A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Lunar Lander



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 16th 17, 03:05 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Lunar Lander

In article . com,
says...

On 2017-12-14 13:54, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

As others have pointed out, Congress has to allocate the money.


Is there any indication that pressure/suggestions will be made to
Congress to fund a lunar lander? I take it this would come from NASA who
would point to Trump's memo as justification?


Doubtful. As I said, every Administration after Reagan announced plans
to go to the moon and/or Mars. No funding of any significance was ever
allocated to develop a full scale manned lander.

In a normal situation, would funding for the lander have been made at
the same time as funding for Orion and the Service module as both were
part of a new plan to return to the moon? Or do these first 2 normally
get started years ahead of the lunar module ?


This is a normal situation. Following the politically motivated (Cold
War) Apollo/Saturn program, NASA's funding has not gone up much, except
in rare instances where Congress is convinced that NASA won't come back
to Congress for more and more money. Most proposals for manned moon or
manned Mars missions in the past have fallen on deaf ears in Congress.

The exception is SLS/Orion. They were funded by Congress to keep the
pork flowing to former space shuttle districts after the cancellation of
Ares/CEV.

(Obviously updated electronics/software, updated batteries).

Other than pretty much updating everything, it'll be exactly the same.



Jeff Findley wrote:
Pretty much updated everything. Plus it "needs" to be bigger, because
we plan on staying much longer. You're not going to "dust off" the old
LEM design, build it, and fly it. Today's NASA engineers and managers
would never accept such a "marginal" design. The walls were thin
enough aluminum in spots that you could literally jam a pencil right
through the wall of it with one hand.


How different COULD a lander be considering technology advancements.
(aka: weight limits to get something to and from the moon).


Few suppliers of the LEM hardware exist today as they did in the mid
1960s. It's been half a damn century! You can't just build new copies
to the old plans because there is a hell of a lot more to it than that.
Many of the then "off the shelf" parts aren't made anymore! The
electronics in particular only exist in museums. No one makes parts
like them anymore!

Won't "new" requirements such as redundancy, thicker walls, bigger
module for longer stay make the lander weight more than can be launched?


Possibly. Making it more redundant and safer (higher margins in things
like structural design) will add mass. But the opposing "force" is
improvements in materials, manufacturing, electronics (lighter),
batteries, solar cells, fuel cells, and etc. will tend to reduce mass of
certain systems.

For a "flags and footprints" style mission, it might be a push. But,
for a "moon village" program, you're going to want a bigger lander to
land payloads on the moon which are bigger than the old LEM ascent
stage.

Secondly, since the Service module is designed and being built before
the lander, wouldn't a service module need to know the weight of the
lander which it needs to push to the moon?


Chicken and egg problems abound. But they're all driven by budget and
what the goal is. If the goal is repeat of flags and footprints, that's
a lander maybe a tad bigger than the LEM. If the goal is a lunar
"base", that would drive the lander design to be bigger than the LEM.

Either way, I doubt we'd even use the old two stage LEM architecture. I
find it far more likely that a reusable lunar lander (single stage)
would be developed, especially if a lunar base/village is the goal. We
simply can't afford to keep disposing of such expensive hardware after a
single use. That's just insane.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #2  
Old December 17th 17, 09:51 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Lunar Lander

Jeff Findley wrote:

In article . com,
says...

On 2017-12-14 13:54, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

As others have pointed out, Congress has to allocate the money.


Is there any indication that pressure/suggestions will be made to
Congress to fund a lunar lander? I take it this would come from NASA who
would point to Trump's memo as justification?


Doubtful. As I said, every Administration after Reagan announced plans
to go to the moon and/or Mars. No funding of any significance was ever
allocated to develop a full scale manned lander.


This is somewhat different, in that this isn't a space policy produced
by a NASA Administrator, but rather comes from a group headed by the
Vice President.



In a normal situation, would funding for the lander have been made at
the same time as funding for Orion and the Service module as both were
part of a new plan to return to the moon? Or do these first 2 normally
get started years ahead of the lunar module ?


This is a normal situation. Following the politically motivated (Cold
War) Apollo/Saturn program, NASA's funding has not gone up much, except
in rare instances where Congress is convinced that NASA won't come back
to Congress for more and more money. Most proposals for manned moon or
manned Mars missions in the past have fallen on deaf ears in Congress.


The "won't come back and ask for more money" thing is well known by
NASA, too, and has led to a number of bad decisions (like the Space
Shuttle).


The exception is SLS/Orion. They were funded by Congress to keep the
pork flowing to former space shuttle districts after the cancellation of
Ares/CEV.


"The pork must flow."



(Obviously updated electronics/software, updated batteries).
Other than pretty much updating everything, it'll be exactly the same.



Jeff Findley wrote:
Pretty much updated everything. Plus it "needs" to be bigger, because
we plan on staying much longer. You're not going to "dust off" the old
LEM design, build it, and fly it. Today's NASA engineers and managers
would never accept such a "marginal" design. The walls were thin
enough aluminum in spots that you could literally jam a pencil right
through the wall of it with one hand.


How different COULD a lander be considering technology advancements.
(aka: weight limits to get something to and from the moon).


Few suppliers of the LEM hardware exist today as they did in the mid
1960s. It's been half a damn century! You can't just build new copies
to the old plans because there is a hell of a lot more to it than that.
Many of the then "off the shelf" parts aren't made anymore! The
electronics in particular only exist in museums. No one makes parts
like them anymore!


Even for things that we're building constantly we have to obsolescence
updates to designs because we don't have the parts to build more.



Won't "new" requirements such as redundancy, thicker walls, bigger
module for longer stay make the lander weight more than can be launched?


Possibly. Making it more redundant and safer (higher margins in things
like structural design) will add mass. But the opposing "force" is
improvements in materials, manufacturing, electronics (lighter),
batteries, solar cells, fuel cells, and etc. will tend to reduce mass of
certain systems.


Altair was bigger because it was intended to carry a crew of four.
Whatever they do will probably look sort of similar to a LEM, since
form tends to follow function.


For a "flags and footprints" style mission, it might be a push. But,
for a "moon village" program, you're going to want a bigger lander to
land payloads on the moon which are bigger than the old LEM ascent
stage.


You'll probably wind up with two different landers, one for people
that works like a LEM and one for cargo that's just a big pod that
sets down and stays. Or you could, of course, go the BFR Spaceship
route and build a real spaceship.



Secondly, since the Service module is designed and being built before
the lander, wouldn't a service module need to know the weight of the
lander which it needs to push to the moon?


Chicken and egg problems abound. But they're all driven by budget and
what the goal is. If the goal is repeat of flags and footprints, that's
a lander maybe a tad bigger than the LEM. If the goal is a lunar
"base", that would drive the lander design to be bigger than the LEM.


And it doesn't really 'need to know'. It just needs to be 'big
enough'. The main driver will be the EUS rather than the relatively
small engine on the Service Module.


Either way, I doubt we'd even use the old two stage LEM architecture. I
find it far more likely that a reusable lunar lander (single stage)
would be developed, especially if a lunar base/village is the goal. We
simply can't afford to keep disposing of such expensive hardware after a
single use. That's just insane.


I think that NASA will want to build something very like the LEM, but
larger. But if you look at NASA's plans, they don't need a lander for
a good long time yet. By then they'll be able to contract SpaceX to
use BFR Spaceship.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
  #3  
Old December 18th 17, 09:55 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Niklas Holsti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 168
Default Lunar Lander

On 17-12-18 15:26 , Jeff Findley wrote:
In article . com,
says...


[snip]

Right now, SpaceX has done well landing stage 1s from pre-orbit
altitude/speed. How does it intend to land such a huge ship from orbital
speeds without need for whole skin refurb? Is the heat shield pixie
dust at this point in time ?


You could beef up the thermal protection system and do most of the
deceleration using that


[snip]

But do note that on Mars, BFS would need to get most of its reentry and
landing delta-V from its engines. It's just too big and too heavy to
generate enough drag in the Martian atmosphere to slow it down very
much.


Really? In the talk on "Making Life Multiplanetary"
(
https://youtu.be/tdUX3ypDVwI), at about 36:10, while showing a
simulation of a Mars landing, Musk says "you can remove almost all the
energy aerodynamically". The screen says "Over 99% of energy removed
aerodynamically".

A little before that, Musk admits that "For Mars, there will be some
ablation of the heat shield ... like a brake pad wearing away ... but it
is a multi-use heat shield".

--
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
. @ .
  #4  
Old December 19th 17, 01:15 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Lunar Lander

Jeff Findley wrote:

In article . com,
says...

The argument was that the newer components would be lighter than Apollo
era modules. I pointed out that Orion was much heavier than the Apollo
CM (which is comparing oranges to oranges). I have no idea of the
service module weight since I don't even know if what is being built by
ESA right now would be usable for a replay of Apollo (Orion + Lander)
and a new SM might be needed.


The Orion "command module" is physically bigger than the Apollo Command
Module. But if you did a simple web search, you'd know that:

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Orion...se-of-lighter-
materials-and-other-advances-to-reduce-weight-still-weigh-3-tons-more-
than-Apollo

Take a look at the picture on the above web page.


I've told him that at least twice. I don't think facts penetrate
Mayfly very well once he gets a bone in his teeth.


If the stack (Lander, SM, Orion) is heavier than Apollo era stack,
wouldn't the Moon orbit insertion/exit end up requiring more thrust?
Unless engine efficiency more than doubled since Apollo, that would
require more fuel than Apollo, woudln't it?


No, the engine used on the Orion service module is not twice as
efficient as the Apollo service module engine. From Reddit (check this
fact yourself if you doubt it):

Orion will have 1340m/s of delta-v, compared to the Apollo one
which had 2800m/s.

So, Orion will have less than half the delta-V of Apollo CSM. So it's
actually half as capable when it comes to propulsion!


I don't think that figure is correct. Wikipedia credits Orion with
1800 m/s delta-v vice the 1340 m/s that you give, which makes it about
64% of Apollo.


The extended mission LM
weighed a bit over 16 tonnes. The Altair lander would have weighed
around 46 tonnes.


I had been told that Saturn V had been the most powerfull rocket ever.
Yet, now I am told that Ares could have carriued a lander that was 30
tonnes heavier when during apollo era, they were concerned with every
gram of mass on the lander.


I'm pretty sure that Altair would not have been launched with the CEV.
That's one huge difference between Apollo/Saturn and Ares/CEV/Altair.
Altair would go up on Ares V while the CEV was to go up on Ares I,
remember? Multiple launches means more capability than a single launch.


But it also involves a rendezvous of the two vehicles in LEO before
the upper stage of Ares V puts the whole works into a TLI orbit.


I honestly don't know exactly the TLI capabilities of the various SLS
"designs" (they've not flown one yet). But, multiple launches solves
the weight issue for any "beyond LEO" plan. Even Deep Space Gateway
will take multiple launches to "build".


The numbers are out there, but plans change. DSG consumes EM-2
through EM-10. Two of those are logistics and resupply missions and
one of them is a long duration stay test mission, so the plan is six
launches to build it.


But the current thing is a diversion from going to Mars since NASA is
developping stuff that won't be of use to Mars, and hasn't yet
developped a plan to get to Mars, and hence can't begin to implement
that plan.


I'm still not convinced NASA is going back to the moon. SLS hasn't been
canceled yet to free up the funding to design and build a lander.


What good is a lander if they cancel the rocket that is supposed to
get them there?


