Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.
63 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert Clark
Nov 4, 2012, 11:33:40 AM11/4/12
to
Argues the SLS as early as 2017 can be used to launch manned lunar
lander missions:
SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/10/sls-for-return-to-moon-by-50th.html
The argument for why this is doable is rather simple. The Early
Lunar Access(ELA) [1] proposal of the early 90's, which deserves to be
better known actually, suggested that by using a lightweight 2-man
capsule and all cryogenic in-space stages that a manned lunar lander
mission could be mounted with only 52 mT required to LEO, half that
previously thought necessary.
The only technical complaint about its feasibility was that it
required a crew capsule of only 3 mT empty weight. But the kicker is
NASA is planning a Space Exploration Vehicle(SEV) [2] at that same low
3 mT empty weight. So the SLS at a 70 mT payload capability will be
able to launch such a mission using the SEV as crew capsule following
the ELA architecture with plenty of margin.
Bob Clark
References.
1.)Encyclopedia Astronautica.
Early Lunar Access.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/earccess.htm
2.)Space Exploration Vehicle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Exploration_Vehicle
lander missions:
SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/10/sls-for-return-to-moon-by-50th.html
The argument for why this is doable is rather simple. The Early
Lunar Access(ELA) [1] proposal of the early 90's, which deserves to be
better known actually, suggested that by using a lightweight 2-man
capsule and all cryogenic in-space stages that a manned lunar lander
mission could be mounted with only 52 mT required to LEO, half that
previously thought necessary.
The only technical complaint about its feasibility was that it
required a crew capsule of only 3 mT empty weight. But the kicker is
NASA is planning a Space Exploration Vehicle(SEV) [2] at that same low
3 mT empty weight. So the SLS at a 70 mT payload capability will be
able to launch such a mission using the SEV as crew capsule following
the ELA architecture with plenty of margin.
Bob Clark
References.
1.)Encyclopedia Astronautica.
Early Lunar Access.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/earccess.htm
2.)Space Exploration Vehicle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Exploration_Vehicle
Sam Wormley
Nov 4, 2012, 12:34:01 PM11/4/12
to
Wally W.
Nov 4, 2012, 1:38:52 PM11/4/12
to
NASA estimates $104 billion for return to moon
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_happy_meal_cost
Say $4
The trip to the moon would cost as much as 26 billion Happy Meals.
That's more than 3 Happy Meals for *everyone* in the world.
But Happy Meals create more spread than spin-offs.
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Nov 4, 2012, 12:56:11 PM11/4/12
to
"Wally W." <ww8...@aim.com> wrote in message
news:kocd981sdsnglpsiv...@4ax.com...
===============================================
Say the same as 8 happy meals.
Happy meals are easier to get
off your shirt collar.
--
This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
bob haller
Nov 4, 2012, 4:28:46 PM11/4/12
to
this idea is dead on arrival, SLS isnt ready, upper cyrogenic stages
havent been designed and built, and no lander is ready. beyond all
else no $$ is available, although with some luck they might make the
60th annversary...... SLS launch in 2017 is with a dummy upper stage!
and there should be some redundancy in the plan for rescue vehicles
etc.
it would be bad to kill a crew at this point........:( by rushing
something that truly doesnt matter, although it would be nice if one
of the original astronauts were still alive
havent been designed and built, and no lander is ready. beyond all
else no $$ is available, although with some luck they might make the
60th annversary...... SLS launch in 2017 is with a dummy upper stage!
and there should be some redundancy in the plan for rescue vehicles
etc.
it would be bad to kill a crew at this point........:( by rushing
something that truly doesnt matter, although it would be nice if one
of the original astronauts were still alive
Message has been deleted
Marvin the Martian
Nov 4, 2012, 4:38:50 PM11/4/12
to
Not possible.
All our Project Paperclip Nazi scientist have died. Our current batch of
"diversity" engineers and scientist couldn't do with computers and modern
materials what our NAZI boys did with slide rules and adding machines
half a century ago. Funny as hell. A complete damnation of the American
public school system and our policy of "diversity" and dumbing everything
down so that politically protected groups don't look like the morons they
really are.
For example, Project Ares and the failed Constellation program.
All our Project Paperclip Nazi scientist have died. Our current batch of
"diversity" engineers and scientist couldn't do with computers and modern
materials what our NAZI boys did with slide rules and adding machines
half a century ago. Funny as hell. A complete damnation of the American
public school system and our policy of "diversity" and dumbing everything
down so that politically protected groups don't look like the morons they
really are.
For example, Project Ares and the failed Constellation program.
Marvin the Martian
Nov 4, 2012, 4:40:19 PM11/4/12
to
rocks. We need to spend billions to get more rocks.
Dumb as hell. For the same cost, we can go to Mars.
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Nov 4, 2012, 6:05:15 PM11/4/12
to
We could probably send a remote controlled rover by the 50th
anniversary, and have it take a look from a safe distance at the
apollo landing sites, and perhaps do some exploring, perhaps find what
remains of the apollo 11 LM upper stage which apparently crashed
somewhere on the moon......
Hopefully such a mission could give some info on the long term effects
50 years of exposure on the moons surface, close up photos of ranger
and surveyor couldnt do any harm.......
anniversary, and have it take a look from a safe distance at the
apollo landing sites, and perhaps do some exploring, perhaps find what
remains of the apollo 11 LM upper stage which apparently crashed
somewhere on the moon......
Hopefully such a mission could give some info on the long term effects
50 years of exposure on the moons surface, close up photos of ranger
and surveyor couldnt do any harm.......
Marvin the Martian
Nov 4, 2012, 6:26:58 PM11/4/12
to
On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 14:44:30 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>
>
>>We need to get more rocks from the moon. Someone stole all our other
>>rocks. We need to spend billions to get more rocks.
>>
>>Dumb as hell. For the same cost, we can go to Mars.
>>
>>
> Well, no, we can't.
I can see why you believe that it is a matter of gas mileage. :-P
> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>
>
>>We need to get more rocks from the moon. Someone stole all our other
>>rocks. We need to spend billions to get more rocks.
>>
>>Dumb as hell. For the same cost, we can go to Mars.
>>
>>
I can see why you believe that it is a matter of gas mileage. :-P
G=EMC^2
Nov 4, 2012, 6:28:28 PM11/4/12
to
and use depends. I would go even with a one way ticket. China has
250,000 in their space program. We could join them and build a base.
What's the SSI doing? TreBert
G=EMC^2
Nov 4, 2012, 6:54:44 PM11/4/12
to
take over the shuttles to go 200 miles up and we are getting the smell
of shit for that $$$$$ on the latest rover. We can go 240,000
miles,and get there in 3 days. That is better than going round,and
round for 42 years. If GOP Mafia did not scrap the great Saturn V we
would have a base on the moon,and be able to hold our heads up high.
China builds a moon base its a million times better than the Mars
rover,and the SSI TreBert
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Sam Wormley
Nov 4, 2012, 7:30:08 PM11/4/12
to
On 11/4/12 5:28 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
> NASA has 2 SaturnV it never used
An no facility to launch them. :-o
> NASA has 2 SaturnV it never used
jonathan
Nov 4, 2012, 7:41:26 PM11/4/12
to
"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5dod98l1rsbk373pp...@4ax.com...
>>We need to get more rocks from the moon. Someone stole all our other
>>rocks. We need to spend billions to get more rocks.
>>
>>Dumb as hell. For the same cost, we can go to Mars.
>>
>
>>rocks. We need to spend billions to get more rocks.
>>
>>Dumb as hell. For the same cost, we can go to Mars.
>>
>
> Well, no, we can't.
The cost of going back to the Moon is in sacrificing
the future of NASA.
NASA has pretty much erased it's own future already.
The MSL is sitting up there telling us they found signs
of water on Mars. Hate to break the news to them, but
that discovery is over eight years old. But god forbid
they find signs of life with MSL too soon, and end their
gravy train before they'd ...planned. They banked on
milking the big discovery for many more years with
the lengthy sample return mission.
But their 'career based' exploration program cost
this generation that discovery.
The manned program is going civilian out of NASA's
long running lunacy, and the space science program
is now just seen as a golden parachute for the careers
of NASA researchers.
NASA needs a new reason for being, and that new
direction should have nothing to do with exploring.
But with the problems of Earth.
NASA's 'vision' no longer has any credibility.
Jonathan
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
Sylvia Else
Nov 4, 2012, 7:53:29 PM11/4/12
to
On 5/11/2012 10:54 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
> On Nov 4, 6:05 pm, bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>> We could probably send a remote controlled rover by the 50th
>> anniversary, and have it take a look from a safe distance at the
>> apollo landing sites, and perhaps do some exploring, perhaps find what
>> remains of the apollo 11 LM upper stage which apparently crashed
>> somewhere on the moon......
>>
>> Hopefully such a mission could give some info on the long term effects
>> 50 years of exposure on the moons surface, close up photos of ranger
>> and surveyor couldnt do any harm.......
>
> Armstrongs foot print would be worth to go back.
A picture of that would divide the moon-landing hoax conspiracy
> On Nov 4, 6:05 pm, bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>> We could probably send a remote controlled rover by the 50th
>> anniversary, and have it take a look from a safe distance at the
>> apollo landing sites, and perhaps do some exploring, perhaps find what
>> remains of the apollo 11 LM upper stage which apparently crashed
>> somewhere on the moon......
>>
>> Hopefully such a mission could give some info on the long term effects
>> 50 years of exposure on the moons surface, close up photos of ranger
>> and surveyor couldnt do any harm.......
>
> Armstrongs foot print would be worth to go back.
theorists, who would fragment into those who believe that the new
landing was real, but the picture is a fake, and those who believe that
the new landing is also a hoax. With any luck, the two groups would then
exterminate each other over accusations of betrayal.
Any chance we can drag the 9/11 twin-tower demolition conspiracy
theorists into it too?
Sylvia.
Marvin the Martian
Nov 4, 2012, 8:27:12 PM11/4/12
to
> anything.
Zubrin correctly pointed out that you can make fuel for a return trip
from Mars, thus cutting the cost. And given that the delta-V from Earth
to Mars and back is the same as the delta V from Earth to the moon and
back, the trip to Mars can be done cheaply. What you don't have to bring
in structure and fuel for the return trip, you can bring supplies for the
longer stay.
See, "Mars Direct". (Yes, yes. I anticipate your childish ridicule on
that, too...)
Zubrin also pointed out the corruption in NASA and NASA contractors who
will avoid creating a design that exceeds specifications and always have
cost overruns. The ironic thing is, our Paperclip NAZIs were more honest,
having a strong desire to do this thing rather than a desire to plunder
the taxpayer for every dime he will shell out. Sadly, we're fresh out of
NAZI scientist. :-D
As a rebuttal, you, as usual, have nothing but baseless and childish
prattle and an ego so big you can't even see what an ass you're making of
yourself.
Now, make some insults and pretend you're superior. That's your MO.
Mahipal
Nov 4, 2012, 8:33:46 PM11/4/12
to
Enjo(y)...
--
Mahipal
http://mahipal7638.files.wordpress.com/
Mahipal
Nov 4, 2012, 8:42:14 PM11/4/12
to
(i.e., I meant the diametric opposite, for my lack of any Smiley)... I
agree that Humanity is greater than any politically corrected for
Diversity. Peace.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Matt Wiser
Nov 5, 2012, 1:14:12 AM11/5/12
to
Sending toasters, bobbert-like your idea for flooding Mars with
mass-production versions of Spirit and Opportunity-has three chances: Slim,
none, and when hell freezes over. Next!
"bob haller" <hal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1dcf0388-2287-4151...@s14g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
mass-production versions of Spirit and Opportunity-has three chances: Slim,
none, and when hell freezes over. Next!
