|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Who will build the moon base?
What companies, organizations, and university research groups are
currently working on developing technology for supporting human activities on the moon or Mars? Which of these do you think will be contributing towards the new space effort? What hardware on ISS has worked well and could be used on the moon, and what has caused lots of trouble and will be redesigned or replaced? My reasons for asking are purely selfish. I used to be in aerospace, but after a couple years at NASA working in mission control for Station I decided the Station program and aerospace weren't for me, so I became a teacher. But the Columbia accident caused me to do a lot of sole searching, and about a month ago I came to the decision that I wanted to get back into the space exploration business, specifically researching and designing equipment for bases on the moon or Mars. When I came to this decision I assumed that it wouldn't be a job with any NASA program, because a month ago I thought they wouldn't be touching that stuff for a very long time. I figured I'd try to get a job with some university research group working on applicable technology. But now that it looks like NASA might actually be returning to the moon, I might actually get to work on hardware that will fly in my lifetime! So what companies or research groups are active in this area? Which ones are gung ho and actually get stuff done? Of course the aerospace giants will probably get the contracts. Which divisions of those companies are the best? I have an image of what it must be like to work at Skunkworks or Scaled Composites. I imagine that when you work at those places you don't spend time in pointless meetings, or arguing with some other department to send you some report. Instead you spend your time actually designing and building stuff. That is the kind of atmosphere I want to work in, but I want to work on moon/Mars bases. Any suggestions where I should look? Thanks. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Who will build the moon base?
In article ,
RocketScientistForHire wrote: ...I imagine that when you work at those places you don't spend time in pointless meetings, or arguing with some other department to send you some report. Instead you spend your time actually designing and building stuff. That is the kind of atmosphere I want to work in, but I want to work on moon/Mars bases. Unfortunately, the Moon/Mars stuff is mostly going to go to the giant companies, and you will not find that sort of atmosphere much in evidence there. You'll find it mostly in small-to-medium companies... which are not "qualified suppliers" for big NASA contracts, even if some of them would actually probably be better choices than the aerospace dinosaurs. -- MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Who will build the moon base?
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Who will build the moon base?
Zzed wrote:
(RocketScientistForHire) wrote in message . com... cut Any suggestions where I should look? Thanks. Try Russia or Europe, they are far more likely to build a moonbase than NASA within the next fifteen years, and the probability of that is not very high. NASA's transformation into a state of total self delusion is complete, they actually think they have vision now! Nothing has changed. ESA and Russia have no hurry or reason to build a base in the next 15 years. The short to mid-term smart thing is to put all money in better launchers and better constant-thrust propulsion. Its really hard to give a good case for manned modules that can take you to Moon (or even further away). -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Who will build the moon base?
Sander Vesik wrote in message ...
Zzed wrote: (RocketScientistForHire) wrote in message . com... cut Any suggestions where I should look? Thanks. Try Russia or Europe, they are far more likely to build a moonbase than NASA within the next fifteen years, and the probability of that is not very high. NASA's transformation into a state of total self delusion is complete, they actually think they have vision now! Nothing has changed. ESA and Russia have no hurry or reason to build a base in the next 15 years. The short to mid-term smart thing is to put all money in better launchers and better constant-thrust propulsion. Its really hard to give a good case for manned modules that can take you to Moon (or even further away). agreed. however there is a chance that Europe (eg Frnce and Germany) will want to find a focus and a way to challenge US dominance. using russian experience and hardware as a cheap levage, a moon base project may just happen. stay online. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Who will build the moon base?
Here's another of my positive contributions as for doing our moon
first, instead of Mars or even Europa, though I'll certainly favor any honest thoughts upon the likes of Venus, of just interplanetary communications. "Moon, Mars, Venus, Sirius and Earth (so what's the difference?)" Our Apollo moon only stinks to high heaven, while Mars sucks away at critical expertise as well as limited resources, and otherwise extracting billions away from intellectually as well as physically starving folks. I wonder which is worse off, being a Cathar or another NASA hugger that's intent upon skewing morality as well as physics into the nearest space toilet. I don't mean to be such a total pest about our unique moon but, even those moons of Mars rotate as unsynchronized about their home world, as do all other recorded moons, except for the one orbiting Earth. Now, I wouldn't be having to do this if folks weren't so absolutely opposing the notions of there being other life besides what's existing on this Earth. I mean, give me a break, are these folks actually that pathetic and anti-life or what? Phobos mean radius: 21 km (13 mi) Distance from Mars: 9,380 km (5,830 mi) Period of Rotation: 0.3188 days Deimos mean radius: 12 km (8 mi) Distance from Mars: 23,460 km (14,580 mi) Period of rotation: 1.2625 days BTW; the mean density of Mars is: 3.95 grams/cm³ which in itself seems is a whole lot more like the composition of our moon than Earth. Jupiter's rotation Period: 9.92 hours Of the 5 primary and 12 or so other moons of Jupiter, even though there should have been if not concurrently tidal forces at play, yet there seems to be none of these moons in synchronization with their home world. Thus once again our unique moon seems somewhat out of step with the trend of such things. Another nagging consideration upon those meteorites and shards strewn about the surface of Mars, considering the entire lack of any atmospheric buffer zone associated with our moon, surely the lunar surface environment must be considerably more intensified with the same sorts of debris, as clearly similar if not worse to what was imaged by the Mars pathfinder mission, and only recently being confirmed by what's being imaged as we speak. As I've stipulated on other pages, the odds of yourself being impacted by at least a dust-bunny or a