|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
"Ray" wrote:
We humans are explorers. This is normal for us. As a race? Not really. The bulk of the race is very solidly stay-at-home, take-no-risk, eat-only-what-grandpa-ate. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:
dasun wrote: Ever hear of exploration geologists? Mining companies set up camp in the middle of somewhere - like Timbuktu - and the geologists move in to map the local geology. No ****, dasun. The point, which whizzed completely over your head, is that in some situations geologists are *not* sent in, because it would be far too expensive to do so. Even on Earth they use remote techniques when it's sufficiently cheaper. They use remote techniques because it's more reasonable to do so - digging a shaft wide enough for a geologist yet deep enough to reach oil is virtually an impossibility, and remote methods return enough data to be useful. OTOH - anywhere it is reasonable to put a set of eyes and hands in situ, they do so. (Even where it's only semi reasonable - something like half of Alvin's dives have been geologic in nature.) D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael Rhino" wrote:
They'd each need a "departure stage" if it were done that way. Is there a problem with two departure stages? If they join together, they are twice as heavy, so you need twice the fuel to get them there. For a given weight at TLI, you'll need essentially the same amount of fuel for the same weight - it doesn't matter if the weight is in two packages (each having half the payload and half the TLI fuel) or a single stack. Thus splitting the TLI stage in two doesn't save fuel (which is cheap anyhow), and increases costs and failure modes. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Joe Strout wrote:
(Ironic that Russia now has a far more capitalist -- and cost-effective -- space program than we do.) A while back I posted a question about the costs -- as distinct from the prices -- of Russian/Ukrainian launchers, and got no substantive responses. In the interim I've posed the same question to John Logsdon, Roger Launius, Henry Hertzberg, et al., and got variations on one response: that the prices are all there *is* -- we have no idea of the costs, and quite possibly the Russians themselves couldn't give a meaningful answer for full rather than marginal costs. So I'll go along with "more capitalist," but it's not clear that "more cost-effective" means anything in this context. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
"S. Wand" wrote:
I'm sure it's too much money for NASA to have another vehicle - but hopefully they'd consider private industry at some point for the LEO market. "At some point"... say, when private industry has actually demonstrated the ability to reach LEO? I know -- that's SO unfair... |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
dasun wrote:
that people add significant value to the exploration processes, which is why on Earth exploration geology is performed in conjunction with remote sensing. They are used on Earth because on Earth people are *really cheap*. Mining companies would never solely rely on remote sensing to decide to mine an area. If there's an area of land on Earth were geologists can't economically be sent to the surface, then mining companies will not employ just remote sensing because the area won't be economical to mine at all. This application of this observation to the moon should be obvious. Or are you going to tell me about all the mining companies just raring to go to open lunar mines? Paul |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Derek Lyons wrote:
They use remote techniques because it's more reasonable to do so - digging a shaft wide enough for a geologist yet deep enough to reach oil is virtually an impossibility, and remote methods return enough data to be useful. Reasonable == economical. Paul |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
"S. Wand" wrote in message ... I think I read that CEV would be 5.5m across the base of the heat shield, compared to 3.9m for Apollo. I haven't seen any figures on internal volume yet. I'd guess it'd be a bit smaller per person than the shuttle. I think a large CEV is fine for the lunar missions - but for ISS rendevous a Soyuz-class vehicle is sufficient. I'm sure it's too much money for NASA to have another vehicle - but hopefully they'd consider private industry at some point for the LEO market. Wishful thinking... The capsule appears to be about 18-20 m3 and mass about 9,000 kg. With appropriate amounts of fuel about 18 mt to ISS, 15mt without escape system (unmanned). A little heavy but not as bad as I feared. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... "Ray" wrote: We humans are explorers. This is normal for us. As a race? Not really. The bulk of the race is very solidly stay-at-home, take-no-risk, eat-only-what-grandpa-ate. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL Not true. If that were true, our primitive predecessors would not have gotten out of Africa. We humans might have become that way over that last 200 years, but we are explorers by heart, and we need to be inspired and shown the way. I think its pathetic how people are against human space exploration. Too much of this attitude and we will become extinct someday. Another problem is that people are cheap with tax money. They don't want it wasted, so give it back in a tax break and watch how they spend it important things like alcohol, tobacco, drugs and gambling. Ray |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Ray wrote:
Not true. If that were true, our primitive predecessors would not have gotten out of Africa. We humans might have become that way over that last 200 years, but we are explorers by heart, and we need to be inspired and shown the way. This is just bull****. The vast majority of humans are not explorers. They have been born, lived, and died in small geographical areas -- that's why human racial diversity still exists, after all. Long distance exploration has been a desperate, dangerous, last-resort behavior, undertaken by fringe elements or individuals who would otherwise have been failures. And these elements typically haven't needed megafunding from megagovernment to do this exploration, so the application to the current situation in space is tenuous at best. I think its pathetic how people are against human space exploration. I think the transparently foolish arguments used to justify space exploration are what is truly pathetic. Paul |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | July 4th 05 07:50 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | August 5th 04 01:36 AM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) | Nathan Jones | Misc | 6 | July 29th 04 06:14 AM |
The Apollo FAQ (moon landings were faked) | Nathan Jones | Astronomy Misc | 8 | February 4th 04 06:48 PM |
The Apollo FAQ (moon landings were faked) | Nathan Jones | Misc | 8 | February 4th 04 06:48 PM |