f13.net

Museums and libraries are invited to apply for free NASA space shuttle artifacts, including small items such as astronaut helmets, gloves, and boots, and large items such as shuttle Motion Based Simulators and Crew Compartment Trainers. NASA will retire the Space Shuttle Program at the end of 2010 and is eager for the public to learn about the wonders of space exploration through museum and library exhibitions. The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) is helping NASA reach out to eligible institutions, including museums attended by the public and free libraries serving all residents of a community, district, state, or region. Museums and libraries must first be determined as eligible through the State Agency for Surplus Property in their state. Artifacts, which will be released as they are no longer needed by the Space Shuttle Program, may be viewed by eligible institutions that have been given a log-in and password at the website http://gsaxcess.gov/NASAWel.htm.   
 
The artifacts are offered in batches. For eligible museums and libraries, the current screening period ends November 29. A new batch of artifacts will be made available in January 2010. For the latest information about NASA shuttle transition and artifacts, visit http://www.nasa.gov/transition.

On topic, I'm surprised they didn't pop a rover on the moon to test for the mars projects.

On topic, I'm surprised they didn't pop a rover on the moon to test for the mars projects.

Not cost effective. It would cost nearly as much to pop a rover on the moon as it did for the ones on Mars. At least that is what a buddy of mine told me, he was a subcontractor for NASA out of CMU.

I ask him something similar awhile back - hence my reply.

I'm curious as to the definition of 'significant'.  They may be qualifying 'detectable' as such, but that doesn't mean it amounts to much.

Scientists who have studied the data now say instruments trained on the impact plume saw copious quantities of water-ice and water vapour.

One researcher described this as the equivalent of "a dozen two-gallon buckets" of water.

"We didn't just find a little bit; we found a significant amount," said Anthony Colaprete, chief scientist for the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) mission.

I'm curious as to the definition of 'significant'.  They may be qualifying 'detectable' as such, but that doesn't mean it amounts to much.

I love NASA lately.  Hmmm, there is a potential threat to our funding.  Oh, there are signs of habitable planets all over the universe!  See, there is one!  And another one over there!  And they are covered with water and gold.  And teeming with UFOs.  

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8359744.stm

I personally think that this entire project was a monumental waste of money.  Mars is a better investment if you want to do research, but it lacks the instant gratification.  Then again, NASA would probably tell me that my research was a waste of money too  :grin:

There's a lot more reason to concentrate on places like Antarctica, the Canadian and Russian arctics, deep deserts, and shallow portions of the ocean floor that may seem inhospitable but still do not exist in the three Kelvin unshielded radioactive vacuum of space with escape velocity launch costs exceeding thousands of dollars per pound.

I love NASA because it's awesome... and that's all I desire or expect it to be. Beyond geosynchronous orbit it's never been practical.

I personally think that this entire project was a monumental waste of money.  Mars is a better investment if you want to do research, but it lacks the instant gratification.  Then again, NASA would probably tell me that my research was a waste of money too  :grin:

In short, they took what was going to be "space junk", used the excess mass budget to crowd in some sensors and eject the junk at the moon, and analyzed that.

Not to mention, there is also the potential for Helium-3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3#Extraterrestrial_supplies) extraction from the moon.

Underwater bases get my vote. Fuck the moon.

We now can build underwater bases on the moon.

There's only "waste" when an experiment is done and it fails.

It's my personal bias peeking through.  I happen to think that most of the money NASA spends is a waste.  I'd rather focus resources on Earth's problems.  Potable water, renewable energy, food shortages, disease, etc. seem like better investments. 

It's not to say that they don't do good research.  I just question the priority of it all given the problems on Earth. 

It's not just NASA.  Every branch of science needs to make their research look attractive to get funding for projects.  Scientists, particularly those not associated with the top 10 universities (Harvard, Cal Tech, MIT, etc) need sensationalism to have any chance at all of getting table scraps.  It's even funnier when you consider that faculty need to get grants just to keep their $50k a year jobs that they studied 10-20 years to get. 

