 Apollo 9 mission that tested the lunar module.
"Asteroids are a combination of long-term resource, potential threat and great scientific interest," he says. "In my mind, (that) sells a heck of a lot better to the general public than going back to the moon."
Mars
Scientists have debated the existence of life on Mars for more than a century. Mars boosters say it's time to settle the arguments by sending humans to the Red Planet. Humans would learn "whether we're … in a living universe, where life is common, or a dead universe," says Robert Zubrin, president of the Mars Society, a group dedicated to Mars exploration.
In all the vast universe, the Earth is the only place known to support life. Mars may be the next best place to nurture living things. It's not only the most Earth-like planet but also has stores of water, as confirmed by a NASA robot last year.
Two of Apollo 11's three crewmembers are Mars partisans. "As celestial bodies go, the moon is not a particularly interesting place, but Mars is," Apollo 11 astronaut Michael Collins said in a statement from NASA.
A return to the moon is "not very attractive," says Buzz Aldrin, who was the second man on the moon. "After 50 years, do we want to be known for returning to the moon?"
He favors human colonization of Mars. He envisions crews testing their skills and spaceships on Phobos, a Mars moon, before pushing on to the Red Planet.
A Mars trip may seem far-fetched, but such a mission was proposed by the first President Bush in 1989. The idea went nowhere then, but the younger President Bush's 2004 plan for NASA also included the goal of sending humans to Mars.
NASA took that directive so seriously that its engineers started work on a giant rocket so powerful it could launch spacecraft not just to the moon but also to Mars. Work on the rocket is on hold while the Obama administration sorts out its plans for space.
Nowhere
Even some strong supporters of space exploration say the best place to send America's astronauts would be nowhere at all.
Opponents of human spaceflight say robots can do the job just as well as astronauts, pose no safety worries and work cheaply. Sending humans into space isn't worth it, they say.
"The cost and risks are just too high," says physicist Robert Park of the University of Maryland, who wants NASA's manned program to be phased out.
Human space exploration also has run into trouble in Congress. In its spending bill for 2008, lawmakers ordered NASA not to spend any money to study sending humans to Mars.
"Manned space travel adds far more cost than is justified in terms of scientific return," says Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. Frank says he doesn't want to end the astronaut program but doesn't want to send humans to Mars or the moon. He'd restrict astronauts to tasks robots can't handle, such as the recent upgrade of the Hubble Space Telescope by a seven-astronaut team.
Opposition to NASA's astronaut program stretches across the political spectrum. Republican Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the House, wrote in Aviation Week & Space Technology last year that NASA should get out of the business of sending humans to space to make way for private space entrepreneurs.
For NASA, the most opposition may be from the people who pay the bills: the public. In a 2005 USA TODAY poll, 58% opposed spending money on a human mission to Mars.
Americans may support human spaceflight, but they don't make it a high priority, says historian Roger Launius of the Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum. Nor do political leaders, he says. "That leaves us in low-Earth orbit for the foreseeable future," Launius says "I hope it doesn't come to that, but I'm afraid it might."
Buzz Aldrin: First Man (to Pee) on the Moon
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090720-apollo-11-buzz-aldrin-pee.html
Apollo 11's Buzz Aldrin: First Man (to Pee) on the Moon
Anne Minard
for National Geographic News
July 20, 2009
Buzz Aldrin may not have been the first man on the moon, but the Apollo 11 astronaut has another historic first under his belt, so to speak: first person to pee on the moon.
Marking the 40th anniversary of the first manned moon landing this month, the U.S. astronaut reflects on his moonwalk, his embrace of Twitter, his hopes for the future—and that hallowed lunar leak, accomplished on the Apollo 11 lander's ladder, into a special bag in his space suit.
"Everyone has their firsts on the moon, and that one hasn't been disputed by anybody," he said in the 2007 Apollo-program documentary In the Shadow of the Moon.
It's also undisputed that Aldrin was the second man to moonwalk—about 15 minutes after Neil Armstrong—though he's still a bit embarrassed about his fumbling attempt to reboard Apollo 11's Eagle lander.
"I jumped what I thought was going to be enough to get up to the bottom rung of the ladder, and I didn't jump hard enough the first time, so I had to go back and do it again," Aldrin told National Geographic News.
Of course it wasn't all bumbling and bathroom breaks.
Asked about his initial impressions of the moon, Aldrin rhapsodized over the "magnificent desolation" of the lunar surface and the "velvet luminosity" of the sky.
