Re: >>> Hey Google, the Moonrovers Prize was MY idea!!! >>>
- From: BradGuth <bradguth@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:21:21 -0000
On Sep 13, 7:01 pm, gaetanomarano <m...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hey Google, the Moonrovers Prize was MY idea!!!
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/008moonprize.html
Your idea or not, our NASA wants others to risk far more than
everything in order to figure out how to soft land upon our moon,
before China or India accomplish the deed.
$30 million X10 = $300 million = maybe X Prize doable.
Lunar Prospector's 4+ stage fly-by-rocket accomplishment at a 400:1
deployment of its GLOW per payload ratio, taking 105+ hours (not
including the Earth launch into LEO or those adjustments for
accomplishing their required mission of orbiting at roughly 100 km).
In other words, having taken half again the Apollo mission time for
getting that wussy little payload of 296 kg into it's final 118 minute
lunar orbit, thereby demanding roughly half the overall applied thrust
energy per payload requirement because, if they were to have matched
the Apollo 3+ day time of getting such into proper lunar orbit would
have demanded that our Lunar Prospector launch and orbit deployment
effort would have taken nearly twice as much applied rocket energy.
So, for having gone much slower was in fact a real fly-by-rocket
mission energy saver, and best of all was that not so much as a single
strand of human DNA was ever placed at risk of being traumatised or
otherwise nuked by all the moon's gamma and X-rays.
http://pds-geosciences.wustl.edu/missions/lunarp/schandbk.pdf
at 118.65 t / .2963 = 400:1
It's unlikely that any given one-way mission of a fly-by-rocket lander
would represent a payload of less than a tonne, or roughly at least
four times the mass of Lunar Prospector. Today the Lunar Prospector
mission would likely cost $125 million, and it was certainly not of
any highly complex soft-lander nor was anything of the Lunar
Prospector mission unproven. Do the math, as $30 million isn't hardly
10% of what such a robotic soft-lander and rover of what any such
mission capability is going to involve, and there are few if any of
those smart Third Reich Yids available for making all of those
important decisions.
I do not believe a basic 10 km orbiter mission as having a quality
high speed CCD of 50X(one degree or better) optical imaging capability
couldn't be accomplished within $30 million, unless via China or
India, and I do not believe either of those options are on the GOOGLE
X Prize table. Just the terrestrial R&D for the fly-by-rocket soft
lander itself would likely exceed $30 million. Placing multiple units
onboard a given delivery rocket would obviously divide that cost, but
that would also mean sharing a ride with other equipment that may not
behave itself.
I have an even better idea that's actually doable, as to accomplishing
the moon's L1 with as much of a scientific instrument populated
platform(s) as possible (way short of an actual Clarke Station), of
what would accomplish a vast amount of moon and Earth science from
within that interactive location. Even though it's still too
demanding and need-to-know disclosing for our NASA to accommodate,
perhaps we should privately accomplish this essential phase before
China or India sets up their command depot/gateway within this nifty
moon L1 zone. Of course, along with a few extra SRBs and a service
bay chuck full of extra fuel, beer, pizza and a cache of banked bone
marrow back home, our shuttle could manage to accomplish the moon's
L1.
- Brad Guth -
.
- References:
- >>> Hey Google, the Moonrovers Prize was MY idea!!! >>>
- From: gaetanomarano
- >>> Hey Google, the Moonrovers Prize was MY idea!!! >>>
- Prev by Date: Re: Google/X-Prize Moon Contest
- Next by Date: Re: Solar powered lasers in space
- Previous by thread: Re: >>> Hey Google, the Moonrovers Prize was MY idea!!! >>>
- Next by thread: Google X-prize Contest It should have been to Mars
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
