View Single Post
  #28  
Old March 12th 08, 10:42 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews

On Mar 12, 1:41*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
wrote:
What would this path have given us? * For the same money spent on
Shuttle, by 1980s we would have had a human presence on the Moon equal
to that of Little American in Antarctica, and in the 1980s,


Unlike Antarctica, the Moon is difficult to get to,


The moon in 2010 is not any more difficult to get to than the pole in
1910. Besides, we don't go to the moon because its easy, we go to
the moon, and do the other things in space we're capable of doing,
because its hard. These goals serve to measure the best in us and in
our nation.

A famous man said that once, and I thought it was true then, and its
true now.

and even with Saturn
V's with nuclear upper stages, very expensive to supply a base on.


It takes about 1 ton of supplies to keep a person well provisioned for
a year. This may be reduced substantially if a local source of water
is developed. The payload - one way - for the type of system you
describe is about 20 tons. The cost? About $200 million per flight -
using expendables, with partial reuse, and other upgrades, this would
easily be reduced to $100 million per flight. But $10 million per man-
year on the moon. So, $1 billion per year would keep 100 people
supplied on the moon, at the higher price, and 200 people supplied on
the moon at the lower price. A $5 billion per year effort - would
easily support 100 to 200 people doing useful stuff on the moon.

There's nothing there worth the effort


I disagree.

of going there from a economic
point of view,


How long did it take before the wasteland of North America began
paying off for the British? You know they said the very same thing in
Parlaiment about the Americas. Just because they could send ships
there (it took months not days) didn't mean they should. They did it
anyway because they had a sense of adventure and possibility that we
lack today - and it will do us in I fear.

and even from a scientific point of view its pretty
uninteresting.


Again, I disagree.

You may find water ice in the sunless valleys at the
poles, but you aren't going to find life of any sort.


I agree about the water, and you're likely right about life. Who said
life was the reason we're going anyway? Its human life I'm concerned
about.

Astronauts at a lunar base would soon find themselves bored out of their
minds


Depends on the details. Definitely more exciting than crewing a super-
tanker or nuclear sub for 90 days at a time.

from walking around in a barren, lifeless environment *for two
weeks followed by hunkering down for a two week night, over and over again..


You don't know what it would be like. So, you're talking out of your
ass. All the lunar astronauts I spoke with said it was the most
exciting and thrilling time of their lives. About half of them had
serious shamanic insights that they're still trying to process. I
think things would be very interesting - for the crews on the moon and
mars, as well as for us on Earth.


They could drive around in rovers, but even then they'd have to not
journey too far as they would still need to have the ability to walk


That was a limit placed on the Apollo rover. With multiple rovers and
dozens of helpers, that limit would change.

back to some sort of shelter with life support if the rover broke down.


Depends on the details. We make pup-tents on Earth, I can imagine
making all sorts of equipment, and with 100 to 200 people around,
there's always help nearby.

Compared to the other moons of the solar system, our Moon is a very
boring place indeed.


I disagree.

It lacks volcanoes like Io, a atmosphere like Titan, a subsurface liquid
water ocean like Europa, Callisto, and Ganymede, nitrogen ice geysers
like Triton, or water ice geysers like Enceladus.


So, its a far safer place to learn the skills needed to live away from
Earth. A good place to start.

It's just a big dead ball of rock.


you are talking out of your ass again.

Like the summit of Mount Everest - once you get there, there's really
not much to do, so you plant a flag and head home again.


Yet thousands of people a year climb it.

Pat