Heard too much and need to vent.

On 28 Jul 2003 19:25:51 -0700, (George William
Herbert) wrote:

Cardman wrote:

Well that has not happened yet, where although NASA has not been doing
too well with safety and all that recently, but I am sure that these
SRBs are treated with great respect.

"it has not happened yet" does not mean that the risk is
low,

Well 0.42% is not bad, where the only recorded Shuttle SRB accident
was due to a bad design and bad management.

Also that problem SRB did technically go on just fine, even though it
had just knocked a couple of holes in the ET.

I am not sure if the line "don't fix it if it is not broke" applies
here, but it would come close to that. An area much more in need of
fixing is a Shuttle escape system during early launch.

and in particular does not mean that the consequences
of it happening are not catastrophic.

These are rockets, where one mistake nearly anywhere can result in a
catastrophic failure.

SRBs are good because they are simple enough to be understandable,
where the obvious danger leads to a high safety level.

The risk is relatively low...

You have just contradicted your opening statement.

ignitors and wiring are both
fairly bulletproof... but they are not completely redundant.

I am happy with it.

Look at what has taken out both Shuttles so far, which is a
combination of poor initial design and the management undervaluing the
danger.

They are happy to stall the entire Shuttle program for months due to a
near invisible crack in the SSMEs (another clear danger area), not
that this is likely to cause a failure, but they are fully happy to
accept high speed projectiles hitting on the orbiter.

You have heard them with the likes of "this is only soft foam" and
"not a problem", which is only fooling themselves that things hitting
the Shuttle at high speed is classed under "ok".

Just like with Challenger before it these problems are simply
overlooked due to it happening lots of times already and nothing being
done. As if they have to question the danger level, then obviously it
is posing a danger.

Two, 'off you go' is an irreversable event, for the most part.

So is every rocket launch... As when you leave that pad there is no
going back to it.

Well except for one test model that I can think of.

You're missing the point.

And you are missing mine in that all rocket launches carry a fair
degree of danger, when it is in the nature of the environment. When
this is not like taking a trip down the local shop after all.

Consider it this way... As if the SRBs were replaced with something
else, which would no doubt be more technical and complex, then would
the danger be greater or less than with the SRBs?

My documentation says that there's more than enough control
authority to stably fly the stack on the SRBs alone, even if
all three SSMEs kick the bucket. That's not the issue.

Then I am a bit surprised that the entire mass of the Shuttle can be
stabilized using just the flaps alone.

Clearly a thing that could have been done, which can be from ejection
seats to the front coming off into a mini plane.

Or a capsule, or orbiter escape rockets to fire it free of the stack,
or something. None of which are in place.

And that I see as a problem.

Like I said about the Challenger accident that had the crew had an
escape system, then so could a wise computer spot this event before it
happened.

So if the original design had included a suitable escape system, then
so could they have been alive today.

All I can say is that hopefully they put some extra safety thought
into the OSP.

Three, though there is some argument about exactly how
vulnerable developed and flight tested SRBs are to catastrophic
failure, they do in fact blow up or otherwise fail.

Only if either badly designed or badly handled.

The state of the art of the industry is that design
flaws happen,

That original SRB design was accepted by the NASA management despite
NASA's own technical experts saying that it was bad.

and handling mistakes happen, some of which
are not recognized until they blow up.

Yes, but no matter the nature of your rocket hardware that will still
happen.

It does no good to say 'in a perfect world...';
there is no such thing, and we have to engineer
for the real world. All of specification error,
engineering error, manufacturing flaw, handling
error, processing error have been known to happen
to spacecraft.

The SRBs have a good track record, are well understood, where most of
all they are treated with great respect.

I see no problem here.

Cardman.

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 00:01:34 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

"Cardman" wrote in message
.. .

Never once, but if this is a government thing, then it is not like
congress wants NASA to make profit from the ISS.

No, but they've also made it clear they aren't about to fund a colony.

I am not surprised if NASA wants $240 billion for a Mars mission.

and upkeep

What upkeep exactly?

Oh, things like when the springs on your Moon buggy go.

Yes I can see that happening due to the amount of mass that I will be
putting in them.

