LSAM

Brad Guth ) wrote:
: Jon S. Berndt and Jorge R. Frank,
: Is this a joke, or what; NASA to crash space probe into moon
: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html
: Why are we stuck with terrestrial, remote satellite viewing and of
: soft-science?
: Why utilize the impact method when you can supposedly soft-land as of
: 40+ years ago?
: Where's all of our supposed AI/robotic fly-by-rocket lander R&D and the
: proof of such?

Cost. Economics. How much does it cost to land and operate something
versus a one-shot deal? Hint" The latter is much cheaper.

Eric

Cost. Economics. How much does it cost to land and operate something
versus a one-shot deal? Hint" The latter is much cheaper.
Eric Chomko,
Impact intended probes (say of less than 10 kg each) would be the least
spendy, and have been by far the most doable option for the past
40+years, especially as of lately with the degree of impact rated
micro-circuitry and way better energy efficiency. Such JAVELIN probes
might otherwise become the best do-everything alternative for most
every mission of exploring other planets and moons, with a relatively
small mother ship in orbit acting as their data transponder.

There is actually more than enough moon aerobreaking capability for
accommodating such a penetration probe of not more than 10 kg. Much
heavier would require a touch of retrothrust prior to their high speed
spinning free-fall phase.
-
Brad Guth

Brad Guth ) wrote:
: Cost. Economics. How much does it cost to land and operate something
: versus a one-shot deal? Hint" The latter is much cheaper.
: Eric Chomko,
: Impact intended probes (say of less than 10 kg each) would be the least
: spendy, and have been by far the most doable option for the past
: 40+years, especially as of lately with the degree of impact rated
: micro-circuitry and way better energy efficiency. Such JAVELIN probes
: might otherwise become the best do-everything alternative for most
: every mission of exploring other planets and moons, with a relatively
: small mother ship in orbit acting as their data transponder.

The latter didn't work for the Mars poles, remember? Bouncing balls on all
sides DID work.

: There is actually more than enough moon aerobreaking capability for
: accommodating such a penetration probe of not more than 10 kg. Much
: heavier would require a touch of retrothrust prior to their high speed
: spinning free-fall phase.

Moon aerobreaking?!? With what the passing solar wind?

Landing on the moon requires your own retro rockets to brake. You ever
play the BASIC game, "Lunar Lander"? I have the code someplace. Great
game!

Eric

: -
: Brad Guth

The latter didn't work for the Mars poles, remember? Bouncing balls on all
sides DID work.
Eric Chomko,
Of "bouncing balls" is actually a pretty damn pathetic
(non-fly-by-rocket lander) method of deployment, especially considering
the very latest of applied rocket-science technology plus having the
option of powerful reaction wheels should have made for a controlled
soft landing without having to depend upon "bouncing balls", as for
otherwise considering the extremely light mass of the given robotic
payload seems entirely odd that any form of AI/robotic lander still
isn't even an option regardless of the slight amount of payload mass.

In other words, it still makes absolutely no sense for our not having
been utilizing AI/robotic fly-by-rocket landers, that which would have
accomplished 10+ fold as much payload as getting safely onto the Mars
deck, that is if such landers in fact ever existed. But of course we
all know damn good and well that even those R&D prototypes still don't
exist as of today, nor even in any prototype R&D level of readiness as
for accomplishing the final design phase of what the near future has to
manage, much less capable as of 4 decades ago.

Moon aerobreaking?!? With what the passing solar wind?
If there's 14,000 and some odd km depth worth of a sodium rich
atmosphere to work with, then it stands to good reason that of such
sodium plus heavier elements must coexist in greater density at lower
altitudes, whereas if going all the way for the lunar deck should be
offering a thin but perfectly usable composition of such an atmospheric
layer, of what should be including a great deal of sodium plus many
heavier elements (as well as Radon), all of which coexisting as a
sufficient composite soup of viable elements offering adequate density
within the final kilometers of what's still a somewhat thin but usable
aerobreaking environment.

A small/compact JAVELIN probe needs only to obtain that of a partially
moderated velocity via aerobreaking, that'll get the final probe impact
down to being somewhat less than 1.25 km/s for accommodating a safe
instrument implant (900 m/s could be near ideal, whereas 600 m/s might
be a wee bit too slow).

Of course, we always could have artificially improved upon that lunar
atmosphere, especially doable in a big way if a certain asteroid can be
directed into a lunar impact, as offering a terrific method of what
could have created megatonnes worth of atmosphere.

Landing on the moon requires your own retro rockets to brake. You ever
play the BASIC game, "Lunar Lander"? I have the code someplace. Great
game!
Exactly my point of such efforts demanding "retro rockets to brake" all
the way, plus demanding a good deal of controlled down-range capability
in spite of their having to deal with lunar mascons and the fact that
said lander had not incorporated powerful reaction wheels, whereas
instead you'll need absolute extra loads of reaction thruster fuel and
a computer driven set of those fully modulated thrusters that'll be
operating at nearly 100% to boot. However, since I don't play with
such silly video games is why I can't fully appreciated the
complications involved with safely landing upon our extremely dark and
nasty moon that's a bit salty, as well as reactive because of there
being next to nothing shielding that sucker.

Considering the need for getting several hundred extra kg safely
deployed upon the next round of spendy Mars robotic missions, much less
if having to transport and safely deploy a multi-tonne nuclear reactor
in order to run the CO2--CO/O2 equipment that'll be necessary to build
inventory for a good couple of years prior to any human expeditions,
whereas per such a requirement, have we got any actual hard proof on
film of proto-type R&D landers, as running through their capabilities
for all to see?

Of course all is impossible since you're the incest cloned naysayer
that can't seem to use the regular laws of physics, as well as you're
the one that can't even utilize a 36 look-pixel picture nor can you
include any evidence that's in any way contrary to your NASA/Apollo
ruse (AKA perpetrated cold-war), especially of that which still hasn't
a viable fly-by-rocket lander (robotic or manned) as of today. To top
all of that off, you're the one that would have turned in Ann Frank at
the drop of your Third Reich collaborating hat. You're also the one
that's having to change the basis of a given topic context in order to
avoid having to put-up or shut-up.
-
Brad Guth