A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old September 20th 05, 08:57 AM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ray" wrote:

We humans are explorers. This is normal for us.


As a race? Not really. The bulk of the race is very solidly
stay-at-home, take-no-risk, eat-only-what-grandpa-ate.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
  #62  
Old September 20th 05, 09:04 AM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

dasun wrote:
Ever hear of exploration geologists? Mining companies set up camp in
the middle of somewhere - like Timbuktu - and the geologists move in to
map the local geology.


No ****, dasun. The point, which whizzed completely over your
head, is that in some situations geologists are *not* sent
in, because it would be far too expensive to do so. Even
on Earth they use remote techniques when it's sufficiently
cheaper.


They use remote techniques because it's more reasonable to do so -
digging a shaft wide enough for a geologist yet deep enough to reach
oil is virtually an impossibility, and remote methods return enough
data to be useful.

OTOH - anywhere it is reasonable to put a set of eyes and hands in
situ, they do so. (Even where it's only semi reasonable - something
like half of Alvin's dives have been geologic in nature.)

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
  #63  
Old September 20th 05, 09:09 AM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Michael Rhino" wrote:

They'd each need a "departure stage" if it were done that way.


Is there a problem with two departure stages? If they join together, they
are twice as heavy, so you need twice the fuel to get them there.


For a given weight at TLI, you'll need essentially the same amount of
fuel for the same weight - it doesn't matter if the weight is in two
packages (each having half the payload and half the TLI fuel) or a
single stack. Thus splitting the TLI stage in two doesn't save fuel
(which is cheap anyhow), and increases costs and failure modes.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
  #64  
Old September 20th 05, 12:17 PM
Paul F. Dietz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

dasun wrote:

that people add significant value to the exploration
processes, which is why on Earth exploration geology is performed in
conjunction with remote sensing.


They are used on Earth because on Earth people are *really cheap*.

Mining companies would never solely
rely on remote sensing to decide to mine an area.


If there's an area of land on Earth were geologists
can't economically be sent to the surface, then mining companies
will not employ just remote sensing because the area won't
be economical to mine at all.

This application of this observation to the moon should be obvious.
Or are you going to tell me about all the mining companies just
raring to go to open lunar mines?

Paul
  #65  
Old September 20th 05, 12:18 PM
Paul F. Dietz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Derek Lyons wrote:

They use remote techniques because it's more reasonable to do so -
digging a shaft wide enough for a geologist yet deep enough to reach
oil is virtually an impossibility, and remote methods return enough
data to be useful.


Reasonable == economical.

Paul
  #66  
Old September 20th 05, 12:35 PM
Douglas Holmes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"S. Wand" wrote in message
...
I think I read that CEV would be 5.5m across the base of the heat shield,
compared to 3.9m for Apollo. I haven't seen any figures on internal
volume
yet. I'd guess it'd be a bit smaller per person than the shuttle.

I think a large CEV is fine for the lunar missions - but for ISS rendevous
a
Soyuz-class vehicle is sufficient. I'm sure it's too much money for NASA
to
have another vehicle - but hopefully they'd consider private industry at
some point for the LEO market. Wishful thinking...

The capsule appears to be about 18-20 m3 and mass about 9,000 kg.

With appropriate amounts of fuel about 18 mt to ISS, 15mt without escape
system (unmanned).

A little heavy but not as bad as I feared.


  #67  
Old September 20th 05, 01:03 PM
Ray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Ray" wrote:

We humans are explorers. This is normal for us.


As a race? Not really. The bulk of the race is very solidly
stay-at-home, take-no-risk, eat-only-what-grandpa-ate.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL


Not true. If that were true, our primitive predecessors would not
have gotten out of Africa. We humans might have become that way over that
last 200 years, but we are explorers by heart, and we need to be inspired
and shown the way.
I think its pathetic how people are against human space exploration. Too
much of this attitude and we will become extinct someday. Another problem
is that people are cheap with tax money. They don't want it wasted, so give
it back in a tax break and watch how they spend it important things like
alcohol, tobacco, drugs and gambling.

Ray


  #68  
Old September 20th 05, 01:10 PM
Paul F. Dietz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ray wrote:

Not true. If that were true, our primitive predecessors would not
have gotten out of Africa. We humans might have become that way over that
last 200 years, but we are explorers by heart, and we need to be inspired
and shown the way.


This is just bull****. The vast majority of humans are not explorers.
They have been born, lived, and died in small geographical areas -- that's
why human racial diversity still exists, after all.

Long distance exploration has been a desperate, dangerous, last-resort
behavior, undertaken by fringe elements or individuals who would otherwise
have been failures. And these elements typically haven't needed megafunding
from megagovernment to do this exploration, so the application to the
current situation in space is tenuous at best.

I think its pathetic how people are against human space exploration.


I think the transparently foolish arguments used to justify space
exploration are what is truly pathetic.

Paul
  #69  
Old September 20th 05, 01:21 PM
Ray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Doe" wrote in message ...
Ray wrote:
Ridiculious comment above. We are going back to the moon to learn to
live their! Not just to pick up a couple of rocks!



You are naive if you think that. Nothing in the announced plan will
develop technology to land "space station" elements on the moon. Nothing
in the announced plan will have technology to sohoot mining equipment to
get some water.

All that is announced is a glorified 4 person LEM capable of staying 1
week instead of 2 days with 2 crewmembers.

Hopefully that glorified LEM will have room for a dune buggy line the
later Apollo missions.

And once they've made the flight to the moon to pickup rock samples, how
much do you bet that the program will be cancelled ?

That makes no sense. You have a spacecraft designed to operate
outside of earth orbit, you make a few flights to the moon and then cancel
the program? No. And do what with the CEV? Operate it in orbit only? No. It
was not designed for that. I dont think any future American President,
Senate or Congress will be that stupid enough to cancel the program with one
exception. The moon program might be cancled eventually for Mars, but to
cancel it and do nothing outside of earth orbit is just stupid. I think the
congress and the senate are dedicated to this program.
Ray

The shuttle has been to the station far more times than Apollo went to
the moon. And the CEV , if it is ever completed, will have gone more
times to the station than to the moon.



  #70  
Old September 20th 05, 01:47 PM
Ray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
...
Ray wrote:

What else should NASA do?


It could cease to exist. Government agencies don't have a right to life.

Paul


If moon, mars and beyond cannot be justified and its too expensive
then why did the Congress (94%), Senate and President overwhelmingly approve
it? Why couldn't they just stay with the shuttle or developed an orbital
space plane to get to orbit only when we need to or just cancel manned space
exploration? I think we got moon, mars and beyond because the US government
overwhelmingly supports it and a lot of major aerospace corporations support
it.

Ray


 




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
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 July 4th 05 07:50 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 August 5th 04 01:36 AM
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) Nathan Jones Misc 6 July 29th 04 06:14 AM
The Apollo FAQ (moon landings were faked) Nathan Jones Astronomy Misc 8 February 4th 04 07:48 PM
The Apollo FAQ (moon landings were faked) Nathan Jones Misc 8 February 4th 04 07:48 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:09 PM.


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.