|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
New plans not too dissimilar to SEI?
Come to think of it, this new plan of Bush's reminds me quite a bit of his
fathers SEI - the Space Exploration Initiative from 1989. The most prominent difference is that the manned spacecraft bound for Mars are no longer to be assembled in LEO, but on the surface of the Moon. Which makes even less sense to me than the SEI did. This way, any hardware or people headed for Mars must first land on the Moon, and then take off again, making everything more expensive and complicated. As I see it, this is not the way to do things, if you want to go to Mars. But maybe Bush doesn't want to go to Mars? It looks as if this new plan has one primary objective: the establishment of a new ISS on the Moon. Sending people to Mars is something that *might* come later, and if it does, it *must* involve the Moon base one way or another, even though it looks crazy from an engineering point of view. But what do you think? -- Steen Eiler Jørgensen "Time has resumed its shape. All is as it was before. Many such journeys are possible. Let me be your gateway." |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
New plans not too dissimilar to SEI?
"Steen Eiler Jørgensen" wrote in
: Come to think of it, this new plan of Bush's reminds me quite a bit of his fathers SEI - the Space Exploration Initiative from 1989. But what do you think? The funding profile differs greatly - SEI would have doubled the NASA budget while sustaining current programs, while the current proposal is financed mainly out of the existing budget. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
New plans not too dissimilar to SEI?
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:12:18 +0100, "Steen Eiler Jørgensen"
wrote: Come to think of it, this new plan of Bush's reminds me quite a bit of his fathers SEI - the Space Exploration Initiative from 1989. The most prominent difference is that the manned spacecraft bound for Mars are no longer to be assembled in LEO, but on the surface of the Moon. Which makes even less sense to me than the SEI did. Some people just have short term insights... This way, any hardware or people headed for Mars must first land on the Moon, and then take off again, making everything more expensive and complicated. Someone miss the point of a Moon Base? As the Moon is a destination itself you know, when there is lots of cool stuff there, even if Mars is much better. Also NASA will have a lot of things to learn about a Mars mission first, where the Moon is the ideal place to obtain that knowledge. Before human conquest of Mars (Mars's life be damned), then the Luna conquest must come first. As I see it, this is not the way to do things, if you want to go to Mars. But maybe Bush doesn't want to go to Mars? Now you have it. Moon first, Mars is second. It looks as if this new plan has one primary objective: the establishment of a new ISS on the Moon. And one day following an ISS on Mars as well. The good news here at least is that these worst case scenario ISSs' won't fall out of orbit, where these resource can be used by better people (like the Chinese) later on. So it is all good, where the key here is for NASA to not screw up and build another ISS in the first place. Sending people to Mars is something that *might* come later, You can rest assured that it will come one day, unless the whole space exploration idea is abandoned. I can tell that you are a Mars supporter, where I would recommend that all Mars supports also support a Luna base. After all when that objective has been completed, then unless NASA has made a total mess of it, then Mars will certainly be their next key objective. and if it does, it *must* involve the Moon base one way or another, even though it looks crazy from an engineering point of view. It does not look crazy to me, if you actually think of the Moon as a viable destination first. Sure the President was all on about building spacecraft on the Moon, where we will have to see if that idea comes about. The resources for doing so are certainly available (the Moon is not a ball of useless dust), which makes this idea possible. What I would most like to see, long before any Mars craft come about, is for them to simply build a road on the Moon. But what do you think? Mars is like 2030 to 2040 time frame, where 2014 to 2030 is all about our Moon Base. So lets blast off and kill all the Lunar natives! ;-] Cardman http://www.cardman.com http://www.cardman.co.uk |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
New plans not too dissimilar to SEI?
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:12:18 +0100, "Steen Eiler Jørgensen"
wrote: .... the manned spacecraft bound for Mars are no longer to be assembled in LEO, but on the surface of the Moon. Which makes even less sense to me than the SEI did. This way, any hardware or people headed for Mars must first land on the Moon, and then take off again, making everything more expensive and complicated. On the other hand, after assembly and checkout on the Moon, you get to start your mission farther out of the Earth's gravity welll than you would be if you assembled in LEO. Fuel savings, anybody? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
New plans not too dissimilar to SEI?
Michael Gallagher wrote:
On the other hand, after assembly and checkout on the Moon, you get to start your mission farther out of the Earth's gravity welll than you would be if you assembled in LEO. Fuel savings, anybody? But the mission started on Earth. Everything that's been assembled on the Moon was first launched from the Earth. All personnel and hardware behind the checkout on the Moon has been launched from the Earth at one, earlier, time. So where's the total fuel saving? I'm not a total opponent of a lunar base, but don't we agree, that it takes more delta-v to go from the surface of the Earth to LEO to lunar orbit to the surface of the Moon to lunar orbit to a heliocentric transfer orbit to Mars, than it takes to go from the surface of the Earth to LEO to a heliocentric transfer orbit to Mars? -- Steen Eiler Jørgensen "Time has resumed its shape. All is as it was before. Many such journeys are possible. Let me be your gateway." |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
New plans not too dissimilar to SEI?
{{From: Cardman
What I would most like to see, long before any Mars craft come about, is for them to simply build a road on the Moon.}} The word "road" could have multiple meanings at different times: First, we'd map the local terrain and plan optimal routes from one place to another. For example, a tele-operated rover might land in a relatively safe (flat) place close to the edge of a polar crater. Then we'd map the terrain between the landing place and some spot along the edge of that crater, and drive the rover up some path that was suitable direct while suitable hazard-free. For quite a while, as our rovers study the cold material deep inside the crater, looking for hydrogen and trying to identify how it's combined with other materials (as water-ice frost or crystals between grains of dust, as hydrated minerals, as cometary residue such as ammonia or Miller-Urey tar, etc.), any "road" would be nothing more than a planned path along the natural terrain. As Lunar-polar infrastructure is built up, some such "road" might be in such heavy use that it's useful to make minor improvements, such as shaving off an immediately-neighboring obstacle to widen the path and make it safer for faster traversal, or shaving off mountain passes to reduce the up/down motion needed. Navigation transponders might be installed alongside often-traveled roads to reduce errors in navigation and thereby allow high-speed transit. On the other hand, due to the lack of water and wind and other major sources of erosion, paving of Lunar roads probably won't ever be necessary. Instead, fixed-rail roads might eventually be built along major routes, or elevated-rail roads might be built as shortcuts directly between two points, mostly ignoring the constraints of small-scale terrain. Note that building these "roads" would be part of normal usage of Luna's surface to get between places, rather than as a special demo just to prove roads can be built. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
New plans not too dissimilar to SEI?
"Steen Eiler Jrgensen" wrote in message . ..
Michael Gallagher wrote: On the other hand, after assembly and checkout on the Moon, you get to start your mission farther out of the Earth's gravity welll than you would be if you assembled in LEO. Fuel savings, anybody? But the mission started on Earth. Everything that's been assembled on the Moon was first launched from the Earth. All personnel and hardware behind the checkout on the Moon has been launched from the Earth at one, earlier, time. So where's the total fuel saving? I'm not a total opponent of a lunar base, but don't we agree, that it takes more delta-v to go from the surface of the Earth to LEO to lunar orbit to the surface of the Moon to lunar orbit to a heliocentric transfer orbit to Mars, than it takes to go from the surface of the Earth to LEO to a heliocentric transfer orbit to Mars? The point is processing Lunar dirt into rocket fuel and other materi- als. Otherwise stopping over at the Moon does indeed make no sense. If we succeeded, however, it would make lots of sense. And it wouldn't make just a journey to Mars cheaper if we could pull it off. Even satellites in Earth orbit could be easily resupplied from the Moon. Granted, it's a big "if!" But it's worth looking into. Testing out survival in a base on the Moon for practice, however, makes sense for going to Mars later no matter if we ever manage to build a mining industry on the Moon or not. If something goes badly wrong the astronauts can be evacuated and returned to Earth in days rather than months. Just what chances *do* you give a Mars base considering we haven't even been able to set up and maintain a Moon base yet? And just what is it you want on either world if you never even attempt to learn liv- ing off of the land there? -- __ âA good leader knows when itâs best to ignore the __ ('__` screams for help and focus on the bigger picture.â '__`) //6(6; ©OOL mmiii :^)^\\ `\_-/ http://home.t-online.de/home/ulrich....lmann/redbaron \-_/' |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
New plans not too dissimilar to SEI?
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 23:30:39 +0100, "Steen Eiler Jørgensen"
wrote: .... All personnel and hardware behind the checkout on the Moon has been launched from the Earth at one, earlier, time. So where's the total fuel saving? The savings would be for the Mars spacecraft, since it wouldn't require the fuel to get from LEO to the Moon. And the Moon has a lower escape velocity than Earth. Plus I imagine you get a "boost" from the Earth's orbital velocity around the Earth. Also, if the vehicle returns to the Moon instead of Earth, you don't have to worry about a part of the spacecraft making reentry; it just has to "rendezvous" with the Moon and be caught by its gravity. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
New plans not too dissimilar to SEI?
Michael Gallagher wrote in
: Also, if the vehicle returns to the Moon instead of Earth, you don't have to worry about a part of the spacecraft making reentry; it just has to "rendezvous" with the Moon and be caught by its gravity. No free lunch here. Not being able to aerobrake means needing to carry much more fuel to land in one piece. -- Coridon Henshaw - http://www3.telus.net/csbh - "I have sadly come to the conclusion that the Bush administration will go to any lengths to deny reality." -- Charley Reese |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA updates Space Shuttle Return to Flight plans | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 20th 04 05:32 PM |
Secret plans for Irish spaceship revealed | Rusty Barton | Policy | 10 | January 4th 04 02:08 PM |
MIR plans | Nicolas Deault | Space Station | 6 | November 26th 03 05:50 AM |
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation Awards $17.5 Million For Thirty-Meter Telescope Plans | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | October 18th 03 01:08 AM |
China plans station in space for the Great Leap Skyward | Martin Postranecky | Space Station | 0 | October 17th 03 12:15 PM |