Wonder what the LM lower stages condition is ??

In article 369076b2-57a3-439a-a2fd-
, says...

well with this everything could be easier

http://www.businessinsider.com/newes...ystals-2012-10

From the article:

"they are far from achieving a "break even" energy propulsion system"

I nominate this quote for the "understatement of the year" award.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

so nasa builds a multi use ion engine stage for all sorts of
interesting jobs.

Your idea of 'interesting jobs' isn't worth the engineering cost of
building "a multi use ion engine stage".

--

so visiting lagrange points and asteroids isnt worth the engineering
cost??

or using such a stage for number of other uses???

On Oct 8, 1:05*pm, bob haller wrote:
so nasa builds a multi use ion engine stage for all sorts of
interesting jobs.

Your idea of 'interesting jobs' isn't worth the engineering cost of
building "a multi use ion engine stage".

--

so visiting lagrange points and asteroids isnt worth the engineering
cost??

or using such a stage for number of other *uses???

Actually, very large scale ion thrusters is an extremely good way to
go, especially when launched from a zero delta-V location.

On Oct 9, 1:10*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

so nasa builds a multi use ion engine stage for all sorts of
interesting jobs.

Your idea of 'interesting jobs' isn't worth the engineering cost of
building "a multi use ion engine stage".

so visiting lagrange points and asteroids isnt worth the engineering
cost??

So you're going to put people and enough supplies on one of these
things to last the YEARS it would take to do those things using such
an engine?



or using such a stage for number of other *uses???

I'm still waiting for a useful one.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

because of radiation such fliht will at least initially have to be
unmanned..... but theres no reason a visit to snoopy mmust be manned,
and snoopy has that docking system onboard......

On Oct 6, 6:54*am, bob haller wrote:
so we build a ion engine wth controls that docks with the LM docking
system and retrieve over whatever time it takes the ion engine and
controls that could be refeuled and sent to do another job

Indeed, the 100% reuse of large scale ion thrusters and their various
control components seems perfectly rational and affordably doable as
of a decade ago.

On Oct 21, 5:09*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Oct 6, 6:54*am, bob haller wrote:

so we build a ion engine wth controls that docks with the LM docking
system and retrieve over whatever time it takes the ion engine and
controls that could be refeuled and sent to do another job

Indeed, the 100% reuse of large scale ion thrusters and their various
control components seems perfectly rational and affordably doable as
of a decade ago.

unmanned exploration is the only affordable approach for now.....

plus retrieving some historic artifacts would be wonderful proof of
concept and provide innovative future technology......

On Oct 22, 11:01*am, bob haller wrote:
On Oct 21, 5:09*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Oct 6, 6:54*am, bob haller wrote:

so we build a ion engine wth controls that docks with the LM docking
system and retrieve over whatever time it takes the ion engine and
controls that could be refeuled and sent to do another job

Indeed, the 100% reuse of large scale ion thrusters and their various
control components seems perfectly rational and affordably doable as
of a decade ago.

*unmanned exploration is the only affordable approach for now.....

plus retrieving some historic artifacts would be wonderful proof of
concept and provide innovative future technology......

That's exactly what I have been supporting for the past decade, but it
seems you and I don't count for anything except as another source of
hard earned loot for our government agencies to blow as only they see
fit.

In article ,
says...

Brad Guth wrote:

On Oct 22, 11:01*am, bob haller wrote:
On Oct 21, 5:09*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Oct 6, 6:54*am, bob haller wrote:

so we build a ion engine wth controls that docks with the LM docking
system and retrieve over whatever time it takes the ion engine and
controls that could be refeuled and sent to do another job

Indeed, the 100% reuse of large scale ion thrusters and their various
control components seems perfectly rational and affordably doable as
of a decade ago.

*unmanned exploration is the only affordable approach for now.....

plus retrieving some historic artifacts would be wonderful proof of
concept and provide innovative future technology......

That's exactly what I have been supporting for the past decade, but it
seems you and I don't count for anything except as another source of
hard earned loot for our government agencies to blow as only they see
fit.


Two loonies in favour just doesn't convince a lot of people. Bobbert
and The Guthball sounds like an old TV show.

This is just another thread started by Bob to mark "ignore".

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Monday, October 1, 2012 4:12:06 PM UTC-5, Bbo Hallr babbled:

...Egads. If you and Guthball are still here, polluting ss* with your inane and insane quiffs, can "jonathan", ~CT and "scott grissom" be far behind? Or did they finally join John Maxson in Hell?

take snoopy, how much info is there on long term exposure to deep
space?

....Jesus H. Christ on my fake leg. Bbo, LDEF data on Snoopy is mox nix, you dip****. Both parts of LM-4 fell from a minimum of 50,000' and crashed into the lunar surface. There's not enough of it intact to gather any usable data.

On Monday, November 12, 2012 3:17:29 PM UTC-8, OM wrote:
On Monday, October 1, 2012 4:12:06 PM UTC-5, Bbo Hallr babbled: ..Egads. If you and Guthball are still here, polluting ss* with your inane and insane quiffs, can "jonathan", ~CT and "scott grissom" be far behind? Or did they finally join John Maxson in Hell? take snoopy, how much info is there on long term exposure to deep space? ...Jesus H. Christ on my fake leg. Bbo, LDEF data on Snoopy is mox nix, you dip****. Both parts of LM-4 fell from a minimum of 50,000' and crashed into the lunar surface. There's not enough of it intact to gather any usable data.


Um, OM: "mox nix"?? Vat dis?

The ascent stage of 'Snoopy' (Apollo 10's LM, for those who don't know) is listed as 'Heliocentric Orbit' on the listing for 1969. Why the difference between the ascent and descent stages, I don't know- was the descent stage cut to go into orbit? What impact would the firing of the ascent engine have upon the descent stage while in orbit? It does seem that I heard at the time that after separation from the CSM, the ascent stage was remotely fired until it ran out of fuel.