And in the book Moon Shot, Apollo astronauts Alan Shepard and Donald "Deke" Slayton write that Aldrin told them he was buoyant and full of goose pimples as he stepped onto the moon.
But don't push him too hard for deep thoughts.
Reflecting on decades of being asked "What was it like?", he said, "I guess after 40 years I still don't know what they're looking for or what they want to hear."
Just don't expect any romanticizing: "Ladies do that. Guys don't, especially if they're fighter pilots"—as Aldrin was for 21 years.
"I've never wanted to manufacture something after the fact. I still don't know if it was fantastic, far out, or what."
Despite his self-professed stoicism, Aldrin is indulging in the lighter side of his moon milestone—and embracing new technologies—to reach out to younger generations.
The astronaut said he pulled himself up from a post-Apollo 11 period of alcoholism and depression and decided he could share his experiences for a greater good.
"Do you continue to descend into an abyss? Or do you try to make a difference with what you know best?" he remembered thinking.
To Aldrin, making a difference includes getting his message out any way he can—gamely sitting down with fictional talk show host Ali G, rapping alongside Snoop Dogg, and working with science teachers through his nonprofit educational ShareSpace Foundation.
He's even been adapting to post-space age modes of communication.
"People communicate in Twittering ways," he said, referring to the micro-blogging Web site Twitter. "I've learned how to do that."
More than 111,000 people follow Aldrin's tweets, which most recently have been about the ongoing tour for his new memoir, Magnificent Desolation.
"Did a lot of interviews today including a website called Boingboing.net. I guess they're a gadget site. It's a new one to me. BUZZ," he wrote last week.
And just what is Aldrin's message?
Mostly, he said, he wants his Apollo 11 experiences to encourage Americans to shoot for the moon again, metaphorically speaking.
"America can take man to the moon, and America can take men to Mars—and beyond."
Apollo 11's Buzz Aldrin: First Man (to Pee) on the Moon
Anne Minard
for National Geographic News
July 20, 2009
Buzz Aldrin may not have been the first man on the moon, but the Apollo 11 astronaut has another historic first under his belt, so to speak: first person to pee on the moon.
Marking the 40th anniversary of the first manned moon landing this month, the U.S. astronaut reflects on his moonwalk, his embrace of Twitter, his hopes for the future—and that hallowed lunar leak, accomplished on the Apollo 11 lander's ladder, into a special bag in his space suit.
"Everyone has their firsts on the moon, and that one hasn't been disputed by anybody," he said in the 2007 Apollo-program documentary In the Shadow of the Moon.
It's also undisputed that Aldrin was the second man to moonwalk—about 15 minutes after Neil Armstrong—though he's still a bit embarrassed about his fumbling attempt to reboard Apollo 11's Eagle lander.
"I jumped what I thought was going to be enough to get up to the bottom rung of the ladder, and I didn't jump hard enough the first time, so I had to go back and do it again," Aldrin told National Geographic News.
Of course it wasn't all bumbling and bathroom breaks.
Asked about his initial impressions of the moon, Aldrin rhapsodized over the "magnificent desolation" of the lunar surface and the "velvet luminosity" of the sky.
And in the book Moon Shot, Apollo astronauts Alan Shepard and Donald "Deke" Slayton write that Aldrin told them he was buoyant and full of goose pimples as he stepped onto the moon.
But don't push him too hard for deep thoughts.
Reflecting on decades of being asked "What was it like?", he said, "I guess after 40 years I still don't know what they're looking for or what they want to hear."
Just don't expect any romanticizing: "Ladies do that. Guys don't, especially if they're fighter pilots"—as Aldrin was for 21 years.
"I've never wanted to manufacture something after the fact. I still don't know if it was fantastic, far out, or what."
Despite his self-professed stoicism, Aldrin is indulging in the lighter side of his moon milestone—and embracing new technologies—to reach out to younger generations.
The astronaut said he pulled himself up from a post-Apollo 11 period of alcoholism and depression and decided he could share his experiences for a greater good.
"Do you continue to descend into an abyss? Or do you try to make a difference with what you know best?" he remembered thinking.
To Aldrin, making a difference includes getting his message out any way he can—gamely sitting down with fictional talk show host Ali G, rapping alongside Snoop Dogg, and working with science teachers through his nonprofit educational ShareSpace Foundation.
He's even been adapting to post-space age modes of communication.
"People communicate in Twittering ways," he said, referring to the micro-blogging Web site Twitter. "I've learned how to do that."
