![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Of what's affordable and what's not; clearly of anything manned is
going to be spendy and time consuming, not to mention potentially lethal. Though instead of our flushing hundreds of billions and decades worth into the frozen and thoroughly irradiated to death Mars space toilet, then having to continually dodge them meteorites, I do believe this lunar goal is worth supporting, even if this must be via our resident "so what's the difference" WMD snipe hunting warlord. Though as for starters, we may need some actual lunar science data that's of "real time". Instead of achieving Mars, perhaps we should affordably do our moon, at least robotically. After all, if we're not there first, it'll either be China or perhaps Russia, or even the ESA group that certainly has nothing to lose. "Deploying dozens of small javelin lunar probes on the cheap" As just an example; I'm thinking that of a modern day probe with a suitable battery and compact PV cell array that's either tightly integral and/or subsequently deploy able upon impact, that perhaps this form of micro instrument and of it's data/transponder could be comprised of as little as 1 kg. Of course, of your vastly superior "all-knowing" probe can become whatever, 10 kg 1 t. As for my initial delivery scheme, I'm thinking of involving hydrogen or whatever gas filled balloons, actually quite a good number of balloons within one another, and obviously not the least bit for their buoyancy, but as for spreading out the impact to a rather sizable zone of perhaps as much as 10 m2, as opposed to the instrument probe impact zone representing as little as a mere 0.001 m2 (25 mm upper body with a tapered 25 mm 5 mm spike end), and of what this relatively small instrument/probe may be looking somewhat like a miniture spear or half javelin. 1/2*M*V2 = impact energy or equivlent mass, whereas the V = 1.6 m/s/s In other words, I'm suggesting that the initial impact of this small probe can be spread conservatively by at least 1000:1, therefore if the raw velocity at impact were to become 5 km/s, thus a 1 kg/probe that was surrounded by another kg worth of balloons and sub/micro balloons that would impact at an overall worth of 25,000 tonnes, though this energy is subsequently being spread over the 10 m2, thus the actual javelin probe body of 0.001 m2 should become merely 2.5 tonnes, though applying another 10X fudge factor makes for 25 t. Any way you'd care to slice it, 25 tonnes worth of probe impact is still one hell of an impact, though I tend to believe this could be survivable, especially since the notion of delivering any decent probe will ideally need to be firmly implanted into lunar soil and rock, the deeper the better, as long as the upper protion remains exposed for receiving and transmitting data. Obviously, if this turned out being the 25 tonnes worth of impact survival, as representing too much to ask for, then enlarging the balloon and of increasing the numbers of the smaller balloons within should further spread this impact, thus decelerating and taking the brunt of the probe delivery impact. Another avenue is to lengthen upon the spike end, at the risk of increasing the mass, as the compression of this semi-hallow javelin will also absorb energy. Obviously the deployment and desired free-fall vertical positioning will need to be gyroscopic, though the probe itself could be initially set spinning at 100,000 rpm, adding somewhat a friction drilling attribute to the probe impact. The lunar soil (supposedly 11% reflective index and of clumping moon dirt) should account for another degree of impact deceleration, then of the penetrated rock and I'll assume some degree of compression of the javelin probe tip itself should absorb whatever remains. At least if all fails, the value per micro-probe isn't going to bust the world bank, nor stress the technology expertise to any breaking point, as if need be a dozen of every required instrument function can be deployed, so that if only one survives the delivery, we've accomplished the task. Unlike those Apollo landers, every facet of these probe deployments can be fully tested and confirmed on Earth prior to accomplishing the real thing. Of course, having a fully fly-by-wire robotic lander certainly would be nice, though a wee bit spendy, and I'll suppose that of some day our crack NASA teams will actually obtain that degree of purely rocket powered controlled flight capability, as otherwise the next best technology is obviously what the recent Mars probes utilized in order to decelerate their impact. Since there's so little difference between the thin Mars atmosphere and that of the moon, where actually the lesser gravity of the moon should almost offset this disadvantage, so that such a well proven method of essentially dropping objects safely onto such a foreign surface seems almost like way-overkill for the task of delivering such small (1 kg) probes onto and preferably as partially impaled into the moon, though dozens of such probes might be safely deployed by one such velocity breaking maneuver, such as bringing everything to a vertical velocity of zero at the elevation of 1 km would certainly do wonders for alleviating the horrific impact that's otherwise faced with the 1.6 m/s/s influence of lunar gravity. 