A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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

Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old March 26th 08, 05:12 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews

On Mar 24, 2:54 pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 11, 8:25 am, "
wrote:

1) Some people imply that the space shuttle and its support structure
(like the Manned Orbital Laboratory) was designed from its inception
to accomplish military goals.


2) Since the Challenger disaster with an IUS aboard, the space shuttle
has been deemed too dangerous for non-astronauts.


3) Yet military advocates don't blame the Air Force for what they
consider our civilian space shuttle / space station dilemma.


How is it logical for advocates of failed military orbital
capabilities (manned) to denigrate our current civilian orbital
capabilities?


JTM


For all the right sorts of technical, safety and payload reasons, as
well as per reductions in global pollution per tonne placed so quickly
into orbit, as such we'll need that new and greatly improved shuttle,
of which this need not be of more than 50% public invested.
Unfortunately, our MI5/CIA cloak and dagger aspects of the past,
present and future has our village idiot butts and private parts
pretty much nailed to their next available cross.

Here's another somewhat polished reply, as for topic brain-food and
eye-candy, whereas here's a couple of old links worth looking at, plus
something of NASA's NExT that'll most likely never happen unless pigs
fly and hell freezes over, not to mention those NASA/Apollo cows ever
coming home.

Boeing OASIS:
Earth-Moon L1 Gateway Missions / Executive Summary 10/2/2001http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/design_lib/OASISEXEC_97.pdf

Clarke Station:
An Artificial Gravity Space Station at the Earth-Moon L1 Pointhttp://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/reports/CB-1106/maryland01b.pdf

Building an L1 Depot in Phases:
Growing in step with operations on the Moon's surfacehttp://chapters.nss.org/hub/pdf%20presentations/LIphases.pdf

Getting the most tonnage per any given fly-by-rocket method is by far
most obtainable if such payload tonnage were intended for deployment
into the moon's L1 pocket. This ML-1 location is an interactive
gravity-null or quiet zone of otherwise being nearly ideal for
efficiently station-keeping as much volumetric size and tonnage as
you'd like.

However, keeping in mind that this Earth-Moon-L1 location is also
double IR toasty because, that physically dark moon once even
partially solar illuminated is what reflects and/or radiates solar
energy at roughly 33%~50% of the available IR spectrum. Don't kid
yourself about that wide-open space between Earth and our moon, as for
being the least bit cool or much less cold as reported by those NASA/
Apollo missions it is not, especially if there's multiple human bodies
and loads of systems and instrumentation heat to continually get rid
of, as such is not as technically easy to get rid of such heat as
you'd think, especially since unlike the 50% dark time of ISS, there's
not much greater than 2% dark time per any given year while situated
within the moon's L1, meaning that for days on end there's none of
that shade whatsoever, as well as at times getting that IR energy as
derived from three directions at once.

My fully tethered LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) along with its
counter mass of a truly substantial space habitat that's extremely
well shielded, and of its tether dipole element reaching that other
habitat capable pod or module to within 2r of Earth, is far better
than either of the above or that of anything NASA's NExT space station/
gateway has to offer.
. - Brad Guth


What's so terrible and/or horrifically insurmountable about utilizing
our moon's L1 for our next space depot/gateway? (I can't think of
anything that's negative, other than being hot and gamma saturated,
each of which can be managed within known technology)
.. - Brad Guth
Ads
  #82  
Old March 26th 08, 05:15 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews

On Mar 14, 4:48 pm, wrote:
You are insane.

Seek help.


This coming from our very own stealth solar energy and green H2
provider. Very good, lord Mook.
.. - Brad Guth
 




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
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews [email protected] Space Shuttle 81 March 26th 08 05:15 PM
NEED: Civilian/military space spending split over the years Jim Oberg Policy 7 December 7th 06 04:15 AM
NEED: Civilian/military space spending split over the years Jim Oberg History 7 December 7th 06 04:15 AM
First Civilian Astronaut Jo UK Astronomy 1 June 21st 04 07:11 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.