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

Astronauts want to go to the moon



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 6th 12, 04:06 AM posted to sci.space.station
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,312
Default Astronauts want to go to the moon

Several comments yesterday afternoon by astronauts seems to suggest to me
that they want to go back to the moon, not an asteroid. I guess the topic
came up due to the moon being very visible so i understand during the space
walk, but the comments did seem to be unquestioned and maybe un noticed,
but I heard them.

Brian

--
From the Bed of Brian Gaff.
The email is valid as
Blind user.


  #2  
Old September 6th 12, 02:24 PM posted to sci.space.station
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default Astronauts want to go to the moon

In article ,
says...

Several comments yesterday afternoon by astronauts seems to suggest to me
that they want to go back to the moon, not an asteroid. I guess the topic
came up due to the moon being very visible so i understand during the space
walk, but the comments did seem to be unquestioned and maybe un noticed,
but I heard them.


It's visible, but I'd argue that we've "been there, done that". Note
how coverage of the lunar missions peaked with Apollo 11 then tapered
off until the O2 tank blew on Apollo 13.

Exploring an asteroid that's *far* away from earth, as opposed to the
moon which is *in our backyard* would be far more interesting, IMHO.

In a lot of ways, a smallish asteroid is far easier to explore than the
moon since you don't need much of a lander, due to the very low delta-V
required to "land" and "takeoff". If the asteroid is small enough, you
don't need a lander at all. You can just "land" your
Orion/hab/propulsion stack right on the thing.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
  #3  
Old September 6th 12, 02:44 PM posted to sci.space.station
Alan Erskine[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,026
Default Astronauts want to go to the moon

On 6/09/2012 11:24 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
It's visible, but I'd argue that we've "been there, done that". Note
how coverage of the lunar missions peaked with Apollo 11 then tapered
off until the O2 tank blew on Apollo 13.


The same thing will happen with Mars missions. While people have been
to the Moon, there's not that much difference between the Moon and Mars
either. One beauty about the Moon is it's always visible to the Near
Side, whereas Mars isn't; that's at least comforting.


Exploring an asteroid that's *far* away from earth, as opposed to the
moon which is *in our backyard* would be far more interesting, IMHO.


Same thing with Moon/Mars missions.


In a lot of ways, a smallish asteroid is far easier to explore than the
moon since you don't need much of a lander, due to the very low delta-V
required to "land" and "takeoff". If the asteroid is small enough, you
don't need a lander at all. You can just "land" your
Orion/hab/propulsion stack right on the thing.



And have it bounce off too.
  #4  
Old September 6th 12, 03:35 PM posted to sci.space.station
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default Astronauts want to go to the moon

In article om,
says...

On 6/09/2012 11:24 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
It's visible, but I'd argue that we've "been there, done that". Note
how coverage of the lunar missions peaked with Apollo 11 then tapered
off until the O2 tank blew on Apollo 13.


The same thing will happen with Mars missions. While people have been
to the Moon, there's not that much difference between the Moon and Mars
either. One beauty about the Moon is it's always visible to the Near
Side, whereas Mars isn't; that's at least comforting.


True.

Exploring an asteroid that's *far* away from earth, as opposed to the
moon which is *in our backyard* would be far more interesting, IMHO.


Same thing with Moon/Mars missions.


Also true.

In a lot of ways, a smallish asteroid is far easier to explore than the
moon since you don't need much of a lander, due to the very low delta-V
required to "land" and "takeoff". If the asteroid is small enough, you
don't need a lander at all. You can just "land" your
Orion/hab/propulsion stack right on the thing.



And have it bounce off too.


If the gravity is low enough that could be an issue. Mechanically
anchoring the craft to the asteroid might be useful.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
  #5  
Old September 6th 12, 05:25 PM posted to sci.space.station
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,312
Default Astronauts want to go to the moon

They have already done this with near I guess, but in a way you are making
the opposite point o which you claim. I think the idea is to set up shop on
the Moon now, and use it as a staging post to other places.

