|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
New Russian Moon probe
Interesting concept- launch penatrator probes from lunar orbit:
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...aw060506p2.xml Pat |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
New Russian Moon probe
Pat Flannery writes:
Interesting concept- launch penatrator probes from lunar orbit: http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...aw060506p2.xml From the same article: "The Russian lunar mission is to follow the launch in 2009 of a Russian sample return flight to the Martian moon Phobos as part of a renewal of Russian robotic planetary exploration, Moiseev told Aviation Week & Space Technology." Jochem -- "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
New Russian Moon probe
Oddly LUNAR-A has been on hold, as having been NASA sequestered out of
sight and thus out of mind for more than a decade. So what's the big freaking technological deal of sticking probes into moons? - Brad Guth Pat Flannery wrote: Interesting concept- launch penatrator probes from lunar orbit: http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...aw060506p2.xml Pat |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
New Russian Moon probe
Brad Guth wrote:
Oddly LUNAR-A has been on hold, as having been NASA sequestered out of sight and thus out of mind for more than a decade. So what's the big freaking technological deal of sticking probes into moons? - Brad Guth Well, I've had the doctor stick a temperature probe in my moon on occasion. :-P Pat |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
New Russian Moon probe
In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote: Interesting concept- launch penatrator probes from lunar orbit... The challenging part is *undecelerated* penetrators, which would be a substantial advance on the current state of the art, if they can pull it off. -- spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
New Russian Moon probe
Henry Spencer wrote:
In article , Pat Flannery wrote: Interesting concept- launch penatrator probes from lunar orbit... The challenging part is *undecelerated* penetrators, which would be a substantial advance on the current state of the art, if they can pull it off. The article seemed to imply a probe dispensing "bus" that would drop the probes as it fell toward the lunar surface in a descending spiral from lunar orbit. This technology would by-and-large be based on existing ICBM technology for MIRV deployment (i.e. It spins, and hurls the probes off of its normal ballistic trajectory at various speeds and release points during that rotation at various altitudes in its descent to make sure they hit their intended destinations). Is this classified? That's the most logical way of making a MIRV bus work. Pat |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
New Russian Moon probe
Henry Spencer wrote:
In article , Pat Flannery wrote: Interesting concept- launch penatrator probes from lunar orbit... The challenging part is *undecelerated* penetrators, which would be a substantial advance on the current state of the art, if they can pull it off. You know what comes in handy here? Those dual warheaded antitank missiles. The probes fire an explosive charge in their noses just at impact, to halve the impact G's as they contact the lunar surface. A single impact deceleration becomes two separated by microseconds, each of which becomes half as severe. End result: Overall impact stress on the probe becomes around 2/3rds what would be needed without this system. Pat |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
New Russian Moon probe
Pat Flannery wrote:
Well, I've had the doctor stick a temperature probe in my moon on occasion. :-P Pat GOT ACTUALY PROOF! Pat? It seems the hard-science of merely dropping something of a probe from a given distance above our extremely nearby and still salty moon isn't available, at least not any more so than our science for understanding the survival of raw ice coexisting in nearby space is available. Instead we have lots of the usual NASA and of their media hyped hocus-pocus worth of conjectures as having been extracted from their remote soft-science, as having since been moderated to death in order to carefully suit the given follow-the-money agenda of their infomercial or bust day. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4871934.stm http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/X_...ep_Impact.html As reported by the obviously christian revised infomercial-science as contributed from UK/US scientists using our spendy Swift telescope, whereas the Tempel-1 impactor of merely 370 km is now via their religiously correct NASA being reported as having eventually released 250,000 tonnes worth of water from that otherwise mostly dusty/pumice comet, therefore whatever other tonnage of physical impact debris from the less than 10.2 km/s encounter is somewhat missing in action. For some reason the actual hard-science pertaining to whatever's of other than the release of water/ice isn't the least bit important to their follow-the-money trail of whatever their infomercial or bust God wants to hear about. By way of many such instruments and of individuals as supposedly having good expertise, At first impact it supposedly vaporised 4500~5000 tonnes of water, but surprisingly had released even more tonnage worth of dust. Yet other perfectly viable science had placed the initial impact at taking out a firm crater mass worth of debris as having ejected only 1000 tonnes, which seems a little wussy by comparison of what had somehow leaked and/or emerged as amounting to the 250,000 tonnes worth of just the raw element of water/ice ever since that little impactor event, which might otherwise have to suggest upon another good amount of primary and secondary tonnage that'll pertain to whatever else got vaporised or having continued to melt and subsequently vaporise/leak away. That's actually suggesting quite an impressive impactor ratio of just the water/ice becoming worth 250,000t per 0.37t = 675,675:1, suggesting that perhaps the grand total of everything involved might be greater than 1e6:1, which could come in real handy for the task of terraforming our moon into having a bit more of an atmosphere. Supposedly Tempel-1 continually leaks at a rate of 16,000 tonnes of water/ice per day, and to think that's merely 5.84e6t/year or 5.84e6 m3 worth per year and still oddly never manages to get itself any smaller or by such an amount of having less physical mass per year. I guess those conditional laws of physics, as they apply to such comets and asteroids that'll manage to keep their faith-based infomercial-science going strong will never fail to amaze us village idiots. Now we have ESA's Don Quijote mission, with their spendy Hildago mother ship and of it's Sancho companion impactor, which is obviously also avoiding the usage of our nearby salty moon that was once upon a time an icy proto-moon of an asteroid as initially coated with perhaps 262 km worth of salty ice. I've previously suggested a very cost effective and relatively low-tech notion of impacting our moon with large blocks or spheres of dry-ice containing the likes of Ra and LRn as their core, or as for merely containing salty ice, or perhaps as offering an impactor core of spent nuclear fuel representing as good as anything since the moon is already a gamma and hard-X-ray environment (a solid form of Van Allen zone) to start off with. Unfortunately, at least thus far we've established absolutely no such hard-science as to raw ice coexisting upon or even within our moon, or even as having coexisted in nearby space, much less after having impacted with such ice upon our physically dark and TBI nasty moon, that which so badly needs to get terraformed, into at least offering something of a local atmosphere made of heavy enough elements, that which only the most robust of robotics would tend to appreciate. - Brad Guth |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
New Russian Moon probe
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is the Moon Hollow? Sleuths? | Imperishable Stars | Misc | 46 | October 8th 04 04:08 PM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ | darla | Astronomy Misc | 15 | July 25th 04 02:57 PM |
The apollo faq | the inquirer | UK Astronomy | 5 | April 15th 04 04:45 AM |
The Apollo FAQ (moon landings were faked) | Nathan Jones | Misc | 8 | February 4th 04 06:48 PM |
First Moonwalk? A Russian Perspective | Astronaut | Misc | 0 | January 31st 04 03:11 AM |