(Abdul Ahad) wrote in
om:

One question: What exactly do you mean by an inflatable habitat? Is
this another one of those millions of hypothetical concepts that's
floating around in people's heads?

No. It was originally a concept for a hab module during transit to/from
Mars. NASA decided to test it by using it for the ISS hab module. It would
have provided several times the volume of the original aluminum hab module
but could be launched on a single shuttle flight. NASA got as far as
building a test article on the ground and doing hypervelocity impact tests
to simulate micrometeoroids/orbital debris (Transhab turned out to be
*more* impact-resistant than the aluminum ISS modules), then Congress
cancelled the program. Google on "transhab" for more information.

I read so much 'intellectual
masturbation' (IM) on these groups, its incredible. I am a realist.

No, you are not. I have already described the high costs associated with
providing electrical power and thermal control to ISS modules during the
trip to the moon. I have described, in rough terms, the amount of
propulsion capability you would need to soft-land the modules on the moon.
Transhab would not have these problems since it could be sent to the moon
folded-up and inert, then inflated on arrival. It would require a large
descent stage, but you'd only need one of them, rather than one for each
ISS module. You have glossed over these details, preferring not to confront
them. Someone is engaging in mental masturbation in this discussion, but it
isn't me.

The ISS is a real bank of orbiting hardware already functioning as an
effective on-orbit 'moon base'. The idea of dismantling, adapating,
then launching to the Moon from a higher platform in LEO is a
realistic, lower cost concept than to start all over again from the
ground.

This is a commonly held misconception: that the mere fact that a spacecraft
exists means that it can perform functions wildly different from those for
which it was designed, and that it would be cheaper to do that than to
build anew.

In reality, spacecraft can do well only those things they were designed to
do. If you try to design a spacecraft to do too many things, you will wind
up with a spacecraft that does none of them well. That is one of the
biggest lessons we should have learned from the space shuttle and ISS
programs.

You have a car, and you want a boat. You think that just because you
already own the car, and because cars and boats are both forms of
transportation, that it would be a good idea to modify your car into a
boat. While I agree that this is not impossible, I think you should just go
out and buy a boat.

You hold your views and I'll hold mine.

Fair enough.
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.