About fell out of my chair this morning. . .

laughing, when I read that "U.S. eyes return to the Moon" on the CNN
web site. "Sources tell CNN the target for returning to the Moon is
about 15 years from now. "

Other than a knee jerk CYA statement in reaction China I don't see
this as anything else. We went from no satellites in orbit to a man
on the moon in what. . .11 years? I can't wait to see the schemes
they come up with these days. "We'll use ten Delta IVs and redevous
in space and we'll practice this fifteen times before we try to leave
orbit. .. " If I sound sour well. . .it's because I am. I'm
continually reminded of that scene in Armageddon with all those
scientists with their crackpot ideas sitting around the table and the
guy with the brains hasn't walked in yet. I don't know HOW I was able
to restrain myself when I read the article talking about how the
assembly area for the Delta IV has the most level and smoothest floor
in the free world or somesuch. Keee-rist. Burt Rutan said it best
"you use the lowest technology needed to get the job done". I laughed
my ass off when I saw that the clock they were using in the cockpit of
his rocket. It's the same one I have stuck on my fridge. Five bucks
or so. (Okay end of rant)

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:53:30 GMT, Scott Ferrin
wrote:



laughing, when I read that "U.S. eyes return to the Moon" on the CNN
web site. "Sources tell CNN the target for returning to the Moon is
about 15 years from now. "

Other than a knee jerk CYA statement in reaction China I don't see
this as anything else. We went from no satellites in orbit to a man
on the moon in what. . .11 years? I can't wait to see the schemes
they come up with these days.

This time should not be "Apollo Phase II". This time if we go, we
should go to stay. The timetable will necessarily be different.

"We'll use ten Delta IVs and redevous
in space and we'll practice this fifteen times before we try to leave
orbit. .. " If I sound sour well. . .it's because I am.

This is actually not a bad way to do it Build up the infrastructure,
perhaps lead industry to develop RLV tankers to haul the propellant up
to the moon spacecraft in LEO.

Brian

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 17:41:38 -0600, Brian Thorn
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:53:30 GMT, Scott Ferrin
wrote:



laughing, when I read that "U.S. eyes return to the Moon" on the CNN
web site. "Sources tell CNN the target for returning to the Moon is
about 15 years from now. "

Other than a knee jerk CYA statement in reaction China I don't see
this as anything else. We went from no satellites in orbit to a man
on the moon in what. . .11 years? I can't wait to see the schemes
they come up with these days.

This time should not be "Apollo Phase II". This time if we go, we
should go to stay. The timetable will necessarily be different.

"We'll use ten Delta IVs and redevous
in space and we'll practice this fifteen times before we try to leave
orbit. .. " If I sound sour well. . .it's because I am.

This is actually not a bad way to do it Build up the infrastructure,
perhaps lead industry to develop RLV tankers to haul the propellant up
to the moon spacecraft in LEO.

Brian


Personally if they wanted to use existing pieces I'd go with a booster
that was kicked around DECADES ago. Take four SSMEs and stick them on
the bottom of a shuttle tank and put four shuttle SRMs around that and
add a second stage. If you wanted to spend a few extra buck (you'd
get them back eventually) make the four SSMEs part of a blunt RV. At
burnout they detatch as a unit, close doors over the fuel line holes
so you have a smooth RV surface up front and parachute it down the
next time around. With a GPS controlled parasail you could land it
right near the coast (or if you put simple landing gear on the thing
you could literally land it in the parking lot), make the engines on
the upper stage modular so you can use them on the vehicles that you
want to take to the moon. Use a few of the launches to stick fuel
tanks in orbit, send the landers up seperate sans engines and take
them from the upper stage and put them on the landers. Lots of power,
lots of fuel, mostly existing hardware. Obviously this isn't the
cheapest way to go but given NASA's current fixation on launching
swiss watches, you're at least using existing hardware.

Scott Ferrin wrote:

With a GPS controlled parasail you could land it
right near the coast (or if you put simple landing gear on the thing
you could literally land it in the parking lot)

With a GPS controlled parasail, fairly sophisticated guidance system,
fairly sophisticated RCS system, and willingness and ability to leave
it in orbit until the desired spot is close to your ground track....

GPS isn't magic.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

In article ,
says...
Burt Rutan said it best
"you use the lowest technology needed to get the job done". I laughed
my ass off when I saw that the clock they were using in the cockpit of
his rocket. It's the same one I have stuck on my fridge. Five bucks
or so. (Okay end of rant)

SpaceShipOne is filled with those "lowest technology" touches. My
favorite: the Environmental Control System is a bottle of compressed air
with a valve on it. One of the crew opens the valve when the air gets
stuffy....
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work
for test pilots. -- Mike Collins

"Kevin Willoughby" wrote in message
...

SpaceShipOne is filled with those "lowest technology" touches. My
favorite: the Environmental Control System is a bottle of compressed air
with a valve on it. One of the crew opens the valve when the air gets
stuffy....

does it make a little "phee-eep" sound? g

--
Terrell Miller


"Very often, a 'free' feedstock will still lead to a very expensive system.
One that is quite likely noncompetitive"
- Don Lancaster

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:30:30 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) wrote:

Scott Ferrin wrote:

With a GPS controlled parasail you could land it
right near the coast (or if you put simple landing gear on the thing
you could literally land it in the parking lot)

With a GPS controlled parasail, fairly sophisticated guidance system,
fairly sophisticated RCS system, and willingness and ability to leave
it in orbit until the desired spot is close to your ground track....

Why does it have to achieve orbit? It's the first stage so it's going
to be suborbital. It *is* possible to make it so it *just* gets back
to it's starting point without going into orbit. As far as
sophistication goes on the guidance system why would it have to be any
more complicated than a JDAM's? As long as it's got enough control
authority I don't know what the problem is. The RCS system would be
similar to that that's been used countless times on RVs.

Brian Thorn wrote in message . ..
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:53:30 GMT, Scott Ferrin
wrote:



laughing, when I read that "U.S. eyes return to the Moon" on the CNN
web site. "Sources tell CNN the target for returning to the Moon is
about 15 years from now. "

Other than a knee jerk CYA statement in reaction China I don't see
this as anything else. We went from no satellites in orbit to a man
on the moon in what. . .11 years? I can't wait to see the schemes
they come up with these days.

This time should not be "Apollo Phase II". This time if we go, we
should go to stay. The timetable will necessarily be different.

"We'll use ten Delta IVs and redevous
in space and we'll practice this fifteen times before we try to leave
orbit. .. " If I sound sour well. . .it's because I am.

This is actually not a bad way to do it Build up the infrastructure,
perhaps lead industry to develop RLV tankers to haul the propellant up
to the moon spacecraft in LEO.

Brian


Hate to burst yer bubble but I was there when Dubyas dad proclaimed
we would go to the Moon and Mars. That was July 20, 1989. Capitol Hill
got a case of sticker shock, the Cold War ended, and by 1992 that was
that. SEI was dead.

I would love to see a manned Mars mission happen in my lifetime ( I'm
38) but I'm not expecting it. My fear would be that a Mars mission
would be a Flags and Footprints mission. The public will only be
willing to pay for one of these flights if at all and not a continuous
scientifc outpost in Valle Marineris.

As for the Moon, I don't want Apollo redux. We would need to pick up
where Apollo left off. A one shot Saturn V mission ain't gonna cut it
for me( It might work for Joe Sixpack though, as long it doesn't mess
with his Medicare). We need an outpost and that won't be cheap

I'd like to see Americans on the moon too, but I doubt highly it will
happen in the next 10-15 years. I truly hope I'm wrong!

Gene

In message , Kevin Willoughby
writes
In article ,
says...
Burt Rutan said it best
"you use the lowest technology needed to get the job done". I laughed
my ass off when I saw that the clock they were using in the cockpit of
his rocket. It's the same one I have stuck on my fridge. Five bucks
or so. (Okay end of rant)

SpaceShipOne is filled with those "lowest technology" touches. My
favorite: the Environmental Control System is a bottle of compressed air
with a valve on it. One of the crew opens the valve when the air gets
stuffy....

Ouch. Isn't the problem with anoxia that it sneaks up on you, so you're
in no condition to do anything about it?
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

In article ,
Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
...the Environmental Control System is a bottle of compressed air
with a valve on it. One of the crew opens the valve when the air gets
stuffy....

Ouch. Isn't the problem with anoxia that it sneaks up on you, so you're
in no condition to do anything about it?

Hypoxia (or in severe cases, anoxia) is indeed sneaky. But, so long as
total pressure is maintained, it's only an issue if you've got a fancy-dan
life-support system that can control the composition of your breathing air
(and thus can malfunction and try to make you breathe pure nitrogen).

Ignoring some fine points, hypoxia sets in because the oxygen partial
pressure is too low. If the only thing that can change the oxygen partial
pressure is you using up oxygen by breathing, then the corresponding CO2
buildup will alert you to any problem. What kills people due to hypoxia
is either total pressure dropping too low, or an air system that's still
removing CO2 but not supplying more oxygen to match.
--
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. |