A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NASA / Musk will kill astronauts for a manned outpost on the Moon



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old May 18th 20, 03:10 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Doctor Who[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default NASA / Musk will kill astronauts for a manned outpost on the Moon

On 5/18/20 3:27 PM, wrote:
From talk.origins

Il giorno lunedì 18 maggio 2020 00:50:01 UTC+2, Wolffan ha scritto:
On 17 May 2020,
wrote
(in ):

Il giorno domenica 17 maggio 2020 06:45:02 UTC+2, Bob Casanova ha scritto:
On Sat, 16 May 2020 14:43:10 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by
:

Il giorno sabato 16 maggio 2020 23:30:04 UTC+2, Bob Casanova ha scritto:
On Sat, 16 May 2020 03:51:34 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by
:



I am tired to repeat to everyone what is written in links in
www.asps.it/pnndatabase.htm

If the action reaction is violated (III principle) ..... change the inertia law ( I principle) and F=ma ( II ) .... so all is different from what you think.

I found in test that F=ma increase with time at the same electric power.
You think as newtonian man but but PNN is NON newtonian !!!!!!
It is very difficult to understand if you don't make NON newtonian experiments.

Read here more in
https://www.okpal.com/building-a-rea...space-ship/?#/

This year F432 patent will be filed so everyone can reapeat the PNN experiments.

We don't need more money to produce the collapse of astronautics to suppositories.

We just want to enjoy the spectacle of what will happen when the know-how of the pnn is known :-)


I've gotta side with Calmagorod on this one. I'm a hair's width away
from putting "Jeff Findley" in my killfile because of this "anti-pnn"
fantasy.
  #22  
Old May 18th 20, 04:28 PM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default NASA / Musk will kill astronauts for a manned outpost on the Moon

On 2020-05-18 7:48 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
NASA would save a ton of money
by using Dragon 2 to ferry astronauts to lunar Starship while it's still
in LEO, but Congress would have none of that.

Jeff


That's very interesting. Was that ever formally proposed? Or even
better, use Dragon 2 for a crew carrier and the Starship and a new and
(vastly) improved "upper stage". Neither of which need SLS to get to
orbit or to refuel.

Now Starship doesn't depend on a crew cabin to be useful and we're not
wasting billions of dollars on SLS to mainly just get to LEO with no
practical upper stage yet in sight...

Dave
  #23  
Old May 18th 20, 04:53 PM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default NASA / Musk will kill astronauts for a manned outpost on the Moon

On 2020-05-18 11:28 AM, David Spain wrote:
That's very interesting. Was that ever formally proposed? Or even
better, use Dragon 2 for a crew carrier and the Starship [AS] a new and
(vastly) improved "upper stage". Neither of which need SLS to get to
orbit or to refuel.

Now Starship doesn't depend on a crew cabin to be useful and we're not
wasting billions of dollars on SLS to mainly just get to LEO with no
practical upper stage yet in sight...


A Starship as a fully reusable/refuelable upper stage transfer vehicle.
Why even bother with heat shielding if it is never intended to return to
Earth? And Dragon2 evolves into longer duration crew vehicle for Earth
orbital and lunar orbital or gateway excursions from/to a landing
vehicle that gets refueled by the Starship transfer vehicle.

Still don't have a reusable lunar lander but is this the beginning of a
workable lunar exploration architecture? Can a lunar lander burn
methalox as a fuel?

If Starship matures into its own crewed vehicle we could do away with
Dragons, lander and gateway. But that's still a hell of a lot of wait
time for Starship development that really isn't necessary, unless the
trade off between getting a crewed Starship built and a lunar lander is
a wash. Other than the lander, I think we could get a gateway built PDQ
since it's primarily a filling station to make a reusable lander design
simpler.

Sometimes tho parallel development is a good thing. IF all things being
built by the private sector can track TOGETHER. Which used to be NASA's
job, making sure that happens.

Since the money on SLS is already sunk, maybe we can use it as an
expendable BDB to get lunar surface bound cargo to LEO for transfer
later by Starships until they are all used up? Man I wish we had that
money back, we need to stop doing SLS in place of a reusable lunar
lander. Like yesterday.

Dave
  #24  
Old May 18th 20, 06:10 PM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 108
Default NASA / Musk will kill astronauts for a manned outpost on the Moon

Il giorno lunedì 18 maggio 2020 18:05:02 UTC+2, John Bode ha scritto:
On Saturday, May 16, 2020 at 2:00:02 AM UTC-5, wrote:
NASA/MUSK should stop before starting with the Artemis project which in my opinion is
more dangerous than the space shuttle project.


No, the Shuttle was pretty much THE touchstone for dangerous spacecraft.

Say what you will about SLS (I have), an inline configuration with an actual abort motor
vs. sidemount with no abort capability is automatically MUCH safer. There's no possibility
of foam strike damage (what killed Columbia) and there's a system to get the hell away
from the main tank when an SRB starts burning a hole into it (what killed Challenger).

It's wasteful and expensive, but it will be safer from the start than the Shuttle.

