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

Moon base or ISS? I say take your pick



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #12  
Old November 13th 03, 11:56 AM
Abdul Ahad
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moon base or ISS? I say take your pick

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ...
(Abdul Ahad) wrote in
om:

I did say the idea was rather 'fanciful'... so its interesting to hear
some counter views. But ultimately, if I had the choice of binning the
ISS or blasting it to the Moonm I know exactly which one I would
choose. 450 metric tonnes of good qaulity hardware, already ferried
somewhere in the order of 80% of the way from Earth surface to the
Moon (measured in terms of launch effort and costs)...


Wrong. It's not 80% there, in terms of costs.

just to be
abandoned in the end, sounds a bit wasteful.


I'll repeat my point, in stronger terms: it will be cheaper to custom-build
an inflatable lunar habitat, with the same habitable volume and capability
as ISS, than it would be to send ISS to the moon.

It would be wasteful to send ISS to the moon, and lose the capabilities of
ISS in LEO, rather than put an inflatable on the moon and leave ISS where
it is.


How about calling an on-orbit auction for ISS parts when it nears end
of useful life? I'm sure the Chinese could save themselves a fortune
if they could *buy* on orbit components. They would probably have
more imagination and foresight to fulfill my ambitions by conquering
the Moon with a makeshift base of some kind using ISS spare parts! The
ISS is still only partly complete and if the ENGINEERS behind the
program had an ounce of imagination, its still not too late to send up
remaining pieces with a *future* lunar goal of some kind in mind.

One question: What exactly do you mean by an inflatable habitat? Is
this another one of those millions of hypothetical concepts that's
floating around in people's heads? I read so much 'intellectual
masturbation' (IM) on these groups, its incredible. I am a realist.
The ISS is a real bank of orbiting hardware already functioning as an
effective on-orbit 'moon base'. The idea of dismantling, adapating,
then launching to the Moon from a higher platform in LEO is a
realistic, lower cost concept than to start all over again from the
ground. You hold your views and I'll hold mine. A win-win situation.
cheers.

Abdul Ahad
http://uk.geocities.com/aa_spaceagent
"The AA Institute of Space Science & Technology is a strong proponent
of Moon bases and manned Mars missions."
  #13  
Old November 13th 03, 12:35 PM
Dale
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moon base or ISS? I say take your pick

On 13 Nov 2003 02:56:18 -0800, (Abdul Ahad) wrote:

How about calling an on-orbit auction for ISS parts when it nears end
of useful life? I'm sure the Chinese could save themselves a fortune
if they could *buy* on orbit components. They would probably have
more imagination and foresight to fulfill my ambitions by conquering
the Moon with a makeshift base of some kind using ISS spare parts! The
ISS is still only partly complete and if the ENGINEERS behind the
program had an ounce of imagination, its still not too late to send up
remaining pieces with a *future* lunar goal of some kind in mind.

One question: What exactly do you mean by an inflatable habitat? Is
this another one of those millions of hypothetical concepts that's
floating around in people's heads? I read so much 'intellectual
masturbation' (IM) on these groups, its incredible. I am a realist.
The ISS is a real bank of orbiting hardware already functioning as an
effective on-orbit 'moon base'. The idea of dismantling, adapating,
then launching to the Moon from a higher platform in LEO is a
realistic, lower cost concept than to start all over again from the
ground. You hold your views and I'll hold mine. A win-win situation.
cheers.


Have you thought about this at all? Do you have any idea how much
it would cost to dismantle ISS, send up craft to take each section to
the moon and softly land them, then reassemble them on the moon?
BTW, there is fairly strong gravity on the moon. You'd have to support
them somehow- ISS doesn't have a flat "bottom". And then what do
you have? A station designed for low Earth orbit sitting on the surface
of the Moon. We could boost the Queen Mary into LEO- that doesn't
mean it's then "80%" on its way to becoming a useful Moon base.

Why not take the gazillion dollars this would require and fully fund ISS
to do what it was intended to do, plus build a Moon base (whether it's
inflatable or not is beside the point).

Dale

P.S. Your "IM" comment suggests to me that you're just trolling.
Oh well...
  #14  
Old November 13th 03, 02:39 PM
Hallerb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moon base or ISS? I say take your pick


Why not take the gazillion dollars this would require and fully fund ISS
to do what it was intended to do,


Please tell me just WHAT was that?
  #15  
Old November 13th 03, 04:08 PM
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moon base or ISS? I say take your pick

(Abdul Ahad) wrote in
om:

One question: What exactly do you mean by an inflatable habitat? Is
this another one of those millions of hypothetical concepts that's
floating around in people's heads?


No. It was originally a concept for a hab module during transit to/from
Mars. NASA decided to test it by using it for the ISS hab module. It would
have provided several times the volume of the original aluminum hab module
but could be launched on a single shuttle flight. NASA got as far as
building a test article on the ground and doing hypervelocity impact tests
to simulate micrometeoroids/orbital debris (Transhab turned out to be
*more* impact-resistant than the aluminum ISS modules), then Congress
cancelled the program. Google on "transhab" for more information.

I read so much 'intellectual
masturbation' (IM) on these groups, its incredible. I am a realist.


No, you are not. I have already described the high costs associated with
providing electrical power and thermal control to ISS modules during the
trip to the moon. I have described, in rough terms, the amount of
propulsion capability you would need to soft-land the modules on the moon.
Transhab would not have these problems since it could be sent to the moon
folded-up and inert, then inflated on arrival. It would require a large
descent stage, but you'd only need one of them, rather than one for each
ISS module. You have glossed over these details, preferring not to confront
them. Someone is engaging in mental masturbation in this discussion, but it
isn't me.

The ISS is a real bank of orbiting hardware already functioning as an
effective on-orbit 'moon base'. The idea of dismantling, adapating,
then launching to the Moon from a higher platform in LEO is a
realistic, lower cost concept than to start all over again from the
ground.


This is a commonly held misconception: that the mere fact that a spacecraft
exists means that it can perform functions wildly different from those for
which it was designed, and that it would be cheaper to do that than to
build anew.

In reality, spacecraft can do well only those things they were designed to
do. If you try to design a spacecraft to do too many things, you will wind
up with a spacecraft that does none of them well. That is one of the
biggest lessons we should have learned from the space shuttle and ISS
programs.

You have a car, and you want a boat. You think that just because you
already own the car, and because cars and boats are both forms of
transportation, that it would be a good idea to modify your car into a
boat. While I agree that this is not impossible, I think you should just go
out and buy a boat.

You hold your views and I'll hold mine.


Fair enough.
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
  #16  
Old November 13th 03, 07:41 PM
dave schneider
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moon base or ISS? I say take your pick

Dale wrote:
We could boost the Queen Mary into LEO- that doesn't
mean it's then "80%" on its way to becoming a useful Moon base.


But when you combine the ambience of Sir Winston's with all the ghost
stories, the Lunar tourists are sure going to be well taken care of!

(Actually, I don't really know what the ambience of Sir Winston's
is...my budget only ran to the Promenade Deck restaurant)


Who would the City of Long Beach pick to run the concessions? Would
the current operator get a preferred bid, or would it be wide open
again?

/dps
  #18  
Old November 14th 03, 12:08 PM
Abdul Ahad
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moon base or ISS? I say take your pick

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ...
(Abdul Ahad) wrote in
om:

You have a car, and you want a boat. You think that just because you

already own the car, and because cars and boats are both forms of
transportation, that it would be a good idea to modify your car into a
boat. While I agree that this is not impossible, I think you should
just go
out and buy a boat.


I think this is a very crude example. You know full well, you can't
simply *buy* off the shelf Moon bases like that!

While the TransHab idea sounds good in theory, you would be looking at
long timelines for development and testing, at least a decade long
program with mega financial, political and engineering hurdles, launch
delays and possible disasters (Columbia), etc. along the way. Also, I
don't see the full support structure for this Transhab idea. Where
will the power come from and how will the thermal balance be achieved?
Where are the solar panels and radiators? I take it these would be
separate non-inflatable items of much heavier weight which will still
require multiple missions for launch from the ground, Earth-Moon
transfer, soft landing and re-assembly at the other end.

There would also be need for a major interim stage where the Transhab
and all of its auxilliary components will need extensive testing &
evaluation in LEO, prior to firing to the Moon.

Add all of this up and weigh against my original idea (I know this
will have to be an 'IM' exercise as we don't have all the facts) and
then come back and tell me what the score is. The ISS is a ready
functioning unit in space... alive today, here and now, with decades
of engineering refinements already factored into it. Far simpler job
of dismantling, adapting (shileding critical components for Van Allen
radiation), propulsion attachement and firing on un-manned transfers
to the Moon. For Earth-Moon propulsion, hi-thrust unmanned transfer
boosters could be taken up (poss. several at a time on the Shuttle?)
each equipped with its own guidance systems and descent rockets
perhaps similar to the ones used in the 1960's US Surveyor program.
(The Surveyor landers did not go into lunar orbit, they came straight
in from the E-M transfer and fired retro rockets for easy soft
landing, all tried and tested stuff.)

Once all the pieces are on the Moon's surface, then, perhaps a few
years later, the human crews arrive at the soon to be Lunar base and
start the re-assembly process. I am not proposing the initial 'ISS
Moon Base' will be in any way a perfect 'habitat', but it will give us
that all important FIRST foothold on the Moon for onward expansion of
the infrastructure.
Thereafter, several Transhabs could be incrementally added on top of
the ISS Base as part of the progressive development.

Abdul Ahad
http://uk.geocities.com/aa_spaceagent
"The AA Institute of Space Science & Technology is a strong proponent
of Moon bases and manned Mars missions."
  #19  
Old November 14th 03, 01:24 PM
Dale
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moon base or ISS? I say take your pick

On 14 Nov 2003 03:08:26 -0800, (Abdul Ahad) wrote:

Abdul Ahad
http://uk.geocities.com/aa_spaceagent
"The AA Institute of Space Science & Technology is a strong proponent
of Moon bases and manned Mars missions."


"AA" being "Abdul Ahad", right? I just explored your website.
Well, I need to apologize for accusing you of being a troll. I was
very wrong. You are a nut. Nothing personal. The world needs a
few nuts. Keeps things interesting.

Good luck,
Dale

  #20  
Old November 14th 03, 03:14 PM
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moon base or ISS? I say take your pick

(Abdul Ahad) wrote in
om:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
(Abdul Ahad) wrote in
om:

You have a car, and you want a boat. You think that just because you

already own the car, and because cars and boats are both forms of
transportation, that it would be a good idea to modify your car into a
boat. While I agree that this is not impossible, I think you should
just go
out and buy a boat.


I think this is a very crude example. You know full well, you can't
simply *buy* off the shelf Moon bases like that!


The point stands. The boat is designed to be a boat; the car is not. It
will be easier and cheaper to build a boat from scratch than to modify a
car into a boat.

While the TransHab idea sounds good in theory, you would be looking at
long timelines for development and testing, at least a decade long
program with mega financial, political and engineering hurdles, launch
delays and possible disasters (Columbia), etc. along the way.


You'll need all that to take ISS to the moon. The TLI stage will need to be
a spacecraft in its own right, and probably considerably more elaborate
than the one needed for Transhab. You'll need to build a lot more of them,
too - have you actually *counted* how many modules there are on ISS? Have
you considered that *no* existing launcher is powerful enough to launch a
TLI stage *and* a lunar descent stage for an ISS module in a single launch?
In short, your plan will require a *lot* more launches than a Transhab
plan.

Also, I
don't see the full support structure for this Transhab idea. Where
will the power come from and how will the thermal balance be achieved?
Where are the solar panels and radiators? I take it these would be
separate non-inflatable items of much heavier weight which will still
require multiple missions for launch from the ground, Earth-Moon
transfer, soft landing and re-assembly at the other end.


It doesn't need them while in transit. It's folded up and inert. It will
need them on the moon, of course, but it's better to custom build them than
to use ISS components. The ISS solar arrays and radiators are extremely
flimsy, and won't hold up under 1/6 g. The radiators also really don't work
that well unless you can point them *away* from the sun, which is
impossible on the lunar surface.

There would also be need for a major interim stage where the Transhab
and all of its auxilliary components will need extensive testing &
evaluation in LEO, prior to firing to the Moon.


There's no need for that - you could assemble and integrate them on the
ground, and that would be a better test than testing in LEO.

Add all of this up and weigh against my original idea (I know this
will have to be an 'IM' exercise as we don't have all the facts) and
then come back and tell me what the score is.


ISS-to-the-moon still comes out a big loser.
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
 




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
Why We Shouldn't Go To Mars Jon Berndt Space Shuttle 11 February 18th 04 04:07 AM
NEWS: The allure of an outpost on the Moon Kent Betts Space Shuttle 2 January 15th 04 01:56 AM
Moon Base, ISS, and Shuttle Replacement Sam Nelson Space Shuttle 2 January 13th 04 03:24 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:13 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.