Mysterious Moon Sounds

10 Responses to Mysterious Moon Sounds

1. Michael Wright says:

   February 23, 2016 at 12:27 pm

   It seems to me as when the time men walked the surface of the Moon become more distance, then imaginations run wild of what is the Moon. Of course to do well for television ratings you need sizzle (strange sounds) and not steak (LRO, LCROSS, LADEE, re-processing 1960s lunar orbiter tapes). For me I am hungry for steak (hey, can we actually get lunar water and split it into H2 and O2 for a moon base?).
   • billgamesh says:

     February 25, 2016 at 2:01 pm

     “Often, what you see in the media is driven by economic forces.”

     Iris Chang

     Dr. Spudis’ work on lunar resources should have made him famous in 2010- a celebrity scientist- but going back to the Moon is something “economic forces” work against.

     The aerospace industry is happy making money hand over fist from defense contracts. It is easy money while spaceships are hard money. They do not want to go to the Moon.

     A certain entrepreneur who has built his company almost from the ground up with NASA tax dollars also wants nothing to do with the Moon. This person contributed significantly to the Obama campaign war chest. The infamously blunt “been there” speech in 2010 made it clear that bypassing the dead end of LEO with a Super Heavy Lift Vehicle and going directly to the Moon was not to be discussed.

     Instead of the vast resources of the Moon being mapped we have billions spent on rovers rolling around Mars looking for “evidence of life.” We have the most powerful rocket ever built being slowly strangled in the crib. We have inferior lift hobby rockets trying to land on barges.

     And we have those interesting and mysterious Moon sounds from almost half a century ago.
2. Joe says:

   February 23, 2016 at 2:28 pm

   From the article: “I was a radio amateur in my youth and remember hearing strange sounds, shrieks and beat frequencies from my equipment all the time.”

   Was thinking the same thing when I witnessed the “news” reports.

   Was not a “radio amateur “, but as a kid had an uncle who was. Once (while visiting with my aunt and him) they let me play with the radio. Remember hearing noises much like the ones in the report.

   With this kind of “reporting” it is no wonder so many of the public (not to mention major political leaders) are so misinformed.
   • billgamesh says:

     February 26, 2016 at 8:48 am

     http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/25/11116386/nasa-space-leadership-preservation-act-science-comittee-hearing

     Though I am a dem, I support this act because right now it favors the SLS and a return to the Moon.

     Unfortunately, what is to stop this board from swinging over to the NewSpace side when Musk and Bezos start buying them off?

     The salient problem is how to inform the public about the basics of space exploration so all these special interests cannot B.S. us into supporting their agendas.

     It is the old liberal saw that education is the solution to all problems. Again, unfortunately, the present “liberal” administration would educate according to Musk.

     In my view, from my readings, in my head, there is a flow chart that shows precisely how to proceed with expanding the human presence into the solar system. I was trained as a troubleshooter and go with that. But when I argue with others about what exactly is inside these boxes on the troubleshooting tree I run into nothing but shock and automatic denial. Despite sources that support my proposals.

     For example, one of the first items on a list of prerequisites is a pressure-fed booster of the scale originally specified for the Space Shuttle. There really is not anything else that can fill the niche. But nobody will discuss it.

     Space radiation and the need for massive shielding- nobody will discuss it.

     The Moon as the only practical source of the water-as-shielding….nobody will discuss it.

     Nuclear energy as the only way to push such a shield Beyond Earth and Lunar Orbit (BELO)- nobody will discuss it.

     H-bombs as the only practical nuclear propulsion system- nobody will discuss it…not at all.

     Propellant depots as problematic leaving only much-larger-than-SLS Super Heavy Lift Vehicles (SHLV’s) as the only way of creating a cislunar infrastructure- nobody will discuss it.

     Will the Space Leadership Preservation Act address any of this? Or just make mysterious moon sounds?
3. billgamesh says:

   February 23, 2016 at 4:05 pm

   “I suppose that I am not surprised that the occasional dumb idea makes it onto television.”

   Occasional? I am surprised the occasional bright idea makes it onto television. For example the new show called “The Expanse.” You would think a multi-million dollar production like this purporting to be “hard” sci-fi would have done their research. While many people have told me it is great it did not take me five minutes of youtube clips to dismiss it as just more trash TV. The best hard sci-fi guide for such a series would have been “The High Frontier” by Gerard K. O’Neill. The producers did their best to do everything the opposite of O’Neill’s model of colonization.

   “We do not need ghost stories or nonsensical “musical aliens” to make space travel and space science interesting or to engage and educate the public. On the contrary, such nonsense trivializes science and dumbs down our national discourse.”

   NewSpace has already been working hard at dumbing down discourse for close to a decade.
   • Joe says:

     February 23, 2016 at 6:38 pm

     Not sure this forum is the proper place to do critiques of fictional presentations, but since it has come up; will put in my opinion.

     (1) Is The Expanse 100% technically accurate? Of course not. No fictional story is going to be. It is, however, far more technically accurate than anything that has been done on television in a long time.

     (2) Does The Expanse follow the exact plan laid out by O’Neill in The High Frontier? No, again of course not. It should be noted, however, that even O’Neill deviated from that plan in significant ways in his later research.

     (3) Is The Expanse entertaining? That is obviously a matter of personal taste. I enjoyed it and am glad it has been renewed for a second season.

     For anyone who has not already watched it, I would suggest looking at it your self rather than taking the word of someone who says they formed their opinion from “five minutes of youtube clips”.

     Am not trying to sell The Expanse as some kind of secular guide to mankind’s future, but as a way of entertaining yourself for ten hours (minus commercials) you could do far worse than season one of The Expanse.
4. Grand Lunar says:

   February 24, 2016 at 7:25 am

   ” Moreover, in my opinion, a television service that has the temerity to call itself the “Science Channel” has an obligation not to sensationalize or present facts in a misleading and silly manner.”

   Unfortunately, this phenomenon is becoming all too common on what otherwise are “educational” services.
   Witness the types of programs put forth not only by Science Channel, but by History Channel, Travel Channel, Discovery Channel, and National Geographic Channel, to name a few.

   The bottom line for these services is that they present whatever captures the interest of the lowest common denominator, and thus whatever brings in the most ratings.

   As long as we have voices of reason such as yourself Dr Spudis, there is hope.
   • Joe says:

     February 24, 2016 at 8:24 am

     Yes, we do seem to have become Honey Boo Boo Nation.

     Did not hear this on the Science Channel, but presented on several of the Cable “News” Channels, where it was presented uncritically.

     Not sure about the broadcast news channels, but we seem to have reached a point on cable where it is possible to assert simultaneously (with a straight face):

     (1) The Apollo Program was a fraud, because it is impossible to go to the moon.
     (2) While the Apollo Astronauts were in orbit around the moon, they heard alien music.

     Interesting times.
5. billgamesh says:

   February 25, 2016 at 10:26 am

   In evolutionary psychology, if I recall, it is called “novelty seeking behavior.” Along with the optimism bias, curiosity can be viewed as a survival adaptation. It insures that in certain situations some segment of the species will survive. The other side of that coin is in other situations novelty seeking and optimism will not enhance fitness.

   My favorite gedankenexperiment is to consider what an alien intelligence evaluating our civilization for long term survival would think. I submit they would conclude we do not have a high probability of going any higher on the Kardeshev scale. The history of almost all of the species that have lived on this planet is a stark lesson; we are in certain danger of extinction.

   From my readings I would say an engineered pathogen, escaping from some modest third world lab, is the greatest threat to our species. Following that, an asteroid or comet impact. Third would be something going wrong with our ecosystem such as a new volcanic epic or other unpredictable event. Our optimism bias conditions us to believe, like children, that we are, as a species, immortal. The reality is this collective bias could render us extinct tomorrow.

   We love our entertainment but don’t seem too interested in continuing our existence as a species. Survival colonies should be a big deal and there is not a single internet mention of them but plenty of brain candy. The paper about the possibility of lava tubes on the Moon should have generated tremendous interest but…..

   People would rather spend ten hours watching bad science fiction than reading history books and current research
   • Joe says:

     February 25, 2016 at 11:41 am

     “People would rather spend ten hours watching bad science fiction than reading history books and current research”

     Skipping the redundant critical review of The Expanse (based on viewing “five minutes of youtube clips”), many people mange to both watch entertainment programing and research in non-fiction areas with no problem at all.

Comments are closed.