NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture

in article , Brad Guth
at wrote on 10/2/05 12:39 AM:

George Evans;

Shadow fill on the moon should be about half of what it is on earth. Just
step into a shadow on a bright sunny day and observe that light is coming
from terrestrial surfaces and the sky. If you were on the moon you would only
be missing the sky. And as far as the brightness of the lunar surface, I
notice that it is visible against the day time sky clear out to the limb. So
there is a lot of light available to fill a shadow created by the lander.

With a 12% downright dark and nasty average albedo, a nearly point-source of
raw solar illumination (meaning highly mono-directional) and supposedly no
atmosphere, the shadow-fill shouldn't have been worth 10% of what you'd get on
Earth having nearly three fold greater average albedo to work with...

I believe the albedo figure for earth includes light reflected from clouds.
And if the moon is so dark why can you see it against the day time sky?

Pinko commie *******. NASA kicked the Soviet Union's ass, and it was sweet
to watch.

BTW; how do you know that I'm "pinko" and not just another son of God that's
in need of a good cross? I'll have to bet you saw nothing all that wrong with
Popes going postal upon Cathars, or even that little Christ on a stick fiasco
(I understand that Christ was quite a little trouble maker, thus deserved what
he got, much like JFK).

I question your knowledge of Cathars.

George Evans

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 18:42:51 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 17:12:08 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

I was thoroughly warped by those damned school movies about science and
the World Of Tomorrow.

I wouldn't put *all* the blame on them, Pat. You seem to have been
warped by many things.

I'm not so sure he's blaming them than thanking them. :-)

Well, perhaps "responsibility" would have been a more neutral word.

Alan Anderson;
Not bedrock. Regolith. Eons of micrometeorite bombardment have not
only eroded the surface rock, but compacted it quite nicely.
Thanks for that correction of "Regolith" instead of being of whatever
basalt/bedrock. Still seems a pretty damn nifty 6 out of 6 times as
representing sort of an extreme landing trick as having been the case
of those hocus-pocus sorts of scientifically need-to-know/nondisclosure
and otherwise of undocumented fly-by-rocket technology landers, as per
their tonnage upon arrival having managed to never compress into much
greater than an inch worth if hardly any amount into the unusually thin
deposits of lunar regolith/top-soil. I certainly wonder all the time as
to why such a nasty deposit of moon-dust wasn't even the least bit
electrostatic nor otherwise photon reactive, and as always as to why
they never bothered as to obtain those natural dark colors and deep
albedo Kodak moments while they were there.

In physics-101 and hard-science proof-positive terminology; how does
such a near vacuum environment as having no apparent binders and as
obviously not having any terrific amount of gravity that still somehow
manages as to supposedly compact such regolith/basalt + meteorite dirt
is even possible, especially when other dry moons seem to have been
radar probed as meters deep in their fluffy moon-dust?

Does this represent that space snowballs are highly compacted along
with having solid ice cores?

I can certainly fully appreciate the icy proto-moon as having somewhat
recently lost its 270 km worth of such an icy coating, whereas as
thereby having quite nicely compacted upon a great deal of whatever
lunar dust and soil that was previously upon it's rock of a core.
Although, what happens to such sequestered dust, sand or soil that has
been released from having been iced down and thus having been 100%
covered as per right here upon mother Earth, whereas there's still a
million fold more water vapor to work with under the absolute hottest
and driest of conditions than upon the moon?

I believe it's been called dry-quicksand, that's more than a wee bit
difficult to walk upon unless it's merely an extremely thin layer. Even
the mostly sub-frozen and thus relatively hardened soil via dry-ice as
binder from an environment as Mars represents, whereas it seems to
impose surface-tension limitations upon an extremely light weight
robotic probe that's hardly sufficient for any task of digging and/or
mining, much less processing and exporting.

It seems that solar/cosmic flak as well as micro meteorites, sand and
perhaps a good varity of extremely slight dust as attempting to get
into the environment of Earth hasn't hardly a chance in hell of all
that much arriving upon the surface. Of what does manage to get through
the atmospheric gauntlet has been most certainly contributing towards
displacing oceans, lakes, rivers or having become sequestered within
layers of snow and ice, and of what's eventually getting situated where
us humans walk is rather easily eroded, blown and otherwise frequently
washed clean into the oceans, rivers and lakes that basically makes it
all go away, and then some (especially if you included the solids
contributed by way of humanity and of our mostly bad sorts of
interactions with the very nature of geology).