I personally think that this entire project was a monumental waste of money.  Mars is a better investment if you want to do research, but it lacks the instant gratification.  Then again, NASA would probably tell me that my research was a waste of money too  :grin:

We now can build underwater bases on the moon.

The physics works fine. It's easier and cheaper to throw something into the sun than to land the same thing safely on the moon. It's the biggest target in the solar system, and there's no need to worry about space debris after the fact. The actual economics of tossing garbage into the sun at thousands of dollars per pound make investors less eager. REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE your nuclear waste. Give a hoot, don't pollute.

I disagree, I always thought the obsession with Mars was a waste of time and money.  Mars takes forever to get to and would cost a horrific amount of money just to have somebody walk around for awhile then fly back.

Just fling it in the general direction of the sun, and it'll end up there sooner or later.

I've got to agree about Mars, though. Men on the moon were a cute way to flex our Cold War muscle, but other than providing a couple crumbly gray rocks for museums... we might as well have stayed home. Mars is a slightly less cold, dead, and dusty ball. It's got air we can't breathe, so the winds will fill the joints in space-suits with sharp chunks of iron oxide and tear the fabric apart. That Mars is the second-most habital planet we know doesn't actually make it worth visiting.

we might as well have stayed home. Mars is a slightly less cold, dead, and dusty ball. It's got air we can't breathe, so the winds will fill the joints in space-suits with sharp chunks of iron oxide and tear the fabric apart. That Mars is the second-most habital planet we know doesn't actually make it worth visiting.

Hey, we live in a world that sells us we can have it our way whenever we damn well please and anyone who says otherwise is a commie bastard who hates freedom and kills puppies.  If getting to mars isn't an instantaneous process which allows us to go on vacation there tomorrow and provides free blowjobs, then the average jackass thinks it's worthless.

Don't forget: a significant portion of the soil is hydrogen peroxide.

Dr Houtkooper said, “The GEx experiment measured unexplained rises in oxygen and carbon dioxide levels when incubating samples. If we assume these gases were produced during the breakdown of organic material together with hydrogen peroxide solution, we can calculate the masses needed to produce the volume of gas measured. From that, we can estimate the total biomass in the sample of Martian soil. It comes out at little more than one part per thousand by weight, comparable to what is found in some permafrost in Antarctica. This might be detectable by instruments on the Phoenix lander, which will arrive at Mars in May next year.”

So we should just skip on this whole "Let's figure out how to get to and live on other planets!" thing until we find one that's so totally awesome we just can't believe it?

Sometimes the point of getting there is proving you can.

So, not really a significant portion then.

The soil is rocket fuel?

So, not really a significant portion then.

In chemical terms, oxidative stress is a large rise (becoming less negative) in the cellular reduction potential, or a large decrease in the reducing capacity of the cellular redox couples, such as glutathione. The effects of oxidative stress depend upon the size of these changes, with a cell being able to overcome small perturbations and regain its original state. However, more severe oxidative stress can cause cell death and even moderate oxidation can trigger apoptosis, while more intense stresses may cause necrosis.

A particularly destructive aspect of oxidative stress is the production of reactive oxygen species, which include free radicals and peroxides. Some of the less reactive of these species (such as superoxide) can be converted by oxidoreduction reactions with transition metals or other redox cycling compounds (including quinones) into more aggressive radical species that can cause extensive cellular damage. The major portion of long term effects is inflicted by damage on DNA. Most of these oxygen-derived species are produced at a low level by normal aerobic metabolism and the damage they cause to cells is constantly repaired. However, under the severe levels of oxidative stress that cause necrosis, the damage causes ATP depletion, preventing controlled apoptotic death and causing the cell to simply fall apart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidative_stress

I'm just saying lets learn how to live on the moon first, then work on Mars.

I've got to agree about Mars, though. Men on the moon were a cute way to flex our Cold War muscle, but other than providing a couple crumbly gray rocks for museums... we might as well have stayed home. Mars is a slightly less cold, dead, and dusty ball. It's got air we can't breathe, so the winds will fill the joints in space-suits with sharp chunks of iron oxide and tear the fabric apart. That Mars is the second-most habital planet we know doesn't actually make it worth visiting.