|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Lunar aerobrake to the Space Station
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Lunar aerobrake to the Space Station
One benefit would be a low G return to Low Earth Orbit.
With a lifting aerobrake vehicle, maximum return g's could easily be held below 3 gees. It could be as low as 1 gee, depending on the Lift/Drag ratio of the vehicle. Centripetal Acceleration: Acc = w**2 * R (36550 fps / 25500 fps) ** 2 = 2.05 gees required for circular Earth orbit at Lunar return velocity. Minus the 1 gee due to gravity leaves 1.05 gees of aerobrake lift required for LEO capture from a Lunar return trajectory. Various Lift/Drag ratios: L/D = 1, (L**2 + D**2)**0.5 = 1.5 gees L/D = 2, 1.17 gees L/D = 3, 1.11 gees L/D = 4, 1.08 gees To be fair, this could be done with a direct entry. But, since NASA would be paying the fare instead, NASA could leave the Lunar return aerobrake vehicle at the Space Station. Ready for a little refurbishment for the next Lunar mission. Might even reduce exploration cost per mission. Would be fun, and something new. Plus, they would have to buy a commercial ticket home. -- Craig Fink Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Lunar aerobrake to the Space Station
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 08:27:39 -0700, Carsten Nielsen wrote:
I was hoping to see them return the astronauts direct, but everything else to ISS. To use Apollo terms, the CM lands with the astronauts, but after delivering the CM into the correct trajectory, The SM goes into an orbit, where it can aerobrake to ISS, with suits, lunar samples, etc. Then it gets fueled up, and used again without having to be launched twice. When I go to the movies lately, it's Sequel This or Sequel That. Like reruns with some new fancy computer generated graphics. Same plot. Now I know that many people weren't here for the Apollo program and the Moon landings. But, NASA current plot to get back to the Moon should be called "Apollo the Sequel", a rerun and not very interesting. Maybe they should start numbering the flights with 18. Yeah, the splashdowns of Apollo were always exciting, and would be fun to watch again. But instead of "splashdowns", in NASA current plot, they would have to call splatdowns??? Hope they chose a different word. Why launch relaunch the CM every time? Make it all very complicated with the separation from the SM? Just return everything to the Space Station for refurbishment and another mission. Just repair things (if necessary) and replace the consumables. Wouldn't it be better to test the manned aerobrake vehicles at Earth first, instead of Mars? Wouldn't it be better to have manned aerobrake vehicle version 2 going to Mars, instead of version 1? Wouldn't it be better to test the Mars vehicle's space endurance and repair concepts during the Lunar mission? -- Craig Fink Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Lunar aerobrake to the Space Station
Craig Fink,
If you mean as to having those actual R&D of fly-by-rocket landers proof-tested, as having incorporated those actual powerful momentum reaction wheels and of including absolute butt-loads of shielding against the lunar gamma and unavoidable hard-X-rays, then yes I'd have to agree, that at least having established the station-keeping science platform or of the full blown LSE-CM/ISS as situated within the LL-1 zone is a perfectly good start in the right direction of efficiently accomplishing other missions that could be humanly survivable, and thus reasonably obtainable. Here's a few of my suggestions and otherwise a few more of those pesky questions of my own. Why the heck isn't your "soc.culture.jewish" collective involved in this nifty topic? Was it something that I'd said? (such as the truth and nothing but the truth) You'll need to ask yourself; what's the least bit anti-Islam or anti-Jewish about there being other intelligent life on Venus, especially since they too could be Islamic or perhaps Jewish, or at the very least Cathar for all we know. Apparently most Jews are not actually smart enough or otherwise honest enough as to realize that technically it only takes one such Kodak moment as having been proven as being phony. How many hundreds of those easily proven as phony (AKA hocus-pocus) Kodak moments of our NASA/Apollo EVA fiasco would you folks like to review? Obviously if you're into reading this, you're either one of them (AKA the bad guys) or you're just as snookered and otherwise as dumbfounded as I was 7+ years ago. Isn't of what I've discovered and/or uncovered the least bit NOBEL PRIZE worthy? Why the heck can't I become the first Mennonite to win a Nobel? From: Amanda Angelika :But I don't think that proves they didn't do it. It just means it :was difficult to fully document what they did with the photographic :and video technology of 1969 and the 1970s. And of course these days ractically everyone has some sort of Video Camera or video technology :and are more aware of how such things work, so fakery becomes more bvious to the public as time goes on. In other words, yourself and others that most likely 100+% support all that's NASA/Apollo have an acceptable level of LLPOF conditional physics and of hocus-pocus science plus evidence exclusion, as long as it lets yourself and of your kind pretend that we've been walking on that physically dark and otherwise extremely nasty moon of ours. Please list all the laws of physics that you folks do not believe in. Please list all of the replicated hard-science that doesn't count. I guess this means you folks also have an acceptable level of collateral damage and carnage of the innocent, that's obviously on behalf of supporting your perpetrated cold-war(s) and of whatever else your mainstream status quo requires of it's little brown nosed minions. There was nothing new about Kodak film back then or now that would explain away those images that look as though so entirely phony as all get out, and that's even as based upon their very own robotic obtained images that were developed while on the fly and having been scanned and digital/microwave transferred back to Earth, as for their having shown us an entirely different and otherwise perfectly believable moon from orbit than from the actual surface. Thus far, there is no actual original film that we can review as derived back from being within the Van Allen belts, or much less from whatever's beyond because, such well shielded film (especially of being nearby that terribly gamma and hard-X-ray moon of ours) simply had to be developed right then and there, or else. The Van Allen expanse is perhaps at most worth 10 db of radiation moderation from what our moon has to offer, or possibly it represents something slightly less than 7 DB. Either way, it's what's primarily saving us from being radiated to death by our moon. Oddly, the hard-science that pertains to our moon and of those Van Allen belts from team ACE and of every other available robotic mission is moderated to death and/or sequestered, remaining as though taboo/nondisclosure if such science could have any impact upon the truthful knowledge that's pertaining to our moon. Even team KECK and of more recently team MESSENGER had avoided our moon, and so forth. OOPS!, it seems at times I've broken GOOGLE's Usenet. Sorry about that. Now it's as though whenever I've contributed my dyslexic encrypted truth is when the entire access to this anti-think-tank of this disinformation Usenet from hell comes to a near halt (I have pigeons that are a whole lot faster at transferring packets, and certainly as otherwise more trustworthy). In spite of these all-know wizards, rusemasters and those members of their Third Reich collaborating kind that can't seem to honestly address their own Kodak documented issues of "photogrammetric rectification", of a greater than half illuminated Earth while being days past sunrise on the moon, of the extremely slight crescent of Earth as supposedly obtained from the lunar deck of what's extensively xenon lamp spectrum illuminated, nor as to any of those oops! blue-screen images, or for that matter anything as having to do with those fly-by-rocket landers or even the impressive task that can't be replicated of getting nearly 50t into orbiting our moon so quickly, along with those spare tonnes of reaction thrusting fuel (especially fuel intensive since not having any momentum reaction wheels to work with), plus loads of their essential retrothrust and other fuel tonnage for returning home as entirely unscaved along with all of that Kodak film that supposedly hadn't yet been developed, whereas I'm doing the very best that I can to fix my words and to improve upon the syntax and math. Obviously the regular laws of physics and of the replicated science truth is what's bothering these folks the most (unfortunately, knowing an fo sharing the truth and having supposed friends of your own kind in high places didn't do much good for Jesus Christ, nor had any of those nice Cathars been spared that were simply being good folks that had been extremely well educated and subsequently making the Pope look as though a little greedy and arrogant). Sorry about that (go suck another dozen rotten eggs), because once you're dead and gone is when it really doesn't matter, does it. Instead of our having a few good religions on Earth (assuming that being Jewish qualifies), it seems we have dozens of extremely touchy if not a few too many bad ones that are going postal from time to time, by way of their having under/over reacted on just about anything you can think of. I guess my having a Mennonite background of our folks being those of a somewhat non blood thirsty (Cathar like) group of moderate and considerate souls doesn't even count, especially these days when it's all about having the most oil, coal and natural gas is the one and only pagan God of politics on steroids that matters, whereas being a certified born-again liar and Skull and Bones member in good standing is what makes you president. - Brad Guth Craig Fink wrote: On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 08:27:39 -0700, Carsten Nielsen wrote: I was hoping to see them return the astronauts direct, but everything else to ISS. To use Apollo terms, the CM lands with the astronauts, but after delivering the CM into the correct trajectory, The SM goes into an orbit, where it can aerobrake to ISS, with suits, lunar samples, etc. Then it gets fueled up, and used again without having to be launched twice. When I go to the movies lately, it's Sequel This or Sequel That. Like reruns with some new fancy computer generated graphics. Same plot. Now I know that many people weren't here for the Apollo program and the Moon landings. But, NASA current plot to get back to the Moon should be called "Apollo the Sequel", a rerun and not very interesting. Maybe they should start numbering the flights with 18. Yeah, the splashdowns of Apollo were always exciting, and would be fun to watch again. But instead of "splashdowns", in NASA current plot, they would have to call splatdowns??? Hope they chose a different word. Why launch relaunch the CM every time? Make it all very complicated with the separation from the SM? Just return everything to the Space Station for refurbishment and another mission. Just repair things (if necessary) and replace the consumables. Wouldn't it be better to test the manned aerobrake vehicles at Earth first, instead of Mars? Wouldn't it be better to have manned aerobrake vehicle version 2 going to Mars, instead of version 1? Wouldn't it be better to test the Mars vehicle's space endurance and repair concepts during the Lunar mission? -- Craig Fink Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | History | 158 | December 13th 14 09:50 PM |
Space Calendar - February 22, 2006 | [email protected] | News | 0 | February 22nd 06 05:20 PM |
Space Calendar - January 26, 2006 | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 28th 06 12:42 AM |
Space Calendar - January 26, 2006 | [email protected] | News | 0 | January 28th 06 12:41 AM |
Lunar base and space manufacturing books for sale | Martin Bayer | History | 0 | May 1st 04 04:57 PM |