When you need more lubricant for the spacelock,

Lubricant is easy enough to deal with, when sure enough we would bring
loads of it on the initial launches.

replacing your space suits due to wear and tear.

Well in most cases these things are best patched up.

Only if the rubber pressure layer in the inside leaks (whoops...), or
the suit has sizable wear would in need replacing, otherwise we can
just attach some teflon patches to the worn areas.

Just little things like that.

Yes and all things that will be well stocked during the construction
of my Moon Base, where yearly resupply flights will keep my spares
department topped up.

and lodging,

We live in a cave below the moons surface.

And those are furnished how?

Everything needed for establishing the Moon Base will be mostly
brought across long before the people land.

The first group of people across will have the job of cutting the
cave, installing the airlocks, pressurizing it, filling it with the
equipment all reader for the other colonists.

Second phase is to work on the water extraction, planting, water and
waste recycling and most of all power.

Recently I have decided to fit emergency pressure doors into my cave
system, in case of unlikely accident. Also I will keep the
construction area away from the other areas, noise, dust and all that.

Solar panels provide the required electricity and just about
everything is recycled.

And you replace the solar panels with what as they degrade?

Come on they don't degrade that quickly after the initial fall over
the first couple of days.

These fields of solar panels will do just fine.

In the long term due to increases in electrical consumption there
would always be the option to go nuclear.

And how exactly
do you deal with 14 days of no sunlight?

Not a problem.

In the area where we are based, near where the water is in constant
darkness, then there is an area in the middle of the crater that is
raised and receives sunlight all year round.

That as already estimated by scientists is the perfect place to put
down solar panels in this valuable water area.

Yes, one of our very skilled and highly trained engineers.

Who tend to want money.

Either that or to have their name go down in Lunar history.

They either tend to have student loans to pay off,

My company would consider covering some such expenses, but this is
like a sell up and move trip.

One popular option I expect would be to rent out their home while they
are away.

or families to support

Well I am into moving whole families here, when these people won't be
coming back to Earth other than once in a blue moon.

People with children are best avoided, when this is clearly no place
for children, where in unusual cases children can be left in the care
of relatives.

One day when it is safe enough can we allow children as well.

or computer habits to support.

Oh we will have computers here, where you can be sure about that. And
we will even have an Internet connection as well.

I am concerned about the Earth to Moon data rate though, when such a
slow speed does not sound suitable for a high speed Internet backbone.

Yes I was counting on that, where I figure on an inner and outer door
of about two meters in diameter. I suppose you can have these doors
square if desired, but that would mean adjust the shape of the tunnel
at that point.

2 meters? Have you looked at the size of your earth moving equipment? Try
10 meters.

Well for a start any Moon mining is very unlikely to be in the same
area as our initial Moon Base, where also I would simply refuse to
have heavy trucks in this same cave.

So if we are going to be doing heavy Moon mining, then I am only happy
to create are more remote mining base.

Just in case the air cannot be recovered to a high enough degree, then
I was thinking about cutting a second smaller tunnel up to the
surface, when this human and light equipment exit would make use of a
much smaller airlock.

That's standard right there.

Then I would be unhappy about this air loss, where what is lost would
need to be topped up.

Maybe the best system is a series of pressure doors, where the air
gets thinner and thinner between each door?

Depends on what the void does to lubricants? As mentioned this
equipment would be internally heated to stop the extreme cold.

It tends to dry them out.

Then is there no lubricant that does not dry out?

Well my equipment will need regular servicing anyway to keep it in
prime condition.

How do you deal with moondust eating away at everything?

Not a problem, when the entire area around the moon base would be
paved over.

Umm, if it's paved over, how are you mining anything?

Only the area around my Moon Base is paved over, where we would not be
mining things here. Apart from the cave insides of course, which would
be handled by a series of small trucks.

Sure things like aluminum and iron would need to be mined and
processed, but this would be done in other locations, where they would
usually travel down roads.

You're not very consistent in your plans here.

And I thought that we had moved on to asteroid mining, which has no
moon dust problems.

As all you need then is to launch your cargo at the correct speed,
where days later it would land within a few miles of where it is
needed.

You might want think about that a bit more. Considering it's never been
DONE.

It has never been done before, because no one has been on the likes of
the Moon to do it before.

