A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old March 23rd 08, 03:35 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
Eric Chomko[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,853
Default Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews

On Mar 17, 11:12*am, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Mar 16, 9:47*am, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:





On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 01:55:38 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


wrote:
It's hard to tell around here. *There are lots of suspects. *He could
even be talking to himself.


Rand, when you're not spouting evil bull****, you're spouting nasty
bull****. *That causes me to suspect you probably aren't very popular
with the ladies! *lol.


Oh, don't get him started on that; according to his descriptions he's
the greatest cocksman since Casanova. :-D


Yet another person who fantasizes about what I've written.


No, the fantasy is that you HAVE written anything worthwhile!


Actually since I typed tha above I must admit Rand posted on his blog
a very nice piece about Arthur C. Clarke and the fact that Rand
actually met the man. It was easily the best thing Rand has posted
IMO.

Perhaps Rand won't change his attitude about me but I will be open
about changing my attitude about him.
  #72  
Old March 23rd 08, 03:42 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
Eric Chomko[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,853
Default Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews

On Mar 19, 12:12*pm, wrote:
On Mar 17, 11:12*am, Eric Chomko wrote:





On Mar 16, 9:47*am, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:


On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 01:55:38 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


wrote:
It's hard to tell around here. *There are lots of suspects. *He could
even be talking to himself.


Rand, when you're not spouting evil bull****, you're spouting nasty
bull****. *That causes me to suspect you probably aren't very popular
with the ladies! *lol.


Oh, don't get him started on that; according to his descriptions he's
the greatest cocksman since Casanova. :-D


Yet another person who fantasizes about what I've written.


No, the fantasy is that you HAVE written anything worthwhile!- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_...th_Baron_Byron

Learn the 'underlook' that Lord Byron perfected - and say very little
- leaving most the the woman's imagination - which will run rampant
against the look and the silence. *lol. * This according to experts on
the subject.

Here's Chris Rock's take ...

A woman knows if she's gonna **** you
within the first five minutes of meeting you.

Women know right away.

They're shaking hands like,
''l'm gonna **** him.


I had a friend in Germany who was keen to such a thing. He called it
the "10 Second Rule". We was quite the ladies man and I'd say that he
knew in 10 seconds what the women knew. I bet he'd argue that 5
minutes was waaay to long and that Chris Rock, though and the right
track, was actually miscalculating by 4 minutes and 50 seconds too
much. That said why bother with an awkward 4+ minutes. Be cool and
smooth right away?


''l hope he don't say nothing too stupid.''

That's right, fellas,
don't say nothing too stupid...

because women are all about the mood.


Yep and know right away.


lf she's in the mood to **** you,
shut up and let it happen.

'Cause if you say the wrong thing,
them panties are coming up mighty fast.


No, not coming down in the first place...


''What'd you say?''

She be on the phone with a girlfriend,
''Yeah, l was gonna give him some...

''but he just started talking.

''l hate a yakking man, child.''

Good luck!


What started this again...
  #73  
Old March 23rd 08, 10:49 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews

On Mar 22, 12:19 pm, "
wrote:
On Mar 12, 7:28 am, wrote:

The purpose of the space shuttle was to transition our man in space
activity away from ambitious interplanetary development schemes to
general disillusionment with space travel and spread the gospel of the
ultimate futility of interplanetary development, with its basic tenets
marginalized by science fiction and ufo cultism.


I'm finding the first part of your above statement a bit confusing. To
me, the purpose you claim for the space shuttle -- "to transition our
man in space activity away from ambitious interplanetary development
schemes" -- ignores the established fact that at the time, "our man in
space activity" had been limited to earth orbit and moon travel.
(Realistically, "general disillusionment with space travel" seems to
decry moon travel, not "interplanetary schemes.")

The last part of your statement is similarly difficult to accept.
Although some have "marginalized by science fiction and UFO cultism,"
didn't they mostly do so with respect to moon landings and earth
sightings reported prior to Nixon, rather than "interplanetary
development schemes?"

I guess I'm a bit too well grounded in "creep before you crawl" to
ignore the value of having a functional space shuttle and an
operational space station prior to full-blown moon exploration, let
alone travel to a nearby planet. At work, I had friends with advanced
degrees from Cal Tech. Their families suffered hardship when the MOL
was canceled, but they picked up the pieces and started over.

JTM


I totally agree with your "creep before you crawl" policy, especially
if it's my frail DNA that's going out on that firing line.

What's your best swag or give and take on behalf of our doing a Moon
L1 platform, or call it an outpost/depot sort of oasis gateway of
mostly rad-hard robotics that can take the unavoidable double-IR heat
as well as the gamma saturated environment, eventually along with an
extremely well shielded human habitat module?
.. - Brad Guth
  #74  
Old March 24th 08, 01:04 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 349
Default Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews

On Mar 23, 4:49*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 22, 12:19 pm, "
wrote:





On Mar 12, 7:28 am, wrote:


The purpose of the space shuttle was to transition our man in space
activity away from ambitious interplanetary development schemes to
general disillusionment with space travel and spread the gospel of the
ultimate futility of interplanetary development, with its basic tenets
marginalized by science fiction and ufo cultism.


I'm finding the first part of your above statement a bit confusing. To
me, the purpose you claim for the space shuttle -- "to transition our
man in space activity away from ambitious interplanetary development
schemes" -- ignores the established fact that at the time, "our man in
space activity" had been limited to earth orbit and moon travel.
(Realistically, "general disillusionment with space travel" seems to
decry moon travel, not "interplanetary schemes.")


The last part of your statement is similarly difficult to accept.
Although some have "marginalized by science fiction and UFO cultism,"
didn't they mostly do so with respect to moon landings and earth
sightings reported prior to Nixon, rather than "interplanetary
development schemes?"


I guess I'm a bit too well grounded in "creep before you crawl" to
ignore the value of having a functional space shuttle and an
operational space station prior to full-blown moon exploration, let
alone travel to a nearby planet. At work, I had friends with advanced
degrees from Cal Tech. Their families suffered hardship when the MOL
was canceled, but they picked up the pieces and started over.


JTM


I totally agree with your "creep before you crawl" policy, especially
if it's my frail DNA that's going out on that firing line.

What's your best swag or give and take on behalf of our doing a Moon
L1 platform, or call it an outpost/depot sort of oasis gateway of
mostly rad-hard robotics that can take the unavoidable double-IR heat
as well as the gamma saturated environment, eventually along with an
extremely well shielded human habitat module?


It sounds like a sensible plan to me, based on my limited knowledge of
the things you mention (gained only from a few meetings I had with Dr.
Van Allen in 1986, and from occasional L1 reading I've done since
2002).

For an earth-lunar intermediate, the L1 platform you mention sounds
like our next logical step in manned lunar exploration, since ISS
rendevous has limitations for lunar travel. I'm not a Mars fan though,
based on what I've read about it.

http://www.space.com/news/beyond_iss_020926-1.html

JTM
  #75  
Old March 24th 08, 03:11 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews

On Mar 23, 4:04 pm, "
wrote:
On Mar 23, 4:49 pm, BradGuth wrote:



On Mar 22, 12:19 pm, "
wrote:


On Mar 12, 7:28 am, wrote:


The purpose of the space shuttle was to transition our man in space
activity away from ambitious interplanetary development schemes to
general disillusionment with space travel and spread the gospel of the
ultimate futility of interplanetary development, with its basic tenets
marginalized by science fiction and ufo cultism.


I'm finding the first part of your above statement a bit confusing. To
me, the purpose you claim for the space shuttle -- "to transition our
man in space activity away from ambitious interplanetary development
schemes" -- ignores the established fact that at the time, "our man in
space activity" had been limited to earth orbit and moon travel.
(Realistically, "general disillusionment with space travel" seems to
decry moon travel, not "interplanetary schemes.")


The last part of your statement is similarly difficult to accept.
Although some have "marginalized by science fiction and UFO cultism,"
didn't they mostly do so with respect to moon landings and earth
sightings reported prior to Nixon, rather than "interplanetary
development schemes?"


I guess I'm a bit too well grounded in "creep before you crawl" to
ignore the value of having a functional space shuttle and an
operational space station prior to full-blown moon exploration, let
alone travel to a nearby planet. At work, I had friends with advanced
degrees from Cal Tech. Their families suffered hardship when the MOL
was canceled, but they picked up the pieces and started over.


