Comments on: LRO Launch contract granted

By: SLC

SLC — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 00:34:44 +0000

A comment from Bob Park, the man who doesn’t know what he is talking about.

4. SPACE STATION: NASA THREATENS TO SHUT DOWN RESEARCH ON ISS.
For a year, yesterday’s Nature says, to save money. This is the “Washington Monument ploy.” WN predicted a year ago that NASA would try it (WN 11 Mar 05) , but there is no meaningful research on the ISS to shut down.

By: Max Fagin

Max Fagin — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 04:41:32 +0000

Yes actually, methane is an incredibly useful rocket fuel. It has been used as such for the last 20 years.

And from a purelly fuel point of view, it’s actually easier to go from earth to mars then it is to stop on the moon. Remember, there is no way to slow down once you get to the moon. You have to burn fuel to enter orbit.

The political argument is the best argument I’ve heard in a long time, thanks for introducing it.

By: Grand Lunar

Grand Lunar — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 22:20:30 +0000

I also am a little worried that a future prez will cut the moon return mission in favor of some other junk.

Hopefully, they’ll leave well enough alone. It would be cool to have regular missions to the moon as we do with the ISS. Then, we can have an international moon base.

And while we’re at it, we can visit the old Apollo sites and hopefully shut up the moon hoaxers.

By: icemith

icemith — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:14:38 +0000

jrkeller, did you mean,
“…the Moon is more likely sellable in Congress, while going directly to Mars is not.”?

Ah, Politics, rears its (ugly) head again. But I guess what ever gets the task going these days, is the way to go.

Ivan.

By: icemith

icemith — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 15:44:32 +0000

Thanks Gary, for the info. But there are advantages for Luna Polar bases, ie., particularly the almost everpresent ability to be in direct line of sight communication, especially as most journeys would be in Earth’s, and also the other planets’ orbital plane. The disadvantage is that the Sunlight at the poles is much less than at the Moon’s equator, as happens on Earth. Then it follows that the energy available is much less too, and the sight of huge solar collectors in the form of fences running around the poles – concentric circles, a degree or so apart in latitude – nah, this is getting ridiculous, as is stringing a couple of thousand kilometers of high tension power lines across the Moon from near the equator. A nuke power station locally, is a given, by extension it could also supply heat to provide a comfortable shirt-sleeve environment.

Granted, raw minerals would available on the Moon, but not all. So back-loading from a source elsewhere, be it planet, moon or asteroid, or even a comet, would have advantages. We could even dismantle that impending Earth bound heavenly body and kill… no, save two birds with one stone, so to speak.

I would also have thought that the Solar radiation on Mars would be less than half that which falls upon Earth, due to the extra distance from the Sun. I seem to remember that the surface temp on Mars in ’summer’ at the hottest, approaches a mild winter day here on Earth in the Temperate zone. Then I could have got that from an early Ray Bradbury Novel!

Ivan.

By: Irishman

Irishman — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 15:37:22 +0000

Whenever you make a new ship, you have to take it out for test runs, and then the maiden voyage. It isn’t a great idea to set off across the ocean on the first time out, but rather cruise around the harbor, make a little day trip out and back, get a feel for how it handles and how it’s put together.

The Moon is a good destination for preliminary runs with the space craft. Don’t go on a 2 year trip with no extended autonomous experience, cruise for a week to the Moon and back. Get used to how things work.

Okay, there’s bound to be technology differences that the Moon can’t prepare for Mars. Still, there are some bits that should be the same. Plus, you build up an experience base of astronauts.

Using the Moon as a launch point makes less sense. Use a heavy lift vehicle to drop 2 or 3 big modules and assembly in LEO, much more efficient than a pit stop to the Moon’s surface. The only reason to stop off at the Moon is if they have some resources we need for the trip. Not likely.

Think of it from a politician’s mindset – Mars is far away and risky. Far better to wet our feet on the Moon (so to speak) and then ease our way to Mars later (when I’m retired).

By: Gary Ansorge

Gary Ansorge — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 14:09:52 +0000

Fagin and Icemith:
Luna is a resource base. It was originally proposed as the source for Satellite Power Systems construction materials by Dr. Gerard K. O’Niell back in the ’70s. Had we been able then to mount such a construction program, there would not today be much question of how we were going to continue using energy at an exponential rate. Escape velocity from orbit is a lot less than from the moon, however, Luna does have lots of nice rocks(silicon, oxygen, aluminum, etc). also, the intensity of sunlight in orbit or the lunar surface is the same,,,ie, about 1450 watts per square meter or about 4 times more intense than what we receive at earths surface. You can do a lot with such a continous power supply.

Methane on Mars? For fuel??? Nah, it’s really only good for feed stock, as in the manufacture of complex carbohydrates, plastics, etc. Plus the H2 can be removed for making H2O, etc. For power we will likely need a nuke power plant, as solar radiation there is about what we recieve on earths surface and rather inconsistant at that, what with dust storms, night time, etc.

We need the moon as a resource base and it’s soooo close,,,just reach out and grab it.

Gary 7