"bob haller" <hal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1dcf0388-2287-4151...@s14g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
bob haller
Nov 5, 2012, 10:11:57 PM11/5/12
to
On Nov 5, 1:16 am, "Matt Wiser" <MattWiser...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Sending toasters, bobbert-like your idea for flooding Mars with
> mass-production versions of Spirit and Opportunity-has three chances: Slim,
> none, and when hell freezes over. Next!"bob haller" <hall...@aol.com> wrote in message
> Sending toasters, bobbert-like your idea for flooding Mars with
> mass-production versions of Spirit and Opportunity-has three chances: Slim,
>
> news:1dcf0388-2287-4151...@s14g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > We could probably send a remote controlled rover by the 50th
> > anniversary, and have it take a look from a safe distance at the
> > apollo landing sites, and perhaps do some exploring, perhaps find what
> > remains of the apollo 11 LM upper stage which apparently crashed
> > somewhere on the moon......
>
> > Hopefully such a mission could give some info on the long term effects
> > 50 years of exposure on the moons surface, close up photos of ranger
> > and surveyor couldnt do any harm.......
Matt theres a lot of advantages to sending more rovers. with some
> news:1dcf0388-2287-4151...@s14g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > We could probably send a remote controlled rover by the 50th
> > anniversary, and have it take a look from a safe distance at the
> > apollo landing sites, and perhaps do some exploring, perhaps find what
> > remains of the apollo 11 LM upper stage which apparently crashed
> > somewhere on the moon......
>
> > Hopefully such a mission could give some info on the long term effects
> > 50 years of exposure on the moons surface, close up photos of ranger
> > and surveyor couldnt do any harm.......
orbital relay sats.
Get lots of info on the diverse surface, plus charge up college
students who would be given the job of controlling each rover. the
rovers would have some intelligence to avoid mjaor accidents.
the moon is close enough for real time control / driving.....
so whats up at your school? we drove our rover a mile today here are
some photos:) heres a picture of a rock we stooped at the science crew
is doing analysis. we may put the rock aside for later pick up, the
sample return lander leaves in a year.
such operations would do wonders to get kids interested in science
Matt Wiser
Nov 6, 2012, 12:59:24 AM11/6/12
to
news:9nnd985vt6hupufcq...@4ax.com...
> I don't suppose we could send Bobbert and The Guthball on this trip?
> It would be much easier if we didn't have to provision for a return.
> Don't even need a lander. We could use lithobraking to arrive at the
> Moon's hollow interior...
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
>
Seconded, Fred. Get both of them on the one-way trip.
> It would be much easier if we didn't have to provision for a return.
> Don't even need a lander. We could use lithobraking to arrive at the
> Moon's hollow interior...
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
>
Seconded, Fred. Get both of them on the one-way trip.
Robert Clark
Nov 6, 2012, 12:00:54 PM11/6/12
to
On Nov 4, 12:34 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/4/12 10:33 AM, Robert Clark wrote:
> ...
> On 11/4/12 10:33 AM, Robert Clark wrote:
>
> > Argues the SLS as early as 2017 can be used to launch manned lunar
> > lander missions:
>
> > SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11.
> >http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/10/sls-for-return-to-moon-by-50...
> > Argues the SLS as early as 2017 can be used to launch manned lunar
> > lander missions:
>
> > SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11.
>
> > The argument for why this is doable is rather simple. The Early
> > Lunar Access(ELA) [1] proposal of the early 90's, which deserves to be
> > better known actually, suggested that by using a lightweight 2-man
> > capsule and all cryogenic in-space stages that a manned lunar lander
> > mission could be mounted with only 52 mT required to LEO, half that
> > previously thought necessary.
> > The only technical complaint about its feasibility was that it
> > required a crew capsule of only 3 mT empty weight. But the kicker is
> > NASA is planning a Space Exploration Vehicle(SEV) [2] at that same low
> > 3 mT empty weight. So the SLS at a 70 mT payload capability will be
> > able to launch such a mission using the SEV as crew capsule following
> > the ELA architecture with plenty of margin.
>
> > Bob Clark
>
> > References.
>
> > 1.)Encyclopedia Astronautica.
> > Early Lunar Access.
> >http://www.astronautix.com/craft/earccess.htm
>
> > 2.)Space Exploration Vehicle.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Exploration_Vehicle
>
> What would be the primary purpose of going again?
This time it could be done so cheaply that we could maintain a
> > The argument for why this is doable is rather simple. The Early
> > Lunar Access(ELA) [1] proposal of the early 90's, which deserves to be
> > better known actually, suggested that by using a lightweight 2-man
> > capsule and all cryogenic in-space stages that a manned lunar lander
> > mission could be mounted with only 52 mT required to LEO, half that
> > previously thought necessary.
> > The only technical complaint about its feasibility was that it
> > required a crew capsule of only 3 mT empty weight. But the kicker is
> > NASA is planning a Space Exploration Vehicle(SEV) [2] at that same low
> > 3 mT empty weight. So the SLS at a 70 mT payload capability will be
> > able to launch such a mission using the SEV as crew capsule following
> > the ELA architecture with plenty of margin.
>
> > Bob Clark
>
> > References.
>
> > 1.)Encyclopedia Astronautica.
> > Early Lunar Access.
> >http://www.astronautix.com/craft/earccess.htm
>
> > 2.)Space Exploration Vehicle.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Exploration_Vehicle
>
> What would be the primary purpose of going again?
permanent presence on the Moon. It's part of Man's expansion into
space.
Bob Clark
Robert Clark
Nov 6, 2012, 12:10:53 PM11/6/12
to
On Nov 4, 12:35 pm, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 08:33:40 -0800 (PST), Robert Clark wrote:
> > Argues the SLS as early as 2017 can be used to launch manned lunar
> >lander missions:
>
> >SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11.
> >http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/10/sls-for-return-to-moon-by-50...
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 08:33:40 -0800 (PST), Robert Clark wrote:
> > Argues the SLS as early as 2017 can be used to launch manned lunar
> >lander missions:
>
> >SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11.
>
> > The argument for why this is doable is rather simple. The Early
> >Lunar Access(ELA) [1] proposal of the early 90's, which deserves to be
> >better known actually, suggested that by using a lightweight 2-man
> >capsule and all cryogenic in-space stages that a manned lunar lander
> >mission could be mounted with only 52 mT required to LEO, half that
> >previously thought necessary.
> > The only technical complaint about its feasibility was that it
> >required a crew capsule of only 3 mT empty weight. But the kicker is
> >NASA is planning a Space Exploration Vehicle(SEV) [2] at that same low
> >3 mT empty weight. So the SLS at a 70 mT payload capability will be
> >able to launch such a mission using the SEV as crew capsule following
> >the ELA architecture with plenty of margin.
>
> > Bob Clark
>
> >References.
>
> >1.)Encyclopedia Astronautica.
> >Early Lunar Access.
> >http://www.astronautix.com/craft/earccess.htm
>
> >2.)Space Exploration Vehicle.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Exploration_Vehicle
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9399379/ns/technology_and_science-space/t...
> > The argument for why this is doable is rather simple. The Early
> >Lunar Access(ELA) [1] proposal of the early 90's, which deserves to be
> >better known actually, suggested that by using a lightweight 2-man
> >capsule and all cryogenic in-space stages that a manned lunar lander
> >mission could be mounted with only 52 mT required to LEO, half that
> >previously thought necessary.
> > The only technical complaint about its feasibility was that it
> >required a crew capsule of only 3 mT empty weight. But the kicker is
> >NASA is planning a Space Exploration Vehicle(SEV) [2] at that same low
> >3 mT empty weight. So the SLS at a 70 mT payload capability will be
> >able to launch such a mission using the SEV as crew capsule following
> >the ELA architecture with plenty of margin.
>
> > Bob Clark
>
> >References.
>
> >1.)Encyclopedia Astronautica.
> >Early Lunar Access.
> >http://www.astronautix.com/craft/earccess.htm
>
> >2.)Space Exploration Vehicle.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Exploration_Vehicle
>
> NASA estimates $104 billion for return to moon
>
> http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_happy_meal_cost
> Say $4
>
> The trip to the moon would cost as much as 26 billion Happy Meals.
>
> That's more than 3 Happy Meals for *everyone* in the world.
>
> But Happy Meals create more spread than spin-offs.
The beauty of the Early Lunar Access(ELA) proposal was that it was so
>
> http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_happy_meal_cost
> Say $4
>
> The trip to the moon would cost as much as 26 billion Happy Meals.
>
> That's more than 3 Happy Meals for *everyone* in the world.
>
> But Happy Meals create more spread than spin-offs.
low cost, at the time estimated at only 1/10th the cost of Apollo, in
the range of $10 billion.
Now it could be done in an even lower cost fashion if using the
Falcon Heavy at an only $120 million cost per launch. It would likely
be less than 1/2 billion dollars, perhaps even less than 1/4 billion
at least for single missions.
The problem is NASA would not be likely to fund that since it would
undercut their own BEO missions. Then we are left with the SLS to
launch it. In that scenario it would only be a small additional cost
added to the cost of the SLS.
Bob Clark
Wayne Throop
Nov 6, 2012, 12:42:31 PM11/6/12
to
: Robert Clark <rgrego...@yahoo.com>
: This time it could be done so cheaply that we could maintain a
and ... so now you're huddling in a small hab on the moon...
how does that pay for this much cheaper cost?
Really, the moon isn't all that interesting a place to live. Plus, it
won't really be even halfway safe until there's a larger infrastructure
in LEO. Warm up, walk, jog, befor you sprint. Think of a reason for
manned presense in LEO, better than the ISS.
And no, neither "mankind's pioneering spirit" nor "we have to get out of
the nest to ensure species survival" cuts it.
Look at previous migrations to new territory (or at least new to them).
None of them are vague "onaccount the glory and wonderment of it all"
or "to ensure species survival" or "because it's there". Sure, a few
expeditions, but settlements and "permanent presense"? You climb Mt
Everest because it's there... and then there's a long hiatus, and a few
semi-permanent tourist trap base camps get built. But nobody *lives*
up there. The important reasons are almost always "to get the Inca gold",
"to escape overcrowding or persecution or both", and so on. And for any
of those purposes, someplace on earth is still considerably cheaper than
anyplace in space.
So, think of an actual *reason* other than "mankind's expansion into space".
: This time it could be done so cheaply that we could maintain a
: permanent presence on the Moon. It's part of Man's expansion into
: space.
OK. How *much* cheaper (I doubt it's enough to make it viable),
: space.
and ... so now you're huddling in a small hab on the moon...
how does that pay for this much cheaper cost?
Really, the moon isn't all that interesting a place to live. Plus, it
won't really be even halfway safe until there's a larger infrastructure
in LEO. Warm up, walk, jog, befor you sprint. Think of a reason for
manned presense in LEO, better than the ISS.
And no, neither "mankind's pioneering spirit" nor "we have to get out of
the nest to ensure species survival" cuts it.
Look at previous migrations to new territory (or at least new to them).
None of them are vague "onaccount the glory and wonderment of it all"
or "to ensure species survival" or "because it's there". Sure, a few
expeditions, but settlements and "permanent presense"? You climb Mt
Everest because it's there... and then there's a long hiatus, and a few
semi-permanent tourist trap base camps get built. But nobody *lives*
up there. The important reasons are almost always "to get the Inca gold",
"to escape overcrowding or persecution or both", and so on. And for any
of those purposes, someplace on earth is still considerably cheaper than
anyplace in space.
So, think of an actual *reason* other than "mankind's expansion into space".
bja...@iwaynet.net
Nov 6, 2012, 2:13:51 PM11/6/12
to
Cripes, for that matter, what makes you think there were none THEN!
But hey, Another fake trip to the moon to waste of lot of money on the
anniversary of wasting a lot of money would be cool! And best of all,
video faking technology is so much more advanced now that nobody would
have to "lose" the original recordings of the "trip"!
Marvin the Martian
Nov 6, 2012, 7:08:54 PM11/6/12
to
On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 14:13:51 -0500, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
> On 11/6/2012 12:00 PM, Robert Clark wrote:
>> On Nov 4, 12:34 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/4/12 10:33 AM, Robert Clark wrote:
>
>>> What would be the primary purpose of going again?
>>
>> This time it could be done so cheaply that we could maintain a
>> permanent presence on the Moon. It's part of Man's expansion into
>> space.
>>
>> Bob Clark
>
> And what makes you think there are not permanent bases on the moon NOW.
> Cripes, for that matter, what makes you think there were none THEN!
Uh... that movie was a joke.
> On 11/6/2012 12:00 PM, Robert Clark wrote:
>> On Nov 4, 12:34 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/4/12 10:33 AM, Robert Clark wrote:
>
>>> What would be the primary purpose of going again?
>>
>> This time it could be done so cheaply that we could maintain a
>> permanent presence on the Moon. It's part of Man's expansion into
>> space.
>>
>> Bob Clark
>
> And what makes you think there are not permanent bases on the moon NOW.
> Cripes, for that matter, what makes you think there were none THEN!
http://www.ironsky.net/
Robert Clark
Nov 6, 2012, 11:00:12 PM11/6/12
to
On Nov 6, 12:48 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com>
I do think that is an actual reason. But there is a financial reason
according to many scientists who have studied it. The near Earth
asteroids and perhaps the Moon itself contains untold wealth in
valuable minerals. Propellant depots in space would reduce the cost to
return those minerals to Earth. If you have plants on the Moon to
process for propellant the water ice now known to reside in the shaded
craters on the Moon, then those depots can be filled more cheaply with
lunar propellant since you don't have to haul it up from Earth's deep
gravity well.
Since the largest mass by far for a Mars mission is the propellant
that needs to be lofted to LEO, this also makes it cheaper to mount
manned Mars missions.
In regards to doing the manned lunar missions cheaply the Early Lunar
Access proposal deserves to be much more well known. It only requires
52 mT to be lofted to LEO. This can be done by a Falcon Heavy, for
which SpaceX is giving a launch price of $120 million. Two Centaur-
like stages of cost in the range of $30 million each would work for
the Earth departure and lunar lander stages.
The cost for such single missions would likely be less than $500
million, perhaps less than $250 million. My expectation though is that
the first return to the Moon missions would be launched by the more
expensive SLS. The reason is I don't think NASA would fund the cheaper
Falcon Heavy launched versions because that would undercut NASA's own
beyond low Earth orbit(BEO) missions.
Bob Clark
> : Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com>
according to many scientists who have studied it. The near Earth
asteroids and perhaps the Moon itself contains untold wealth in
valuable minerals. Propellant depots in space would reduce the cost to
return those minerals to Earth. If you have plants on the Moon to
process for propellant the water ice now known to reside in the shaded
craters on the Moon, then those depots can be filled more cheaply with
lunar propellant since you don't have to haul it up from Earth's deep
gravity well.
Since the largest mass by far for a Mars mission is the propellant
that needs to be lofted to LEO, this also makes it cheaper to mount
manned Mars missions.
In regards to doing the manned lunar missions cheaply the Early Lunar
Access proposal deserves to be much more well known. It only requires
52 mT to be lofted to LEO. This can be done by a Falcon Heavy, for
which SpaceX is giving a launch price of $120 million. Two Centaur-
like stages of cost in the range of $30 million each would work for
the Earth departure and lunar lander stages.
The cost for such single missions would likely be less than $500
million, perhaps less than $250 million. My expectation though is that
the first return to the Moon missions would be launched by the more
expensive SLS. The reason is I don't think NASA would fund the cheaper
Falcon Heavy launched versions because that would undercut NASA's own
beyond low Earth orbit(BEO) missions.
Bob Clark
Wayne Throop
Nov 6, 2012, 11:36:02 PM11/6/12
to
:: So, think of an actual *reason* other than
: I do think that is an actual reason.
Well. Good luck with that. Doesn't sound remotely like a reason to me.
: But there is a financial reason according to many scientists who have
So, fund studies that would tell the story, and work out details
that mitigate the risk. Putting bases on the moon don't help with that,
not so's anybody'd notice, so nobody is eager to fund them.
: If you have plants on the Moon to process for propellant the water ice
can do the proving stages even faster by simply lugging less out of the
gravity well, and not needing to spend on processing facilities on the
moon before anybody can be convinced they'll be worthwhile.
The problem is, you've got way too much handwavium to attract
actual investment. There's "untold wealth". There's water in
them there craters, which will lead to smelters in them there asteroids,
yada yada yada. But extrapolating through so many steps, it's all
based on a series of handwavium girders.
:: "mankind's expansion into space".
: Robert Clark <rgrego...@yahoo.com>
: I do think that is an actual reason.
Well. Good luck with that. Doesn't sound remotely like a reason to me.
: But there is a financial reason according to many scientists who have
: studied it. The near Earth asteroids and perhaps the Moon itself
: contains untold wealth in valuable minerals.
That sort of is the problem. The wealth is untold.
: contains untold wealth in valuable minerals.
So, fund studies that would tell the story, and work out details
that mitigate the risk. Putting bases on the moon don't help with that,
not so's anybody'd notice, so nobody is eager to fund them.
: If you have plants on the Moon to process for propellant the water ice
: now known to reside in the shaded craters on the Moon, then those
: depots can be filled more cheaply with lunar propellant since you
: don't have to haul it up from Earth's deep gravity well.
And quite possibly if you aren't lugging canned monkeys around, you
: depots can be filled more cheaply with lunar propellant since you
: don't have to haul it up from Earth's deep gravity well.
can do the proving stages even faster by simply lugging less out of the
gravity well, and not needing to spend on processing facilities on the
moon before anybody can be convinced they'll be worthwhile.
The problem is, you've got way too much handwavium to attract
actual investment. There's "untold wealth". There's water in
them there craters, which will lead to smelters in them there asteroids,
yada yada yada. But extrapolating through so many steps, it's all
based on a series of handwavium girders.
Matt Wiser
Nov 7, 2012, 1:22:46 AM11/7/12
to
news:c91c791c-2035-4ee3...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
In case you haven't noticed outside your dream world, Bobbert, Spirit and
Opportunity were HAND-MADE at JPL. They were not built on an assembly line
at, say, Northrop-Grumman's shops in El Segundo or Hawthorne.
Every probe the U.S. has launched to a BEO destination has been literally
built by hand. Or does that little detail escape you?
Opportunity were HAND-MADE at JPL. They were not built on an assembly line
at, say, Northrop-Grumman's shops in El Segundo or Hawthorne.
Every probe the U.S. has launched to a BEO destination has been literally
built by hand. Or does that little detail escape you?
bob haller
Nov 7, 2012, 7:12:13 AM11/7/12
to
> In case you haven't noticed outside your dream world, Bobbert, Spirit and
> Opportunity were HAND-MADE at JPL. They were not built on an assembly line
> at, say, Northrop-Grumman's shops in El Segundo or Hawthorne.
> Every probe the U.S. has launched to a BEO destination has been literally
> built by hand. Or does that little detail escape you?
cost per vehicle to build just 2 of the vehicles in your driveway?:(
build on assembly line with parts that fit more than one
vehicle.........
this would slash the cost per vehicle dramatically:)
and by sending some in harms way like the tycho crater area, some
failures wouldnt be program ending.
sending some failrly close by might permit one vehicle to help
another:)
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Nov 7, 2012, 11:31:40 AM11/7/12
to
On Nov 7, 9:45 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> it'll all be for free....
build 300 would likerly slash costs dramatically, espically if there
was commonality of parts between models of rovers.
that would permit bigger parts order qanties
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> In case you haven't noticed outside your dream world, Bobbert, Spirit and
> >> Opportunity were HAND-MADE at JPL. They were not built on an assembly line
> >> at, say, Northrop-Grumman's shops in El Segundo or Hawthorne.
> >> Every probe the U.S. has launched to a BEO destination has been literally
> >> built by hand. Or does that little detail escape you?
>
> >they never needed enough to set up a assembly line. can you imgine the
> >cost per vehicle to build just 2 of the vehicles in your driveway?:(
>
> We're never going to build millions of identical rovers.
>
> >> In case you haven't noticed outside your dream world, Bobbert, Spirit and
> >> Opportunity were HAND-MADE at JPL. They were not built on an assembly line
> >> at, say, Northrop-Grumman's shops in El Segundo or Hawthorne.
> >> Every probe the U.S. has launched to a BEO destination has been literally
> >> built by hand. Or does that little detail escape you?
>
> >they never needed enough to set up a assembly line. can you imgine the
> >cost per vehicle to build just 2 of the vehicles in your driveway?:(
>
>
>
>
> >build on assembly line with parts that fit more than one
> >vehicle.........
>
> That's two different things, you silly twat.
>
>
> >build on assembly line with parts that fit more than one
> >vehicle.........
>
>
>
>
> >this would slash the cost per vehicle dramatically:)
>
> No, it wouldn't.
>
>
> >this would slash the cost per vehicle dramatically:)
>
>
>
>
> >and by sending some in harms way like the tycho crater area, some
> >failures wouldnt be program ending.
>
> >sending some failrly close by might permit one vehicle to help
> >another:)
>
> Yeah, because they'll all be super-capable and hyper-intelligent, and
>
>
> >and by sending some in harms way like the tycho crater area, some
> >failures wouldnt be program ending.
>
> >sending some failrly close by might permit one vehicle to help
> >another:)
>
> it'll all be for free....
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
you dont need to build millions to save money on a cost per unit.
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
build 300 would likerly slash costs dramatically, espically if there
was commonality of parts between models of rovers.
that would permit bigger parts order qanties
Robert Clark
Nov 7, 2012, 11:56:10 AM11/7/12
to
On Nov 6, 11:41 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> :: So, think of an actual *reason* other than
> :: "mankind's expansion into space".
>
> : Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com>
> :: So, think of an actual *reason* other than
> :: "mankind's expansion into space".
>
> : I do think that is an actual reason.
>
> Well. Good luck with that. Doesn't sound remotely like a reason to me.
>
What reason is there for us to send billion dollar robotic rovers to
>
> Well. Good luck with that. Doesn't sound remotely like a reason to me.
>
Mars?
Bob Clark
Wayne Throop
Nov 7, 2012, 12:14:51 PM11/7/12
to
:::: So, think of an actual *reason* other than
:: Doesn't sound remotely like a reason to = me.
: Robert Clark <rgrego...@yahoo.com>
: What reason is there for us to send billion dollar robotic rovers to
: Mars?
We want information... information... information...
Note that I don't really buy the "sending humans explorers and colonists
would get more/better information enough to make it worthwhile".
:::: "mankind's expansion into space".
::: I do think that is an actual reason.
:: Doesn't sound remotely like a reason to = me.
: Robert Clark <rgrego...@yahoo.com>
: What reason is there for us to send billion dollar robotic rovers to
: Mars?
We want information... information... information...
Note that I don't really buy the "sending humans explorers and colonists
would get more/better information enough to make it worthwhile".
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Wayne Throop
Nov 7, 2012, 2:20:30 PM11/7/12
to
:: We want information... information... information...
: Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com>
: What information are you going to get that will display a positive ROI
: on a billion dollars?
Pfft. What information did CERN spend all that money on?
Did they have a "positive ROI"? The desire for information isn't
based on an "ROI", and hence, can't produce really large revenue streams
over significant periods of time. Universities and government grants and
institutions like NASA make it possible to sustain large-ish efforts,
but not enough for "mankind's expansion into space".
: Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com>
: What information are you going to get that will display a positive ROI
: on a billion dollars?
Pfft. What information did CERN spend all that money on?
Did they have a "positive ROI"? The desire for information isn't
based on an "ROI", and hence, can't produce really large revenue streams
over significant periods of time. Universities and government grants and
institutions like NASA make it possible to sustain large-ish efforts,
but not enough for "mankind's expansion into space".