More than 111,000 people follow Aldrin's tweets, which most recently have been about the ongoing tour for his new memoir, Magnificent Desolation.
"Did a lot of interviews today including a website called Boingboing.net. I guess they're a gadget site. It's a new one to me. BUZZ," he wrote last week.
And just what is Aldrin's message?
Mostly, he said, he wants his Apollo 11 experiences to encourage Americans to shoot for the moon again, metaphorically speaking.
"America can take man to the moon, and America can take men to Mars—and beyond."
Moon astronauts urge Mars mission
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8158519.stm
Monday, 20 July 2009
Moon astronauts urge Mars mission
Neil Armstrong: 'The ultimate peaceful competition'
Two of the astronauts who took part in the first Moon landing 40 years ago have called for renewed efforts to send a manned mission to Mars.
At a rare public reunion of the Apollo 11 crew, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins said Mars instead of the Moon should be the focus of exploration.
Neil Armstrong, the first man on the Moon, said the race to get to the Moon had been the ultimate peaceful contest.
He said it was an "exceptional national investment" for the US and ex-USSR.
The trio spoke at an event at Washington DC's National Air and Space Museum to mark the 40th anniversary of their mission.
Mr Armstrong told the audience: "It was the ultimate peaceful competition: USA vs USSR.
"I'll not assert that it was a diversion which prevented a war, nevertheless it was a diversion.
"Eventually, it provided a mechanism for engendering co-operation between former adversaries. In that sense, among others, it was an exceptional national investment for both sides."
Fellow astronaut Mr Aldrin spoke of the inspiration provided by then-President John F Kennedy which led to the "betterment of America, and ultimately the ending of the Cold War".
"Apollo 11 is a symbol of what a great nation and a great people can do if we work hard, work together and have strong leaders with vision and determination," he said.
But he also pushed for a mission to Mars: "The best way to honour and remember all those who were part of the Apollo programme is to follow in our footsteps; to boldly go again on a new mission of exploration."
Mr Collins, who circled the Moon alone while Mr Armstrong and Mr Aldrin walked on it, said Mars was more interesting than the Moon.
"Sometimes I think I flew to the wrong place. Mars was always my favourite as a kid and it still is today."
He urged further exploration, saying: "I worry that the current emphasis on returning to the Moon will cause us to become ensnared in a technological briar patch needlessly delaying for decades the exploration of Mars - a much more worthwhile destination."
The US space agency's currently stated aim is to return astronauts to the Moon by 2020. But that vision is under review, along with the space vehicles that would get them there.
Nasa is due to retire its space shuttles next year and replace them with the Orion spacecraft, an Apollo-like capsule that would launch on a new rocket called Ares 1.
Another rocket, Ares V, would have the capability to launch heavy payloads - service and cargo modules - that would be needed to service Moon missions.
Monday, 20 July 2009
Moon astronauts urge Mars mission
Neil Armstrong: 'The ultimate peaceful competition'
Two of the astronauts who took part in the first Moon landing 40 years ago have called for renewed efforts to send a manned mission to Mars.
At a rare public reunion of the Apollo 11 crew, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins said Mars instead of the Moon should be the focus of exploration.
Neil Armstrong, the first man on the Moon, said the race to get to the Moon had been the ultimate peaceful contest.
He said it was an "exceptional national investment" for the US and ex-USSR.
The trio spoke at an event at Washington DC's National Air and Space Museum to mark the 40th anniversary of their mission.
Mr Armstrong told the audience: "It was the ultimate peaceful competition: USA vs USSR.
"I'll not assert that it was a diversion which prevented a war, nevertheless it was a diversion.
"Eventually, it provided a mechanism for engendering co-operation between former adversaries. In that sense, among others, it was an exceptional national investment for both sides."
Fellow astronaut Mr Aldrin spoke of the inspiration provided by then-President John F Kennedy which led to the "betterment of America, and ultimately the ending of the Cold War".
"Apollo 11 is a symbol of what a great nation and a great people can do if we work hard, work together and have strong leaders with vision and determination," he said.
But he also pushed for a mission to Mars: "The best way to honour and remember all those who were part of the Apollo programme is to follow in our footsteps; to boldly go again on a new mission of exploration."
Mr Collins, who circled the Moon alone while Mr Armstrong and Mr Aldrin walked on it, said Mars was more interesting than the Moon.
"Sometimes I think I flew to the wrong place. Mars was always my favourite as a kid and it still is today."
