On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 19:26:48 GMT, "Michael Rhino"
wrote:
"Cardman" wrote in message
.. .
I would much prefer to have the base all up and running even before
the first astronaut steps foot on there. They could have a rover do
some required assembly.
I agree. If the Chinese were smart, they could use this approach and catch
us off guard. Many American politicians would be in a state of denial until
they launched their astronauts.
Well, it is still a little early for the Chinese to beat NASA, one
launch done and all that. Still, if they can reach the Moon, then
there is hope.
And the one thing that NASA won't grasp or do in a million years is to
actually keep people there to live and work. Construction seems like
the first priority. Communication, electricity, water (hopefully) and
to pave over the entire area to keep that pesky regolith out.
With budget cuts, it's hard to do. ISS was cut down from 7 to 3 people.
No it was not. It is running on 2 people anyway, unless Discovery
dropped off one person that is, which seems doubtful.
So I can say that 7 people is the end objective, which the ISS can
only support once fully complete. The ISS usually runs on 3 people
now, but due to the shuttle being out of action for 2.5 years, then
they reduced it to 2 people to reduce demand on the supplies.
Congress has agreed that NASA can complete the ISS in a more mini-ISS
format, but they are asking NASA to justify why the ISS cannot be
fully completed to the 7 people level.
So had NASA wanted to fully complete the ISS, then it seems likely
that congress would pay for it. If it had been up to me, then I would
ban NASA spending on a Moon base, until they had finished the ISS.
"Eat your greens" and all that.
Some people keep talking about Mars which would take money away from the
Lunar program.
Mars is the main goal here. Some people would prefer a more direct
route, without going to the Moon first. They believe that the Moon
programme simply delays, and puts at risk, the Mars programme.
I think that CEV should be designed as a Lunar rocket and
nothing else.
The CEV is designed into a modular system, where it can also be the
head end on a larger Mars craft.
Yes, where the first step is to find the water. A base on or near the
so called peak of eternal sunlight would be good. Although I hear that
NASA is planning on nuclear instead of solar.
I would guess both. You need some nuclear to survive the night,
The night? That is what batteries are for. Also there is no "night",
which is why they call it "the peak of eternal sunlight". Kind of like
the Arctic on Earth, but without the seasonal wobble.
NASA needs nuclear not for keeping their crews warm and powering the
equipment, but for achieving the extremely hot temperatures needed in
their refinery plans. Mostly making use of the lunar regolith.
but the sun would allow you to do more in the daytime.
Nothing that an overhead floodlight would not cure. You seem to be
pointing out problems that were solved long ago.
You could have some solar powered vehicles that don't do anything at night.
Or you could just fit them with a big battery.
Anyway, you can rest assured that the Sun never sets on "the peak of
eternal sunlight", which is why this place would make a good location
to build a base. Also it is not too far from the assumed water.
I can see having temporary habitats in addition to a permanently manned
base. Suppose that astronauts land at the equator, go to a hut to change
clothes and then drive down to the permanent base near the south pole. You
could also have a temporary hut near a mining location.
Well a TransHab is not exactly a hut. Also what you currently overlook
is that your TransHab needs to be buried under a nice thick layer of
lunar regolith.
That is done to keep your astronauts alive when a powerful solar storm
washes over the lunar surface. So if you desire to move a temporary
base about, then that is a lot of work to dig it up and then to bury
it again.
From your snipping I guess that you also now see how you would have
killed the Apollo 13 crew.
Cardman.
|