Message has been deleted
Matt Wiser
Nov 8, 2012, 1:32:48 AM11/8/12
to
news:l9cl98hp3cmc2pchv...@4ax.com...
> different rovers. It's how they're arranged that's different.
>
> This has all been explained to you several times. Either you're
> incredibly stupid or you just don't listen to what other people
> explain to you. Oh, wait, that's sort of the same thing....
>
> --
> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
> man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
> all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
> --George Bernard Shaw
>
Explaining things that are not in the fantasy world the Bobbert inhabits is
a waste of time. Not only is it impractical to build MER-class rovers on an
assembly line, there's getting time on launch schedules, a little thing such
as a launch window, range issues at the launch site, pad availbility, and so
on.
> >you dont need to build millions to save money on a cost per unit.
> >
>
> No, but you need to build more than a few dozen.
> >
>
>
> >
> >build 300 would likerly slash costs dramatically, espically if there
> >was commonality of parts between models of rovers.
> >
>
> Well, no, it wouldn't, and lots of 'parts' are common, even with
> >
> >build 300 would likerly slash costs dramatically, espically if there
> >was commonality of parts between models of rovers.
> >
>
> different rovers. It's how they're arranged that's different.
>
> >
> >that would permit bigger parts order qanties
> >
>
> But still not big enough to lower costs appreciably.
> >
> >that would permit bigger parts order qanties
> >
>
>
> This has all been explained to you several times. Either you're
> incredibly stupid or you just don't listen to what other people
> explain to you. Oh, wait, that's sort of the same thing....
>
> --
> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
> man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
> all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
> --George Bernard Shaw
>
Explaining things that are not in the fantasy world the Bobbert inhabits is
a waste of time. Not only is it impractical to build MER-class rovers on an
assembly line, there's getting time on launch schedules, a little thing such
as a launch window, range issues at the launch site, pad availbility, and so
on.
Marvin the Martian
Nov 8, 2012, 8:17:35 AM11/8/12
to
On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 12:11:33 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
>
>
>>We want information... information... information...
>>
>>
> Really? Why? What information are you going to get that will display a
Good gawd.
If it wasn't for science, there would only be a few million people on
earth, if the cheetahs didn't eaten them all.
So Mr. McCall's very existence is due to science. And now he using the
product of all the science and technology to ask why we should go to Mars
and he rejects science as an answer.
It's like when the cave man Ogg first invented fire, Fred stood over the
guy's shoulder and asked "what's the positive return on that?"
When the wheel was invented, Fred stood there, ridiculed the inventor,
and said "Wheel?! You're in denial of reality!"
What we need to do is to drop Fred naked in the middle of the Gobi desert
and tell him we'll come and get him when he figures out the positive
return on science; that is, if that cheetah doesn't eat him first.
The answer to Fred's ignorant question, is, "On average, the rate of
return is AWESOME, but we don't know what discovery is going to lead to
great returns. Science is and will always be a great investment."
> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
>
>
>>We want information... information... information...
>>
>>
> positive ROI on a billion dollars?
>
>
>
>
>>Note that I don't really buy the "sending humans explorers and colonists
>>would get more/better information enough to make it worthwhile".
>>
>>
> Then you're just in denial of reality.
>>would get more/better information enough to make it worthwhile".
>>
>>
Good gawd.
If it wasn't for science, there would only be a few million people on
earth, if the cheetahs didn't eaten them all.
So Mr. McCall's very existence is due to science. And now he using the
product of all the science and technology to ask why we should go to Mars
and he rejects science as an answer.
It's like when the cave man Ogg first invented fire, Fred stood over the
guy's shoulder and asked "what's the positive return on that?"
When the wheel was invented, Fred stood there, ridiculed the inventor,
and said "Wheel?! You're in denial of reality!"
What we need to do is to drop Fred naked in the middle of the Gobi desert
and tell him we'll come and get him when he figures out the positive
return on science; that is, if that cheetah doesn't eat him first.
The answer to Fred's ignorant question, is, "On average, the rate of
return is AWESOME, but we don't know what discovery is going to lead to
great returns. Science is and will always be a great investment."
G=EMC^2
Nov 8, 2012, 8:46:24 AM11/8/12
to
they bring back the shuttle and stay in orbit for 42 more years,and
get some use out of those $25,000,000 toilets. Mafia NASA stole so
much $$$$$ that we had to give ISS to commie China. Sad but
reality TreBert
Message has been deleted
Marvin the Martian
Nov 9, 2012, 11:54:27 AM11/9/12
to
exceed the requirements for low payload to LEO cost but they put that
technology aside so they could sell it in a later contract. Pirates over
pride.
One thing about Von Braun and the other Paperclip NAZIs is that they had
a real passion for rocket science and what they were doing. The present
crop of NASA scientist are not only not as passionate and dedicated,
they're not as educated.
Marvin the Martian
Nov 9, 2012, 11:59:04 AM11/9/12
to
On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 08:27:35 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> And Marvin bleats irrelevancies...
And McCall, as usual, defends his stupid prattle with another mindless
and arrogant insult.
Look, dude, you are too dim to understand, but the reason why you're
alive is due to science. There is no way to tell where the next big
scientific breakthrough will come for, but for humanity, science has
produced an enormous rate of return.
> And Marvin bleats irrelevancies...
and arrogant insult.
Look, dude, you are too dim to understand, but the reason why you're
alive is due to science. There is no way to tell where the next big
scientific breakthrough will come for, but for humanity, science has
produced an enormous rate of return.
Message has been deleted
Marvin the Martian
Nov 10, 2012, 12:03:47 PM11/10/12
to
On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 21:22:10 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>
>
>>And McCall, as usual, defends his stupid prattle with another mindless
>>and arrogant insult.
>>
>>
> Well, it wouldn't be a mindless and arrogant insult, except you're so
> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>
>
>>And McCall, as usual, defends his stupid prattle with another mindless
>>and arrogant insult.
>>
>>
> mindless and arrogant.
>
>
>>Look, dude, you are too dim to understand, but the reason why you're
>>alive is due to science. There is no way to tell where the next big
>>scientific breakthrough will come for, but for humanity, science has
>>produced an enormous rate of return.
>>
>>
> Oh? Perhaps you can illucidate on some of the science resulting from
>
>>Look, dude, you are too dim to understand, but the reason why you're
>>alive is due to science. There is no way to tell where the next big
>>scientific breakthrough will come for, but for humanity, science has
>>produced an enormous rate of return.
>>
>>
> sending toasters to other planets that leads to me being alive? Or
> might you want to explain just what enormous rate of return has been
> achieved from them?
>
> Yeah, I didn't think you would, you pathetic little twat.
Thanks for proving my point. LOL!
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Nov 10, 2012, 8:48:59 PM11/10/12
to
> sort of answer to my question is noted.
>
> --
> "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
> soul with evil."
> -- Socrates
fred couldnt understand anything posted here so it really doesnt matter
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Nov 11, 2012, 9:00:06 AM11/11/12
to
On Nov 10, 9:27 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> has to jump in and piggyback on someone else getting slapped around
> for being stupid just to get some attention.
>
> --
> You are
> What you do
> When it counts.
fred our resident its imposible, total waster of posting privelages
here
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 10, 2:55 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>
> >> >On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 21:22:10 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>
> >> >> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>
> >> >>>And McCall, as usual, defends his stupid prattle with another mindless
> >> >>>and arrogant insult.
>
> >> >> Well, it wouldn't be a mindless and arrogant insult, except you're so
> >> >> mindless and arrogant.
>
> >> >>>Look, dude, you are too dim to understand, but the reason why you're
> >> >>>alive is due to science. There is no way to tell where the next big
> >> >>>scientific breakthrough will come for, but for humanity, science has
> >> >>>produced an enormous rate of return.
>
> >> >> Oh? Perhaps you can illucidate on some of the science resulting from
> >> >> sending toasters to other planets that leads to me being alive? Or
> >> >> might you want to explain just what enormous rate of return has been
> >> >> achieved from them?
>
> >> >> Yeah, I didn't think you would, you pathetic little twat.
>
> >> >Thanks for proving my point. LOL!
>
> >> And thank you for proving mine. Your absolute and total lack of any
> >> sort of answer to my question is noted.
>
> >On Nov 10, 2:55 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>
> >> >On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 21:22:10 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>
> >> >> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>
> >> >>>And McCall, as usual, defends his stupid prattle with another mindless
> >> >>>and arrogant insult.
>
> >> >> Well, it wouldn't be a mindless and arrogant insult, except you're so
> >> >> mindless and arrogant.
>
> >> >>>Look, dude, you are too dim to understand, but the reason why you're
> >> >>>alive is due to science. There is no way to tell where the next big
> >> >>>scientific breakthrough will come for, but for humanity, science has
> >> >>>produced an enormous rate of return.
>
> >> >> Oh? Perhaps you can illucidate on some of the science resulting from
> >> >> sending toasters to other planets that leads to me being alive? Or
> >> >> might you want to explain just what enormous rate of return has been
> >> >> achieved from them?
>
> >> >> Yeah, I didn't think you would, you pathetic little twat.
>
> >> >Thanks for proving my point. LOL!
>
> >> And thank you for proving mine. Your absolute and total lack of any
> >> sort of answer to my question is noted.
>
> >fred couldnt understand anything posted here so it really doesnt matter
>
> And Bobbert is such a pathetic little follower of Mr Masoch that he
>
> has to jump in and piggyback on someone else getting slapped around
> for being stupid just to get some attention.
>
> --
> You are
> What you do
> When it counts.
fred our resident its imposible, total waster of posting privelages
here
Message has been deleted
Marvin the Martian
Nov 11, 2012, 10:06:04 AM11/11/12
to
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 17:48:59 -0800, bob haller wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2:55 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
< snip >
> On Nov 10, 2:55 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>> >> Oh? Perhaps you can illucidate on some of the science resulting
>> >> from sending toasters to other planets that leads to me being alive?
>> >> Or might you want to explain just what enormous rate of return has
>> >> been achieved from them?
>>
>> >> Yeah, I didn't think you would, you pathetic little twat.
>>
>> >Thanks for proving my point. LOL!
>>
>> And thank you for proving mine. Your absolute and total lack of any
>> sort of answer to my question is noted.
>>
>> --
>> "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
>> soul with evil."
>> -- Socrates
>
> fred couldnt understand anything posted here so it really doesnt matter
Queen Isabella at one time thought that financing Columbus' expeditions
to the New World didn't have a decent rate of return. Manned space flight
is in the same situation today. The payoff to Spain was HUGE in another
100 years.
Fred just has no vision; he can't see how colonies on Mars (I was arguing
for going to Mars following Zubrin's Mars direct plan) could produce any
benefits for humanity. That's just a lack of vision!! Mars is the gateway
to the asteroid belt. Mars may have had life, and if it didn't, why not?
Mars gives us a similar, but slightly different, geology to study. It is
far more feasible to build a space elevator on Mars than on Earth.
Instead, Fred just calls people with vision "twat" and other things that
prove he is some sort of woman hating crank.
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Nov 11, 2012, 6:07:28 PM11/11/12
to
I do believe the future of our world is ROBOTICS, with some
intelligence. There will come a day robots do most of our worlds grunt
work.
auto drive cars are on the road today, now thats complex.
mc donalds has built totally automated test stores, where the customer
enters the order and its totally produced by machines, with just a
couple manager techs to fill bins.and keep a eye on things.
perhaps fred calls a auto drive car a toaster but thats not my
belief....
for a fraction of the cost of a short manned mission, we can have
robotic explorers crawling all over mars and being driven in real time
on the moon
at this time the money for grand exploration is not available. thats
just a fact of economic life in our country right now.....
robots can pave the way for humans later
intelligence. There will come a day robots do most of our worlds grunt
work.
auto drive cars are on the road today, now thats complex.
mc donalds has built totally automated test stores, where the customer
enters the order and its totally produced by machines, with just a
couple manager techs to fill bins.and keep a eye on things.
perhaps fred calls a auto drive car a toaster but thats not my
belief....
for a fraction of the cost of a short manned mission, we can have
robotic explorers crawling all over mars and being driven in real time
on the moon
at this time the money for grand exploration is not available. thats
just a fact of economic life in our country right now.....
robots can pave the way for humans later
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Nov 11, 2012, 6:22:06 PM11/11/12
to
"bob haller" <hal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d928c85f-828a-4def...@ib4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
I
do believe the future of our world is ROBOTICS,
================================================
So
you do have capital letters on your otherwise useless writing machine?
