|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#201
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#202
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#203
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#204
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#205
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#206
|
|||
|
|||
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. ;-) |
#207
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#208
|
|||
|
|||
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 +++ |
#209
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA PDF - Apollo Experience Reports - 114 reports | Rusty | History | 1 | July 27th 05 03:52 AM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) | Nathan Jones | Astronomy Misc | 5 | July 29th 04 06:14 AM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) | Nathan Jones | Misc | 6 | July 29th 04 06:14 AM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ | darla | Misc | 10 | July 25th 04 02:57 PM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ | darla | UK Astronomy | 11 | July 25th 04 02:57 PM |