A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Who will build the moon base?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 15th 04, 04:07 PM
RocketScientistForHire
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 16th 04, 05:55 AM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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. |
  #7  
Old February 17th 04, 09:21 PM
Guth/IEIS~GASA
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.