--
This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Message has been deleted
Marvin the Martian
Nov 11, 2012, 8:17:37 PM11/11/12
to
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 15:07:28 -0800, bob haller wrote:
> I do believe the future of our world is ROBOTICS, with some
> intelligence. There will come a day robots do most of our worlds grunt
> work.
I agree, but I don't want a robot to do my living for me.
> I do believe the future of our world is ROBOTICS, with some
> intelligence. There will come a day robots do most of our worlds grunt
> work.
> auto drive cars are on the road today, now thats complex.
I've noted is that the smart engineers go into electrical, chemical, or
software engineering. The less able ones end up designing highways and
roads, which is why they're poorly designed.
Diamond lanes are utterly stupid IF the goal is to reduce gasoline
consumption and not to effect political change on the people.
> mc donalds has built totally automated test stores, where the customer
> enters the order and its totally produced by machines, with just a
> couple manager techs to fill bins.and keep a eye on things.
>
> perhaps fred calls a auto drive car a toaster but thats not my
> belief....
>
> for a fraction of the cost of a short manned mission, we can have
> robotic explorers crawling all over mars and being driven in real time
> on the moon
> at this time the money for grand exploration is not available. thats
> just a fact of economic life in our country right now.....
>
> robots can pave the way for humans later
Robert Clark
Nov 17, 2012, 3:40:37 PM11/17/12
to
On Nov 4, 11:33 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Argues the SLS as early as 2017 can be used to launch manned lunar
> lander missions:
>
> SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11.http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/10/sls-for-return-to-moon-by-50...
>
> The argument for why this is doable is rather simple. The Early
> Lunar Access(ELA) [1] proposal of the early 90's, which deserves to be
> better known actually, suggested that by using a lightweight 2-man
> capsule and all cryogenic in-space stages that a manned lunar lander
> mission could be mounted with only 52 mT required to LEO, half that
> previously thought necessary.
> The only technical complaint about its feasibility was that it
> required a crew capsule of only 3 mT empty weight. But the kicker is
> NASA is planning a Space Exploration Vehicle(SEV) [2] at that same low
> 3 mT empty weight. So the SLS at a 70 mT payload capability will be
> able to launch such a mission using the SEV as crew capsule following
> the ELA architecture with plenty of margin.
>
> Bob Clark
>
> References.
>
> 1.)Encyclopedia Astronautica.
> Early Lunar Access.http://www.astronautix.com/craft/earccess.htm
>
> 2.)Space Exploration Vehicle.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Exploration_Vehicle
Just saw this:
Exploration Alternatives: From Propellant Depots to Commercial Lunar
Base.
November 15th, 2012 by Chris Bergin
[QUOTE]NASA managers have since created an option for a return, listed
as a Lunar Surface Sortie (LSS) mission via the Exploration Systems
Development Division (ESD) Concept Of Operations (Con Ops) document
(L2), allowing it to become a Design Reference Mission (DRM)
alternative, potentially at the expense of a NEA mission in the early
to mid 2020s.
While this option remains on the cards, source information acquired by
L2 this week revealed plans for a “game-changing” announcement as
early as December that a new commercial space company intends to send
commercial astronauts to the moon by 2020.
According to the information, the effort is led by a group of high
profile individuals from the aerospace industry and backed by some big
money and foreign investors. The company intends to use “existing or
soon to be existing launch vehicles, spacecraft, upper stages, and
technologies” to start their commercial manned lunar campaign.
The details point to the specific use of US vehicles, with a basic
architecture to utilize multiple launches to assemble spacecraft in
Low Earth Orbit (LEO). The details make direct reference to the
potential use of propellant depots and fuel transfer technology.
Additional notes include a plan to park elements in lunar orbit,
staging a small lunar lander that would transport two commercial
astronauts to the surface for short stays.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/11/exploration-alternatives-propellant-depots-commercial-lunar-base/
[/QUOTE]
I first thought the commercial plan was going to follow the Early
Lunar Access (ELA) proposal because it mentioned landing two
commercial passengers on the Moon. ELA was a lightweight architecture
that used a small two-man capsule:
Encyclopedia Astronautica.
Early Lunar Access.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/earccess.htm
But it is unlikely in the commercial plan they mean the passengers are
to fly alone without one or more professional pilots. And also the
article mentions the commercial plan is to use on orbit assembly. But
by using the Falcon Heavy or the SLS you could launch the ELA
architecture with a single launch.
Still, using two launches of the Delta IV Heavy both at its maximum
payload to orbit of 25 mT we could launch the ELA architecture. Even
if the Delta IV Heavy is not man rated, we could use separate
launchers to take the astronauts to orbit and transfer them to the
Moon vehicle after it is assembled.
For the NASA proposal, the article mentions the Lunar Surface Sortie
(LSS) proposal. But this was still to use a 4 man capsule, which
likely means the large, heavy Orion. It also would involve a separate
lunar crew module, also at variance with the lightweight ELA
architecture.
This lunar lander of the LSS proposal would then likely be akin to the
large, expensive Altair lunar lander. So this proposal would be
similar to the Constellation program whose high expense caused it to
be cancelled. Better would be if NASA went [I]small[/I] following the
ELA architecture to use a single, small capsule that would carry the
astronauts all the way from LEO to the lunar surface and back again.
This would allow a NASA return to the Moon with a proportionally small
additional cost above that of the SLS itself, and in less than a
decade.
These commercial or NASA missions, if carried through, would allow a
return to the Moon by the 50th anniversary of the Apollo missions if
not of Apollo 11 itself.
Bob Clark
> Argues the SLS as early as 2017 can be used to launch manned lunar
> lander missions:
>
> SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11.http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/10/sls-for-return-to-moon-by-50...
>
> The argument for why this is doable is rather simple. The Early
> Lunar Access(ELA) [1] proposal of the early 90's, which deserves to be
> better known actually, suggested that by using a lightweight 2-man
> capsule and all cryogenic in-space stages that a manned lunar lander
> mission could be mounted with only 52 mT required to LEO, half that
> previously thought necessary.
> The only technical complaint about its feasibility was that it
> required a crew capsule of only 3 mT empty weight. But the kicker is
> NASA is planning a Space Exploration Vehicle(SEV) [2] at that same low
> 3 mT empty weight. So the SLS at a 70 mT payload capability will be
> able to launch such a mission using the SEV as crew capsule following
> the ELA architecture with plenty of margin.
>
> Bob Clark
>
> References.
>
> 1.)Encyclopedia Astronautica.
> Early Lunar Access.http://www.astronautix.com/craft/earccess.htm
>
> 2.)Space Exploration Vehicle.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Exploration_Vehicle
Just saw this:
Exploration Alternatives: From Propellant Depots to Commercial Lunar
Base.
November 15th, 2012 by Chris Bergin
[QUOTE]NASA managers have since created an option for a return, listed
as a Lunar Surface Sortie (LSS) mission via the Exploration Systems
Development Division (ESD) Concept Of Operations (Con Ops) document
(L2), allowing it to become a Design Reference Mission (DRM)
alternative, potentially at the expense of a NEA mission in the early
to mid 2020s.
While this option remains on the cards, source information acquired by
L2 this week revealed plans for a “game-changing” announcement as
early as December that a new commercial space company intends to send
commercial astronauts to the moon by 2020.
According to the information, the effort is led by a group of high
profile individuals from the aerospace industry and backed by some big
money and foreign investors. The company intends to use “existing or
soon to be existing launch vehicles, spacecraft, upper stages, and
technologies” to start their commercial manned lunar campaign.
The details point to the specific use of US vehicles, with a basic
architecture to utilize multiple launches to assemble spacecraft in
Low Earth Orbit (LEO). The details make direct reference to the
potential use of propellant depots and fuel transfer technology.
Additional notes include a plan to park elements in lunar orbit,
staging a small lunar lander that would transport two commercial
astronauts to the surface for short stays.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/11/exploration-alternatives-propellant-depots-commercial-lunar-base/
[/QUOTE]
I first thought the commercial plan was going to follow the Early
Lunar Access (ELA) proposal because it mentioned landing two
commercial passengers on the Moon. ELA was a lightweight architecture
that used a small two-man capsule:
Encyclopedia Astronautica.
Early Lunar Access.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/earccess.htm
But it is unlikely in the commercial plan they mean the passengers are
to fly alone without one or more professional pilots. And also the
article mentions the commercial plan is to use on orbit assembly. But
by using the Falcon Heavy or the SLS you could launch the ELA
architecture with a single launch.
Still, using two launches of the Delta IV Heavy both at its maximum
payload to orbit of 25 mT we could launch the ELA architecture. Even
if the Delta IV Heavy is not man rated, we could use separate
launchers to take the astronauts to orbit and transfer them to the
Moon vehicle after it is assembled.
For the NASA proposal, the article mentions the Lunar Surface Sortie
(LSS) proposal. But this was still to use a 4 man capsule, which
likely means the large, heavy Orion. It also would involve a separate
lunar crew module, also at variance with the lightweight ELA
architecture.
This lunar lander of the LSS proposal would then likely be akin to the
large, expensive Altair lunar lander. So this proposal would be
similar to the Constellation program whose high expense caused it to
be cancelled. Better would be if NASA went [I]small[/I] following the
ELA architecture to use a single, small capsule that would carry the
astronauts all the way from LEO to the lunar surface and back again.
This would allow a NASA return to the Moon with a proportionally small
additional cost above that of the SLS itself, and in less than a
decade.
These commercial or NASA missions, if carried through, would allow a
return to the Moon by the 50th anniversary of the Apollo missions if
not of Apollo 11 itself.
Bob Clark
bob haller
Nov 18, 2012, 6:57:21 AM11/18/12
to
> [/QUOTE]
>
> I first thought the commercial plan was going to follow the Early
> Lunar Access (ELA) proposal because it mentioned landing two
> commercial passengers on the Moon. ELA was a lightweight architecture
> that used a small two-man capsule:
>
> Encyclopedia Astronautica.
> Early Lunar Access.http://www.astronautix.com/craft/earccess.htm
>
> I first thought the commercial plan was going to follow the Early
> Lunar Access (ELA) proposal because it mentioned landing two
> commercial passengers on the Moon. ELA was a lightweight architecture
> that used a small two-man capsule:
>
> Encyclopedia Astronautica.
cost.
I applaude a private effort, ideally one of the original astronauts if
any are healthy enough could go along at least at some point.
hopefully it wouldnt be a one shot wonder but instead a ongoing effort
Robert Clark
Nov 20, 2012, 4:43:03 PM11/20/12
to
On Nov 17, 3:40 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
> [/QUOTE]
>
> I first thought the commercial plan was going to follow the Early
> Lunar Access (ELA) proposal because it mentioned landing two
> commercial passengers on the Moon. ELA was a lightweight architecture
> that used a small two-man capsule:
>
> Encyclopedia Astronautica.
> Early Lunar Access.http://www.astronautix.com/craft/earccess.htm
>
> I first thought the commercial plan was going to follow the Early
> Lunar Access (ELA) proposal because it mentioned landing two
> commercial passengers on the Moon. ELA was a lightweight architecture
> that used a small two-man capsule:
>
> Encyclopedia Astronautica.
mentioned on the NasaSpaceFlight.com forum:
Space Launch System is a threat to JSC, Texas jobs.
By Chris Kraft and Tom Moser | April 20, 2012 | Updated: April 20,
2012 8:20pm
[Quote]
We are wasting billions of dollars per year on SLS. There are
cheaper and nearer term approaches for human space exploration that
use existing launch vehicles. A multicenter NASA team has completed a
study on how we can return humans to the surface of the moon in the
next decade with existing launch vehicles and within the existing
budget. This NASA plan, which NASA leadership is trying to hide, would
save JSC and create thousands of jobs in Texas. [/quote]
http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Space-Launch-System-is-a-threat-to-JSC-Texas-jobs-3498836.php
Since Kraft is opposed to the SLS and he says this NASA plan uses
existing launch vehicles, it can't use the SLS or the Falcon Heavy. It
must then use something similar to the 'Early Lunar Access' plan that
uses orbital assembly, perhaps using two launches of the Delta IV
Heavy.
Like the suppressed report that suggested orbiting propellant depots
could accomplish the goals of the SLS at lower cost, this report will
eventually also come out. So whose got the inside scoop?
Bob Clark
Robert Clark
Nov 24, 2012, 12:50:06 PM11/24/12
to
> Just saw this article by legendary Apollo manager Chris Kraft
> mentioned on the NasaSpaceFlight.com forum:
>
> Space Launch System is a threat to JSC, Texas jobs.
> By Chris Kraft and Tom Moser | April 20, 2012 | Updated: April 20,
> 2012 8:20pm
> [Quote]
> We are wasting billions of dollars per year on SLS. There are
> cheaper and nearer term approaches for human space exploration that
> use existing launch vehicles. A multicenter NASA team has completed a
> study on how we can return humans to the surface of the moon in the
> next decade with existing launch vehicles and within the existing
> budget. This NASA plan, which NASA leadership is trying to hide, would
> save JSC and create thousands of jobs in Texas. [/quote]http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Space-Launch-System-is-a...
> mentioned on the NasaSpaceFlight.com forum:
>
> Space Launch System is a threat to JSC, Texas jobs.
> By Chris Kraft and Tom Moser | April 20, 2012 | Updated: April 20,
> 2012 8:20pm
> [Quote]
> We are wasting billions of dollars per year on SLS. There are
> cheaper and nearer term approaches for human space exploration that
> use existing launch vehicles. A multicenter NASA team has completed a
> study on how we can return humans to the surface of the moon in the
> next decade with existing launch vehicles and within the existing
> budget. This NASA plan, which NASA leadership is trying to hide, would
>
> Since Kraft is opposed to the SLS and he says this NASA plan uses
> existing launch vehicles, it can't use the SLS or the Falcon Heavy. It
> must then use something similar to the 'Early Lunar Access' plan that
> uses orbital assembly, perhaps using two launches of the Delta IV
> Heavy.
> Like the suppressed report that suggested orbiting propellant depots
> could accomplish the goals of the SLS at lower cost, this report will
> eventually also come out. So whose got the inside scoop?
>
This article by Amy Shira Teitel about the Chris Kraft piece
> Since Kraft is opposed to the SLS and he says this NASA plan uses
> existing launch vehicles, it can't use the SLS or the Falcon Heavy. It
> must then use something similar to the 'Early Lunar Access' plan that
> uses orbital assembly, perhaps using two launches of the Delta IV
> Heavy.
> Like the suppressed report that suggested orbiting propellant depots
> could accomplish the goals of the SLS at lower cost, this report will
> eventually also come out. So whose got the inside scoop?
>
discusses and links to a NASA report showing propellant depots can
allow BEO missions without the SLS, saving billions:
EX-FLIGHT DIRECTOR URGES NASA TO KILL NEXT ROCKET SYSTEM.
Analysis by Amy Shira Teitel
Wed Apr 25, 2012 01:00 PM ET
http://news.discovery.com/space/mercury-flight-director-urges-nasa-to-kill-sls-120425.html
So this is probably the report referred to by Chris Kraft:
"Propellant Depot Requirements Study Status Report"
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/21.jul2011.vxs.pdf
The report discusses several scenarios for lunar, asteroidal, or Mars
missions without using heavy lift vehicles by using propellant depots.
It does discuss use of the Falcon Heavy in some scenarios, but others
use the Delta IV Heavy. About this last, it's interesting they give
the max payload of the Delta IV Heavy as 28 mT. But the highest I ever
read it having was 25 mT. Anyone know what modifications to the Delta
IV Heavy would allow it to have this high a payload capability?
A disadvantage of the approaches discussed however is the large
number of launches required even for the lunar missions, 6 for the
Falcon Heavy and 10 for the Delta IV Heavy. This is because the
scenarios use the large, heavy Orion capsule, the service module, and
a separate, large lunar lander, likely akin to the Altair lunar
lander.
On the other hand if instead the Early Lunar Access (ELA)
architecture were used it could be done with a single launch of the
Falcon Heavy or two with the Delta IV Heavy:
Bob Clark
bob haller
Nov 24, 2012, 5:17:41 PM11/24/12
to
>
> So this is probably the report referred to by Chris Kraft:
>
> "Propellant Depot Requirements Study Status Report"http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/21.jul2011.vxs.pdf
>
> The report discusses several scenarios for lunar, asteroidal, or Mars
> missions without using heavy lift vehicles by using propellant depots.
> It does discuss use of the Falcon Heavy in some scenarios, but others
> use the Delta IV Heavy. About this last, it's interesting they give
> the max payload of the Delta IV Heavy as 28 mT. But the highest I ever
> read it having was 25 mT. Anyone know what modifications to the Delta
> IV Heavy would allow it to have this high a payload capability?
> A disadvantage of the approaches discussed however is the large
> number of launches required even for the lunar missions, 6 for the
> Falcon Heavy and 10 for the Delta IV Heavy. This is because the
> scenarios use the large, heavy Orion capsule, the service module, and
> a separate, large lunar lander, likely akin to the Altair lunar
> lander.
> On the other hand if instead the Early Lunar Access (ELA)
> architecture were used it could be done with a single launch of the
> Falcon Heavy or two with the Delta IV Heavy:
>
> Encyclopedia Astronautica.
> Early Lunar Access.http://www.astronautix.com/craft/earccess.htm
>
> Bob Clark
orion capsule first one scheduled to fly developed cracks in the
> So this is probably the report referred to by Chris Kraft:
>
> "Propellant Depot Requirements Study Status Report"http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/21.jul2011.vxs.pdf
>
> The report discusses several scenarios for lunar, asteroidal, or Mars
> missions without using heavy lift vehicles by using propellant depots.
> It does discuss use of the Falcon Heavy in some scenarios, but others
> use the Delta IV Heavy. About this last, it's interesting they give
> the max payload of the Delta IV Heavy as 28 mT. But the highest I ever
> read it having was 25 mT. Anyone know what modifications to the Delta
> IV Heavy would allow it to have this high a payload capability?
> A disadvantage of the approaches discussed however is the large
> number of launches required even for the lunar missions, 6 for the
> Falcon Heavy and 10 for the Delta IV Heavy. This is because the
> scenarios use the large, heavy Orion capsule, the service module, and
> a separate, large lunar lander, likely akin to the Altair lunar
> lander.
> On the other hand if instead the Early Lunar Access (ELA)
> architecture were used it could be done with a single launch of the
> Falcon Heavy or two with the Delta IV Heavy:
>
> Encyclopedia Astronautica.
> Early Lunar Access.http://www.astronautix.com/craft/earccess.htm
>
> Bob Clark
pressure vessel during testing
i dont see the need to land on the 50th anniversary theres no money
and the 60th anniversary would be fine....
why the 50th? and wheres the money????
Wayne Throop
Nov 28, 2012, 12:38:03 PM11/28/12
to
: bob haller <hal...@aol.com>
: auto drive cars are on the road today, now thats complex.
No they aren't, and no it isn't.
(Drives along streets cleared of, or stocked with artifiical traffic,
don't count, nor does the military off-road race that's been held
several times.)
: mc donalds has built totally automated test stores, where the customer
Not so much for doing research there.
: perhaps fred calls a auto drive car a toaster but thats not my
: belief....
Anybody pushing "belief" (or, "the B-word") is selling a con.
: for a fraction of the cost of a short manned mission, we can have
: auto drive cars are on the road today, now thats complex.
No they aren't, and no it isn't.
(Drives along streets cleared of, or stocked with artifiical traffic,
don't count, nor does the military off-road race that's been held
several times.)
: mc donalds has built totally automated test stores, where the customer
: enters the order and its totally produced by machines, with just a
: couple manager techs to fill bins.and keep a eye on things.
That'll be real good for when somebody wants to build a McDonalds on the moon.
: couple manager techs to fill bins.and keep a eye on things.
Not so much for doing research there.
: perhaps fred calls a auto drive car a toaster but thats not my
: belief....
Anybody pushing "belief" (or, "the B-word") is selling a con.
: for a fraction of the cost of a short manned mission, we can have
: robotic explorers crawling all over mars and being driven in real time
: on the moon
Even a couple second delay is not even close to "real time".
: on the moon
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Nov 28, 2012, 1:39:05 PM11/28/12
to
On 11/28/12 12:38 PM, Wayne Throop wrote:
> : bob haller <hal...@aol.com>
> : auto drive cars are on the road today, now thats complex.
>
> No they aren't, and no it isn't.
The Google automated cars claim hundreds of thousands of real road
> : bob haller <hal...@aol.com>
> : auto drive cars are on the road today, now thats complex.
>
> No they aren't, and no it isn't.
miles. Of course, they don't tell us how often the driver has been
forced to intervene -- i.e., was that 50,000 miles of automated driving
between human actions, or 1 mile of automated driving between human actions?
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
bob haller
Nov 28, 2012, 2:43:58 PM11/28/12
to
On Nov 28, 1:39 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> > : bob haller <hall...@aol.com>
people now 6500produce far more cars with a fraction of the work
force....
automation is taking over our world, just look at the number of
controllers for apollo in comparison with the shuttle......
and falcon is a fraction of that.......
> > : bob haller <hall...@aol.com>
> > : auto drive cars are on the road today, now thats complex.
>
> > No they aren't, and no it isn't.
>
> The Google automated cars claim hundreds of thousands of real road
> miles. Of course, they don't tell us how often the driver has been
> forced to intervene -- i.e., was that 50,000 miles of automated driving
> between human actions, or 1 mile of automated driving between human actions?
>
> --
> Sea Wasp
> /^\
> ;;;
> Website:http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:http://seawasp.livejournal.com
The GM lordstown assembly plant used to employ upwards of 30,000
>
> > No they aren't, and no it isn't.
>
> The Google automated cars claim hundreds of thousands of real road
> miles. Of course, they don't tell us how often the driver has been
> forced to intervene -- i.e., was that 50,000 miles of automated driving
> between human actions, or 1 mile of automated driving between human actions?
>
> --
> Sea Wasp
> /^\
> ;;;
> Website:http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:http://seawasp.livejournal.com
people now 6500produce far more cars with a fraction of the work
force....
automation is taking over our world, just look at the number of
controllers for apollo in comparison with the shuttle......
and falcon is a fraction of that.......
bob haller
Nov 28, 2012, 7:25:03 PM11/28/12
to
>
> : mc donalds has built totally automated test stores, where the customer
> : enters the order and its totally produced by machines, with just a
> : couple manager techs to fill bins.and keep a eye on things.
>
> That'll be real good for when somebody wants to build a McDonalds on the moon.
> Not so much for doing research there.
customers will accept it.....
for instance mc donalds had ARCH machines around here that drop and
fill beverage cups automatically. The first version had issues, i dont
know if they are currently in use.
restaurants may avoid complete auotmation to avoid a customer revolt..
bad PR, the kids have no where to get a job:(
robots dont show up late for work, dont complain, make no mistakes,
and have better quality control than humans. eventually most jobs will
be done by robots
Robert Clark
Dec 1, 2012, 3:42:41 PM12/1/12
to
The "Golden Spike" commercial return to the Moon plan will have its
unveiling at a news conference at the National Press Club on Dec. 6th:
Golden Spike to Unveil Plans Next Thursday.
