LSAM

tomcat wrote:
Alex Terrell wrote:
6) A cut down LSAM, that weighs only a few tons, and can therefore be
discarded without serious consequences.

This LSAM would be able to support 4 astronauts for a few hours only.
It could even be unpressurised.

The components of a base (small or large) would be landed in advance.

This approach has marginal benefit for an Apollo approach of visiting a
couple of sites and then abandoning them for 60 years. However, if
multiple crews want to return to the same site it wins hands down.



Any approach that is permanent is superior to one that involves a 'dog
and pony show' wasting tens of billions of dollars. There is a real
need for DOD Intelligence on the Moon. There is a real need for an
Observatory on the Moon. There is a real need for a mining operation
to recover H2O, titanium, and aluminum from Moon dust. Not to even
mention He-3 to feed an energy hungry Earth.

I believe that the American people will be much more satisified with
more spent on a permanent Moon Base then less spent on a flag waving
one-night-stand.

Here's the view at NASA:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...b106ec17870624

Brad Guth wrote:
I believe that the American people will be much more satisified with
more spent on a permanent Moon Base then less spent on a flag waving
one-night-stand.
tomcat,
But why do we need to even bother with a "permanent Moon Base" when we
can simply rent or lease facilities and services from the Chinese
LSE-CM/ISS?

With their CM/ISS having 1e6 m3 to start off with, and of no limits as
to enlarging upon that volume that's surrounded by 50t/m2, to becoming
at least worth something greater than 1e9 m3, of providing such a safe
abode (AKA space depot), that's so easy for getting ourselves and
whatever tonnage to/from because, it's obviously so gosh darn nearby
and so nicely gravity aligned, and otherwise efficiently operating from
it's own resources with terawatts to spare, thus why bother with having
to establish our own base of operations that'll only have to be
entirely underground, especially since the lobby of this one and only
Lunar Space Elevator that's owned and operated by China should in of
itself be good for yet another 1e9 m3 facility.

Otherwise, all that you've recently offered that's yaysay on behalf of
our moon is entirely true.

Do you speak Chinese?
-
Brad Guth



No, I don't speak Chinese. I admire their system of ideographs,
however. I have spent 3 years in the Orient and have mingled with the
Koreans, Japanese, Taiwanese, Vietnamese, and Chinese. The Oriental
Mind is -- well -- very inscrutable. But their most brilliant minds
can more than hold their own with any in the World. The Western
Hemisphere must not underestimate them.

I believe, however, that underestimating them is exactly what is taking
place. The Chinese don't do Stop and Go like the United States.
Chinese presence in Outer Space is not a mere 'flash in the pan'.
Believe me, they are pile driving and will soon be building a Moon
Base. This could happen in as little as 5 years.

If the United States doesn't get going hard and strong right now, we
are headed for a big-time embarrassment 5 years from now.

One more point. The Chinese will not get hung up with a mishap or two.
These will be covered up and they will forge ahead just like the U.S.
would have back in the early post WWII era. . . . Yes, the Chinese
will be on the Moon in 5 years.


tomcat

On 9 Apr 2006 22:24:48 -0700, "tomcat" wrote:

Brad Guth wrote:
Do you speak Chinese?
-
Brad Guth

No, I don't speak Chinese. I admire their system of ideographs,
however. I have spent 3 years in the Orient and have mingled with the
Koreans, Japanese, Taiwanese, Vietnamese, and Chinese. The Oriental
Mind is -- well -- very inscrutable. But their most brilliant minds
can more than hold their own with any in the World. The Western
Hemisphere must not underestimate them.

The USA is already comparing the number of people who obtain
professional degrees between the two countries. Needless to say the
Chinese whip butt on subjects like Engineering and Mathematics.

Underestimation is not the problem. Maybe overestimation could be,
when their society is quite different. However, the key question is
how the USA is going to maintain their technical and social advantages
in the future?

Look into the longer term and China will become the most powerful
nation on this planet. The USA will then do what China wants.

I believe, however, that underestimating them is exactly what is taking
place. The Chinese don't do Stop and Go like the United States.

In the corporate world they use the term "plan to do" to define the
probability of how many agreements with the local government in each
country end up as real constructions.

The USA has the lowest plan to do value on this planet, when any
governmental agreement needs to be run by the local residents,
environmental groups, etc, etc. And until everyone obtains a
semi-happy state then sure enough this now long overdue construction
won't go ahead.