All it requires is the precise knowledge of the Earth and Moon
positions, travel distance and time, where with precise equipment sure
enough cargo can be launched and to hit the Earth's atmosphere in
about the right place.

It can certainly be done, where all it requires is the hardware and
some testing to confirm the accuracy.

Over time the accuracy can be improved.

Umm, over time you get sued and go bankrupt after you drop a boulder on the
Eifel tower.

For a start we would never consider dropping these things in one of
the most densely populated areas. See you are always looking for the
worst possible option.

One possible location would be at the poles, where this extreme cold
keeps the people away and this is a large enough area to handle a
little inaccuracy.

It is also in constant access day or night, where we could well be
sending back many tons each day when things pick up.

Just have some helicopters fly around the area locating this cargo and
hauling them back to base.

Well those tests would just burn up in the atmosphere.

What tests, you seemed to think you could do it right with just a little
programming work.

It is all mathematics and engineering. Where of course testing using
the nearby moon rocks is needed to confirm accuracy before sending
valuable cargo bouncing off the atmosphere.

And even with tests,

I can assure you that these tests will burn up in the atmosphere,
where even hitting an orbiting satellite is highly remote.

you're still going to need insurance.

Certainly, but as I said insurance won't be a problem, when it is a
million to one shot to hit something even if you was aiming for it.

Like my launch system could be set to target my polar HQ, where at
best it would land within a few miles of this location. Do that a
million times though and you may one day hit spot on.

I was planning on electric for a reason...

So, how are they charged?

Either from the main source of solar panels or to refill the fuel
cells with the obvious gasses.

What's the storage mechanism?

I was thinking along the line of some Lithium Iron rechargeable
batteries, due to their high capacity. However, the important aspect
here is more one of longevity than capacity.

After all it is not like I won't have batteries by the hundreds, when
it takes lots of power for a whole base.

What's the duty cycle? etc.

That is one of those things that is only important once I go shopping
for Moon Base parts.

And apart from out original cave cutter, then we do not really need
heavy earth moving equipment.

Umm, I thought we were discussing MINING.

Sure if you want to do moon mining, but the valuable stuff is to be
found in asteroid mining. Or that is what you are only happy to say...

And I don't see that a too major mining operation is needed for our
requirement on local resources.

How do you do that w/o earth moving equipment?

On a much smaller scale.

Sure if things do turn out well, then we can have some real earth
moving hardware moved over, but that sounds like running before you
have learned to crawl.

How do you replace that power/weight ratio on the Moon?

One simple fact is that if needed these astronauts can move my large
slabs and equipment no problem. This is the Moon remember, where
things weigh a lot less.

But they mass the same. Note here on Earth, mass is used to HELP Earth
moving equipment.

Yes, but on the Moon you just need to be extra careful with the
starting and stopping. Mass is a function of acceleration and
deceleration, where the weight would indeed be less.

So vehicles could indeed carry a lot more mass, as long as they moved
at a slow careful rate. They tend to do that on Earth as well, but not
to this same extreme.

And sure electric powered vehicles are common, which would usually be
powered by hydrogen based fuel cells.

Don't forget your O2.

Naturally.

And of course you need to be cracking that from something.

Any ideas?

Umm, no, the market is not there yet.

Maybe, because no one is really selling He3.

No, there's no market for it. There's no major use for it at this time.

I can assure you that there would be buyers, where even China with
their moon base idea is planning on getting some He3.

And I can certainly supply to meet demand, where if demand dries up,
then I just stop getting it.

One subject that I am surprised that you have not mentioned yet is
that it is not easy getting this He3, when it is spread across the
surface and would need to be separated from the other junk.

With your pessimistic nature I am surprised that you even consider
that breathing is worth the effort. ;-]

Who said I'm pessimistic?

Always looking for the worst option. Like I am going to hit the eiffel
tower...

I'm just pointing the flaws in your design.

My plan is flawless. :-]

Well they already launch loads into orbit, where putting it on the
Moon instead makes for easy upgrade and servicing.

Hardly. You get less coverage, you're 1000 times further away, etc.

Well I am still happy to entertain their Lunar requirements.

Apart from the technicalities my plan is sound enough.

Again, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?

It started off well enough...

Cardman.