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
  #6  
Old December 19th 17, 06:41 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Lunar Lander

Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

But the current thing is a diversion from going to Mars since NASA is
developping stuff that won't be of use to Mars, and hasn't yet
developped a plan to get to Mars, and hence can't begin to implement
that plan.

I'm still not convinced NASA is going back to the moon. SLS hasn't been
canceled yet to free up the funding to design and build a lander.


What good is a lander if they cancel the rocket that is supposed to
get them there?


We don't need SLS at all if we do EOR with in orbit refueling.


But now you're talking additional launches, which runs the price up.
And you still need a really high energy upper stage to send the whole
works somewhere.


Falcon
Heavy ought to be able to loft a quite capable lunar lander. ULA ought
to be able to provide ACES upper stage(s) needed to get the stack to
lunar orbit. Either Boeing or SpaceX can provide the space "taxi". SLS
is just sucking up resources better spent on actual missions.


I'm going to use payload to trans-Mars Injection, because those are
the only 'constant' figures I have. Falcon Heavy is 16.8 tonnes to
TMI. SLS Block 2 is 45 tonnes to TMI. None of the ULA launchers give
either TLI or TMI figures, however, none of the come close to the LEO
capability of Falcon Heavy so it's a fair bet they'd be well under
that trying to boost to someplace farther out. BFR is in a class all
by itself, of course, and will probably be ready before the DSG is
done. Dragon V2 is around 10 tonnes with a 1 week duration, so Falcon
Heavy could certainly send that to the moon. It can't land, though,
because it doesn't carry enough fuel (only about 1.5 tonnes of fuel).
Falcon Heavy doesn't have enough grunt to send an Orion stack to the
Moon, much less an Orion stack plus a lander.

The conclusion is that you sort of need SLS or something with similar
capability. It may be a poor design and expensive, but it's what
there is.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
  #7  
Old December 19th 17, 04:25 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Lunar Lander

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2017-12-18 19:15, Fred J. McCall wrote:

What good is a lander if they cancel the rocket that is supposed to
get them there?


Because Falcon 9 Heavy would be cheaper than SLS ?


Except Falcon Heavy (not Falcon 9 Heavy - you've been corrected on
this before, Mayfly) can't do the job.


If they end up building a bigger lander, why not send just the lander
and service module to the Moon and back. How difficult would it be for
the lander to enter Earth orbit upon return and say dock with ISS so
crew can catch a ride in a dragon back to Earth?


Because that wouldn't work?


If they build a bigger lander, isn't fair to state that the capsule
becomes needed only to re-enter Earth's atmosphere ?


No, it isn't fair to say that.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #8  
Old December 20th 17, 04:47 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Lunar Lander

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2017-12-19 00:41, Fred J. McCall wrote:

But now you're talking additional launches, which runs the price up.
And you still need a really high energy upper stage to send the whole
works somewhere.


The re-usability and low cost of Falcon could easily make multiple
launches still much cheaper than a single launch on that SLS thing.

SLS os expensive enough as it stands. It will get worse once they run
out of the SSMEs they got for free from the Shuttle have have to start
paying for new ones.


The Orion stack without a lander weighs 25.8 tonnes. Falcon Heavy
doesn't have enough grunt to get that to TLI.



Dragon V2 is around 10 tonnes with a 1 week duration, so Falcon
Heavy could certainly send that to the moon. It can't land, though,
because it doesn't carry enough fuel


So you send some mattresses to the Moon surface ahead of time :-)

Even if it had enough fuel to land, would it have enough thrust to take
off back into Lonar orbit? (forgetting fuel for a second).


Dragon V2 has plenty of thrust. Remember that the internal engines on
Dragon V2 are used as the emergency escape system during launch, so it
has to be able to impart an acceleration of at least 3g. Dragon V2
has around 54 tonnes of axial thrust. The problem is that it runs out
of fuel before it hits lunar escape velocity. It almost has enough
fuel to get into an orbit around the Moon if it's fully fueled and
certainly has more than enough thrust.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
  #9  
Old December 22nd 17, 03:08 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Lunar Lander

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

But the current thing is a diversion from going to Mars since NASA is
developping stuff that won't be of use to Mars, and hasn't yet
developped a plan to get to Mars, and hence can't begin to implement
that plan.

I'm still not convinced NASA is going back to the moon. SLS hasn't been
canceled yet to free up the funding to design and build a lander.


What good is a lander if they cancel the rocket that is supposed to
get them there?


We don't need SLS at all if we do EOR with in orbit refueling.


But now you're talking additional launches, which runs the price up.
And you still need a really high energy upper stage to send the whole
works somewhere.


Falcon Heavy's launch costs are ridiculously low. Also SpaceX has a
launch cadence for Falcon 9 that's 10x that of SLS's predicted maximum
launch cadence. By the time SLS flies with humans on top, it wouldn't
surprise me if SpaceX had its Texas launch site operational, giving it
even more launch capacity.

The "additional launches" problem simply won't be a problem in a few
years, unless we stick with the max two launches per year SLS.


Falcon
Heavy ought to be able to loft a quite capable lunar lander. ULA ought
to be able to provide ACES upper stage(s) needed to get the stack to
lunar orbit. Either Boeing or SpaceX can provide the space "taxi". SLS
is just sucking up resources better spent on actual missions.


I'm going to use payload to trans-Mars Injection, because those are
the only 'constant' figures I have. Falcon Heavy is 16.8 tonnes to
TMI. SLS Block 2 is 45 tonnes to TMI. None of the ULA launchers give
either TLI or TMI figures, however, none of the come close to the LEO
capability of Falcon Heavy so it's a fair bet they'd be well under
that trying to boost to someplace farther out. BFR is in a class all
by itself, of course, and will probably be ready before the DSG is
done. Dragon V2 is around 10 tonnes with a 1 week duration, so Falcon
Heavy could certainly send that to the moon. It can't land, though,
because it doesn't carry enough fuel (only about 1.5 tonnes of fuel).
Falcon Heavy doesn't have enough grunt to send an Orion stack to the
Moon, much less an Orion stack plus a lander.


The other possibility is Falcon Heavy with the (now downsized) Raptor
powered upper stage. That would most certainly do the job. SpaceX has
been getting USAF funding for this:

Air Force adds more than $40 million to SpaceX engine contract
by Jeff Foust, October 21, 2017
http://spacenews.com/air-force-adds-...ion-to-spacex-
engine-contract/

From above:

Musk said in his IAC presentation that the engine will now
generate about 380,000 pounds-force of thrust

That's a bit more thrust than the J-2X which was rated at 294,000 lbf
thrust. One J-2X would have powered the Ares V launched EDS, so a
single Raptor engine powering a Falcon Heavy upper stage ought to be
quite impressive.

The conclusion is that you sort of need SLS or something with similar
capability. It may be a poor design and expensive, but it's what
there is.


We'll have to agree to disagree. By the time SLS flies, either SpaceX
or Blue Origin (which already has a high energy LOX/LH2 engine) will
have fielded launch vehicles capable of replacing SLS, as long as NASA
doesn't deliberately design a lunar lander "too big" for them, just like
Mike Griffin did for CEV/Orion.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #10  
Old December 23rd 17, 12:26 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Lunar Lander

Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

But the current thing is a diversion from going to Mars since NASA is
developping stuff that won't be of use to Mars, and hasn't yet
developped a plan to get to Mars, and hence can't begin to implement
that plan.

I'm still not convinced NASA is going back to the moon. SLS hasn't been
canceled yet to free up the funding to design and build a lander.


What good is a lander if they cancel the rocket that is supposed to
get them there?


We don't need SLS at all if we do EOR with in orbit refueling.


