Improved lunar landing architecture

Alex Terrell wrote:

I've put in water mining and electrolysis, and general base development
initially.



You'd better hope you can get that 200 tons of water for the ice
radiation shield on-site, because moving it up from Earth ain't going to
be cheap.

Pat

On 6 Aug 2005 02:05:28 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Alex Terrell"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

The art work coming out of NASA and other sources seems to imply an
Apollo approach, namely, land your capsule on the moon, explore, launch
most of your capsule back, and then discard it.

The capsule will probably not land on the moon. It will stay in
orbit, as in Apollo, and there will be a separate lander.

Rand Simberg wrote:
The capsule will probably not land on the moon. It will stay in
orbit, as in Apollo, and there will be a separate lander.

Mass wise, Dollar foolish...


-george william herbert
/

George William Herbert wrote:
Rand Simberg wrote:
The capsule will probably not land on the moon. It will stay in
orbit, as in Apollo, and there will be a separate lander.

Mass wise, Dollar foolish...


-george william herbert
/

How can we spend mass in a Moon landing to save dollars?

It appears that there are many dollars in fuel to send mass to the
Moon, so being Mass wise saves dollars.

What is the proper paradigm?

Thanks

Not the CEV capsule.

The point is the conceps imply that the NASA astronauts will leave the
moon with whatever accommodation they've been staying, and then discard
that accommodation. This is a waste of fuel and resource.

e.g.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...orl-home-promo

Alex Terrell wrote:
Not the CEV capsule.

The point is the conceps imply that the NASA astronauts will leave the
moon with whatever accommodation they've been staying, and then discard
that accommodation. This is a waste of fuel and resource.

e.g.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...orl-home-promo


So you advocate a Zubrin approach to the moon?

--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

Hop David wrote:
Alex Terrell wrote:
Not the CEV capsule.

The point is the conceps imply that the NASA astronauts will leave the
moon with whatever accommodation they've been staying, and then discard
that accommodation. This is a waste of fuel and resource.

e.g.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...orl-home-promo


So you advocate a Zubrin approach to the moon?

At first I took that as an insult, but thinking about it, the early
phase of my proposal is not too far off:

Establish a base
Then send crew
Use in-situ resources to manufacture fuel
Build up the base and its capabilities

Beyond that, it departs from Zubrin's approach: you'll notice the main
focus is in getting resources into HEO, becasue that's where any money
to be made will be. And the establishment of a supply line.

This also works becasue the cycler ships are on 9 day orbits, that
approach the moon every third orbit. So once cycler ship can transport
crew to the moon once per month. For the other two orbits its a revenue
generating hotel.

(The original point to this thread, is that the astronauts should leave
the moon in an ultra light weight, unpressurised outrigger.)

Alex Terrell;
Approximately, to launch 1 ton from the moon requires 1 ton of fuel,
making 2 tons to be landed. To land 2 tons on the moon needs about 15
tons in Low Earth Orbit. So a 15:1 ratio from Low Earth Orbit to Lunar
surface to Lunar Orbit.

I like your math that takes little if anything into down-range
fly-by-rocket account, assuming that a direct mission of getting
whatever safely situated onto our moon is that of requiring little if
any fly-by-rocket down-range capability, much less as having to
back-track and/or maneuver about in order to obtain the best landing
zone that's not upon another swamp of non-clumping dust that's meters
deep.

Landing whatever amount of tonnage on top of whatever's lunar bedrock
isn't exactly of any fly-by-rocket expertise nor of any previous
accomplishment we've mastered. Of whatever robotic/AI fly-by-rocket
and/or human RC talent hasn't even been demonstrated by way of any of
them dirty rotten Russians.

Folks like Cardman and most others posting here are either quite
snookered, and/or they are the rusemasters that I've claimed they are.
Thus believe in whatever you'd like but, don't count upon using the
regular laws of physics nor having any hard-science backing up anything
they have to say.

Some day we'll actually have a documented and well demonstrated
prototype of a proven fly-by-rocket lander that's perhaps human RC
robotic/AI interfaced at first, then eventually becoming as something
manned. Until then, we'll have to stick with orbiting at roughly 100+
km or at best allowing the extremely old LUNAR-A mission to deploy
those nifty impact probes so that we can interactively learn the truth
and nothing but the truth as to the lunar surface and interior
environment.
~

Taboo: in spite of the orchestrated status quo, it seems there's been
other life upon Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as interactive at the
ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Of Sirius, proto-moons, Venus & Earthly ETs & somewhat testy topics by;
Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

As long as you're the least bit willing to think outside the box,
perhaps yourself and some of your all-knowing friends of this ongoing
usenet incest of such worthy mutations of your intellectual mainstream
cesspool status quo, as typically having been offered by your
all-knowing borg collective of such nice wizards and cloak and dagger
spookology *******s from hell on Earth, has for how about their
offering us anything whatsoever that's worthy of any such R&D
prototypes of whatever's sufficiently fly-by-rocket, in order to let us
poor and uneducated minions be so thoroughly impressed as it's dropped
from some high places and safely manages a maneuvering down-range worth
of a soft landing instead of another impact crater. As easily
dumbfounded as I am, I'll even accept upon anything of whatever's
Russian, as to their supposedly superior robotic/AI fly-by-rocket
expertise of their mutually perpetrated cold-war 70s worth of applied
physics and technology should due us just fine and dandy.
~

In spite of the ongoing orchestrated status quo, it seems there's been
other life upon Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as interactive within
the ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Of things Sirius, proto-moons, Venus, Earthly ETs & somewhat testy
topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

Alex Terrell,
I see that the norm of topic/author banishment is about all that you
and others have going for this phase of your LLPOF conditional physics
and soft-science that sucks and blows at the same time, whereas you're
offering MOS mainstream status quo crapolla of your usual NASA/Apollo
disinformation and topic diversions along with the typical butt loads
of your LLPOF worth of skewed and/or excluded evidence that suits your
pagan brown-nosed religion of continually sucking up to the butt-cheek
flatulence of others that you so much favor the flavor of whatever
they're spewing.

Since you can't bring your less than remorseless sorry borg buttology
self into honestly contributing squat that's on the original topics of
our supposedly having previously landed whatever upon our moon, then
perhaps you can further explain upon this supposed moon landing worth
of such nifty fly-by-rocket sorts of interesting things on behalf of
informing us village idiot minions that aren't supposed to be smmart
enough to know of when we're being summarily snookered by the sorts of
folks as having "the right stuff".

However, you might care to notice that it seems for all that's as good
as those dirty rotten Russians were on their end of our mututally
perpetrated cold-war fiasco of getting whatever into orbiting as well
as eventually to/from orbiting the moon, it looks as though they too
have tossed out all of their valuable R&D documentation upon any such
prototype engineering workmanship, as to entirely disregarding their
supposed robotic/AI fly-by-rocket landers. Thus they too can't seem to
pull out any film documention as per demonstrating one damn
critical/essential fly-by-rocket prototype aspect, as in not from
anything of way back in the 70s, certainly not ever since and,
apparently they still have absolutely nothing within their files or of
whatever's to be created that's becoming viable as per offering any
such proof-testing upon any such fly-by-rocket lander prototype that's
worth even a distent look-see, at our having an observation as to view
upon any such appropriately scaled prototypes, as per seeing such
proof-testing of an incoming lander as managing a safely maneuvered
down-range soft-landing (by soft-landing I mean to say of any
survivable landing of which robotics could have withstood 100 Gs within
Earth gravity and thus 600 Gs upon the moon.

After all, supposedly there's only a couple inches of extremely
moonsuit and moonbuggy friendly and thus nicely compacting/clumping
lunar soil that's otherwise quite cornmeal and portland cement like,
thus hardly dusty or the least bit deep, much less of any basalt and/or
of nasty meteorite deposits that were the least bit coal dark and
physically sharp as a razor as otherwise having been documented from
every other method of imaging the moon from orbit and/or via team KECK.

Just because of the gravity and atmosphere situation of having to
perform appropriately scaled prototype test landings upon Earth, this
actually isn't any negative rocket physics criteria as for excluding
upon items performing this capability, if anything it should have been
via scaled prototype so much easier since the RC capability of
interactively flying such machines becomes 100% doable, yet lo and
behold, it seems they/USSR as well as we still have absolutely nothing
upon observing any such applied technology as that of an incoming
fly-by-rocket lander as having accomplished anything except for their
impacting and exploding, thereby we've got nothing of hard-science to
work with and, thereby not ever once having documented film as to the
usage, functions and safety of any such form of fly-by-rocket method of
deployments, of ever once seeing how the USSR or we could have safely
managed getting much of anything safely onto the deck. Not from way
back then or of anything ever since. I guess that level of smoke and
mirrors shouldn't red-flag a gosh darn thing.

