CEV PDQ

Charles Buckley wrote:



I suspect that the exposure of particulate matter of the size
of lunar dust is going to be a significant problem and the
whole chemistry and how it effects people and equipment is
pretty much completely unknown.


Although the winds will mean that Martian dust has been ground down to
less jagged forms than that of the Moon, I note there is real concern
about how chemically active it is when it comes to a person coming in
contact with it via either inhalation or simply handling it.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:


Charles Buckley wrote:



I suspect that the exposure of particulate matter of the size
of lunar dust is going to be a significant problem and the
whole chemistry and how it effects people and equipment is
pretty much completely unknown.



Although the winds will mean that Martian dust has been ground down to
less jagged forms than that of the Moon, I note there is real concern
about how chemically active it is when it comes to a person coming in
contact with it via either inhalation or simply handling it.

Pat


Yes, there is a very, very good scientific base to think that
basic martian soil in chemically active. They did get some
chemical reaction on the Viking mission experiments.

"Pete Lynn" wrote in message
...

The small sharp stuff will still invariably eventually get everywhere,
(inside the habitat), especially if you attempt to reuse these overalls
at all. The small sharp stuff will collect in the soft overalls for
later dispersal. I do not see any simple solutions to this problem.

Overalls for the overalls, and so on and so forth- it's overalls all the way
down.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
A Google search on virtually any topic will show a fair number of
believers in said topic.

Quantity does not equal quality.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
Nice try, Pat. The first, second, and fourth links are by the same author,
Jeffrey Lewis, and are all practically the same article (pray tell, did
you
*read* them?).

I was asked to write a euolgy. Never having done one before, I naturally
went online.

There were dozens of references. After removing the few obvious
denominational ones, *all* of the remaining references turned out to be
either reviews of, ads for, or quotes from the same book.

I've seen people use multiple newspaper articles to support a research
paper, without noticing that every one of them were the same AP report.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
Only so long as EVA remains hard

You might call yours "EVA". Beady's is "The Cowminator", and mine is

$$#(*@^@- NO CARRIER

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

Nice try, Pat. The first, second, and fourth links are by the same author,
Jeffrey Lewis, and are all practically the same article (pray tell, did you
*read* them?). He merely notes that DART has autonomous prox ops
capability, and nowhere in his articles does he attempt to connect DART
with an ASAT program. He certainly provides no evidence to support such a
link. The third link references (and quotes) the Jeffrey Lewis article.


Yes, I read them- although they do cover the same ground, they are
different articles written at different times about the same subject. If
you read my posting, you'll not I said that the technology could be used
for foreign satellite inspection as well as destruction in a pure ASAT
role- the fact that Lewis lists DART in a discussion of military
operations in space regarding close proximity operations is indicative
of the fact that he realizes that such a capability has direct ASAT
implications.
In fact, he states in the first document cited in reference to Dart,
XSS-11 and ASTRO:
"Although none of these satellites is a dedicated anti-satellite, each
has that capability. As the
head of the Air Force XSS program told Space News: “You can't closely
inspect a vehicle—say, one with
an on-orbit malfunction—without getting 'close' and approaching from the
right angle. To refuel,
obviously you'd have to get more than close, and ‘dock’ with the vehicle.
The three programs are already contributing to an innocuous
“anti-satellite” mission of sorts:
NASA is planning to launch an autonomous “space tug” in 2006, using
technology from DART, XSS and
ASTRO, to de-orbit the Hubble Space Telescope. “We actually think that
having three programs that
are funded right now to look at aspects of this issue are really going
to be a great help,” noted one NASA
official. The same might be said by Air Force Officials, one of whom
told Space News that the “XSS-11
can be used as an ASAT weapon.” In fact, the "single strongest
recommendation" of the Air Force's 1999
Microsatellite Technology and Requirements Study, was “the deployment,
as rapidly as possible, of XSS-10-
based satellites to intercept, image and, if needed, take action against
a target satellite” based on
technology from the Army's Kinetic Energy Anti-Satellite program."
In the non-Lewis report cited, it is obvious that there is concern over
the capability that such programs as DART give in regards to ASAT
operations by arms control experts.
I just wanted to show that the DART/ASAT connection didn't spring to my
mind alone.
So does NASA funded research ever have military implications or direct
military ties? Of course it does- and that goes for any NASA program
that had any connection with the Air Force in particular. This is
nothing new- it goes clean back to the NACA days with the X-1's design.
There were plans to test fly an armed X-1 variant to determine the
effects of supersonic flight on the performance of machine guns and
cannons. In the realm of more recent programs by NASA itself, that were
done in conjunction with the military, there were the NASA/USAF X-14
VTOL test aircraft, the NASA/USAF X-15 rocket-powered hypersonic flight
test aircraft, NASA/USAF X-24B lifting body aircraft, the
DARPA/NASA/USAF X-29 forward swept wing test aircraft, and the NASA/DOD
X-30 NASP. Most telling of all the NASA/military X-plane programs was
probably the X-31 Enhanced Fighter Maneuverability demonstrator. In that
case, the intention was to develop technologies for future fighter
aircraft right from the outset of the program.
In the non X-plane NASA/military arena, there are the NASA/Army S-72
Rotor Systems Research Aircraft, the NASA/Army XV-15 convertoplane that
led directly to the Osprey, the NASA/Navy C8A Augmentor Wing Jet STOL
aircraft, the Army/Navy/NASA VZ-3RY V/STOL, the development of the
cranked arrow, scissors, and supercritical wing designs by NASA for
military related projects...the list goes on and on.
So if the "A" in NASA that stands for "Aeronautics" has had long term
cooperation in so many military related programs, what makes you think
the "S" in NASA that stands for "Space" would be so loathe to do
military-related work?
The canceled NASA X-34 spaceplane had another co-sponser, you know:
http://www.air-and-space.com/2003102...20side%20l.jpg

Pat

OM wrote:

...And to quantify it, we need more tests. Which means *going* there.

Congrats, D - you just gave an inarguable justification for going back
to the Moon: we can't truly test equipment for the environment without
actually being *in* the actual environment.



Wow... this is kind of like that Heisenberg uncertainty thing, isn't it?
:-)


Pat

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

Nice try, Pat. The first, second, and fourth links are by the same author,
Jeffrey Lewis, and are all practically the same article (pray tell, did you
*read* them?).



Look, look! I found someone else writing about the debate regarding a
possible DART/ASAT connection whose last name isn't Lewis:
http://www.jamesoberg.com/04292005robot_mil.html

Pat

Peter Stickney wrote:
Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:

Rhon,
You have to remember that Pat is from the Dakotas.

I remember every time he posts.

Out there (As it was growing up as a kid in Northern New
England, also known for its adventurous cuisine)

Do you know...I have never eaten New England Boiled
Dinner...although I have seen pictures.

Remarkable.

rl