gram worth of micro meteorite of something that's obviously unimpaired from colliding with the moon is actually quit good, whereas I've averaged those sorts of impacts at 10 km/s, as you must realize that our moon is traveling through space at roughly 30 km/s (+/- lunar velocity with respect to Earth) thereby colliding with numerous debris in addition to that which is simply targeting the moon and being accelerated at the 1.6 m/s/s as captured by lunar gravity. So, according to those Apollo images, that are of potentially far better resolution than even the most recent Mars images, especially if those quality negatives and/or transparencies were to be scanned at 9600 dpi or even 19,200 dpi, even though somehow these terrific frames recorded such damn few meteorites and shards, but mostly that of a desert like surface reflecting average illumination quite nicely at roughly 55%, without any perceptible mineral colors at that. So, the question is, which of these two sources of images (Mars/moon) is true to life, as surely one of them is skewed. Mars images: http://www-k12.atmos.washington.edu/k12/mars/graphics/ http://www-k12.atmos.washington.edu/...s/80894_fu.jpg Moon images: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/pla...tt_boulder.jpg http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/ht...h_40_5886.html http://home.arcor.de/yoiks/mondbilde...-107-17446.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/as16-107-17446.jpg There are certainly far better and worse Apollo lunar photo examples (depending upon what you're looking for), though you'll still need to consistantly disregard the total lack of any blast crater, as well as for those illumination hot spot issues, never minding that for some unexplained reasons not even the star Sirius could have been imaged, though apparently careful attention was always given to exclude upon such horrifically bright stars, not to mention avoiding Venus like the plague (Venus must have always been on the other side of the sun), and especially avoiding any of those frames from including Earth along with a lunar landscape with an astronaut were taboo. Notice how the final redo issued by NASA on the as16-107-17446.jpg is rather significantly lesser image quality than of their original, of which the original includes that infamous "C" rock among a few other tidbits, but also notice how the background terrain is suddenly so entirely devoid of meteorite debris, and so nicely illuminating at that, without ever a single dark basalt rock anywhere within the image to be seen, much less of any hint of even a vibrant star that still should have been recorded as a relatively dim point of illumination (most stars being highly UV worthy and there being no atmosphere to block/filter such intense UV photons). http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/ Notice how much reflective brightness the lunar surface continually offers in respect to those 80% reflective moon suits, then notice how the majority of rocks are actually brighter than their suroundings. I could certainly go on and on but, what's the point, or perhaps this is also where we should apply our "high standards and accountability" and "so what's the difference" factor. Apparently the fact that there were so few, and otherwise relatively minimal meteorites and shards strewn about isn't supposed to suggest anything either. Although, if you'd care to go through any number of other Apollo images, of which we've all see more than our fair share, please do offer your notions as to why there's so damn few of those meteorites and shards, especially when the overall lunar surface had been so much more so mega impact pulverised and has remained entirely vulnerable than even Mars. The fact that the lunar surface as portrayed by those Apollo images seemed to be so darn reflective is yet another skewed avenue of something that's never been resolved because, if there were the expected average of 11% reflective index involved (darkish basalt and meteorite strewn and all), as then the imaging of those absolutely vibrant stars would have been a rather simple task, and even somewhat difficult to have avoided and/or pass up, unless you were an absolute village idiot moron on drugs. Of course, there's always been a few dozen other pesky issues, as well as far better qualified folks having their say, where all of which must be disregarded about their opposing those infamous Apollo missions on more grounds than I ever imagined. So, all you'll need to do is skew those laws of physics and to apply whatever conditional parameters whenever necessary, and lo and behold, as in right out of that space toilet, in spite of the total lack of whatever rational sciences, much less independent or even technical expertise support for those missions, somehow they all happened exactly like our NASA stipulated, and the last time I'd checked under my pillow, the tooth fairy left me a million bucks, plus another million of those Halburton stock options. Besides all of this pathetically stupid Apollo "yes we did", "no they didn't" crap, why don't we just cut to the chase by utilizing our resident warlord's "so what's the difference" WMD policy, and call it good. Latest Sirius entry, along with graphics (Feb. 03, 2004): ****** http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-sirius-trek.htm * http://guthvenus.tripod.com/synchronized-moon.htm http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-earth-venus.htm Calling Venus; If you're perchance the least bit interested in the truly hot prospect of achieving interplanetary communications, as for that quest I've added lots into this following page; http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-interplanetary.htm BTW; There's still way more than a darn good chance of there being other life of some sort existing on Venus: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm Some good but difficult warlord readings: SADDAM HUSSEIN and The SAND PIRATES http://mittymax.com/Archive/0085-Sad...andPirates.htm David Sereda (loads of his honest ideas and notions upon UV energy), for best impact on this one, you'll really need to barrow his video: http://www.ufonasa.com The latest round of insults to this Mars/Moon/Venus class action injury: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-what-if.htm Some other recent file updates: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-04.htm http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-gwb-moon.htm http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-illumination.htm http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-moon-02.htm Regards. Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
building a base on the Moon | Andromeda et Julie | Science | 7 | February 15th 04 04:34 AM |
NASA to Start From Scratch in New [Moon/Mars Exploration] Effort | Tom Abbott | Policy | 14 | January 19th 04 01:12 AM |
NEWS: The allure of an outpost on the Moon | Kent Betts | Space Shuttle | 2 | January 15th 04 01:56 AM |
Moon base or ISS? I say take your pick | Abdul Ahad | Space Station | 23 | November 16th 03 07:18 AM |