NASA Back to Moon by 2018 - But WHY ?

On 19 Sep 2005 15:32:23 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
wrote:

As it is, each mission will do just
a little more than Apollo did 50 years before it.

Well, over 200% more. (2x crew, 2.25x stay time.)

Brian

On 19 Sep 2005 15:46:52 -0700, "Crash" wrote:


Actually,

The Hubble telescope recently spotted the Titlelist that Buzz Aldrin
was was whacking around.

Ahem. You misspelled "Alan Shepard".

Brian

"Alan Anderson" wrote in message
...
"abracadabra" wrote:

I know they found at least one decent water supply in a crater filled
with
ice on the dark side.

"It's not what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you
know that ain't so."

Hey, I heard it on the radio about 8 years ago. Sorry if my memory is
sketchy about the particulars.

In article t,
abracadabra wrote:

*sigh*
I remember staying up late to see men walk on the moon. I slept through it,
but I'll never forget how everyone in the USA (in my little world of
elementary school) saw everything differently the next day.

It would be great to see the "robots" again. One of my first memories,
around age 3-4, was watching these human shaped robots bounce around on
our black and white tv. It wasn't until years later when I worked out
the year that I realized I was remembering the last moon landing...

--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total ****. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS

Alan Anderson wrote in
:

"abracadabra" wrote:

I know they found at least one decent water supply in a crater filled
with ice on the dark side.

"It's not what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what
you know that ain't so."

There is no dark side of the moon. Matter of fact, it's all dark.

--
JRF

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

(B1ackwater) wrote:

Robots can explore, robots can drill and mine, robots can
construct habitats from imported and natural materials,
robots can assemble equipment - and do it cheaply, safely
and well.

This has become an article of faith in the thirty years since _The
High Frontier_ and the space manufacturing conferences that followed.

Way back then, being sadly deficient in Vision, I ran some of the
proposals past experienced mining and processing engineers: how far
and fast could you go with few or no people and automated or
telepresence equipment? I'm not talking about unfolding solar panels
or linking modules, but about processing many tons of solids.

After they stopped laughing and stood up, they pointed out that here
on earth, with spare parts and machine shops and all the rest of the
infrastructure at hand, it typically takes *swarms* of engineers and
technicians (unencumbered by space suits) all over a new operation for
months -- sometimes years -- to work the kinks out and get anywhere
near the "paper" throughput. That answer hasn't changed much while the
spacers moved on from mass-driver payloads to He3 and PGMs and Martian
regolith.

But hey, these people aren't Manly Space Engineers, they're just bozos
from Peabody or Broken Hill or Barrick. What would they know?

In sci.space.policy Michael Rhino wrote:
"B1ackwater" wrote in message
...
(CNN) -- NASA Administrator Michael Griffin rolled out NASA's plan for
the future Monday, including new details about the spaceship intended
to replace the shuttle and a timeline for returning astronauts to the
moon in 2018.

The design for the new crew exploration vehicle (CEV) looks a lot like
the Apollo-era spaceship that first took NASA to the moon a generation
ago. It is a similarity that is not lost on Griffin.

"Think of it as Apollo on steroids," he told reporters at NASA
headquarters in Washington.

In my mind, Apollo on steroids would require lots of flights -- around 50
manned flights and 50 heavy lift cargo flights over 20 years. I don't know
if that is the plan. No single flight can be Apollo on steroids.

I dunno.
Steroids do cause weight growth, lack of balls, irrationality and premature
deaths.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 09:38:10 GMT, Monte Davis
wrote, in part:

After they stopped laughing and stood up, they pointed out that here
on earth, with spare parts and machine shops and all the rest of the
infrastructure at hand, it typically takes *swarms* of engineers and
technicians (unencumbered by space suits) all over a new operation for
months -- sometimes years -- to work the kinks out and get anywhere
near the "paper" throughput.

True. But humans operating telepresence devices on the Moon could well
provide some of the crucially-needed human input. Since it costs much
more to put humans in space than to put machines in space, it does make
sense to make extra effort to get by with as little human presence as
possible.

John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:23:39 -0400, The_Bob
wrote:

B1ackwater wrote:

OK - the question is "WHY ?". A few people for a few days at
a time ... it's just not worth doing (except to enrich certain
aerospace companies).

The answer is chrome plating it, of course, that way when we finish
paving the earth the shine off of it at night will allow us to eliminate
street light posts, which cause accidents.

Ah ... but they're invaluable as a physical support
mechanism for drunks !

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:10:00 GMT, (B1ackwater) Gave us:

OK - the question is "WHY ?".

Because we can.

Snipped looney stuff

You're a loon.