Of course the moon hasn't any of that terrestrial stuff going for
atmospherically deflecting, vaporising or subsequently having erosions
and/or surface weather related factors that's transferring whatever
arrives into flowing off into moon-rivers and moon-ponds or lakes and
basins of moon-dust, although from time to time the solar winds should
have been causing a certain amount of surface erosion and thus at least
particially transfering such dirt/dust off the most vertical of
regolith and basalt bedrock, thus causng the mostly horizontal and/or
basin like zones to becoming extremely deep in such light dust that's
most likely anything but light in color nor of becoming all that
naturally clumping.

Even upon Earth, dry coal dust simply doesn't clump, nor would most any
such bone-dry substance. Not even the supposed samples as having been
returned to Earth, whereas we have better than a million fold more
ambient moisture, haven't clumpted. Why is that?
~

Life on Venus includes your basic Township, Bridge & Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Russian/Chinese LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
A few other sub-topics of interest by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 21:46:29 GMT, in a place far, far away, George
Evans made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

in article , Brad Guth
at wrote on 10/2/05 12:39 AM:

With a 12% downright dark and nasty average albedo, a nearly point-source of
raw solar illumination (meaning highly mono-directional) and supposedly no
atmosphere, the shadow-fill shouldn't have been worth 10% of what you'd get on
Earth having nearly three fold greater average albedo to work with...

I believe the albedo figure for earth includes light reflected from clouds.
And if the moon is so dark why can you see it against the day time sky?

I thought you said you'd stop feeding the loon.

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:


I'm not so sure he's blaming them than thanking them. :-)


Oh, I thank them! By studying the oversold crazed BS of the past, one
can hopefully detect it in the present day.
I've always been a skeptic bordering on a cynic (as some people may have
noticed), but I've seen enough of the Great Wonders Of Tomorrow to
realize just how few of them pan out, and how many people buy into them-
sometimes literally, and to the department of their pocketbooks.
Meanwhile, back at Popular Mechanics:
Some things they just never give up on:
http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/197108.jpg
They've got a real fixation on these things:
http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/197409.jpg
Although early on, they were very skeptical of them:
http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/191203.jpg
But they looked so cool on the cover, they kept coming back:
http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/193002.jpg
I haven't done a exact count, but dirigibles are easily one of the most
popular things on P.M. covers over the years, following closely on the
heels of aircraft.
Just so I can end up on a actual space-related thing, here's the cover
for the March 1930 P.M.:
http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/193003.jpg
Around 15 years later, something like this would be a big hit in London.

Pat

In article ,
George Evans wrote:

Payment shouldn't precede innovation.

Sure it should, if innovation isn't needed to provide whatever good or
service you're willing to pay for.

That is not payment, that is investment.

Incorrect. If it were investment, I wouldn't expect a good or service
in return. When I give money in exchange for a good or service, that's
payment.

You are confusing means of production with production.

Not at all.

Certainly not! NASA should be customers of these companies. You're
absolutely right, where innovation is needed, investors will step up to
the plate -- if they can be convinced of a market (which, incidentally,
NASA could substantially help to provide).

Well then, NASA shouldn't pay anyone until they can do something cheaper.

Cheaper than what? Cheaper than NASA? Just about anybody can do that.

I would be very surprised if the bureaucrats at the NHA were the ones
building the houses at all.

Nor are the bureaucrats at NASA the ones actually building launchers.
But they nonetheless cause it to happen, to the space industry's great
detriment.

But if they were out there with their own
hammers, and their "techniques are antiquated, slow, and cost way more than
they should", then you are going to be very attractive to them. Don't you
think they want to have as many houses as they can for the money they spend.
I think you'll get the contract.

You haven't been watching NASA long, have you? At least we agree on
what *ought* to happen.

I'm saying, let's get NHA out of the house-building business. Let them pay
other people to build houses, and there will arise a house-building market
where techniques will naturally get faster, better, and cheaper through
market forces (i.e. competition).

Yep, that's what's happening.

No, it is not. NASA is building yet another big overpriced launcher of
their own, instead of purchasing launches on the open market.

But you don't really want NHA out of the market do you?

Yes (as a supplier, that is -- they'd make a fine customer).

Right. And that would be a silly thing to do. As long as the final house
meets your requirements, you shouldn't care how it was built. Whoever can
build that house at the best price should get your money.

What if all the carpenters in your area don't know how to build a house yet.
Which one do you write the check to? Should the NHA pay for their training?