Brian

--
--
From the sofa of Brian Gaff -

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article ,

says...

Several comments yesterday afternoon by astronauts seems to suggest to me
that they want to go back to the moon, not an asteroid. I guess the topic
came up due to the moon being very visible so i understand during the
space
walk, but the comments did seem to be unquestioned and maybe un
noticed,
but I heard them.


It's visible, but I'd argue that we've "been there, done that". Note
how coverage of the lunar missions peaked with Apollo 11 then tapered
off until the O2 tank blew on Apollo 13.

Exploring an asteroid that's *far* away from earth, as opposed to the
moon which is *in our backyard* would be far more interesting, IMHO.

In a lot of ways, a smallish asteroid is far easier to explore than the
moon since you don't need much of a lander, due to the very low delta-V
required to "land" and "takeoff". If the asteroid is small enough, you
don't need a lander at all. You can just "land" your
Orion/hab/propulsion stack right on the thing.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer



  #6  
Old September 6th 12, 05:30 PM posted to sci.space.station
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,312
Default Astronauts want to go to the moon

Actually are we not looking at this the wrong way. Why do we need coverage
coverage coverage in the midia. Most of the interesting stuff happens in
science without cameras showing it all the time after all. If we want to be
going off world one needs to take it a little step at a time gradually
letting go of the earth support. I do not think we are anywhere near ready
for that just yet. the moon is a fair way, but not out in the asteroid belt
where a blown major item is next to impossible to replace.
Brian

--
--
From the sofa of Brian Gaff -

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article om,
says...

On 6/09/2012 11:24 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
It's visible, but I'd argue that we've "been there, done that". Note
how coverage of the lunar missions peaked with Apollo 11 then tapered
off until the O2 tank blew on Apollo 13.


The same thing will happen with Mars missions. While people have been
to the Moon, there's not that much difference between the Moon and Mars
either. One beauty about the Moon is it's always visible to the Near
Side, whereas Mars isn't; that's at least comforting.


True.

Exploring an asteroid that's *far* away from earth, as opposed to the
moon which is *in our backyard* would be far more interesting, IMHO.


Same thing with Moon/Mars missions.


Also true.

In a lot of ways, a smallish asteroid is far easier to explore than the
moon since you don't need much of a lander, due to the very low delta-V
required to "land" and "takeoff". If the asteroid is small enough, you
don't need a lander at all. You can just "land" your
Orion/hab/propulsion stack right on the thing.



And have it bounce off too.


If the gravity is low enough that could be an issue. Mechanically
anchoring the craft to the asteroid might be useful.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer



  #8  
Old September 7th 12, 03:52 AM posted to sci.space.station
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default Astronauts want to go to the moon


"Brian Gaff" wrote in message ...

Actually are we not looking at this the wrong way. Why do we need coverage
coverage coverage in the midia. Most of the interesting stuff happens in
science without cameras showing it all the time after all. If we want to be
going off world one needs to take it a little step at a time gradually
letting go of the earth support. I do not think we are anywhere near ready
for that just yet. the moon is a fair way, but not out in the asteroid
belt where a blown major item is next to impossible to replace.
Brian


Generally I agree. But to twist an old phrase, "No Buck Rogers, no bucks".

Manned space tends to help unmanned space. There's something to be said
about "being there".

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

 




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
Astronauts really did go to the moon, says Alien L.A.T.[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 1 July 29th 08 05:31 AM
First Men on the Moon - DRESS REHEARSAL -- Astronauts or AstroNOTS? Jesper Thomsen Space Shuttle 1 July 21st 06 04:19 PM
China shelves plan for astronauts on moon Dave Downing History 23 June 22nd 04 10:39 PM
Did The Apollo Astronauts See The Moon Or Earth 'Approaching'? Skip Freeman Amateur Astronomy 6 September 20th 03 08:41 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:34 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.