NASA / Musk will kill astronauts for a manned outpost on the Moon

NASA/MUSK should stop before starting with the Artemis project which in my opinion is more dangerous than the space shuttle project.

Since 50 years rocketry is not able to perform manned outposts on the Moon and Mars for the simple fact that not even 1% of the Apollo 11 mass returned to earth.

www.asps.it

Il giorno sabato 16 maggio 2020 08:57:35 UTC+2, ha scritto:

www.asps.it

Il giorno sabato 16 maggio 2020 20:45:02 UTC+2, Phantom_View ha scritto:
On Fri, 15 May 2020 23:58:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


NASA/MUSK should stop before starting with the Artemis project which in my opinion is more dangerous than the space shuttle project.

Since 50 years rocketry is not able to perform manned outposts on the Moon and Mars for the simple fact that not even 1% of the Apollo 11 mass returned to earth.

www.asps.it

Chemical rockets suck, that is the truth of it. Dreadfully
inefficient and prone to catastrophic failures.

For a "short" hop like the moon however, they could just
barely serve. This is especially true once hydrogen and
oxygen begin to get extracted from lunar soil.

So, booster recovery/reuse combined with getting a refill
at the ExxonLuna station could easily push the mass-
returned figure up to five percent or more. Depending on
WHAT you return, platinum and helium-3 for example,
we could be looking at a profitible enterprise.

Humans are more expensive to move, robots/androids will
be cheaper. So, assume a 100:1 robot/human ratio for a
profitible lunar colony.

But beyond the moon, forget it. Much more efficient "rocket"
tech will be required to break-even. Problem is, there ain't no
such thing and weird ideas about boosting stuff with gigawatt
lasers is just idiocy. We need a whole new view about "quantum
spacetime" before we will overcome these transportation issues.

There are simply no material resources, except perhaps high
quality diamonds, that will pay for trips to Mars or asteroids.
Going there to check things out is a worthwhile endeavor, but
after that ................ even 'bots cannot make it all worth it.

The missile system does not physically allow any permanent conquest in space ... as proof of the 50 years since Apollo 11, there is an ISS orbital station ... which is 1/1000 of the distance the moon is at!

The latest ISS comedy is that the supply rockets (automatically) failed 2 out of 3 launches!
The poor wretches in the orbital vomiter risked starving!
Think what will happen with the supplies for the moon that is 1000 times further away even if ALL the rest is OK! :-)

Now, after 14 astronauts died with the space shuttle, they are preparing to kill new astronauts with the lunar project Artemis ... only that NASA has become smart and will have them killed by deluded ones like Musk and Bezos :-(

Il giorno sabato 16 maggio 2020 23:35:54 UTC+2, ha scritto:
Il giorno sabato 16 maggio 2020 08:57:35 UTC+2, ha scritto:

www.asps.it

Il giorno sabato 16 maggio 2020 20:45:02 UTC+2, Phantom_View ha scritto:
On Fri, 15 May 2020 23:58:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


NASA/MUSK should stop before starting with the Artemis project which in my opinion is more dangerous than the space shuttle project.

Since 50 years rocketry is not able to perform manned outposts on the Moon and Mars for the simple fact that not even 1% of the Apollo 11 mass returned to earth.

www.asps.it

Chemical rockets suck, that is the truth of it. Dreadfully
inefficient and prone to catastrophic failures.

For a "short" hop like the moon however, they could just
barely serve. This is especially true once hydrogen and
oxygen begin to get extracted from lunar soil.

So, booster recovery/reuse combined with getting a refill
at the ExxonLuna station could easily push the mass-
returned figure up to five percent or more. Depending on
WHAT you return, platinum and helium-3 for example,
we could be looking at a profitible enterprise.

Humans are more expensive to move, robots/androids will
be cheaper. So, assume a 100:1 robot/human ratio for a
profitible lunar colony.

But beyond the moon, forget it. Much more efficient "rocket"
tech will be required to break-even. Problem is, there ain't no
such thing and weird ideas about boosting stuff with gigawatt
lasers is just idiocy. We need a whole new view about "quantum
spacetime" before we will overcome these transportation issues.

There are simply no material resources, except perhaps high
quality diamonds, that will pay for trips to Mars or asteroids.
Going there to check things out is a worthwhile endeavor, but
after that ................ even 'bots cannot make it all worth it.

The missile system does not physically allow any permanent conquest in space ... as proof of the 50 years since Apollo 11, there is an ISS orbital station ... which is 1/1000 of the distance the moon is at!

