Re: Improved lunar landing architecture
- From: "Michael Rhino" <news2005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 19:26:48 GMT
"Cardman" <do-not@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:itj9f1taatg0rn8mi2e7e70jena567d84t@xxxxxxxxxx
> On 6 Aug 2005 04:14:16 -0700, "Alex Terrell" <alexterrell@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>>> To begin with though they won't bother with a hab module at all. Just
>>> a usual land, look around, and depart. NASA I guess is unlikely to
>>> think "base" until 2020. That is if they land on the Moon in 2018 as
>>> planned.
>>>
>>Yes. A base should be established as soon as possible,
>
> Yes, we know that don't we. NASA instead prefers to build up slowly.
>
> I would much prefer to have the base all up and running even before
> the first astronaut steps foot on there. They could have a rover do
> some required assembly.
I agree. If the Chinese were smart, they could use this approach and catch
us off guard. Many American politicians would be in a state of denial until
they launched their astronauts.
> And the one thing that NASA won't grasp or do in a million years is to
> actually keep people there to live and work. Construction seems like
> the first priority. Communication, electricity, water (hopefully) and
> to pave over the entire area to keep that pesky regolith out.
With budget cuts, it's hard to do. ISS was cut down from 7 to 3 people.
Some people keep talking about Mars which would take money away from the
Lunar program. I think that CEV should be designed as a Lunar rocket and
nothing else.
> Yes, where the first step is to find the water. A base on or near the
> so called peak of eternal sunlight would be good. Although I hear that
> NASA is planning on nuclear instead of solar.
I would guess both. You need some nuclear to survive the night, but the sun
would allow you to do more in the daytime. You could have some solar
powered vehicles that don't do anything at night.
>>No this is not a one shot mission. Whether you want to visit a place
>>once, or establish a base, the logic of taking off from the moon as
>>light as possible remains. i.e, don't take your house with you. Also,
>>when you visit a potential future base, it makes sense to leave behind
>>your hab module.
>
> NASA certainly won't have more than two bases. These extra bases would
> also need to be filled. So a main base and then a second base should
> they find somewhere that they want to spend a lot of time at.
I can see having temporary habitats in addition to a permanently manned
base. Suppose that astronauts land at the equator, go to a hut to change
clothes and then drive down to the permanent base near the south pole. You
could also have a temporary hut near a mining location.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Improved lunar landing architecture
- From: Cardman
- Re: Improved lunar landing architecture
- References:
- Improved lunar landing architecture
- From: Alex Terrell
- Re: Improved lunar landing architecture
- From: Cardman
- Re: Improved lunar landing architecture
- From: Alex Terrell
- Re: Improved lunar landing architecture
- From: Cardman
- Improved lunar landing architecture
- Prev by Date: Re: Improved lunar landing architecture
- Next by Date: Re: Improved lunar landing architecture
- Previous by thread: Re: Improved lunar landing architecture
- Next by thread: Re: Improved lunar landing architecture
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading