|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message ... Hop David wrote: A large number of small probes manufactured on an assembly line would have a small unit cost. Small enough probes could be bundled two or three (maybe more) per launch, reducing launch costs. These could show us where ice and other resources are on the moon and NEOs. You would soon run into the limits of the DSN. Paul So we build more. Jeez. |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
Brian Thorn wrote: On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:50:19 GMT, Dick Morris wrote: I've seen it on line and also in the Seattle PI, Jan. 9: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...archpagefrom=2 NASA to start from scratch in new effort By PAUL RECER AP SCIENCE WRITER "If NASA returns astronauts to the moon and then takes aim at Mars, the agency will have to go back to the drawing board to get the job done. The rockets, equipment and engineers that put American footprints on lunar soil have long been lost, junked or retired. Beware... This is the same article that claims that Apollo and Saturn V plans are "lost" (they're on microfilm at Marshall Spaceflight Center) and that Apollo flew "reactors" to the moon (they didn't.) Fact-checking is obviously not Mr. Recer's specialty. I don't consider the AP to be the most reliable news source in the world, and it is difficult to see how NASA could spend a trillion dollars going to the Moon AND Mars even if they tried. But press reports like that make it more difficult to convince people that it can actually be done for an affordable cost even if they are totally fabricated. Brian |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
In sci.space.policy john doe wrote:
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote: Remember, just to develop the industrial base on the Moon to make this possible you're going to have to have cheap launch from here on Earth. And more importantly, have a way to return to earth the ore that you have mined on the Moon, and all of this should be cheaper than the ore that is mined on earth. no, just returning to LEO would be enough. -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
In sci.space.policy drdoody wrote:
Precicely what how did you imagine going from "ore comes out of mine" to "and here is a satellite ready to be sent to Jupiter" ? Oh, I don't know.... Maybe the same way we do it here? The way we do it down here involves thousands of people working in hundreds of different factories. Only without the mammoth levels of ineptitude and government bloat. Hopefully, at least. The majority of satellites are not build by or for any government. This just means you have no idea what "making things" (never mind making something complex) means. Why don't you tell me? Better yet, why don't you tell me how NASA is going to do anything more than futz around with dead end projects without some sort of assistance? Without some sort of corporate interest in space exploration, we're not going anywhere.We're just going to continue lobbing money at NASA in exchange for a few "Gee Whiz"-probes and some nifty pictures of places we're never going to go. As a matter of fact, yes you are. Because guess what, taken together, taxpayers and voters are really stupid. Just observe the number of distinct parties with more than 5 members in teh US House or Congress. Doc -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
In sci.space.policy Kaido Kert wrote:
"Sander Vesik" wrote in message ... There is basicly no benefit to launching a satellite from Earth and then adding to it a booster that was lifted up from Moon. If you spent even a fraction of what going to be wasted in this PR excercise on Moon on developing better propulsion you would get radicaly better results. You said "there is no benefit ... " hm.. so you already know what the purely theorethical launch from lunar surface will cost ? You already know how much Why does it matter? You have to get the sattelite there from Earth and then launch it again from moon. Preceicely what targets with how large delta/v do you have in mind that would get a big boost from being re-launched from Moon? lunar-produced solar panels will cost ? You already know how capable Solar panels don't make up a significant percentage of the cost of satellites nor science missions. There is no evidence that 1/6 g gravity would make producing solar panels cheaper than doing so on Earth. theorethical lunar version of deep-space network will be ? The lunar version of deep space network will be no more capable than similar thing on earth orbit - in fact, it has limitations the one in earth orbit doesn't have. You already know that "this" is a PR excercise ? Want to provide any shred of evidence otherwise? Like say past performance by US presidents making bold big statements for non-PR reasons and NASA promoting industrial development in space? You are making quite bold assertions here... Merely common sense. As there is no pressing need or particular hurry to get those close-up photos of Plutos surface, deferring such "missions" say .. a couple of decades should be a no-brainer, if this money is needed for somewhat more practical developments closer to current frontier. And your evidence that there will be any development is what? -kert -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
... You said "there is no benefit ... " hm.. so you already know what the purely theorethical launch from lunar surface will cost ? You already know how much Why does it matter? You have to get the sattelite there from Earth and then launch it again from moon. Not the entire satellite or spacecraft. You could be launching a _lot less_ mass to the moon, than entire deep-space craft. And it matters because the final delta-v you can impart on the vehicle could be much bigger than with any launch from earth. You dont have aerodynamic restrictions on launch, craft and launcher geometries can be much more relaxed. Perhaps more importantly, mass budgets would be much more relaxed, also implying more robust and redundant spacecraft systems. Increased mass means robust shielding of spacecraft systems, so it could actually withstand solar flares on longer missions. Im also quite sure that loading deep space craft with fission reactor fuel on the moon would cause no significant rampaging mobs ( http://www.google.com/search?q=cassini+nuclear+protest ) lunar-produced solar panels will cost ? You already know how capable Solar panels don't make up a significant percentage of the cost of satellites nor science missions. There is no evidence that 1/6 g gravity would make producing solar panels cheaper than doing so on Earth. Solar panels by themselves dont cost much, but launching them costs as much as any mutlimillion-dollar intricate science instrument you can come up with. By omitting them, you can simply increase your mass budgets or make your craft fit on smaller, cheaper launchers. Plus, count how many spacecraft have failed due to troubles with solar panel deployment ( just launched Loral Telstar 14 developed a problem, http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/2134 ) When launching from the moon, due to much relaxed launch mass budgets and relaxed spacecraft geometry, you dont even have to have a separate deployment mechanism, given that the structure is able to withstand the launch acceleration. theorethical lunar version of deep-space network will be ? The lunar version of deep space network will be no more capable than similar thing on earth orbit - in fact, it has limitations the one in earth orbit doesn't have. Which orbital DSN are you talking about ? How are you going to launch 70-meter antennaes to orbit anytime soon ? You already know that "this" is a PR excercise ? Want to provide any shred of evidence otherwise? Like say past performance by US presidents making bold big statements for non-PR reasons and NASA promoting industrial development in space? Of course i dont have no evidence otherwise. But neither do you have any proof that this _is_ JUST a PR excercise, and you made the original claim. You are making quite bold assertions here... Merely common sense. ....with limited field-of-vision. As there is no pressing need or particular hurry to get those close-up photos of Plutos surface, deferring such "missions" say .. a couple of decades should be a no-brainer, if this money is needed for somewhat more practical developments closer to current frontier. And your evidence that there will be any development is what? Published info from the likes of XCOR, X-Prize and its contestants, SpaceX, SpaceHab Inc (SPAB), TransOrbital, SpaceDev ( SPDV.OB ), Space Adventures, and the existence of two alive and happy space tourists Dennis Tito and Mark Shuttleworth. |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
Kaido Kert wrote:
any launch from earth. You dont have aerodynamic restrictions on launch, craft and launcher geometries can be much more relaxed. Perhaps more importantly, mass budgets would be much more relaxed, also implying more robust and redundant spacecraft systems On the moon, contrary to LEO, you have to contend with a lot of dust potentially contaminating your systems, connectors etc during outfitting prior to launch. (unless you build huge "clean" hangars, for which we lack technology right now). |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
In article ,
John Doe wrote: Kaido Kert wrote: any launch from earth. You dont have aerodynamic restrictions on launch, craft and launcher geometries can be much more relaxed. Perhaps more importantly, mass budgets would be much more relaxed, also implying more robust and redundant spacecraft systems On the moon, contrary to LEO, you have to contend with a lot of dust potentially contaminating your systems, connectors etc during outfitting prior to launch. (unless you build huge "clean" hangars, for which we lack technology right now). That's what the lunar lavatubes are usable for, among other things. On the moon the surface indicators show tubes several hundred meters in diameter, and several kilometers long. They seem to be the only place on the Moon where no one yet has expounded on a good transport mechanism to waft dust inside very far. With clean tubes that have good skylight entrances the assembly and launnch of devices would be eased considerably, as wih many lunar operations. Regards, Tom Billings -- Oregon L-5 Society http://www.oregonl5.org/ |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ...
Pluto is the largest Kuiper belt object. Many such objects have their orbits deflected into the inner solar system and become comets. Since Pluto is still within the Kuiper belt, it is more likely to be in a pristine state. Studying Pluto's atmosphere will give us clues to the composition and lifecycle of Kuiper belt objects, which will become valuable once we start trying to exploit near-Earth asteroids, many of which are suspected to be extinct comets. It may even come in handy trying to figure out how to deflect such near-Earth objects from collisions with Earth. You're really reaching. NASA spends just a few million dollars a year on collision detection and nothing at all on deflection. Planetary defense specialists have fought hard just to get that. I've never heard any planetary defense specialist suggest NASA should increase planetary defense funding to half a billion dollars, then spend 99.9% of it to study the one Kuiper belt object that's *least* likely to collide with Earth, while ignoring everything else. If you want to justify your Pluto mission as planetary defense, then you should submit it to a panel of planetary defense specialists and let them peer-review it, along with against all the other planetary defense proposals. The same with exploiting near-Earth asteroids. I'm sure any mining geologist who's interested in near-Earth asteroids would rather spend the money to visit near-Earth asteroids, rather than visiting Pluto because somehow tell them something that's distantly related. |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why We Shouldn't Go To Mars | Jon Berndt | Space Shuttle | 11 | February 18th 04 03:07 AM |
NEWS: The allure of an outpost on the Moon | Kent Betts | Space Shuttle | 2 | January 15th 04 12:56 AM |
We choose to go to the Moon? | Brian Gaff | Space Shuttle | 49 | December 10th 03 10:14 AM |