Lunar Architecture Poll

Josh Hill wrote:


Witness also that they plan a lunar lander using methane as fuel? Why?
Oxygen and Hydrogen are probably present on the moon (and Mars). Carbon
is not.

The Martian atmosphere is 95% CO2, so to make methane one need import
only the (very lightweight) hydrogen from earth.

My argument was that:
NASA says their using methane for the lunar lander becuase this will be
useful on Mars. I agree.

But first they're going to the moon. Assuming there's water ice at the
poles, they ought to learn how to use LOX/LH2 for lunar landers.

The skills of ice mining on the moon will be applicable on Mars. It
ought to be easier on Mars, as H2O concentrations will be much higher.

Alex Terrell wrote:
Josh Hill wrote:


Witness also that they plan a lunar lander using methane as fuel? Why?
Oxygen and Hydrogen are probably present on the moon (and Mars). Carbon
is not.

The Martian atmosphere is 95% CO2, so to make methane one need import
only the (very lightweight) hydrogen from earth.

My argument was that:
NASA says their using methane for the lunar lander becuase this will be
useful on Mars. I agree.

But first they're going to the moon. Assuming there's water ice at the
poles, they ought to learn how to use LOX/LH2 for lunar landers.

The skills of ice mining on the moon will be applicable on Mars. It
ought to be easier on Mars, as H2O concentrations will be much higher.

My understanding of existing treaties is that the
possibility of a free-for-all exists regarding the
extraction of materials from the Moon or Mars. The
rarity of useful materials on the Moon especially
would seem to offer the potential for conflict. Will
it be a case of first-est most-est, and if so, is the
U.S. going to be first-est if it doesn't plan on
going until 2018 at the earliest? NASA might arrive
planing to extract water ice only find holes in the
ground littered with pick axes and shovels.

- Ed Kyle

"Cardman" wrote in message
...
NASA solution to this minor foam issue should be to turn off the
cameras so that no one could see it, then they could fix it during an
active launch program.

You you realize how crazy that sounds?

So at the currently time NASA is not launching the safest Shuttle
Launch system build so far just because it is a little flaky around
the edges.

Calling it "the safest Shuttle Launch system build so far" is like calling
the Chunnel the safest rail line that joins England to France.

This policy will never get the ISS completed.

Actually, ISS will never be "completed" because the US has lost interest in
the program. To congress and the administration, it's just pork barrel
politics. Since the plan is to replace it with shuttle derived launch
vehicles, the CEV, and lunar landers, the pork will be preserved.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Jeff Findley wrote:

Eventually, that plus attrition will take
care of the problem.



I assume by "attrition" you mean astronauts retiring from NASA...or are
we going to keep having trouble with the Shuttle? ;-)

Clearly, I mean astronauts leaving NASA when the realize that they won't be
able to fly on the shuttle, and will have to wait longer than a decade for
lunar missions to start flying.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Jeff Findley wrote:

I assume by "attrition" you mean astronauts retiring from NASA...or are
we going to keep having trouble with the Shuttle? ;-)



Clearly, I mean astronauts leaving NASA when the realize that they won't be
able to fly on the shuttle, and will have to wait longer than a decade for
lunar missions to start flying.



That was a joke, son. :-)

Pat

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 16:02:12 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
Findley" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Eventually, that plus attrition will take
care of the problem.



I assume by "attrition" you mean astronauts retiring from NASA...or are
we going to keep having trouble with the Shuttle? ;-)

Clearly, I mean astronauts leaving NASA when the realize that they won't be
able to fly on the shuttle, and will have to wait longer than a decade for
lunar missions to start flying.

Actually, I thought you meant that they'd eventually retire, or die of
old age. ;-)

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 16:00:31 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:

"Cardman" wrote in message
.. .
NASA solution to this minor foam issue should be to turn off the
cameras so that no one could see it, then they could fix it during an
active launch program.

You you realize how crazy that sounds?

Yes, it does sound crazy at first, but when dealing with the real
situation at hand it is not.

The last shuttle flight was clearly the safest one to date, where it
is a disgrace to the entire Shuttle programme that NASA was willing to
launch their astronauts on less safe hardware, when they are now not
willing to launch them on their safest one yet.

It is in fact quite hard to justify NASA's current policy, when it is
much more of a media scare story than anything.

So it is true to say that the problem was not so much that some foam
came off right after SRB separation, but that it happened right in
front of the camera on live TV.

Since I am a goods supplier then I know that one rule of goods supply
is to not let out scare stories. Some items from the manufacturers
have issues, where this is naturally fixed during further item
development. So the world goes on instead of the public returning
their goods just because they have some undesirable bug.

So while it may not be in tune with free speech and freedom of
information, but NASA not showing off flying foam on international TV
is a big help to have the media say "what a perfect flight". Just use
selective delayed video feeds and to put out good news.

Then NASA can get the job done while still fixing these problems as
further ETs are being built.

I would also say that the former Soviet secret space programme was not
such a bad idea, when the public never heard of their failures.

Still, it does seem unlikely that NASA could put down their accidents
to "human error". As by laying all the blame on the pilot, then their
space programme, and all the people working on it, are safe to
continue. "Do your duty to you country and accept the blame". :-]

Alas, NASA these days, is wired into the mass public hysteria.

So at the currently time NASA is not launching the safest Shuttle
Launch system build so far just because it is a little flaky around
the edges.

Calling it "the safest Shuttle Launch system build so far" is like calling
the Chunnel the safest rail line that joins England to France.

That is not a fair comparison. For a better one then when a commercial
aeroplane crashes then they do not often ground the whole fleet.

This policy will never get the ISS completed.

Actually, ISS will never be "completed" because the US has lost interest in
the program.

Nothing that strapping bright flashing lights to the ISS and launching
fireworks from it would not cure. :-]

That is not such a bad idea as it happens. Xmas on the ISS. Some
decorations, festive music. A home away from home.

"NASA launches fir tree" would make an interesting headline. :-]

Still, boring is normal. What counts are the results, where the public
hardly gets to hear about those. And well the ISS is helpful for
training for that long Mars flight.

NASA losing faith in the ISS is also not helpful. A better idea would
be to add in a few of Bigelow's inflatable modules.

To congress and the administration, it's just pork barrel
politics. Since the plan is to replace it with shuttle derived launch
vehicles, the CEV, and lunar landers, the pork will be preserved.

We have yet to see if the government will approve of NASA's stick and
HLV plan.

Cardman.

Jeff Findley wrote:

Calling it "the safest Shuttle Launch system build so far" is like calling
the Chunnel the safest rail line that joins England to France.


It isn't actually the only rail link joining them. At least for a little
while more. Which of the two is safer is hard to say.


Jeff

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

On 2005-10-01, Sander Vesik wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:

Calling it "the safest Shuttle Launch system build so far" is like calling
the Chunnel the safest rail line that joins England to France.

It isn't actually the only rail link joining them. At least for a little
while more. Which of the two is safer is hard to say.

....?

Unless you're playing fancy definitions with Gibraltar - which doesn't
even have a rail line - I'm at a loss as to what other link exists...

(Train ferries, perhaps? But I'm not even sure they're still around)

--
-Andrew Gray