|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On 19 Sep 2005 15:32:23 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
wrote: Almost agree. It doesn't need colonisation; exploitation would do. I question our ability, and motivation, to exploit the moon WITHOUT a substantial number of humans present. As I see it, the commercial exploitation will follow along naturally as lunar colonists begin to exceed their own needs and have surplus material to export. And there might be a case for sending manned crew to visit a short list of chosen base locations, before the base is deployed. Maybe ... but probably not. IMHO, everything can be done using bots unless there's some really complicated fix-it job required on an excavator or drilling machine or whatever. A descent cargo lander could have landed a mobile base, which could have been crewed on an adhoc basis. As it is, each mission will do just a little more than Apollo did 50 years before it. "A little more" isn't worth doing. This is going to be EXPENSIVE and somewhat DANGEROUS - so let's make it WORTH the pain. The moon isn't going anywhere. We can wait a bit longer if necessary or refocus our existing timeline on colonization and commercial exploitation rather than 'tourism'. I want the moon to be a money-maker, or at least self-supporting. The prime first products will be exotic minerals and electricity (microwaved back to earth and/or space-stations). Using bots to do 98% of the set-up work is sensible and economical. Yes, some little inflatable moon-hab could be dropped down so people could do maintenence visits, but the bots should dig the first mines, drill the first wells, assemble the BIG habitat for the initial wave of colonists. Ought to be able to use solar heat to sinter lunar soil & rock into standard interlockable structural components. Just spray the inside with a sealant afterwards ... could even make THAT there, if water for making the silicones is availible. If NO water is availible then a lunar colony probably isn't worth it and we should either leave it to the bots or arrange to crash a nice wet comet gently into the moon. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 23:58:29 GMT, "abracadabra"
wrote: "Alex Terrell" wrote in message roups.com... Almost agree. It doesn't need colonisation; exploitation would do. What could we exploit on the moon that would worth the shipping cost (OK, I know it takes a lot less energy to break lunar orbit than to break terran orbit, but still!) And there might be a case for sending manned crew to visit a short list of chosen base locations, before the base is deployed. A descent cargo lander could have landed a mobile base, which could have been crewed on an adhoc basis. As it is, each mission will do just a little more than Apollo did 50 years before it. *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. There was barely anything to see ... the TV pix were horribly contrasty. The semi-decent stuff they show today is what they got after carefully image-processing the tapes. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:25:49 -0500, Brian Thorn
wrote: 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.) NOT GOOD ENOUGH. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:51:26 GMT, Alan Anderson
wrote: "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." Yep. No 'decent water supply' has been located. Only a few hints that SOME water may exist near the poles ... but how MUCH and how ACCESSIBLE is totally unknown. That's what bots are for ... send a few to scout-out the area. If there's essentially NO water on the moon, is it even worth sending humans there again ? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On 20 Sep 2005 10:38:22 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote: 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. But first you get to be the multi-millionare governor of California ... :-) |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
B1ackwater wrote: (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. Under the new NASA plan, a "moon shot" would actually require two launches, both using rockets derived from shuttle launch hardware. One unmanned, heavy-lift rocket would transport a lunar lander plus supplies and other equipment to low-Earth orbit. Afterward, a second rocket would carry a crew capsule capable of transporting up to six astronauts into a similar orbit. The two would dock with each other, and then head to the moon. The first few missions are planned to put four astronauts on the surface of the moon for a week, while the unoccupied mothership orbits overhead. . . . . . 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). While doing the 'final frontier' thing is appealing, there just HAS to be a little cost/benifit thinking done first. Describing this particular endeavour as "Apollo on steroids" is quite apt - because it doesn't seem to accomplish much beyond what Apollo accomplished, just a little more of it for a lot more money. IMHO, we should not return people to the moon until they're in a position to STAY there, with plenty of company. This means a whole different sort of program - with the first phases being entirely robotic. First of all, a supply of water MUST be found and exploited. Secondly, habitats and equipment for a growing colony MUST be in place. Only then should people start arriving. 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. Any moon colony should be set up from the get-go to be perpetually self-sustaining ... because financing it from earth would be a perpetual and heavy drain on cash and resources. The moon is especially suited for using robots. Not only is the gravity light and the solar-power potential high but it's less than two light-seconds from earth. This means that telepresence robots - with human operators or guiders on earth - can be usefully employed. This will take up the slack until the electronic intelligence folks come up with some decent autonomous designs. Robo-Ants - swarm IQ - may be very useful for exploring, exploiting and building certain kinds of habitats. Smarter bots will be necessary to run/maintain certain kinds of equipment. Field-usable designs seem to still be ten or twenty years away. We've got the computing power now, but aren't sure what to do with it. 'Smart' is more than gigaFLOPS, it's doing the right things in the right order, 'mind' -vs- 'mess'. Lessons and techniques learned from moon-bots can then be applied to the NEXT big step - mars. In any event, it never hurts to put our eggs in more than one planetary basket, but the next step is to MAKE the damned basket rather than just shuttle veritible tourists to the moon and back and watch them do pretty much exactly what their predecessors did before. The 'next step' isn't one of volume, doing more of the same old crap, but a whole different paradigm - colonization. THAT will be worth the money and effort. One word..W A T E R! I once read (years ago) that it would cost thousands of dollars per gallon to ship plain old water to the moon, and IF they have found a source of water already on the moon then that makes it many many times more valuable than GOLD! And look at the lenghts humans have gone to just to go after a few tons of gold? With water you get stuff like Hydrogen/Oxygen also you can use it to grow plants in, which allows you to Cheaply clean the air and waste water as you grow food at the same time! Also with the moon comes other good things like Gravity (even low gravity is better than no gravity when it comes to bones) and then there is the almost unlimited space AND a cheap means of protection against cosmic radiation as all you have to do is bury your building under a couple of feet of moon dirt! In fact as I see it this is the direction NASA should have gone in startig as farback as the 1980's, and that the real WASTE was the Stupid Shuttle and the ISS, which have been Money Black Holes since day one (as both have NEVER lived up to even the low end of the hype they sold them on) !!! |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
(B1ackwater) wrote: If there's essentially NO water on the moon, is it even worth sending humans there again ? Of course. The only problem is HOW they're being sent. ,------------------------------------------------------------------. | Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: | | http://www.macwebdir.com | `------------------------------------------------------------------' |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 09:00:58 -0600, Joe Strout wrote:
In article , (B1ackwater) wrote: If there's essentially NO water on the moon, is it even worth sending humans there again ? Of course. The only problem is HOW they're being sent. Better by by warp drive because doing it with chemical rockets, especially NASA rockets, is ultra-expensive and quite dangerous. Now if going to the moon is as easy as catching a flight to Atlanta ... sure, go back as often as you want, even if it doesn't accomplish much. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
B1ackwater wrote: On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:51:26 GMT, Alan Anderson wrote: "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." Yep. No 'decent water supply' has been located. Only a few hints that SOME water may exist near the poles ... but how MUCH and how ACCESSIBLE is totally unknown. That's what bots are for ... send a few to scout-out the area. If there's essentially NO water on the moon, is it even worth sending humans there again ? How much water is there in the orbit that ISS is in? Putting people on the Moon gives us a chance to test things that are not easily tested otherwise, whether partial gee mitigates the effects of zero gee, how people could explore in a vacuum, tele-exploration and construction, etc. -- So they are even more frightened than we are, he thought. Why, is this all that's meant by heroism? And did I do it for the sake of my country? And was he to blame with his dimple and his blue eyes? How frightened he was! He thought I was going to kill him. Why should I kill him? My hand trembled. And they have given me the St. George's Cross. I can't make it out, I can't make it out! +-Leo Tolstoy, "War and Peace" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) | Nathan Jones | Astronomy Misc | 5 | July 29th 04 06:14 AM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ | darla | Astronomy Misc | 15 | July 25th 04 02:57 PM |
The apollo faq | the inquirer | Astronomy Misc | 11 | April 22nd 04 06:23 AM |
significant addition to section 25 of the faq | heat | Misc | 1 | April 15th 04 01:20 AM |
significant addition to section 25 of the faq | heat | UK Astronomy | 1 | April 15th 04 01:20 AM |