China on the other hand has the world's highest plan to do ratio. As
when an agreement is made with the local government then the people in
the way just move out of the way.

It poses a good question of who has the better system?

Chinese presence in Outer Space is not a mere 'flash in the pan'.

They seem quite intent.

They are still upset that despite their previous sailing ability it
was in fact the European sailors who re-colognized this planet. So
China intends to make sure that this second time around that they get
a good share of the available land.

Believe me, they are pile driving and will soon be building a Moon
Base.

Eventually.

This could happen in as little as 5 years.

No it won't.

If the United States doesn't get going hard and strong right now, we
are headed for a big-time embarrassment 5 years from now.

China still has a lot of catching up to do in space. And until they
have caught up then they won't yet beat the Americans.

One more point. The Chinese will not get hung up with a mishap or two.

That is unlikely, but we have yet to see China kill their astronauts.

These will be covered up

It is a lot harder to cover up such a thing these days. China may
blame these deceased astronauts or to blame the technicians.

The result is unlikely to be pretty.

and they will forge ahead just like the U.S.
would have back in the early post WWII era. . . .

Fear of the Russians and the desire to beat them provided a good
reason at the time.

Yes, the Chinese will be on the Moon in 5 years.

Fancy making a bet on that? :-]

Cardman
http://www.cardman.org
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

Yes, the Chinese will be on the Moon in 5 years.
tomcat,
But China only has to accomplish LL-1, and to defend that zone because
it's rightfully their's.
-
Brad Guth

Cardman wrote:
On 9 Apr 2006 22:24:48 -0700, "tomcat" wrote:

Brad Guth wrote:
Do you speak Chinese?
-
Brad Guth

No, I don't speak Chinese. I admire their system of ideographs,
however. I have spent 3 years in the Orient and have mingled with the
Koreans, Japanese, Taiwanese, Vietnamese, and Chinese. The Oriental
Mind is -- well -- very inscrutable. But their most brilliant minds
can more than hold their own with any in the World. The Western
Hemisphere must not underestimate them.

The USA is already comparing the number of people who obtain
professional degrees between the two countries. Needless to say the
Chinese whip butt on subjects like Engineering and Mathematics.

Underestimation is not the problem. Maybe overestimation could be,
when their society is quite different. However, the key question is
how the USA is going to maintain their technical and social advantages
in the future?

Look into the longer term and China will become the most powerful
nation on this planet. The USA will then do what China wants.

I believe, however, that underestimating them is exactly what is taking
place. The Chinese don't do Stop and Go like the United States.

In the corporate world they use the term "plan to do" to define the
probability of how many agreements with the local government in each
country end up as real constructions.

The USA has the lowest plan to do value on this planet, when any
governmental agreement needs to be run by the local residents,
environmental groups, etc, etc. And until everyone obtains a
semi-happy state then sure enough this now long overdue construction
won't go ahead.

China on the other hand has the world's highest plan to do ratio. As
when an agreement is made with the local government then the people in
the way just move out of the way.

It poses a good question of who has the better system?

Chinese presence in Outer Space is not a mere 'flash in the pan'.

They seem quite intent.

They are still upset that despite their previous sailing ability it
was in fact the European sailors who re-colognized this planet. So
China intends to make sure that this second time around that they get
a good share of the available land.

Believe me, they are pile driving and will soon be building a Moon
Base.

Eventually.

This could happen in as little as 5 years.

No it won't.

If the United States doesn't get going hard and strong right now, we
are headed for a big-time embarrassment 5 years from now.

China still has a lot of catching up to do in space. And until they
have caught up then they won't yet beat the Americans.

One more point. The Chinese will not get hung up with a mishap or two.

That is unlikely, but we have yet to see China kill their astronauts.

These will be covered up

It is a lot harder to cover up such a thing these days. China may
blame these deceased astronauts or to blame the technicians.

The result is unlikely to be pretty.

and they will forge ahead just like the U.S.
would have back in the early post WWII era. . . .

Fear of the Russians and the desire to beat them provided a good
reason at the time.

Yes, the Chinese will be on the Moon in 5 years.

Fancy making a bet on that? :-]

Cardman
http://www.cardman.org
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk




Our primary disagreement is in 'how long it will take the Chinese to
land on the Moon'.

The Moon isn't the impossible thing that Western Society is pretending
it is. Remember, that all we are 'really' talking about is Escape
Velocity. The rest of the trip is free.