The latest ISS comedy is that the supply rockets (automatically) failed 2 out of 3 launches!
The poor wretches in the orbital vomiter risked starving!
Think what will happen with the supplies for the moon that is 1000 times further away even if ALL the rest is OK! :-)

Now, after 14 astronauts died with the space shuttle, they are preparing to kill new astronauts with the lunar project Artemis ... only that NASA has become smart and will have them killed by deluded ones like Musk and Bezos :-(

Il giorno domenica 17 maggio 2020 03:40:02 UTC+2, Phantom_View ha scritto:
On Sat, 16 May 2020 14:33:01 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Il giorno sabato 16 maggio 2020 20:45:02 UTC+2, Phantom_View ha scritto:
On Fri, 15 May 2020 23:58:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


NASA/MUSK should stop before starting with the Artemis project which in my opinion is more dangerous than the space shuttle project.

Since 50 years rocketry is not able to perform manned outposts on the Moon and Mars for the simple fact that not even 1% of the Apollo 11 mass returned to earth.

www.asps.it

Chemical rockets suck, that is the truth of it. Dreadfully
inefficient and prone to catastrophic failures.

For a "short" hop like the moon however, they could just
barely serve. This is especially true once hydrogen and
oxygen begin to get extracted from lunar soil.

So, booster recovery/reuse combined with getting a refill
at the ExxonLuna station could easily push the mass-
returned figure up to five percent or more. Depending on
WHAT you return, platinum and helium-3 for example,
we could be looking at a profitible enterprise.

Humans are more expensive to move, robots/androids will
be cheaper. So, assume a 100:1 robot/human ratio for a
profitible lunar colony.

But beyond the moon, forget it. Much more efficient "rocket"
tech will be required to break-even. Problem is, there ain't no
such thing and weird ideas about boosting stuff with gigawatt
lasers is just idiocy. We need a whole new view about "quantum
spacetime" before we will overcome these transportation issues.

There are simply no material resources, except perhaps high
quality diamonds, that will pay for trips to Mars or asteroids.
Going there to check things out is a worthwhile endeavor, but
after that ................ even 'bots cannot make it all worth it.

The missile system does not physically allow any permanent conquest in space ... as proof of the 50 years since Apollo 11, there is an ISS orbital station ... which is 1/1000 of the distance the moon is at!

The latest ISS comedy is that the supply rockets (automatically) failed 2 out of 3 launches!
The poor wretches in the orbital vomiter risked starving!
Think what will happen with the supplies for the moon that is 1000 times further away even if ALL the rest is OK! :-)

Now, after 14 astronauts died with the space shuttle, they are preparing to kill new astronauts with the lunar project Artemis ... only that NASA has become smart and will have them killed by deluded ones like Musk and Bezos :-(


Sell recruits on the "It's An Adventure" thing ... then danger
(and some casualties) are expected.

Anyway, we need vastly more efficient propulsion tech if we
really want to move off this rock in any significant way. It will
not involve Newton - probably some neat-o hyperspace
tricks instead, assuming that is even possible.

Ooooh ... ! What if there ARE NO neat-o tricks at all, ever ?
We and any aliens would be stuck in our own backyards
for all time. What happens when we discover there is no
way out and resources are dwindling ?

This year I will show you that with PNN, the alternative solution to the trombetta astronautics exists.

On 16-May-20 4:57 pm, wrote:

NASA/MUSK should stop before starting with the Artemis project which in my opinion is more dangerous than the space shuttle project.

Since 50 years rocketry is not able to perform manned outposts on the Moon and Mars for the simple fact that not even 1% of the Apollo 11 mass returned to earth.

www.asps.it


The space shuttle was a dangerously flawed design that put back US space
travel several decades.

As far as I can see, no one has died during a spaceflight due to the
failure of a liquid fueled rocket. This doesn't mean it can't happen of
course, but it does suggest that the risks are being managed.

Sylvia.

On 5/17/20 10:52 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 16-May-20 4:57 pm, wrote:

NASA/MUSK should stop before starting with the Artemis project which
in my opinion is more dangerous than the space shuttle project.

Since 50 years rocketry is not able to perform manned outposts on the
Moon and Mars for the simple fact that not even 1% of the Apollo 11
mass returned to earth.

www.asps.it


The space shuttle was a dangerously flawed design that put back US space
travel several decades.

As far as I can see, no one has died during a spaceflight due to the
failure of a liquid fueled rocket. This doesn't mean it can't happen of
course, but it does suggest that the risks are being managed.

Sylvia.


are you kidding us?

14 astronauts have died.

On 17-May-20 6:58 pm, Doctor Who wrote:
On 5/17/20 10:52 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 16-May-20 4:57 pm, wrote:

NASA/MUSK should stop before starting with the Artemis project which
in my opinion is more dangerous than the space shuttle project.

Since 50 years rocketry is not able to perform manned outposts on the
Moon and Mars for the simple fact that not even 1% of the Apollo 11
mass returned to earth.

www.asps.it


The space shuttle was a dangerously flawed design that put back US
space travel several decades.