But they do; there are already several carpenters willing to build
houses for the right price, and half a dozen more who claim that they'll
be able to build houses if they can get some funding. They're having
trouble getting funding, though, as long as NHA is building most of the
houses in the country and therefore limiting the market size. Once NHA
commits to buying its launches -- even if it buys them initially from
the big overpriced contractors -- these little guys will be able to
attract some investment, prove their techniques, and start selling their
service. This will force the overall prices down, as the more expensive
contractors either adapt or get priced out of the market.

I don't understand why you're complaining about having to compete with
overpriced, inefficient launchers.

Because those overpriced, inefficient launchers are subsidized by tax
dollars. That makes them unfairly difficult to compete with. Moreover,
NASA deciding to build its own launchers makes that launcher
*impossible* to compete with; despite congressional mandates to the
contrary, NASA is refusing to buy cheaper, more efficient launch
services. That's the problem. It's been a problem for decades, but
with the demise of Shuttle they had a chance to finally get it right.
The sad thing about the new plan is, they're not taking that chance;
they're going on with the same business-as-usual, efficiency-be-damned
policy.

NASA resigning from the launch business would not cause investors the like
Cormier, it might actually cause investors to get cold feet wondering why
NASA was giving up.

Pure rubbish. This makes as much sense as thinking you could jump off a
space elevator in at LEO altitude and be in orbit.

Cormier may or may not be able to attract investors in such an
environment, but the environment WOULD be far more favorable and he'd
have a much better chance at it. Investors want to know where the
market is, how big it is, and what the competition is. Right now those
things are all stacked against private launch companies, and if NASA
would stop building its own launchers and commit to buying launches
instead, they would all be favorable.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

in article , Rand Simberg at
h wrote on 10/2/05 5:59 PM:

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 21:46:29 GMT, in a place far, far away, George
Evans made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

in article , Brad Guth
at wrote on 10/2/05 12:39 AM:

With a 12% downright dark and nasty average albedo, a nearly point-source of
raw solar illumination (meaning highly mono-directional) and supposedly no
atmosphere, the shadow-fill shouldn't have been worth 10% of what you'd get
on Earth having nearly three fold greater average albedo to work with...

I believe the albedo figure for earth includes light reflected from clouds.
And if the moon is so dark why can you see it against the day time sky?

I thought you said you'd stop feeding the loon.

Sorry, just shaking off the crumbs.

George Evans

in article , Joe Strout at
wrote on 10/2/05 8:04 PM:

In article ,
George Evans wrote:

snip

Certainly not! NASA should be customers of these companies. You're
absolutely right, where innovation is needed, investors will step up to
the plate -- if they can be convinced of a market (which, incidentally,
NASA could substantially help to provide).

Well then, NASA shouldn't pay anyone until they can do something cheaper.

Cheaper than what? Cheaper than NASA? Just about anybody can do that.

Can do, as in can do tomorrow, not can do someday.

I would be very surprised if the bureaucrats at the NHA were the ones
building the houses at all.

Nor are the bureaucrats at NASA the ones actually building launchers.
But they nonetheless cause it to happen, to the space industry's great
detriment.

No detriment. NASA paying for goods produced by private companies makes it a
customer. Having a rich customer is good for an industry. It's when the
government becomes a producer that an industry suffers.

But if they were out there with their own hammers, and their "techniques are
antiquated, slow, and cost way more than they should", then you are going to
be very attractive to them. Don't you think they want to have as many houses
as they can for the money they spend. I think you'll get the contract.

You haven't been watching NASA long, have you? At least we agree on what
*ought* to happen.

I agree I haven't been watching NASA critically for long. But I have had
some experience with government contracts.

I'm saying, let's get NHA out of the house-building business. Let them pay
other people to build houses, and there will arise a house-building market
where techniques will naturally get faster, better, and cheaper through
market forces (i.e. competition).

Yep, that's what's happening.

No, it is not. NASA is building yet another big overpriced launcher of
their own, instead of purchasing launches on the open market.

Does NASA own the means of producing the launchers, or is it purchasing
major subsections from private companies and assembling them?

But you don't really want NHA out of the market do you?

Yes (as a supplier, that is -- they'd make a fine customer).

You've got it.

Right. And that would be a silly thing to do. As long as the final house
meets your requirements, you shouldn't care how it was built. Whoever can
build that house at the best price should get your money.

What if all the carpenters in your area don't know how to build a house yet.
Which one do you write the check to? Should the NHA pay for their training?

But they do; there are already several carpenters willing to build houses for
the right price, and half a dozen more who claim that they'll be able to build
houses if they can get some funding. They're having trouble getting funding,
though, as long as NHA is building most of the houses in the country and
therefore limiting the market size. Once NHA commits to buying its launches
-- even if it buys them initially from the big overpriced contractors -- these
little guys will be able to attract some investment, prove their techniques,
and start selling their service. This will force the overall prices down, as
the more expensive contractors either adapt or get priced out of the market.