As for overall project architecture, the Gateway is stupid and was introduced solely
to deal with Orion's wimpy-ass service module. It adds complexity where it really isn't
needed. The Starship model looks compelling from that perspective - launch a single,
massive vehicle, refuel in orbit, go pretty much anywhere.

Of course, the Starship may fail - SpaceX may have gone down a technological dead end,
and the engineering challenge may be greater than they anticipated. But based on their
success so far, I don't think that's likely.


Since 50 years rocketry is not able to perform manned outposts on the Moon and Mars
for the simple fact that not even 1% of the Apollo 11 mass returned to earth.


Welcome to the tyranny of the rocket equation. Reactionless drives are, so far, pure
science fiction. When traveling in space, the only way to go forward is to throw something
out the back.


It seems so because you don't know how to use electrodynamics! :-)

You never thought about the event that when Newton formulated classical mechanics he knew nothing about electromagnetism.

After all, when you say this thing with conviction (non-violation of Newton's III) it does us a great favor.

It does not go to investigate the historical folds of electrodynamics and the events that have influenced it in development.
You are completely superficial.

But this year you will have the opportunity to see that this is not the case with PNN and the rockets will gradually become a comic memory

E.Laureti



Getting off the ground and into orbit means you need thrust. Thrust is a function of mass
flow rate, so high-thrust engines burn through their propellant quickly. Once the tank's
empty, it works against you, so you drop it. The problem with Apollo was that there was
no plan to recover and reuse tanks or engines, which made the program expensive and
unsustainable.

Given the remit, though (get a man on the Moon and back to Earth by the end of the '60s),
that's understandable. The challenge was already big enough, adding reusability on top
of it would have been too much.

  #25  
Old May 18th 20, 06:19 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default NASA / Musk will kill astronauts for a manned outpost on the Moon

In article , says...

On 2020-05-18 7:48 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
NASA would save a ton of money
by using Dragon 2 to ferry astronauts to lunar Starship while it's still
in LEO, but Congress would have none of that.

Jeff


That's very interesting. Was that ever formally proposed?


No. The NASA requirements for the Artemis crewed lunar landers state
that the lander must dock with Orion in high lunar orbit, the crew lands
on the moon, and later returns to dock with Orion in high lunar orbit.
SpaceX would not have gotten an award had they proposed anything
different.

Or even
better, use Dragon 2 for a crew carrier and the Starship and a new and
(vastly) improved "upper stage". Neither of which need SLS to get to
orbit or to refuel.


Sadly, NASA is not open to such suggestions.

Now Starship doesn't depend on a crew cabin to be useful and we're not
wasting billions of dollars on SLS to mainly just get to LEO with no
practical upper stage yet in sight...


Unfortunately, Congress continues to fund SLS/Orion so NASA must use it.

I must say though I am impressed that NASA Administrator Bridenstine has
relegated the use of SLS to only launching Orion. None of the lunar
landers chosen will use SLS as a launch vehicle. Same for Gateway
modules, as far as I can tell.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #28  
Old May 18th 20, 06:27 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default NASA / Musk will kill astronauts for a manned outpost on the Moon

In article , says...

On 5/18/20 3:27 PM,
wrote:
From talk.origins

Il giorno lunedì 18 maggio 2020 00:50:01 UTC+2, Wolffan ha scritto:
On 17 May 2020,
wrote
(in ):

Il giorno domenica 17 maggio 2020 06:45:02 UTC+2, Bob Casanova ha scritto:
On Sat, 16 May 2020 14:43:10 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by
:

Il giorno sabato 16 maggio 2020 23:30:04 UTC+2, Bob Casanova ha scritto:
On Sat, 16 May 2020 03:51:34 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by
:



I am tired to repeat to everyone what is written in links in
www.asps.it/pnndatabase.htm

If the action reaction is violated (III principle) ..... change the inertia law ( I principle) and F=ma ( II ) .... so all is different from what you think.

I found in test that F=ma increase with time at the same electric power.
You think as newtonian man but but PNN is NON newtonian !!!!!!
It is very difficult to understand if you don't make NON newtonian experiments.

Read here more in
https://www.okpal.com/building-a-rea...space-ship/?#/

This year F432 patent will be filed so everyone can reapeat the PNN experiments.

We don't need more money to produce the collapse of astronautics to suppositories.

We just want to enjoy the spectacle of what will happen when the know-how of the pnn is known :-)


I've gotta side with Calmagorod on this one. I'm a hair's width away
from putting "Jeff Findley" in my killfile because of this "anti-pnn"
fantasy.


Oh no! Please don't! Whatever will I do? /s

Jeff

--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
 




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
NASA considers orbital outpost near moon as next big project [email protected] Policy 18 October 1st 12 12:37 AM
NASA considers outpost beyond moon's far side [email protected] Policy 12 February 18th 12 07:41 AM
NASA plans to put astronauts back on moon by 2018, using old Ap... Michael Baldwin Bruce Astronomy Misc 5 September 21st 05 12:29 PM
Outpost, a longtime NASA tavern, damaged by fire Jorge R. Frank History 21 February 9th 05 01:31 PM
NEWS: The allure of an outpost on the Moon Kent Betts Space Shuttle 2 January 15th 04 01:56 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:40 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.