Lunar aerobrake to the Space Station

Would be fun, and something new.

Plus, they would have to buy a commercial ticket home.
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

One benefit would be a low G return to Low Earth Orbit.

With a lifting aerobrake vehicle, maximum return g's could easily be held
below 3 gees. It could be as low as 1 gee, depending on the Lift/Drag
ratio of the vehicle.

Centripetal Acceleration:

Acc = w**2 * R

(36550 fps / 25500 fps) ** 2 = 2.05 gees required for circular Earth orbit
at Lunar return velocity. Minus the 1 gee due to gravity leaves 1.05 gees
of aerobrake lift required for LEO capture from a Lunar return trajectory.

Various Lift/Drag ratios:

L/D = 1, (L**2 + D**2)**0.5 = 1.5 gees
L/D = 2, 1.17 gees
L/D = 3, 1.11 gees
L/D = 4, 1.08 gees

To be fair, this could be done with a direct entry. But, since NASA would
be paying the fare instead, NASA could leave the Lunar return aerobrake
vehicle at the Space Station. Ready for a little refurbishment for the
next Lunar mission.

Might even reduce exploration cost per mission.

Would be fun, and something new.
Plus, they would have to buy a commercial ticket home.

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 08:27:39 -0700, Carsten Nielsen wrote:

I was hoping to see them return the astronauts direct, but everything
else to ISS.

To use Apollo terms, the CM lands with the astronauts, but after
delivering the CM into the correct trajectory, The SM goes into an
orbit, where it can aerobrake to ISS, with suits, lunar samples, etc.

Then it gets fueled up, and used again without having to be launched
twice.



When I go to the movies lately, it's Sequel This or Sequel That. Like
reruns with some new fancy computer generated graphics. Same plot. Now I
know that many people weren't here for the Apollo program and the Moon
landings. But, NASA current plot to get back to the Moon should be called
"Apollo the Sequel", a rerun and not very interesting. Maybe they should
start numbering the flights with 18.

Yeah, the splashdowns of Apollo were always exciting, and would be fun to
watch again. But instead of "splashdowns", in NASA current plot, they
would have to call splatdowns??? Hope they chose a different word.

Why launch relaunch the CM every time? Make it all very complicated with
the separation from the SM? Just return everything to the Space Station
for refurbishment and another mission. Just repair things (if necessary)
and replace the consumables.

Wouldn't it be better to test the manned aerobrake vehicles at Earth
first, instead of Mars? Wouldn't it be better to have manned aerobrake
vehicle version 2 going to Mars, instead of version 1?

Wouldn't it be better to test the Mars vehicle's space endurance and
repair concepts during the Lunar mission?

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

Craig Fink,
If you mean as to having those actual R&D of fly-by-rocket landers
proof-tested, as having incorporated those actual powerful momentum
reaction wheels and of including absolute butt-loads of shielding
against the lunar gamma and unavoidable hard-X-rays, then yes I'd have
to agree, that at least having established the station-keeping science
platform or of the full blown LSE-CM/ISS as situated within the LL-1
zone is a perfectly good start in the right direction of efficiently
accomplishing other missions that could be humanly survivable, and thus
reasonably obtainable.

Here's a few of my suggestions and otherwise a few more of those pesky
questions of my own.

Why the heck isn't your "soc.culture.jewish" collective involved in
this nifty topic?

Was it something that I'd said? (such as the truth and nothing but the
truth)

You'll need to ask yourself; what's the least bit anti-Islam or
anti-Jewish about there being other intelligent life on Venus,
especially since they too could be Islamic or perhaps Jewish, or at the
very least Cathar for all we know.

Apparently most Jews are not actually smart enough or otherwise honest
enough as to realize that technically it only takes one such Kodak
moment as having been proven as being phony. How many hundreds of
those easily proven as phony (AKA hocus-pocus) Kodak moments of our
NASA/Apollo EVA fiasco would you folks like to review?

Obviously if you're into reading this, you're either one of them (AKA
the bad guys) or you're just as snookered and otherwise as dumbfounded
as I was 7+ years ago.

Isn't of what I've discovered and/or uncovered the least bit NOBEL
PRIZE worthy?

Why the heck can't I become the first Mennonite to win a Nobel?

From: Amanda Angelika
:But I don't think that proves they didn't do it. It just means it
:was difficult to fully document what they did with the photographic
:and video technology of 1969 and the 1970s. And of course these days
ractically everyone has some sort of Video Camera or video technology

:and are more aware of how such things work, so fakery becomes more
bvious to the public as time goes on.

In other words, yourself and others that most likely 100+% support all
that's NASA/Apollo have an acceptable level of LLPOF conditional
physics and of hocus-pocus science plus evidence exclusion, as long as
it lets yourself and of your kind pretend that we've been walking on
that physically dark and otherwise extremely nasty moon of ours.

Please list all the laws of physics that you folks do not believe in.

Please list all of the replicated hard-science that doesn't count.

I guess this means you folks also have an acceptable level of
collateral damage and carnage of the innocent, that's obviously on
behalf of supporting your perpetrated cold-war(s) and of whatever else
your mainstream status quo requires of it's little brown nosed minions.