It seems orbiting isn't 0.1% of what it takes for accomplishing a
actual fly-by-rocket landing. Certainly not requiring 0.1% the overall
mission fuel per kg and obviously not 0.01% worth of the overall
complexity of accommodating us humans.

Therefore the fully robotic/AI fly-by-rocket landers couldn't possibly
have existed back in the 70s as offering any viably safe alternative
for getting so much as a kg onto the extremely dusty lunar surface.
Thus "moonpans" and all of the other infomercial spooks including NOVA,
National Geographic, TIME and even The New York Times are very much a
part of the grand ruse/sting of the century, leaving few outside of
your assimilated collective of American borgism of becoming fully
certified LLPOF members of your perpetrated cold-war LLPOF club, or
else.

Of course, we're talking of decades worth of having blown trillions,
not mere billions, and at least I'm still talking about far more
affected/terminated lives than the few within NASA that got roasted in
the process of snookering thy humanity or exterminated because they
knew too much. The same goes for the USSR as playing their part in this
perpetrated cloak and dagger cold-war fiasco as having affected far
more lives, though at not a fraction of the financial investment
represents that them Russians were far more efficient at getting
hundreds of thousands of folks quite dead while playing this otherwise
spendy and subsequently lethal game along with and against our spooks
and rusemasters.
-
This is essentially what I'd previously offered to another commecial
spook/wizard "moonpans".

Dear Moonpans,
I see that you've finally gotten around to PhotoShop cranking up the
otherwise subdued (xenon illuminated) blue of the American flag, but
you still have that nearly entirely 55+% albedo moonscape that's
somewhat impossible, and still nothing whatsoever of the horrifically
bright Sirius star system, or that of a nearby and intensely (75+%)
reflective Venus that must have been rather intensely annoying on at
least two of the Apollo missions.
http://moonpans.com/a11neilmesa.htm

Being that the moonsuits were typically 80 some odd percent reflective
(perhaps 85% reflective if sufficiently dust free), it seems that the
average albedo worth of 11~12% of the raw solar illuminated and via a
polarised filter at that should have been nearly coal like, and
certainly depicting as a whole lot more of carbon, iron and titanium
dusty to moonboot.

I especially like the official looking page of those autographed photos
that are nearly of lunar white-out zones as having absolutely zilch,
nada as in zero worth of secondary/recoil photons of anything the least
bit near-blue, much less offering any hard-X-ray dosage as having been
proven a matter of hard-scientific fact by even terrestrial satellite
instruments.
http://moonpans.com/signed/

Any chance you could get Kodak Corporate to inform us village idiots as
to exactly how their photo-chemical (color sensitive emulsion dyes)
worth of your skewed/conditional physics works entirely differently
upon the moon than upon Earth?

I'd forgotten to ask lord/wizard "moonpans" about where the heck had
all of the secondary/recoil photons gone, since the photographic Kodak
moments were essentially unfiltered (wide open band-pass of accepting
375~875 nm), yet absolutely none of those extreme photons or of
anything whatsoever worth of secondary/recoil managed to get recorded
regardless of whatever the shade and/or fully solar illuminated
environment. It's almost exactly as though we're looking at a xenon
lamp illuminated terrain and, from the original scanned official
archive of such images as having depicted such scenes as a somewhat
subdued amount of blue spectrum at that. What is it about the lunar
atmosphere that so nicely filtered out even more of the near-UV
(375~425 nm), and excluded that of the UV spectrum than for here on
Earth?

How is it that secondary/recoil photons that occur here upon Earth but
not upon our moon?

Where the heck was Venus hiding and that of the extremely bright
near-blue and near-UV intensity worth of the Sirius star system (of
which I'm not referring to the human visual intensity, as that's not
worth 1% of what the unfiltered Kodak eye was capable of recording).
~

Don't look: in spite of your orchestrated status quo, it seems there's
been other life upon Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as interactive
within the ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Proto-moons, Venus ETs, Earthly ETs plus a few other somewhat testy
topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm