Re: Improved lunar landing architecture

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 00:13:47 GMT, "Michael Rhino"
<news2005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>"Cardman" <do-not@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:dn6af1ts2qljpes6kefh6c54f7r4137gjk@xxxxxxxxxx
>> Congress has agreed that NASA can complete the ISS in a more mini-ISS
>> format, but they are asking NASA to justify why the ISS cannot be
>> fully completed to the 7 people level.
>>
>> So had NASA wanted to fully complete the ISS, then it seems likely
>> that congress would pay for it. If it had been up to me, then I would
>> ban NASA spending on a Moon base, until they had finished the ISS.
>
>I would abandon ISS and concentrate on the moon.

Nice. Then later on you would pop back up and say that they should
abandon the Moon and concentrate on Mars.

Like it or not NASA needs the ISS. That is the only current place
where they can simulate a trip to Mars and back. Except that NASA is
too girlie to let them go beyond 6 months, even though the Russians
want to do longer.

>> Mars is the main goal here. Some people would prefer a more direct
>> route, without going to the Moon first. They believe that the Moon
>> programme simply delays, and puts at risk, the Mars programme.
>
>I don't see it as a goal during my lifetime.

Depends on how old you are. NASA should be heading to Mars somewhere
between 2030 to 2040. Maybe even the Chinese or the Tourists could
beat them to it.

And yes NASA moves so slowly that you could indeed die before their
plans come about. They could have made it to Mars back during the 70s,
or early 80s, but here we are.

>>>I think that CEV should be designed as a Lunar rocket and
>>>nothing else.
>>
>> The CEV is designed into a modular system, where it can also be the
>> head end on a larger Mars craft.
>
>If there are going to be many launches to the moon, then you want something
>that is optimized for the task. If the Mars launch is 40 years away, why
>add a bunch of bells and whistles that are useless for a Lunar program? I
>don't know what the CEV design is.

A nice looking "cone". Good launch, fair space work, questionable
reentry.

>From this they will add on further sections to extended their stay in
space. Then they will add on a suitable lander, for where ever they
desire to go.

It would be nice if they made an CEV add-on section out of TransHab,
which would provide plenty of space for whatever they needed.

>> Nothing that an overhead floodlight would not cure. You seem to be
>> pointing out problems that were solved long ago.
>
>I was talking about energy, not lighting. You are thinking in terms of a
>large amount of nuclear energy on the moon. Given the perceived risks
>involved in launching anything nuclear, that may be hard to do.

Piece of cake. They won't actually turn their nuclear power planet on
until it is installed. Since people at home often get electricity from
nuclear, then they would understand.

>We need to
>figure out how to make things out of Lunar resources and solar panels strike
>me as something that can be made on the moon.

That they could, but reaching the high temperatures required for their
refinery would be a lot more difficult.

Nuclear is good. Strong power source for their base.

>Once we have that figured out, we may have nearly unlimited daytime energy.

I am sure that NASA has already worked out the numbers.

>Once we have plenty of energy, other tasks, such as mining, become easier.

We will have to see if NASA does actually "mine". Currently they seem
more interested in processing the regolith. A mine would be good, but
first you have to find an application for your ores.

>People on Earth will be able to launch equipment without solar panels.

Even with nuclear they could still make solar panels.

>> That is done to keep your astronauts alive when a powerful solar storm
>> washes over the lunar surface. So if you desire to move a temporary
>> base about, then that is a lot of work to dig it up and then to bury
>> it again.
>
>I wasn't thinking in terms of moving them. By temporary, I meant that it is
>usually unmanned, but is manned when there are tasks to be performed at that
>location.

Your temporary bases also cost money. Like any colony plan they need
to find out where all the good resources are and then to put a base
right in the middle. Or at least close to what they most need early
on.

>Strange criticism.

Sorry, that was a comment to Alex Terrell. I forgot who I replied to
for a second.

Cardman.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hey Homer
    ... pretend the space race and the trips to the moon never happened. ... less than 10% of the estimated NASA cost ... a private company can do, the government can do at 5 times the cost? ... back to the moon or on to Mars and do it cheaper than the government. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Improved lunar landing architecture
    ... The one other close location in this solar system, ... For example, in the case of water alone, then on the Moon we do not ... On the other hand Mars has tons of water. ... >> will only become another NASA mini-disaster that will set back any ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • NASA, spaceflighters living in a dream world
    ... Moon or Mars? ... NASA plans to return astronauts to the moon by 2020, ... Independent panel is reviewing plans and looking at "potential ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Improved lunar landing architecture
    ... >> Overlooking the fact that it may not actually have water. ... A noticeable chunk out of NASA's two yearly trips to the Moon. ... No point in going to Mars ... works for NASA to one day land people on Mars. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Improved lunar landing architecture
    ... >>> And the one thing that NASA won't grasp or do in a million years is to ... ISS was cut down from 7 to 3 people. ... > ban NASA spending on a Moon base, until they had finished the ISS. ... >>Lunar program. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Quantcast