Posted by Doug Messier on December 1, 2012, at 5:27 am in News
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/12/01/golden-spike-to-unveil-plans-next-thursday/
Bob Clark
> Wed Apr 25, 2012 01:00 PM EThttp://news.discovery.com/space/mercury-flight-director-urges-nasa-to...
unveiling at a news conference at the National Press Club on Dec. 6th:
Golden Spike to Unveil Plans Next Thursday.
Posted by Doug Messier on December 1, 2012, at 5:27 am in News
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/12/01/golden-spike-to-unveil-plans-next-thursday/
Bob Clark
bob haller
Dec 2, 2012, 9:21:22 AM12/2/12
to
On Dec 1, 3:42 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The "Golden Spike" commercial return to the Moon plan will have its
> unveiling at a news conference at the National Press Club on Dec. 6th:
>
> Golden Spike to Unveil Plans Next Thursday.
> Posted by Doug Messier on December 1, 2012, at 5:27 am in Newshttp://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/12/01/golden-spike-to-unveil-plans-n...
> The "Golden Spike" commercial return to the Moon plan will have its
> unveiling at a news conference at the National Press Club on Dec. 6th:
>
> Golden Spike to Unveil Plans Next Thursday.
of it...
nasas cost structure can kill anything......
Robert Clark
Dec 2, 2012, 11:16:20 AM12/2/12
to
On Dec 1, 3:42 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The "Golden Spike" commercial return to the Moon plan will have its
> unveiling at a news conference at the National Press Club on Dec. 6th:
>
> Golden Spike to Unveil Plans Next Thursday.
> Posted by Doug Messier on December 1, 2012, at 5:27 am in Newshttp://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/12/01/golden-spike-to-unveil-plans-n...
> The "Golden Spike" commercial return to the Moon plan will have its
> unveiling at a news conference at the National Press Club on Dec. 6th:
>
> Golden Spike to Unveil Plans Next Thursday.
>
>
Proposes using the unmanned test flights of the Falcon Heavy to test
low cost BEO missions to the lunar surface, near Earth asteroids, and
the Lagrange points:
SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon, page 3:
Falcon Heavy for BEO test flights.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/12/spacex-dragon-spacecraft-for-low-cost.html
Bob Clark
Robert Clark
Dec 8, 2012, 4:07:40 PM12/8/12
to
On Dec 1, 3:42 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The "Golden Spike" commercial return to the Moon plan will have its
> unveiling at a news conference at the National Press Club on Dec. 6th:
>
> Golden Spike to Unveil Plans Next Thursday.
> Posted by Doug Messier on December 1, 2012, at 5:27 am in Newshttp://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/12/01/golden-spike-to-unveil-plans-n...
> The "Golden Spike" commercial return to the Moon plan will have its
> unveiling at a news conference at the National Press Club on Dec. 6th:
>
> Golden Spike to Unveil Plans Next Thursday.
>
> Bob Clark
>
>
"Golden Spike" revealed their architecture for a commercial return to
the Moon this week:
How Golden Spike's Moon Landing Plan Works (Infographic )
http://www.space.com/18805-golden-spike-private-moon-landing-graphic.html
They estimated development costs in the $7 to $8 billion dollar range,
less than 1/10 the cost of the Apollo or Constellation programs.
However, even these numbers may be over inflated. The origin of the
presented cost numbers were from NASA guys using NASA costing models.
However, SpaceX has shown by following a commercial approach
development costs can be cut by 1/5th to 1/10th that of NASA’s.
So what I think Golden Spike should do is bring SpaceX on board. With
the development costs reduced to this extent, then we would have the
really exciting possibility of the flight costs being brought down
perhaps to the $200 million range, especially if using the Falcon
Heavy launcher. This clearly would have a major impact on the prospect
of profitability.
The only problem might be is that Elon appears to have no interest in
the Moon, being focused on Mars as the ultimate goal. However the
profitability motive may sway him. There is also the fact that these
missions could serve to prove the capabilities of the Dragon even for
BEO missions. It could also serve to prove the value of the Falcon
Heavy for launching large payload at low cost, something Elon
definitely wants for getting Air Force contracts.
As I discussed here the importance of what SpaceX has accomplished is
that it will make clear that manned space flight can be accomplished
at a fraction of what was thought necessary, thus making manned space
flight routine world-wide. Combining this with small, low cost
approaches to BEO flight, suggests such missions can also happen on a
regular basis.
We are returning to the Moon, this time to stay.
Bob Clark
G=EMC^2
Dec 8, 2012, 5:26:55 PM12/8/12
to
On Dec 8, 4:07 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 3:42 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The "Golden Spike" commercial return to the Moon plan will have its
> > unveiling at a news conference at the National Press Club on Dec. 6th:
>
> > Golden Spike to Unveil Plans Next Thursday.
> > Posted by Doug Messier on December 1, 2012, at 5:27 am in Newshttp://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/12/01/golden-spike-to-unveil-plans-n...
>
> > Bob Clark
>
> "Golden Spike" revealed their architecture for a commercial return to
> the Moon this week:
>
> How Golden Spike's Moon Landing Plan Works (Infographic )http://www.space.com/18805-golden-spike-private-moon-landing-graphic....
> On Dec 1, 3:42 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The "Golden Spike" commercial return to the Moon plan will have its
> > unveiling at a news conference at the National Press Club on Dec. 6th:
>
> > Golden Spike to Unveil Plans Next Thursday.
> > Posted by Doug Messier on December 1, 2012, at 5:27 am in Newshttp://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/12/01/golden-spike-to-unveil-plans-n...
>
> > Bob Clark
>
> "Golden Spike" revealed their architecture for a commercial return to
> the Moon this week:
>
schuttles.There gone,and we are stuck back in 1963. This post makes me
a trouble maker,and I best not sit with m back to the door. TreBert
Robert Clark
Dec 8, 2012, 5:51:35 PM12/8/12
to
On Dec 8, 4:07 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>...
FRIDAY, JUNE 1, 2012
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/06/on-lasting-importance-of-spacex.html
Bob Clark
>...
>
> As I discussed here the importance of what SpaceX has accomplished is
> that it will make clear that manned space flight can be accomplished
> at a fraction of what was thought necessary, thus making manned space
> flight routine world-wide. Combining this with small, low cost
> approaches to BEO flight, suggests such missions can also happen on a
> regular basis.
>
> We are returning to the Moon, this time to stay.
>
That is, discussed "here":
> As I discussed here the importance of what SpaceX has accomplished is
> that it will make clear that manned space flight can be accomplished
> at a fraction of what was thought necessary, thus making manned space
> flight routine world-wide. Combining this with small, low cost
> approaches to BEO flight, suggests such missions can also happen on a
> regular basis.
>
> We are returning to the Moon, this time to stay.
>
FRIDAY, JUNE 1, 2012
On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/06/on-lasting-importance-of-spacex.html
Bob Clark
Robert Clark
Dec 20, 2012, 2:53:32 PM12/20/12
to
On Dec 8, 5:51 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 8, 4:07 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >...
>
> > As I discussed here the importance of what SpaceX has accomplished is
> > that it will make clear that manned space flight can be accomplished
> > at a fraction of what was thought necessary, thus making manned space
> > flight routine world-wide. Combining this with small, low cost
> > approaches to BEO flight, suggests such missions can also happen on a
> > regular basis.
>
> > We are returning to the Moon, this time to stay.
>
Argues that with the higher payload capability of the Falcon 9 v1.1
> On Dec 8, 4:07 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >...
>
> > As I discussed here the importance of what SpaceX has accomplished is
> > that it will make clear that manned space flight can be accomplished
> > at a fraction of what was thought necessary, thus making manned space
> > flight routine world-wide. Combining this with small, low cost
> > approaches to BEO flight, suggests such missions can also happen on a
> > regular basis.
>
> > We are returning to the Moon, this time to stay.
>
we can do circumlunar missions on a *single* launch of the Falcon 9
v1.1 + Dragon:
"Golden Spike" circumlunar flights.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/12/golden-spike-circumlunar-flights.html
Bob Clark
bob haller
Dec 20, 2012, 4:00:13 PM12/20/12
to
>
> Bob Clark
A cheap rocket designis likely good news unless bad terrorist people
figure out how to build it to carry nuclear bombs, or other
nasties....
everything has both advantages and downsides
Robert Clark
Dec 22, 2012, 9:44:01 AM12/22/12
to
>
> Bob Clark
NASA administrator Charles Bolden told the NRC committee on human
spaceflight that a asteroid mission didn't necessarily have to be a
far trip:
Bolden: Don't Have to Travel Far to Asteroid to Meet President's Goal.
Marcia S. Smith
Posted: 19-Dect-2012
http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/bolden-dont-have-to-travel-far-to-asteroid-to-meet-presidents-goal
Perhaps he was referring to the Planetary Resources, Inc. proposal to
bring a small asteroid to lunar orbit. But another possibility is a
mission to near Earth asteroids that can be accomplished in about a
month round trip travel time. See the table of NEO's here:
Near-Earth Object Human Space Flight Accessible Targets Study (NHATS).
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/nhats
Select max delta-v <= 12 km/s, visit time => 8 days, unlimited visual
magnitude, the H parameter, and unlimited orbital uncertainty, the OCC
parameter. Then there are several asteroids at 26, 34, and 42 day
travel times, including stay times at or above 8 days. If you subtract
off that stay time to make it only a day or so then the round trip
travel time will be in the range of a month or so.
This could serve as an intermediate step for BEO missions between the
Apollo missions at max. 12 days and a Mars mission at 6 months one-way
travel time.
Bob Clark
bob haller
Dec 22, 2012, 10:10:48 AM12/22/12
to
On Dec 22, 9:44 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2:53 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 8, 5:51 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 8, 4:07 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >...
>
> > > > As I discussed here the importance of what SpaceX has accomplished is
> > > > that it will make clear that manned space flight can be accomplished
> > > > at a fraction of what was thought necessary, thus making manned space
> > > > flight routine world-wide. Combining this with small, low cost
> > > > approaches to BEO flight, suggests such missions can also happen on a
> > > > regular basis.
>
> > > > We are returning to the Moon, this time to stay.
>
> > Argues that with the higher payload capability of the Falcon 9 v1.1
> > we can do circumlunar missions on a *single* launch of the Falcon 9
> > v1.1 + Dragon:
>
> > "Golden Spike" circumlunar flights.http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/12/golden-spike-circumlunar-fli...
>
> > Bob Clark
>
> NASA administrator Charles Bolden told the NRC committee on human
> spaceflight that a asteroid mission didn't necessarily have to be a
> far trip:
>
> Bolden: Don't Have to Travel Far to Asteroid to Meet President's Goal.
> Marcia S. Smith
> Posted: 19-Dect-2012http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/bolden-dont-have-to-travel-far-...
> On Dec 20, 2:53 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 8, 5:51 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 8, 4:07 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >...
>
> > > > As I discussed here the importance of what SpaceX has accomplished is
> > > > that it will make clear that manned space flight can be accomplished
> > > > at a fraction of what was thought necessary, thus making manned space
> > > > flight routine world-wide. Combining this with small, low cost
> > > > approaches to BEO flight, suggests such missions can also happen on a
> > > > regular basis.
>
> > > > We are returning to the Moon, this time to stay.
>
> > Argues that with the higher payload capability of the Falcon 9 v1.1
> > we can do circumlunar missions on a *single* launch of the Falcon 9
> > v1.1 + Dragon:
>
> > "Golden Spike" circumlunar flights.http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/12/golden-spike-circumlunar-fli...