JTM


I totally agree with your "creep before you crawl" policy, especially
if it's my frail DNA that's going out on that firing line.


What's your best swag or give and take on behalf of our doing a Moon
L1 platform, or call it an outpost/depot sort of oasis gateway of
mostly rad-hard robotics that can take the unavoidable double-IR heat
as well as the gamma saturated environment, eventually along with an
extremely well shielded human habitat module?


It sounds like a sensible plan to me, based on my limited knowledge of
the things you mention (gained only from a few meetings I had with Dr.
Van Allen in 1986, and from occasional L1 reading I've done since
2002).

For an earth-lunar intermediate, the L1 platform you mention sounds
like our next logical step in manned lunar exploration, since ISS
rendevous has limitations for lunar travel. I'm not a Mars fan though,
based on what I've read about it.

http://www.space.com/news/beyond_iss_020926-1.html

JTM


We've all heard of "Clarke Station" and of the Boeing Oasis
alternative, but either of those is nothing compared to my 256e6 tonne
LSE-CM/ISS that's directly tethered to the moon.

A sufficiently large artificial solar shade that's made up of PV
panels so that an unlimited amount of energy becomes available, would
not only interactively shade this ML1 gateway/habitat, but it'll run
anything you could imagine. I believe there's nearly 98% solar
illumination available for this moon L1 location.
.. - Brad Guth
  #76  
Old March 24th 08, 03:17 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews

On Mar 23, 4:04 pm, "
wrote:
On Mar 23, 4:49 pm, BradGuth wrote:



On Mar 22, 12:19 pm, "
wrote:


On Mar 12, 7:28 am, wrote:


The purpose of the space shuttle was to transition our man in space
activity away from ambitious interplanetary development schemes to
general disillusionment with space travel and spread the gospel of the
ultimate futility of interplanetary development, with its basic tenets
marginalized by science fiction and ufo cultism.


I'm finding the first part of your above statement a bit confusing. To
me, the purpose you claim for the space shuttle -- "to transition our
man in space activity away from ambitious interplanetary development
schemes" -- ignores the established fact that at the time, "our man in
space activity" had been limited to earth orbit and moon travel.
(Realistically, "general disillusionment with space travel" seems to
decry moon travel, not "interplanetary schemes.")


The last part of your statement is similarly difficult to accept.
Although some have "marginalized by science fiction and UFO cultism,"
didn't they mostly do so with respect to moon landings and earth
sightings reported prior to Nixon, rather than "interplanetary
development schemes?"


I guess I'm a bit too well grounded in "creep before you crawl" to
ignore the value of having a functional space shuttle and an
operational space station prior to full-blown moon exploration, let
alone travel to a nearby planet. At work, I had friends with advanced
degrees from Cal Tech. Their families suffered hardship when the MOL
was canceled, but they picked up the pieces and started over.


JTM


I totally agree with your "creep before you crawl" policy, especially
if it's my frail DNA that's going out on that firing line.


What's your best swag or give and take on behalf of our doing a Moon
L1 platform, or call it an outpost/depot sort of oasis gateway of
mostly rad-hard robotics that can take the unavoidable double-IR heat
as well as the gamma saturated environment, eventually along with an
extremely well shielded human habitat module?


It sounds like a sensible plan to me, based on my limited knowledge of
the things you mention (gained only from a few meetings I had with Dr.
Van Allen in 1986, and from occasional L1 reading I've done since
2002).

For an earth-lunar intermediate, the L1 platform you mention sounds
like our next logical step in manned lunar exploration, since ISS
rendevous has limitations for lunar travel. I'm not a Mars fan though,
based on what I've read about it.

http://www.space.com/news/beyond_iss_020926-1.html

JTM


We've all heard of "Clarke Station" and of the Boeing Oasis
alternative, but either of those is nothing compared to my 256e6 tonne
LSE-CM/ISS that's directly tethered to the moon.

A sufficiently large artificial solar shade that's made up of PV
panels so that an unlimited amount of energy becomes available, would
not only interactively shade this ML1 gateway/habitat, but it'll run
anything you could imagine. I believe there's nearly 98% solar
illumination available for this moon L1 location.
.. - Brad Guth
  #77  
Old March 24th 08, 04:39 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 349
Default Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews

On Mar 24, 9:11*am, BradGuth wrote:

We've all heard of "Clarke Station" and of the Boeing Oasis
alternative, but either of those is nothing compared to my 256e6 tonne
LSE-CM/ISS that's directly tethered to the moon.


I guess I've been too involved with getting out the truth about
Mission 51-L to have heard about any of the above. At least that's my
excuse anyway.

A sufficiently large artificial solar shade that's made up of PV
panels so that an unlimited amount of energy becomes available, would
not only interactively shade this ML1 gateway/habitat, but it'll run
anything you could imagine. *I believe there's nearly 98% solar
illumination available for this moon L1 location.


That concept makes sense to me, because during this decade my interest
in eventual manned missions to the moon has shifted almost entirely.to
our moon's value as a great resource for solar energy. I don't know
how close it is to "98%" though. I think you're on the right track
with first getting to our moon's L1 safely.

JTM
  #78  
Old March 24th 08, 05:37 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews

On Mar 24, 7:39 am, "
wrote:
On Mar 24, 9:11 am, BradGuth wrote:

We've all heard of "Clarke Station" and of the Boeing Oasis
alternative, but either of those is nothing compared to my 256e6 tonne
LSE-CM/ISS that's directly tethered to the moon.


I guess I've been too involved with getting out the truth about
Mission 51-L to have heard about any of the above. At least that's my
excuse anyway.

A sufficiently large artificial solar shade that's made up of PV
panels so that an unlimited amount of energy becomes available, would
not only interactively shade this ML1 gateway/habitat, but it'll run
anything you could imagine. I believe there's nearly 98% solar
illumination available for this moon L1 location.


That concept makes sense to me, because during this decade my interest
in eventual manned missions to the moon has shifted almost entirely.to
our moon's value as a great resource for solar energy. I don't know
how close it is to "98%" though. I think you're on the right track
with first getting to our moon's L1 safely.

JTM


Boeing OASIS:
Earth-Moon L1 Gateway Missions / Executive Summary 10/2/2001
http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/design...SISEXEC_97.pdf

Clarke Station:
An Artificial Gravity Space Station at the Earth-Moon L1 Point
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications...aryland01b.pdf

Getting the most tonnage per given fly-by-rocket method is doable if
it's intended for deployment into the moon's L1. This location is an
interactive zone of otherwise efficiently station-keeping as much
tonnage as you'd like.

My tethered LSE-CM/ISS along with its tether dipole element reaching
to within 2r of Earth is far better than either of the above.
.. - Brad Guth
  #79  
Old March 24th 08, 07:07 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews

On Mar 24, 7:39 am, "
wrote:
On Mar 24, 9:11 am, BradGuth wrote:

We've all heard of "Clarke Station" and of the Boeing Oasis
alternative, but either of those is nothing compared to my 256e6 tonne
LSE-CM/ISS that's directly tethered to the moon.


I guess I've been too involved with getting out the truth about
Mission 51-L to have heard about any of the above. At least that's my
excuse anyway.

A sufficiently large artificial solar shade that's made up of PV
panels so that an unlimited amount of energy becomes available, would
not only interactively shade this ML1 gateway/habitat, but it'll run
anything you could imagine. I believe there's nearly 98% solar
illumination available for this moon L1 location.


That concept makes sense to me, because during this decade my interest
in eventual manned missions to the moon has shifted almost entirely.to
our moon's value as a great resource for solar energy. I don't know
how close it is to "98%" though. I think you're on the right track
with first getting to our moon's L1 safely.

JTM


For brain-food and eye-candy, here's a couple of old links worth
looking at.

Boeing OASIS:
Earth-Moon L1 Gateway Missions / Executive Summary 10/2/2001
http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/design...SISEXEC_97.pdf

Clarke Station:
An Artificial Gravity Space Station at the Earth-Moon L1 Point
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications...aryland01b.pdf

Getting the most tonnage per given fly-by-rocket method is doable if
it's intended for deployment into the moon's L1. This ML1 location is
an interactive gravity-null zone of otherwise efficiently station-
keeping as much tonnage as you'd like.