As far as I can see, no one has died during a spaceflight due to the
failure of a liquid fueled rocket. This doesn't mean it can't happen
of course, but it does suggest that the risks are being managed.

Sylvia.


are you kidding us?

14 astronauts have died.


It helps if you read all of the comment.

Sylvia.

On 5/17/20 12:38 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 17-May-20 6:58 pm, Doctor Who wrote:
On 5/17/20 10:52 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 16-May-20 4:57 pm, wrote:

NASA/MUSK should stop before starting with the Artemis project which
in my opinion is more dangerous than the space shuttle project.

Since 50 years rocketry is not able to perform manned outposts on
the Moon and Mars for the simple fact that not even 1% of the Apollo
11 mass returned to earth.

www.asps.it


The space shuttle was a dangerously flawed design that put back US
space travel several decades.

As far as I can see, no one has died during a spaceflight due to the
failure of a liquid fueled rocket. This doesn't mean it can't happen
of course, but it does suggest that the risks are being managed.

Sylvia.


are you kidding us?

14 astronauts have died.


It helps if you read all of the comment.

Sylvia.


it helps if you stop kidding us.

it helps if you stop contemptuous behavior against pnn.

On 17-May-20 9:41 pm, Doctor Who wrote:
On 5/17/20 12:38 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 17-May-20 6:58 pm, Doctor Who wrote:
On 5/17/20 10:52 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 16-May-20 4:57 pm, wrote:

NASA/MUSK should stop before starting with the Artemis project
which in my opinion is more dangerous than the space shuttle project.

Since 50 years rocketry is not able to perform manned outposts on
the Moon and Mars for the simple fact that not even 1% of the
Apollo 11 mass returned to earth.

www.asps.it


The space shuttle was a dangerously flawed design that put back US
space travel several decades.

As far as I can see, no one has died during a spaceflight due to the
failure of a liquid fueled rocket. This doesn't mean it can't happen
of course, but it does suggest that the risks are being managed.

Sylvia.


are you kidding us?

14 astronauts have died.


It helps if you read all of the comment.

Sylvia.


it helps if you stop kidding us.

it helps if you stop contemptuous behavior against pnn.


How can I be contemptuous of something that doesn't exist?

Sylvia.

In article , says...

On 5/17/20 10:52 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 16-May-20 4:57 pm, wrote:

NASA/MUSK should stop before starting with the Artemis project which
in my opinion is more dangerous than the space shuttle project.

Since 50 years rocketry is not able to perform manned outposts on the
Moon and Mars for the simple fact that not even 1% of the Apollo 11
mass returned to earth.

www.asps.it


The space shuttle was a dangerously flawed design that put back US space
travel several decades.

As far as I can see, no one has died during a spaceflight due to the
failure of a liquid fueled rocket. This doesn't mean it can't happen of
course, but it does suggest that the risks are being managed.

Sylvia.


are you kidding us?

14 astronauts have died.

And that was due to the side-mounted orbiter in conjunction with the
SRBs. Challenger was lost directly due to the SRBs. Columbia was lost
due to damage caused by the external tank's foam shedding and smashing a
literal hole in the leading edge of the relatively brittle thermal
protection system (i.e. the reinforced carbon-carbon leading edge).

Note that neither disaster completely stopped NASA from flying the
shuttle. After Columbia was lost, the end of the program was clearly in
sight, but that didn't stop NASA from "completing" ISS assembly with the
shuttle. So the risk was still taken.

At any rate, I'd say the loss of Columbia was due more to putting the
orbiter on the side of the external tank rather than on top. That
design deficiency has been eliminated on all launch vehicles going
forward. Instead, they'll all have crew vehicles on top that can escape
failing launch vehicle stages.

Well, all except for Starship, which is both an upper stage and a
spacecraft. Still, NASA will avoid that with lunar Starship by using
SLS/Orion to ferry crew to high lunar orbit (at a cost of a few billion
dollars extra for the SLS/Orion launch). NASA would save a ton of money
by using Dragon 2 to ferry astronauts to lunar Starship while it's still
in LEO, but Congress would have none of that.

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.

On 2020-05-18 7:48 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
NASA would save a ton of money
by using Dragon 2 to ferry astronauts to lunar Starship while it's still
in LEO, but Congress would have none of that.

Jeff


That's very interesting. Was that ever formally proposed? Or even
better, use Dragon 2 for a crew carrier and the Starship and a new and
(vastly) improved "upper stage". Neither of which need SLS to get to
orbit or to refuel.

Now Starship doesn't depend on a crew cabin to be useful and we're not
wasting billions of dollars on SLS to mainly just get to LEO with no
practical upper stage yet in sight...

Dave