But now you're talking additional launches, which runs the price up.
And you still need a really high energy upper stage to send the whole
works somewhere.


Falcon Heavy's launch costs are ridiculously low. Also SpaceX has a
launch cadence for Falcon 9 that's 10x that of SLS's predicted maximum
launch cadence. By the time SLS flies with humans on top, it wouldn't
surprise me if SpaceX had its Texas launch site operational, giving it
even more launch capacity.

The "additional launches" problem simply won't be a problem in a few
years, unless we stick with the max two launches per year SLS.


You'd have to design a new upper stage that allowed refueling plus a
tanker stage to refuel it from. If you could refuel it, the existing
RP1/LOX upper stage might even have the capability for lunar work. But
we're talking hardware that would be, as yet, only a gleam in
someone's eye, unlike SLS.


Falcon
Heavy ought to be able to loft a quite capable lunar lander. ULA ought
to be able to provide ACES upper stage(s) needed to get the stack to
lunar orbit. Either Boeing or SpaceX can provide the space "taxi". SLS
is just sucking up resources better spent on actual missions.


I'm going to use payload to trans-Mars Injection, because those are
the only 'constant' figures I have. Falcon Heavy is 16.8 tonnes to
TMI. SLS Block 2 is 45 tonnes to TMI. None of the ULA launchers give
either TLI or TMI figures, however, none of the come close to the LEO
capability of Falcon Heavy so it's a fair bet they'd be well under
that trying to boost to someplace farther out. BFR is in a class all
by itself, of course, and will probably be ready before the DSG is
done. Dragon V2 is around 10 tonnes with a 1 week duration, so Falcon
Heavy could certainly send that to the moon. It can't land, though,
because it doesn't carry enough fuel (only about 1.5 tonnes of fuel).
Falcon Heavy doesn't have enough grunt to send an Orion stack to the
Moon, much less an Orion stack plus a lander.


The other possibility is Falcon Heavy with the (now downsized) Raptor
powered upper stage. That would most certainly do the job. SpaceX has
been getting USAF funding for this:


I think BFR Spaceship might be too heavy for other boosters, but you
could just use it with BFR. BFR Spaceship refueled in orbit is the
whole works. It can fly to the Moon, land, take off, and return to
Earth.


Air Force adds more than $40 million to SpaceX engine contract
by Jeff Foust, October 21, 2017
http://spacenews.com/air-force-adds-...ion-to-spacex-
engine-contract/

From above:

Musk said in his IAC presentation that the engine will now
generate about 380,000 pounds-force of thrust

That's a bit more thrust than the J-2X which was rated at 294,000 lbf
thrust. One J-2X would have powered the Ares V launched EDS, so a
single Raptor engine powering a Falcon Heavy upper stage ought to be
quite impressive.


Nobody quite knows what USAF intends to do with Raptor engines once
they're through development.

The conclusion is that you sort of need SLS or something with similar
capability. It may be a poor design and expensive, but it's what
there is.


We'll have to agree to disagree. By the time SLS flies, either SpaceX
or Blue Origin (which already has a high energy LOX/LH2 engine) will
have fielded launch vehicles capable of replacing SLS, as long as NASA
doesn't deliberately design a lunar lander "too big" for them, just like
Mike Griffin did for CEV/Orion.


New Glenn does what I suggested and adds a third stage so that you're
fully fueled for the transit mission. That is something with "similar
capability" to SLS. There's no reason Falcon Heavy couldn't do
something similar, but SpaceX is aimed at BFR.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
 




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
Why LH2/LOX for lunar lander? [email protected] Policy 5 May 11th 06 05:42 PM
Lunar Lander in a 5.2m faring? Alex Terrell Policy 30 October 30th 05 12:55 AM
aborting a lunar lander Jud McCranie History 28 August 26th 04 09:46 PM
Gulf Oil Lunar Lander Scott Lowther History 4 June 6th 04 02:48 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:33 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.