However, keeping in mind that this Earth-Moon-L1 location is also
double IR toasty because, that physically dark moon once even
partially solar illuminated is what reflects and/or radiates solar
energy at roughly 33%~50% of the available IR spectrum. Don't kid
yourself about that wide-open space between Earth and our moon, as
being the least bit cool or much less cold as reported by those NASA/
Apollo missions, especially if there's multiple bodies and loads of
systems and instrumentation heat to continually get rid of, as such is
not as technically easy as you'd think, especially since there's not
much greater than 2% dark time per any given month.

My fully tethered LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) along with its
counter mass of a substantial space habitat and tether dipole element
reaching to within 2r of Earth, is far better than either of the above
or that of NASA's NExT space station/gateway alternatives.
.. - Brad Guth
  #80  
Old March 24th 08, 11:54 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews

On Mar 11, 8:25 am, "
wrote:
1) Some people imply that the space shuttle and its support structure
(like the Manned Orbital Laboratory) was designed from its inception
to accomplish military goals.

2) Since the Challenger disaster with an IUS aboard, the space shuttle
has been deemed too dangerous for non-astronauts.

3) Yet military advocates don't blame the Air Force for what they
consider our civilian space shuttle / space station dilemma.

How is it logical for advocates of failed military orbital
capabilities (manned) to denigrate our current civilian orbital
capabilities?

JTM


For all the right sorts of technical, safety and payload reasons, as
well as per reductions in global pollution per tonne placed so quickly
into orbit, as such we'll need that new and greatly improved shuttle,
of which this need not be of more than 50% public invested.
Unfortunately, our MI5/CIA cloak and dagger aspects of the past,
present and future has our village idiot butts and private parts
pretty much nailed to their next available cross.

Here's another somewhat polished reply, as for topic brain-food and
eye-candy, whereas here's a couple of old links worth looking at, plus
something of NASA's NExT that'll most likely never happen unless pigs
fly and hell freezes over, not to mention those NASA/Apollo cows ever
coming home.

Boeing OASIS:
Earth-Moon L1 Gateway Missions / Executive Summary 10/2/2001
http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/design...SISEXEC_97.pdf

Clarke Station:
An Artificial Gravity Space Station at the Earth-Moon L1 Point
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications...aryland01b.pdf

Building an L1 Depot in Phases:
Growing in step with operations on the Moon's surface
http://chapters.nss.org/hub/pdf%20pr...s/LIphases.pdf

Getting the most tonnage per any given fly-by-rocket method is by far
most obtainable if such payload tonnage were intended for deployment
into the moon's L1 pocket. This ML-1 location is an interactive
gravity-null or quiet zone of otherwise being nearly ideal for
efficiently station-keeping as much volumetric size and tonnage as
you'd like.

However, keeping in mind that this Earth-Moon-L1 location is also
double IR toasty because, that physically dark moon once even
partially solar illuminated is what reflects and/or radiates solar
energy at roughly 33%~50% of the available IR spectrum. Don't kid
yourself about that wide-open space between Earth and our moon, as for
being the least bit cool or much less cold as reported by those NASA/
Apollo missions it is not, especially if there's multiple human bodies
and loads of systems and instrumentation heat to continually get rid
of, as such is not as technically easy to get rid of such heat as
you'd think, especially since unlike the 50% dark time of ISS, there's
not much greater than 2% dark time per any given year while situated
within the moon's L1, meaning that for days on end there's none of
that shade whatsoever, as well as at times getting that IR energy as
derived from three directions at once.

My fully tethered LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) along with its
counter mass of a truly substantial space habitat that's extremely
well shielded, and of its tether dipole element reaching that other
habitat capable pod or module to within 2r of Earth, is far better
than either of the above or that of anything NASA's NExT space station/
gateway has to offer.
.. - Brad Guth
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews [email protected] Space Shuttle 81 March 26th 08 05:15 PM
NEED: Civilian/military space spending split over the years Jim Oberg Policy 7 December 7th 06 04:15 AM
NEED: Civilian/military space spending split over the years Jim Oberg History 7 December 7th 06 04:15 AM
First Civilian Astronaut Jo UK Astronomy 1 June 21st 04 07:11 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.