1/2*M*V2 = impact energy or equivlent mass, whereas the V = 1.6 m/s/s 1 kg dropped from 1 km = .5*1e3*2.56e6 = 1.28e3 t (1,280 tonnes impact) Thus a raw javelin probe of 1 kg, as being dropped from 1 km, should impact at roughly 1.28e3 t (1,280 tonnes), might not survive specifications of even the most robust toys-R-us, though obviously accommodating more than sufficient impact for implanting these lightweight probes. The part about the 2 kg package consisting of balloons within balloons, surrounding the 1 kg probe, all of which impacting at 5 km/s is still amounting to 25,000 t. At least this portion is still correct, and I tend to believe the 1000:1 reduction in impact for the probe within this format is also within reason, even though I haven't researched a darn thing as to such impact absorbing packaging. Obviously this delivery method remains way more complicated than the simple "all stop" raw free-for-all drop from 1 km. What caught my own attention about a previous error was in my recalling previous references I'd made to the sorts of damage small and even micro-meteorites can impose upon any lunar EVA, as such open exposure to whatever is incoming is downright pesky if not lethal. As usual, I'll likely make such math mistakes in the future, and even some of my best effort corrections are going to be in error, though at any time others can provide their more correctness and I'll certainly give all the credits possible, which by the way, seems to be far more than our NASA has ever done for you. Keeping in mind that shape and/or size of an object is not a velocity factor, other than spreading the impact energy over a greater or lesser zone, whereas the Hindenburg of 242 metric tons and of representing more than 210,000 m3 will obtain the exact same impact velocity as a bowling ball or even that of a dust-bunny, identical velocity as long as each were introduced from the same altitude. Of course, this is all purely "one-way", and never given a second thought of our retrieving anything but measured data, nor of having to sustain human or other life by shielding them from the truly horrific elements of various lunar exposures. Eventually there'd have to be a manned lunar landing (first time for that as well), and next there'd be the LSE-CM/ISS, although of all those javelin probes implanted earlier could be collected, and/or of those still functioning left as is. I believe such small/compact probes can be engineered to survive these sorts of deployment impacts, as well as sufficiently immune to such horrific radiation, and of their avoiding meteorite impact, as their odds are greatly improved upon by the sheer fact that these compact probes represent such a small target, though eventually they'll each be pulverised by something. Regards. Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In sci.space.policy Harry Conover wrote:
(Guth/IEIS~GASA) wrote in message om... Lunar 3He or He3 is just one of many energy contributions that our moon holds, as there's energy to be derived from the LSE-CM/ISS tethers and of the deployed tether dipole element that's potentially reaching to within 50,000 km of Earth. I'd urge you not to give up your day job! umm.. well, it depends on what type of job he has. It may be it was better if he didn't follow your advice... Harry C. -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Sander Vesik wrote in message ...
In sci.space.policy Harry Conover wrote: (Guth/IEIS~GASA) wrote in message om... Lunar 3He or He3 is just one of many energy contributions that our moon holds, as there's energy to be derived from the LSE-CM/ISS tethers and of the deployed tether dipole element that's potentially reaching to within 50,000 km of Earth. I'd urge you not to give up your day job! umm.. well, it depends on what type of job he has. It may be it was better if he didn't follow your advice... What you are posting is finally sinking in to my, for want of a better word, brain. Likely lots of white coats are worn where he does his day job, just not by him! :-) Nah, thinking it over, that was a mean thing, although possibly true, for me to post! :-) Harry C. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Space elevator now possible? | Robert Clark | Policy | 194 | January 21st 05 02:49 AM |
Mining the moon for unlimited Energy. | Sanjay | Technology | 30 | February 13th 04 05:22 AM |
The New NASA Mission Has Been Grossly Mischaracterized. | Dan Hanson | Policy | 25 | January 26th 04 07:42 PM |
NEWS: The allure of an outpost on the Moon | Kent Betts | Space Shuttle | 2 | January 15th 04 12:56 AM |
We choose to go to the Moon? | Brian Gaff | Space Shuttle | 49 | December 10th 03 10:14 AM |