Honestly, those contractors sound like a bunch of fakers. I wouldn't trust
them to build me a house.

I don't understand why you're complaining about having to compete with
overpriced, inefficient launchers.

Because those overpriced, inefficient launchers are subsidized by tax dollars.
That makes them unfairly difficult to compete with. Moreover, NASA deciding
to build its own launchers makes that launcher *impossible* to compete with;
despite congressional mandates to the contrary, NASA is refusing to buy
cheaper, more efficient launch services. That's the problem. It's been a
problem for decades, but with the demise of Shuttle they had a chance to
finally get it right. The sad thing about the new plan is, they're not taking
that chance; they're going on with the same business-as-usual,
efficiency-be-damned policy.

Stop whining for Pete sake. Look, grab someone like Rutan who has a lot of
experience in composite construction and figure out a method of building SRB
segment cases out of carbon fiber. I read today that those cases are drawn
out from a single donut shaped ingot of steel so there are no welds. A
carbon fiber case has the same advantage because it would be made of
thousands of layers continuously wound around.

Now, if your cases can pass all the strength tests and can meet all other
specs, why wouldn't NASA change to your cases thus gaining a lot of payload
capacity? Doesn't NASA want more payload capacity?

NASA resigning from the launch business would not cause investors the like
Cormier, it might actually cause investors to get cold feet wondering why
NASA was giving up.

Pure rubbish. This makes as much sense as thinking you could jump off a space
elevator in at LEO altitude and be in orbit.

Cormier may or may not be able to attract investors in such an environment,
but the environment WOULD be far more favorable and he'd have a much better
chance at it. Investors want to know where the market is, how big it is, and
what the competition is. Right now those things are all stacked against
private launch companies, and if NASA would stop building its own launchers
and commit to buying launches instead, they would all be favorable.

I have a hunch that NASA is doing pretty much what it should be doing. Where
they can buy they buy and when they can't buy they build expensively and
inefficiently leaving ample room for improvement. That's perfect for the
industry.

George Evans

George Evans;
I question your knowledge of Cathars.
That's good to realize that you're not taking every last word that I
have to say all that seriously because, unlike our resident warlord(GW
Bush), I've certainly made more than my fair share of mistakes.

I believe the albedo figure for earth includes light reflected from clouds.
That's true enough, thus perhaps the average earthly terrain might be a
bit more likely represented by 22~24%, thus roughly 2:1 better off than
what's so dark and nasty about the average surface of our moon.

And if the moon is so dark why can you see it against the day time sky?
11~12% albedo is still worth 150~160 w/m2 of the raw solar spectrum
that's incoming as moonshine (the exception being that the moon is
reflecting a whole lot more efficiently upon IR than UV), thus
whatever's the amount of reflected photon energy of the 400~800 nm
spectrum (I believe this boils down to something less than 100 w/m2) is
sufficient considering the available surface area that's accomplishing
the reflecting, and certainly because it's so freaking large it's quite
easily noticed as well as photographed during a reasonably clear day,
although Venus is also seen and photographed by day, just that Venus is
going to record as a mere speck of intensity instead of such an
enormous orb presentation like our moon.

Of course, upon the moon is where at least two of the missions
(especially Apollo-16) the nearby likes of Venus would have been
situated within an absolutely pitch-black and crystal clear portion of
the lunar sky, or rather lack of sky, thus situated nowhere near the
sun and as unfiltered by any atmosphere and obviously looking so much
brighter to the human eye, and then especially as being near-UV and
UV-a brighter yet to the unfiltered Kodak eye, and I'd say mighty damn
hard to have managed to have continually excluded out of each and every
photographic scene. Venus certainly would have recorded as a speck that
was brighter than a similar speck of Earth, just not being as large as
what Earth should have recorded as, which is yet another factor within
so many of the regular EVA Apollo shots that included mother Earth as
not only rather near to the lunar horizon but as being not all that
large, which would be perfectly understandable if using the wide angle
lens.
~

Life on Venus includes your basic Township, Bridge & Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Russian/Chinese LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
A few other sub-topics of interest by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

Pat Flannery wrote:

By studying the oversold crazed BS of the past, one
can hopefully detect it in the present day.

Along those lines, everyone here should be aware of the wonderful
'Tales of Future Past' site:

http://davidszondy.com/future/futurepast.htm