|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Would it have been better to have ISS in lunar orbit?
Not that it really matters now but I just thought I'd throw the
question out? I always thought it would have been better to have put the ISS in lunar orbit. Probably have had to be a smaller version but it seems there would be more work to do on the moon than endlessly whirling around the Earth. Before we could establish a sustainable base on the moon we would have to establish a sustainable presence in lunar orbit it would seem. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Would it have been better to have ISS in lunar orbit?
On Apr 26, 5:27*am, wrote:
Not that it really matters now but I just thought I'd throw the question out? I always thought it would have been better to have put the ISS in lunar orbit. Probably have had to be a smaller version but it seems there would be more work to do on the moon than endlessly whirling around the Earth. Before we could establish a sustainable base on the moon we would have to establish a sustainable presence in lunar orbit it would seem. Way too hot and otherwise excessively gamma and X-ray saturated, not to mention the surrounding hot and electrostatic charged sodium atmosphere that would get into or coating upon most everything that was exposed. The Selene/moon L1 as the gateway/outpost/oasis could easily become orbit managed as efficient enough, although even hotter and perhaps nearly 10% as gamma and X-ray irradiated. A Clarke Station or especially that of my tethered LSE-CM/ISS would more than do the trick, and then some. ~ BG |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Would it have been better to have ISS in lunar orbit?
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Would it have been better to have ISS in lunar orbit?
wrote:
Not that it really matters now but I just thought I'd throw the question out? I always thought it would have been better to have put the ISS in lunar orbit. Why? Probably have had to be a smaller version but it seems there would be more work to do on the moon than endlessly whirling around the Earth. Since the station would be orbiting the moon rather than on the moon... Before we could establish a sustainable base on the moon we would have to establish a sustainable presence in lunar orbit it would seem. Again, why? D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Would it have been better to have ISS in lunar orbit?
OM wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 20:06:59 GMT, (Derek Lyons) wrote: Before we could establish a sustainable base on the moon we would have to establish a sustainable presence in lunar orbit it would seem. Again, why? ...Actually, D, can you give reasons as to why *not*? Not taking either side, but I'd like to hear reasons why you - or anyone else, for that matter - thinnks that an LO station wouldn't be necessary. 1) One more drain on the logistics tail... and Earth to LLO is a long tail. 2) Numerous architecture studies have confirmed that a lunar base has no requirement for a station in LLO. 3) Expensive. Cost cannot be justified. If added to the architecture, increases the chances that budget pressure would result in the whole thing being cancelled. Now, there *could* be justification for a small station if Lagrange point rendezvous were chosen over LOR. Such a station could enable reusability of the landers. But that is not the architecture that has been chosen and such a station would not provide the same benefit in LLO since it would not always be accessible to the base. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Would it have been better to have ISS in lunar orbit?
OM wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 20:06:59 GMT, (Derek Lyons) wrote: Before we could establish a sustainable base on the moon we would have to establish a sustainable presence in lunar orbit it would seem. Again, why? ...Actually, D, can you give reasons as to why *not*? Not taking either side, but I'd like to hear reasons why you - or anyone else, for that matter - thinnks that an LO station wouldn't be necessary. What makes you think that I think an LO station wouldn't be necessary? Asking someone to support a claim means that most likely I'm interested in his reasoning, not that I don't agree (and not agreeing doesn't mean I support the opposite). D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Would it have been better to have ISS in lunar orbit?
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
2) Numerous architecture studies have confirmed that a lunar base has no requirement for a station in LLO. Cites please? I'd be very interested in reading those, thanks. 3) Expensive. Cost cannot be justified. If added to the architecture, increases the chances that budget pressure would result in the whole thing being cancelled. But the cost of #2 can be justified? It is immune to budget pressure exactly how? Now, there *could* be justification for a small station if Lagrange point rendezvous were chosen over LOR. Such a station could enable reusability of the landers. But that is not the architecture that has been chosen and such a station would not provide the same benefit in LLO since it would not always be accessible to the base. That's interesting but I agree about the lack of benefit in LLO. Do you have any references for this proposal? I'd like to read about it. Dave |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Would it have been better to have ISS in lunar orbit?
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Chandrayaan 1 now in lunar orbit | Pat Flannery | Policy | 18 | November 15th 08 08:05 PM |
Chandrayaan 1 now in lunar orbit | Pat Flannery | History | 18 | November 15th 08 08:05 PM |
Lunar modules still in orbit? | [email protected] | History | 16 | December 16th 07 11:44 PM |
Lunar modules still in orbit? | Andre Lieven[_3_] | History | 0 | November 10th 07 02:42 AM |
Lunar Orbit Station? | TVDad Jim | History | 12 | January 19th 04 01:58 AM |