Shove a vehicle up into the clouds with some kind of engine, push hard
when the atmosphere, and all of it's problems, has thinned out and,
presto, you have escape velocity. Sounds too easy? Well, it just
depends on how good your engines are and some very good engines have
already been built.

Remember too, that the Chinese aren't cutting new ground like we had
to. They are looking at the details of how the U.S. did it. They have
all that research handed to them on a silver platter. But you are
correct, it might not be 5 years. It could be 4 years or less!


tomcat

Brad Guth ) wrote:
: Yes, the Chinese will be on the Moon in 5 years.
: tomcat,
: But China only has to accomplish LL-1, and to defend that zone because
: it's rightfully their's.

Brad, what is the sun's influence on LL-1? IOW, how much energy is it
going to take to maintain staying at LL-1 due to solar gravitational
influence over time? You speak about that point as having some great
value. Perhaps, but at what cost? Sort of reminds me of owning lots of raw
land only to be taxed to death because you own the land!

Eric

: -
: Brad Guth

On 10 Apr 2006 08:46:32 -0700, "tomcat" wrote:

Our primary disagreement is in 'how long it will take the Chinese to
land on the Moon'.

True, but from what I hear they do not yet have any plans to put their
people on the Moon.

The Moon isn't the impossible thing that Western Society is pretending
it is. Remember, that all we are 'really' talking about is Escape
Velocity. The rest of the trip is free.

You overlook the whole aspect of landing and later on the Lunar launch
and the return to Earth.

Shove a vehicle up into the clouds with some kind of engine, push hard
when the atmosphere, and all of it's problems, has thinned out and,
presto, you have escape velocity.

Somewhere around 11.186 km/s.

Sounds too easy?

That is why everyone is already doing it. :-]

Well, it just depends on how good your engines are and some very good
engines have already been built.

Engines are only one of the problems.

Remember too, that the Chinese aren't cutting new ground like we had
to. They are looking at the details of how the U.S. did it.

More like the Russians.

They have all that research handed to them on a silver platter.

Partly.

But you are correct, it might not be 5 years. It could be 4 years or less!

I am still waiting for your wager. After all it is no good making wild
predictions if you are not willing to put your money where your mouth
is. No pain, no gain.

Cash, property, even your spouse or first born. :-]

Hell, I would even change 5 years to 10 years to make it more fair,
but I will presume that you have little faith in your claim.

include "chicken-noises.wav"

Cardman
http://www.cardman.org
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

Brad, what is the sun's influence on LL-1? IOW, how much energy is it
going to take to maintain staying at LL-1 due to solar gravitational
influence over time? You speak about that point as having some great
value. Perhaps, but at what cost? Sort of reminds me of owning lots of raw
land only to be taxed to death because you own the land!
Others will gladly inform you that I'm as right as they were. LL-1 is
however as you'd say a wee bit interactive, however that's a good thing
and it's certainly not the least bit insurmountable nor all that energy
demanding once considering the near zero G factor plus tidal forces
working on behalf of keeping that nullification zone and of whatever's
within.

Because LL-1 is by far the easiest and most payload tonnage efficient
spot to resupply, therefore auxiliary reactive thrusting fuel as well
as beer and pizza should never be in short supply.

I suppose utilizing the LSE-CM/ISS in the process of extracting and of
exporting of He3 away from the moon to Earth, at the tune of perhaps a
trillion dollar value per year should ring even your naysay bell.

There's also tether dipole energy that should be in the realm of
affording a few spare terawatts.

If need be, I'll offer a list of folks before my time and even of a few
since that essentially had this application nailed down in spite of all
the rusemasters and naysayers like yourself.

Of course, once tethered to the moon is when things get extremely
interesting as the station-keeping platform or that of the CM/ISS is
allowed to gain considerable mass and/or merely leverage itself
slightly towards mother Earth, thus keeping as much or as little
primary tether tension as you'd care to manage.

Basically the LSE-CM/ISS and of such utilizing the LL-1 zone, whereas
the yaysay's far out number the naysay's by more than 10:1. Therefore,
I win, science wins, humanity wins, our environment certainly wins and
you lose (big-time).
-
Brad Guth

In article .com, Jon
says...

John Schilling wrote:

So, do the detail work to make the capsule multifunctional, decide
whether
the high-deltaV propulsion module is integral or seperate, add external
tanks, and build one vehicle that gets the job done.

Yes, it means you have to do things like carry the weight of the heat
shield down to the lunar surface and back. That's not a huge deal, not
nearly so big a deal as designing an entire second spacecraft, unless
your margins are already stretched to the limit.

So, what happens if all we want to do is ISS taxi service? That's part
of what CEV is supposed to be. Or, how about taxi service to a Mars
Transfer Vehicle?

What about it? A CEV that can carry people to the Moon and back, can
certainly carry people to ISS and back. And again, mostly overlapping
functionality. You'll probably want enough flexibility in the interior
layout that you can remove some of the extended-mission gear in favor
of a couple extra passengers, but that's true of the CEV regardless of
how you handle the LSAM part.

You missed the point. I think it's pretty obvious that any CEV that also
serves as the LSAM is going to be heavier than the currently envisioned CEV.
You're going to have to hoist all that extra weight just to go to ISS? I
don't think so.

Jon

Cardman wrote:
On 10 Apr 2006 08:46:32 -0700, "tomcat" wrote:

Our primary disagreement is in 'how long it will take the Chinese to
land on the Moon'.

True, but from what I hear they do not yet have any plans to put their
people on the Moon.


Don't expect them to advertise. They don't have that kind of society.
The Chinese abide by 'if at first you don't suceed, don't tell
anybody'. And, they didn't go to all that trouble to put a Chinese
orbiter in orbit just to orbit and stop. The Chinese aren't 'Stop and
Go' like the U.S. is.


The Moon isn't the impossible thing that Western Society is pretending
it is. Remember, that all we are 'really' talking about is Escape
Velocity. The rest of the trip is free.

You overlook the whole aspect of landing and later on the Lunar launch
and the return to Earth.


True, the Moon isn't a 2 dollar ice cream cone. Instead it will cost
billions. But for billions you expect that your vehicle will be able
to land on 1/6th G Moon and takeoff, especially when it had been done
before.


Shove a vehicle up into the clouds with some kind of engine, push hard
when the atmosphere, and all of it's problems, has thinned out and,
presto, you have escape velocity.

Somewhere around 11.186 km/s.

Sounds too easy?

That is why everyone is already doing it. :-]


Don't let the math spook you. 100 km/s is just 1km/s faster than 99
km/s. The F-15 Eagle is considerably faster than a bullet out of a
..357 Smith and Wesson. Impossible? No. It happens every day.

I know I make it sound easy. But it is easy -- with enough dollars.



Well, it just depends on how good your engines are and some very good
engines have already been built.

Engines are only one of the problems.


That's my point. They are no longer a problem. Engineers may regard
engines a problem if they constantly want to do 1000 things at once.
Don't do that. If you want to design a new spacecraft then do that and
use off-the-shelf to do it. If you want to build new engines then use
an off-the-shelf spacecraft.

Do 1000 things at once and Murphy's Law will get you -- and delays,
cost over-runs, frustration, funding wars, heart burn, nasty phone
calls, catastrophic failure. The list is endless.


Remember too, that the Chinese aren't cutting new ground like we had
to. They are looking at the details of how the U.S. did it.

More like the Russians.

They have all that research handed to them on a silver platter.

Partly.


Yes, the Russians love our 'free' World Research Activities as much as
the Chinese.

How do they get the free research? Easy. A picture is worth a
thousand words. They have beautiful photos of all of our rockets,
planes, etc. In depth examination of those photos show all the
figures, lines, and measurements. The product of years of computer
study handed to them -- in a single photograph.

How to build a waverider that works, cheap? Take a picture of the
Space Shuttle and trace the outline onto another piece of paper and
fill in the details with off-the-shelf. The Space Shuttle is a
beautifully designed waverider spaceplane. And it's design is . . .
free!

How to make a superior 'defense' against the F-22 Raptor? Trace a
diagram of the plane onto fresh paper, enlarge it a bit for bigger fuel
tanks, shove a SSME (Space Shuttle Main Engine) up it's tail. And,
your improvised version will out perform the F-22 two to one.

Why spend Billions of Dollars on research when Uncle Sam does it for
you for . . . free!


But you are correct, it might not be 5 years. It could be 4 years or less!

I am still waiting for your wager. After all it is no good making wild
predictions if you are not willing to put your money where your mouth
is. No pain, no gain.

Cash, property, even your spouse or first born. :-]

Hell, I would even change 5 years to 10 years to make it more fair,
but I will presume that you have little faith in your claim.


No bets. But I offer to build a SSTO waverider for 5 billions dollars
in 5 years if the money is paid Up Front. To be honest I don't expect
any takers, but I could do it.


tomcat