He urged further exploration, saying: "I worry that the current emphasis on returning to the Moon will cause us to become ensnared in a technological briar patch needlessly delaying for decades the exploration of Mars - a much more worthwhile destination."
The US space agency's currently stated aim is to return astronauts to the Moon by 2020. But that vision is under review, along with the space vehicles that would get them there.
Nasa is due to retire its space shuttles next year and replace them with the Orion spacecraft, an Apollo-like capsule that would launch on a new rocket called Ares 1.
Another rocket, Ares V, would have the capability to launch heavy payloads - service and cargo modules - that would be needed to service Moon missions.
Why go back to the Moon?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8158347.stmSunday, 19 July 2009
Why go back to the Moon?
Apollo barely scratched the surface of the Moon
By Richard Hollingham
Six flags, 12 sets of dusty footprints and 382 kg of rock; all at a cost (at 1960s prices) of some $20bn.
The Apollo Moon landings were a remarkable technical, scientific and political achievement and their 40th anniversary is undoubtedly a cause for celebration.
I've been privileged enough to interview seven of the men who walked on the Moon and I'm enjoying this Apollo nostalgia-fest as much as anyone.
One phrase though always sticks in my mind, and it came from the last man on the Moon, Gene Cernan. He asked: "When are we going back?"
Perhaps now, the more important question is: why are we going back?
Unfinished business
One thing that often gets forgotten in any assessment of Apollo tends to be the science. As well as gathering all that rock, every lunar mission carried scientific experiments.
"Apollo has a wonderful scientific legacy," said Greg Schmidt, the deputy director of Nasa's Lunar Science Institute.
"The samples that Apollo brought back are still being analysed and we're still learning new things from these.
"They were absolutely crucial in enabling us to understand a lot about the Moon. After Apollo, we came up with the hypothesis that's currently accepted of the Moon's formation: how the Moon was formed by the impact with the Earth of a Mars-sized object, out of which came the Moon."
But Apollo barely scratched the lunar surface and, from a purely scientific point of view, there's a lot we don't know about the Moon.
It's far more than a dead lump of rock, with its complex geology and regular Moonquakes. Paul Spudis of the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, for instance, wants to know what lies beneath the dust.
He's keen to see a network of seismic instruments to investigate the Moon's interior geology.
"We had a seismic network which the Apollo astronauts set up 40 years ago but that only gave us a tantalising hint of knowledge," Spudis told the BBC.
"Ideally, what you want is a global network of seismometers on the Moon."
That word "tantalising" is one you'll hear a lot from lunar geologists - although we can see the Moon every night, we still don't know what it's made of and have yet to prove categorically how it got there.
Other scientists are eager to study lunar impacts - working out how often the Moon gets hit by lumps of space rock will help us assess how much at risk we are on Earth.
So here's the plan: over the next few years, a series of missions is planned to return to the Moon.
The first are up there now: Nasa's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) and LCROSS - a mission designed to slam into the Moon's surface so scientists can study the resulting plume of debris.
After that would come MoonLite - an ambitious UK mission being developed to fire penetrators into the surface. A few years later, there'll be robots and finally, by 2020 or so, humans.
Data collected by LRO could help in the selection of future landing sites
If that's all to happen, quite apart from the political commitments, there are going to need to be a great deal of technical developments.
Take MoonLite, for example. It consists of a lunar orbiting spacecraft and a series of missiles, or penetrators, which will be fired into the Moon to create a global network of seismic monitoring stations.
The penetrators themselves are based on military missile technology - a classic example of "swords into ploughshares". But getting them to land in the right place, the right way up - and still work, is a complex undertaking.
Quite apart from its goal to investigate lunar geology (which is perhaps a worthy enough ambition in itself), the mission necessitates developing a communications system, electronics and guidance systems. These will, argue MoonLite's backers, provide technology benefits, jobs and commercial opportunities.
Sir Martin Sweeting speaks for the mission's prime contractors, Surrey Satellite Technology Limited (SSTL): "Certainly from experience, the challenge of space throws up benefits which get spun back down into other areas of our more everyday existence," he said. "This is, in the longer term, a commercial opportunity."
To boldy go
However, I'm unapologetic in my belief that the primary reason we should go back to the Moon is because, as humans, it's what we do.
We explore, we investigate and ultimately, we establish a foothold.
The exploration of the Moon is maybe best compared with the expeditions to Antarctica.
They are both uncompromising, extreme environments that, at first, would appear to have little to offer to human advancement.
As it's turned out, Antarctica has proved to be vital for scientific discovery.
It has taught us about our atmosphere, oceans and climate. 18th and 19th century explorers were desperate to discover that last continent - in the 21st century the Moon provides an even greater challenge.
Many of these missions, including MoonLite, are far from assured. And there is no shortage of people suggesting we're better spending money elsewhere. But who can fail to be inspired when they look up at the Moon on a clear night?
Perhaps the most important thing about this anniversary is not that we've been to the Moon, it's that we're now going back.
Richard Hollingham is a freelance science write and broadcaster. He presents Give Me The MoonLite on BBC on Radio 4 on Monday 20 July at 2100 BST. He also presents two Discovery programmes about the Moon, starting on Wednesday 22 July on BBC World Service. All the programmes will also be available as podcasts.
My moon-landing jam session
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jul/02/apollo-11-pink-floyd-session
My moon-landing jam session
David Gilmour
The Guardian
Thursday 2 July 2009
We [Pink Floyd] were in a BBC TV studio jamming to the landing. It was a live broadcast, and there was a panel of scientists on one side of the studio, with us on the other. I was 23.
The programming was a little looser in those days, and if a producer of a late-night programme felt like it, they would do something a bit off the wall. Funnily enough I've never really heard it since, but it is on YouTube. They were broadcasting the moon landing and they thought that to provide a bit of a break they would show us jamming. It was only about five minutes long. The song was called Moonhead - it's a nice, atmospheric, spacey, 12-bar blues.
I also remember at the time being in my flat in London, gazing up at the moon, and thinking, "There are actually people standing up there right now." It brought it home to me powerfully, that you could be looking up at the moon and there would be people standing on it.
At the time, Pink Floyd had been doing rather well. For a while, the band had been somewhat erratic and its reputation was sinking. I joined in 1968, 18 months before the moon landing. By then we were beginning to climb back up again.
It was fantastic to be thinking that we were in there making up a piece of music, while the astronauts were standing on the moon. It doesn't seem conceivable that that would happen on the BBC nowadays.
It didn't have a significant impact on our later work. I think at the time Roger [Waters], our lyricist, was looking more into going inwards, going into the inner space of the human mind and condition. And I think that was sort of the end of our exploration into outer space.
We didn't make any songs out of the jam session. We did, on occasions, do music live that would be a jam session of some sort; that would have some structure which we would organise ourselves. And I've heard documentaries where I recognise my music. It's very odd to be watching a documentary and to hear something that you know is yourself, but you have no recognition of when you did it or how. I've never forgotten Moonhead, though.
After all, it's not hard to remember exactly where I was.
• Moonhead was broadcast at 10pm on 20 July 1969.
My moon-landing jam session
David Gilmour
The Guardian
Thursday 2 July 2009
We [Pink Floyd] were in a BBC TV studio jamming to the landing. It was a live broadcast, and there was a panel of scientists on one side of the studio, with us on the other. I was 23.
The programming was a little looser in those days, and if a producer of a late-night programme felt like it, they would do something a bit off the wall. Funnily enough I've never really heard it since, but it is on YouTube. They were broadcasting the moon landing and they thought that to provide a bit of a break they would show us jamming. It was only about five minutes long. The song was called Moonhead - it's a nice, atmospheric, spacey, 12-bar blues.
I also remember at the time being in my flat in London, gazing up at the moon, and thinking, "There are actually people standing up there right now." It brought it home to me powerfully, that you could be looking up at the moon and there would be people standing on it.
At the time, Pink Floyd had been doing rather well. For a while, the band had been somewhat erratic and its reputation was sinking. I joined in 1968, 18 months before the moon landing. By then we were beginning to climb back up again.
It was fantastic to be thinking that we were in there making up a piece of music, while the astronauts were standing on the moon. It doesn't seem conceivable that that would happen on the BBC nowadays.
It didn't have a significant impact on our later work. I think at the time Roger [Waters], our lyricist, was looking more into going inwards, going into the inner space of the human mind and condition. And I think that was sort of the end of our exploration into outer space.
We didn't make any songs out of the jam session. We did, on occasions, do music live that would be a jam session of some sort; that would have some structure which we would organise ourselves. And I've heard documentaries where I recognise my music. It's very odd to be watching a documentary and to hear something that you know is yourself, but you have no recognition of when you did it or how. I've never forgotten Moonhead, though.
After all, it's not hard to remember exactly where I was.
• Moonhead was broadcast at 10pm on 20 July 1969.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