There was nothing new about Kodak film back then or now that would
explain away those images that look as though so entirely phony as all
get out, and that's even as based upon their very own robotic obtained
images that were developed while on the fly and having been scanned and
digital/microwave transferred back to Earth, as for their having shown
us an entirely different and otherwise perfectly believable moon from
orbit than from the actual surface. Thus far, there is no actual
original film that we can review as derived back from being within the
Van Allen belts, or much less from whatever's beyond because, such well
shielded film (especially of being nearby that terribly gamma and
hard-X-ray moon of ours) simply had to be developed right then and
there, or else.

The Van Allen expanse is perhaps at most worth 10 db of radiation
moderation from what our moon has to offer, or possibly it represents
something slightly less than 7 DB. Either way, it's what's primarily
saving us from being radiated to death by our moon. Oddly, the
hard-science that pertains to our moon and of those Van Allen belts
from team ACE and of every other available robotic mission is moderated
to death and/or sequestered, remaining as though taboo/nondisclosure if
such science could have any impact upon the truthful knowledge that's
pertaining to our moon. Even team KECK and of more recently team
MESSENGER had avoided our moon, and so forth.

OOPS!, it seems at times I've broken GOOGLE's Usenet. Sorry about
that. Now it's as though whenever I've contributed my dyslexic
encrypted truth is when the entire access to this anti-think-tank of
this disinformation Usenet from hell comes to a near halt (I have
pigeons that are a whole lot faster at transferring packets, and
certainly as otherwise more trustworthy).

In spite of these all-know wizards, rusemasters and those members of
their Third Reich collaborating kind that can't seem to honestly
address their own Kodak documented issues of "photogrammetric
rectification", of a greater than half illuminated Earth while being
days past sunrise on the moon, of the extremely slight crescent of
Earth as supposedly obtained from the lunar deck of what's extensively
xenon lamp spectrum illuminated, nor as to any of those oops!
blue-screen images, or for that matter anything as having to do with
those fly-by-rocket landers or even the impressive task that can't be
replicated of getting nearly 50t into orbiting our moon so quickly,
along with those spare tonnes of reaction thrusting fuel (especially
fuel intensive since not having any momentum reaction wheels to work
with), plus loads of their essential retrothrust and other fuel tonnage
for returning home as entirely unscaved along with all of that Kodak
film that supposedly hadn't yet been developed, whereas I'm doing the
very best that I can to fix my words and to improve upon the syntax and
math.

Obviously the regular laws of physics and of the replicated science
truth is what's bothering these folks the most (unfortunately, knowing
an fo sharing the truth and having supposed friends of your own kind in
high places didn't do much good for Jesus Christ, nor had any of those
nice Cathars been spared that were simply being good folks that had
been extremely well educated and subsequently making the Pope look as
though a little greedy and arrogant). Sorry about that (go suck
another dozen rotten eggs), because once you're dead and gone is when
it really doesn't matter, does it.

Instead of our having a few good religions on Earth (assuming that
being Jewish qualifies), it seems we have dozens of extremely touchy if
not a few too many bad ones that are going postal from time to time, by
way of their having under/over reacted on just about anything you can
think of. I guess my having a Mennonite background of our folks being
those of a somewhat non blood thirsty (Cathar like) group of moderate
and considerate souls doesn't even count, especially these days when
it's all about having the most oil, coal and natural gas is the one and
only pagan God of politics on steroids that matters, whereas being a
certified born-again liar and Skull and Bones member in good standing
is what makes you president.
-
Brad Guth

Craig Fink wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 08:27:39 -0700, Carsten Nielsen wrote:

I was hoping to see them return the astronauts direct, but everything
else to ISS.

To use Apollo terms, the CM lands with the astronauts, but after
delivering the CM into the correct trajectory, The SM goes into an
orbit, where it can aerobrake to ISS, with suits, lunar samples, etc.

Then it gets fueled up, and used again without having to be launched
twice.



When I go to the movies lately, it's Sequel This or Sequel That. Like
reruns with some new fancy computer generated graphics. Same plot. Now I
know that many people weren't here for the Apollo program and the Moon
landings. But, NASA current plot to get back to the Moon should be called
"Apollo the Sequel", a rerun and not very interesting. Maybe they should
start numbering the flights with 18.

Yeah, the splashdowns of Apollo were always exciting, and would be fun to
watch again. But instead of "splashdowns", in NASA current plot, they
would have to call splatdowns??? Hope they chose a different word.

Why launch relaunch the CM every time? Make it all very complicated with
the separation from the SM? Just return everything to the Space Station
for refurbishment and another mission. Just repair things (if necessary)
and replace the consumables.

Wouldn't it be better to test the manned aerobrake vehicles at Earth
first, instead of Mars? Wouldn't it be better to have manned aerobrake
vehicle version 2 going to Mars, instead of version 1?

Wouldn't it be better to test the Mars vehicle's space endurance and
repair concepts during the Lunar mission?

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @