|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
NASA / Musk will kill astronauts for a manned outpost on the Moon
On 2020-05-18 7:48 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
NASA would save a ton of money by using Dragon 2 to ferry astronauts to lunar Starship while it's still in LEO, but Congress would have none of that. Jeff That's very interesting. Was that ever formally proposed? Or even better, use Dragon 2 for a crew carrier and the Starship and a new and (vastly) improved "upper stage". Neither of which need SLS to get to orbit or to refuel. Now Starship doesn't depend on a crew cabin to be useful and we're not wasting billions of dollars on SLS to mainly just get to LEO with no practical upper stage yet in sight... Dave |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
NASA / Musk will kill astronauts for a manned outpost on the Moon
On 2020-05-18 11:28 AM, David Spain wrote:
That's very interesting. Was that ever formally proposed? Or even better, use Dragon 2 for a crew carrier and the Starship [AS] a new and (vastly) improved "upper stage". Neither of which need SLS to get to orbit or to refuel. Now Starship doesn't depend on a crew cabin to be useful and we're not wasting billions of dollars on SLS to mainly just get to LEO with no practical upper stage yet in sight... A Starship as a fully reusable/refuelable upper stage transfer vehicle. Why even bother with heat shielding if it is never intended to return to Earth? And Dragon2 evolves into longer duration crew vehicle for Earth orbital and lunar orbital or gateway excursions from/to a landing vehicle that gets refueled by the Starship transfer vehicle. Still don't have a reusable lunar lander but is this the beginning of a workable lunar exploration architecture? Can a lunar lander burn methalox as a fuel? If Starship matures into its own crewed vehicle we could do away with Dragons, lander and gateway. But that's still a hell of a lot of wait time for Starship development that really isn't necessary, unless the trade off between getting a crewed Starship built and a lunar lander is a wash. Other than the lander, I think we could get a gateway built PDQ since it's primarily a filling station to make a reusable lander design simpler. Sometimes tho parallel development is a good thing. IF all things being built by the private sector can track TOGETHER. Which used to be NASA's job, making sure that happens. Since the money on SLS is already sunk, maybe we can use it as an expendable BDB to get lunar surface bound cargo to LEO for transfer later by Starships until they are all used up? Man I wish we had that money back, we need to stop doing SLS in place of a reusable lunar lander. Like yesterday. Dave |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
NASA / Musk will kill astronauts for a manned outpost on the Moon
Il giorno lunedì 18 maggio 2020 18:05:02 UTC+2, John Bode ha scritto:
On Saturday, May 16, 2020 at 2:00:02 AM UTC-5, wrote: NASA/MUSK should stop before starting with the Artemis project which in my opinion is more dangerous than the space shuttle project. No, the Shuttle was pretty much THE touchstone for dangerous spacecraft. Say what you will about SLS (I have), an inline configuration with an actual abort motor vs. sidemount with no abort capability is automatically MUCH safer. There's no possibility of foam strike damage (what killed Columbia) and there's a system to get the hell away from the main tank when an SRB starts burning a hole into it (what killed Challenger). It's wasteful and expensive, but it will be safer from the start than the Shuttle. As for overall project architecture, the Gateway is stupid and was introduced solely to deal with Orion's wimpy-ass service module. It adds complexity where it really isn't needed. The Starship model looks compelling from that perspective - launch a single, massive vehicle, refuel in orbit, go pretty much anywhere. Of course, the Starship may fail - SpaceX may have gone down a technological dead end, and the engineering challenge may be greater than they anticipated. But based on their success so far, I don't think that's likely. Since 50 years rocketry is not able to perform manned outposts on the Moon and Mars for the simple fact that not even 1% of the Apollo 11 mass returned to earth. Welcome to the tyranny of the rocket equation. Reactionless drives are, so far, pure science fiction. When traveling in space, the only way to go forward is to throw something out the back. It seems so because you don't know how to use electrodynamics! :-) You never thought about the event that when Newton formulated classical mechanics he knew nothing about electromagnetism. After all, when you say this thing with conviction (non-violation of Newton's III) it does us a great favor. It does not go to investigate the historical folds of electrodynamics and the events that have influenced it in development. You are completely superficial. But this year you will have the opportunity to see that this is not the case with PNN and the rockets will gradually become a comic memory E.Laureti Getting off the ground and into orbit means you need thrust. Thrust is a function of mass flow rate, so high-thrust engines burn through their propellant quickly. Once the tank's empty, it works against you, so you drop it. The problem with Apollo was that there was no plan to recover and reuse tanks or engines, which made the program expensive and unsustainable. Given the remit, though (get a man on the Moon and back to Earth by the end of the '60s), that's understandable. The challenge was already big enough, adding reusability on top of it would have been too much. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
NASA / Musk will kill astronauts for a manned outpost on the Moon
In article , says...
On 2020-05-18 7:48 AM, Jeff Findley wrote: NASA would save a ton of money by using Dragon 2 to ferry astronauts to lunar Starship while it's still in LEO, but Congress would have none of that. Jeff That's very interesting. Was that ever formally proposed? No. The NASA requirements for the Artemis crewed lunar landers state that the lander must dock with Orion in high lunar orbit, the crew lands on the moon, and later returns to dock with Orion in high lunar orbit. SpaceX would not have gotten an award had they proposed anything different. Or even better, use Dragon 2 for a crew carrier and the Starship and a new and (vastly) improved "upper stage". Neither of which need SLS to get to orbit or to refuel. Sadly, NASA is not open to such suggestions. Now Starship doesn't depend on a crew cabin to be useful and we're not wasting billions of dollars on SLS to mainly just get to LEO with no practical upper stage yet in sight... Unfortunately, Congress continues to fund SLS/Orion so NASA must use it. I must say though I am impressed that NASA Administrator Bridenstine has relegated the use of SLS to only launching Orion. None of the lunar landers chosen will use SLS as a launch vehicle. Same for Gateway modules, as far as I can tell. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
NASA / Musk will kill astronauts for a manned outpost on the Moon
In article , says...
On 5/18/20 1:51 PM, Jeff Findley wrote: In article , lid says... On 17-May-20 9:41 pm, Doctor Who wrote: On 5/17/20 12:38 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: It helps if you read all of the comment. Sylvia. it helps if you stop kidding us. it helps if you stop contemptuous behavior against pnn. How can I be contemptuous of something that doesn't exist? I've gotta side with Sylvia on this one. I'm a hair's width away from putting "Doctor Who" in my killfile because of this "pnn" fantasy. you are a stupid person. An ad hominem attack. Predictable. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
NASA / Musk will kill astronauts for a manned outpost on the Moon
In article , says...
On 5/18/20 1:53 PM, Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... On 5/17/20 2:09 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: On 17-May-20 9:41 pm, Doctor Who wrote: it helps if you stop contemptuous behavior against pnn. How can I be contemptuous of something that doesn't exist? Sylvia. see? it is your fault if we insult you. Your reading comprehension needs some work. Jeff you are a stupid pereson. That piece of paper I received from the Aerospace Engineering department at Purdue and my current employer of 30 years both seem to belive otherwise. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
NASA / Musk will kill astronauts for a manned outpost on the Moon
In article , says...
On 5/18/20 3:27 PM, wrote: From talk.origins Il giorno lunedì 18 maggio 2020 00:50:01 UTC+2, Wolffan ha scritto: On 17 May 2020, wrote (in ): Il giorno domenica 17 maggio 2020 06:45:02 UTC+2, Bob Casanova ha scritto: On Sat, 16 May 2020 14:43:10 -0700 (PDT), the following appeared in talk.origins, posted by : Il giorno sabato 16 maggio 2020 23:30:04 UTC+2, Bob Casanova ha scritto: On Sat, 16 May 2020 03:51:34 -0700 (PDT), the following appeared in talk.origins, posted by : I am tired to repeat to everyone what is written in links in www.asps.it/pnndatabase.htm If the action reaction is violated (III principle) ..... change the inertia law ( I principle) and F=ma ( II ) .... so all is different from what you think. I found in test that F=ma increase with time at the same electric power. You think as newtonian man but but PNN is NON newtonian !!!!!! It is very difficult to understand if you don't make NON newtonian experiments. Read here more in https://www.okpal.com/building-a-rea...space-ship/?#/ This year F432 patent will be filed so everyone can reapeat the PNN experiments. We don't need more money to produce the collapse of astronautics to suppositories. We just want to enjoy the spectacle of what will happen when the know-how of the pnn is known :-) I've gotta side with Calmagorod on this one. I'm a hair's width away from putting "Jeff Findley" in my killfile because of this "anti-pnn" fantasy. Oh no! Please don't! Whatever will I do? /s Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
NASA / Musk will kill astronauts for a manned outpost on the Moon
On 5/18/20 7:23 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says... On 5/18/20 1:51 PM, Jeff Findley wrote: In article , lid says... On 17-May-20 9:41 pm, Doctor Who wrote: On 5/17/20 12:38 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: It helps if you read all of the comment. Sylvia. it helps if you stop kidding us. it helps if you stop contemptuous behavior against pnn. How can I be contemptuous of something that doesn't exist? I've gotta side with Sylvia on this one. I'm a hair's width away from putting "Doctor Who" in my killfile because of this "pnn" fantasy. you are a stupid person. An ad hominem attack. Predictable. Jeff aside opposing us on usenet you can't do nothing against pnn. that's why you are so ridicule. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
NASA / Musk will kill astronauts for a manned outpost on the Moon
On 5/18/20 7:25 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says... On 5/18/20 1:53 PM, Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... On 5/17/20 2:09 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: On 17-May-20 9:41 pm, Doctor Who wrote: it helps if you stop contemptuous behavior against pnn. How can I be contemptuous of something that doesn't exist? Sylvia. see? it is your fault if we insult you. Your reading comprehension needs some work. Jeff you are a stupid pereson. That piece of paper I received from the Aerospace Engineering department at Purdue and my current employer of 30 years both seem to belive otherwise. Jeff it is a piece of paper surely you paid for it, or your professors understood nothing about electrodynamics. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA considers orbital outpost near moon as next big project | [email protected] | Policy | 18 | October 1st 12 12:37 AM |
NASA considers outpost beyond moon's far side | [email protected] | Policy | 12 | February 18th 12 06:41 AM |
NASA plans to put astronauts back on moon by 2018, using old Ap... | Michael Baldwin Bruce | Astronomy Misc | 5 | September 21st 05 12:29 PM |
Outpost, a longtime NASA tavern, damaged by fire | Jorge R. Frank | History | 21 | February 9th 05 12:31 PM |
NEWS: The allure of an outpost on the Moon | Kent Betts | Space Shuttle | 2 | January 15th 04 12:56 AM |