>
> > Bob Clark
>
> NASA administrator Charles Bolden told the NRC committee on human
> spaceflight that a asteroid mission didn't necessarily have to be a
> far trip:
>
> Bolden: Don't Have to Travel Far to Asteroid to Meet President's Goal.
> Marcia S. Smith
>
> Perhaps he was referring to the Planetary Resources, Inc. proposal to
> bring a small asteroid to lunar orbit. But another possibility is a
> mission to near Earth asteroids that can be accomplished in about a
> month round trip travel time. See the table of NEO's here:
>
> Near-Earth Object Human Space Flight Accessible Targets Study (NHATS).http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/nhats
> Perhaps he was referring to the Planetary Resources, Inc. proposal to
> bring a small asteroid to lunar orbit. But another possibility is a
> mission to near Earth asteroids that can be accomplished in about a
> month round trip travel time. See the table of NEO's here:
>
>
> Select max delta-v <= 12 km/s, visit time => 8 days, unlimited visual
> magnitude, the H parameter, and unlimited orbital uncertainty, the OCC
> parameter. Then there are several asteroids at 26, 34, and 42 day
> travel times, including stay times at or above 8 days. If you subtract
> off that stay time to make it only a day or so then the round trip
> travel time will be in the range of a month or so.
> This could serve as an intermediate step for BEO missions between the
> Apollo missions at max. 12 days and a Mars mission at 6 months one-way
> travel time.
>
> Bob Clark
why travel far? deep space? consumables? radiation dangers?
> Select max delta-v <= 12 km/s, visit time => 8 days, unlimited visual
> magnitude, the H parameter, and unlimited orbital uncertainty, the OCC
> parameter. Then there are several asteroids at 26, 34, and 42 day
> travel times, including stay times at or above 8 days. If you subtract
> off that stay time to make it only a day or so then the round trip
> travel time will be in the range of a month or so.
> This could serve as an intermediate step for BEO missions between the
> Apollo missions at max. 12 days and a Mars mission at 6 months one-way
> travel time.
>
> Bob Clark
might be easier to robotically bring a asteroid to somewhere near
earth, but not too close where it could become a hazard......
excellent proof of concept for moving asteroids and comets that could
hit our earth///
of course a nearby asteroid mission wouldnt need the pork piggie
SLS......
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Dec 23, 2012, 12:28:58 AM12/23/12
to
On Dec 22, 4:49 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> assessing risk, aren't you? I can't imagine anything more potentially
> dangerous than deliberately aiming a planet-killer at the planet we
> all happen to live on. Sure, you don't INTEND to hit the Earth with
> it, but this is rather like letting someone shoot apples off your
> head. If we're going to start moving these things about, I certainly
> don't want to leave it to a toaster. I want people on hand for when
> it all goes wrong.
> huck blades at you is excellent practice for surgery.
> something big enough to do the job out to where the asteroid is.
>
> SHEESH!
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
Laugh if you want, but there have been news reports that nasa is
considering robotically moving a small asteroid to a near earth
location, where falcon could reach....
so SLS wouldnt be necessary for such a effort.....
a small asteroid would not only be easier to move but also not a risk
even if it hit the earth.
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 22, 9:44 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 20, 2:53 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > On Dec 8, 5:51 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > On Dec 8, 4:07 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > >...
> >> > > > As I discussed here the importance of what SpaceX has accomplished is
> >> > > > that it will make clear that manned space flight can be accomplished
> >> > > > at a fraction of what was thought necessary, thus making manned space
> >> > > > flight routine world-wide. Combining this with small, low cost
> >> > > > approaches to BEO flight, suggests such missions can also happen on a
> >> > > > regular basis.
>
> >> > > > We are returning to the Moon, this time to stay.
>
> >> > Argues that with the higher payload capability of the Falcon 9 v1.1
> >> > we can do circumlunar missions on a *single* launch of the Falcon 9
> >> > v1.1 + Dragon:
>
> >> > "Golden Spike" circumlunar flights.http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/12/golden-spike-circumlunar-fli...
>
> >On Dec 22, 9:44 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 20, 2:53 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > On Dec 8, 5:51 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > On Dec 8, 4:07 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > >...
> >> > > > As I discussed here the importance of what SpaceX has accomplished is
> >> > > > that it will make clear that manned space flight can be accomplished
> >> > > > at a fraction of what was thought necessary, thus making manned space
> >> > > > flight routine world-wide. Combining this with small, low cost
> >> > > > approaches to BEO flight, suggests such missions can also happen on a
> >> > > > regular basis.
>
> >> > > > We are returning to the Moon, this time to stay.
>
> >> > Argues that with the higher payload capability of the Falcon 9 v1.1
> >> > we can do circumlunar missions on a *single* launch of the Falcon 9
> >> > v1.1 + Dragon:
>
> >> > "Golden Spike" circumlunar flights.http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/12/golden-spike-circumlunar-fli...
>
> >> NASA administrator Charles Bolden told the NRC committee on human
> >> spaceflight that a asteroid mission didn't necessarily have to be a
> >> far trip:
>
> >> Bolden: Don't Have to Travel Far to Asteroid to Meet President's Goal.
> >> Marcia S. Smith
> >> Posted: 19-Dect-2012http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/bolden-dont-have-to-travel-far-...
>
> >> Perhaps he was referring to the Planetary Resources, Inc. proposal to
> >> bring a small asteroid to lunar orbit. But another possibility is a
> >> mission to near Earth asteroids that can be accomplished in about a
> >> month round trip travel time. See the table of NEO's here:
>
> >> Near-Earth Object Human Space Flight Accessible Targets Study (NHATS).http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/nhats
>
> >> Select max delta-v <= 12 km/s, visit time => 8 days, unlimited visual
> >> magnitude, the H parameter, and unlimited orbital uncertainty, the OCC
> >> parameter. Then there are several asteroids at 26, 34, and 42 day
> >> travel times, including stay times at or above 8 days. If you subtract
> >> off that stay time to make it only a day or so then the round trip
> >> travel time will be in the range of a month or so.
> >> This could serve as an intermediate step for BEO missions between the
> >> Apollo missions at max. 12 days and a Mars mission at 6 months one-way
> >> travel time.
>
> >> spaceflight that a asteroid mission didn't necessarily have to be a
> >> far trip:
>
> >> Bolden: Don't Have to Travel Far to Asteroid to Meet President's Goal.
> >> Marcia S. Smith
> >> Posted: 19-Dect-2012http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/bolden-dont-have-to-travel-far-...
>
> >> Perhaps he was referring to the Planetary Resources, Inc. proposal to
> >> bring a small asteroid to lunar orbit. But another possibility is a
> >> mission to near Earth asteroids that can be accomplished in about a
> >> month round trip travel time. See the table of NEO's here:
>
> >> Near-Earth Object Human Space Flight Accessible Targets Study (NHATS).http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/nhats
>
> >> Select max delta-v <= 12 km/s, visit time => 8 days, unlimited visual
> >> magnitude, the H parameter, and unlimited orbital uncertainty, the OCC
> >> parameter. Then there are several asteroids at 26, 34, and 42 day
> >> travel times, including stay times at or above 8 days. If you subtract
> >> off that stay time to make it only a day or so then the round trip
> >> travel time will be in the range of a month or so.
> >> This could serve as an intermediate step for BEO missions between the
> >> Apollo missions at max. 12 days and a Mars mission at 6 months one-way
> >> travel time.
>
> >why travel far? deep space? consumables? radiation dangers?
>
> Because that might be where the most interesting object to visit is.
>
>
>
>
> >might be easier to robotically bring a asteroid to somewhere near
> >earth, but not too close where it could become a hazard......
>
> Bobbert, you really are absolutely clueless when it comes to
>
>
> >might be easier to robotically bring a asteroid to somewhere near
> >earth, but not too close where it could become a hazard......
>
> assessing risk, aren't you? I can't imagine anything more potentially
> dangerous than deliberately aiming a planet-killer at the planet we
> all happen to live on. Sure, you don't INTEND to hit the Earth with
> it, but this is rather like letting someone shoot apples off your
> head. If we're going to start moving these things about, I certainly
> don't want to leave it to a toaster. I want people on hand for when
> it all goes wrong.
>
>
>
> >excellent proof of concept for moving asteroids and comets that could
> >hit our earth
>
> This is rather like saying that letting an unskilled knife thrower
>
>
> >excellent proof of concept for moving asteroids and comets that could
> >hit our earth
>
> huck blades at you is excellent practice for surgery.
>
> >of course a nearby asteroid mission wouldnt need the pork piggie
> >SLS......
>
> Yeah, because we move them by magical wishes and don't have to carry
> >of course a nearby asteroid mission wouldnt need the pork piggie
> >SLS......
>
> something big enough to do the job out to where the asteroid is.
>
> SHEESH!
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
Laugh if you want, but there have been news reports that nasa is
considering robotically moving a small asteroid to a near earth
location, where falcon could reach....
so SLS wouldnt be necessary for such a effort.....
a small asteroid would not only be easier to move but also not a risk
even if it hit the earth.
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Dec 23, 2012, 1:12:23 AM12/23/12
to
> >Laugh if you want, but there have been news reports that nasa is
> >considering robotically moving a small asteroid to a near earth
> >location, where falcon could reach....
>
> Cite? I suspect this is another one of those cases where you've
> >considering robotically moving a small asteroid to a near earth
> >location, where falcon could reach....
>
> failed to understand simple English.
>
>
>
> >so SLS wouldnt be necessary for such a effort.....
>
> How you going to move the asteroid and how you going to get your stuff
>
>
> >so SLS wouldnt be necessary for such a effort.....
>
> to move it out there?
>
>
>
> >a small asteroid would not only be easier to move but also not a risk
> >even if it hit the earth.
>
> You REALLY have no clue about real risks, do you?
>
>
> >a small asteroid would not only be easier to move but also not a risk
> >even if it hit the earth.
>
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
patience, a ion engine can be used.
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Dec 23, 2012, 2:49:54 PM12/23/12
to
> >patience, a ion engine can be used.
>
> Well, no it can't because we don't have a suitable one. There's also
>
> the small problem that if anything goes wrong and the thing is going
> to hit Earth you don't have enough thrust to do anything about it.
>
> Any more stupid ideas you'd like to propose?
>
> --
> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
> man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
> all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
> --George Bernard Shaw
initial efforts will be moving a small asteroid, that wouldnt be a
danger even if it did get out of control.....
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Dec 23, 2012, 7:40:22 PM12/23/12
to
> >initial efforts will be moving a small asteroid, that wouldnt be a
> >danger even if it did get out of control.....
>
> So you're not actually talking about moving an asteroid at all, but
> >danger even if it did get out of control.....
>
> rather sending someone out to pick up a pebble and put it in their
> pocket...
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
no a asteroid. say 300 feet diameter, they hit our planet often with
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
no bad effects
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Dec 24, 2012, 10:27:09 AM12/24/12
to
> kilometer diameter crater to be 'no bad effects'. Stick that crater
> in, say, the middle of New York City or Paris or London or Tokyo and
> figure out how many people you just killed.
>
> Bobbert, as usual you show yourself to be absolutely ignorant about,
> well, just about everything.
>
> --
> "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
> truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
> -- Thomas Jefferson
small ones burn up on entry, larger ones 1/2 mile in diameter and
larger are the real problem.
fred knows nothing while coming off as a know everything person
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Dec 24, 2012, 5:11:57 PM12/24/12
to
> >small ones burn up on entry, larger ones 1/2 mile in diameter and
> >larger are the real problem.
>
> Bobbert, a 100 meter rock is NOT a 'small one'. We get one that big
> >larger are the real problem.
>
> about every 6,000 years and impacting at typical velocities and a 45
> degree angle will make a 1 km diameter crater in sedimentary rock.
>
> Go look it up if you don't believe me.
>
>
>
> >fred knows nothing while coming off as a know everything person
>
> So you keep saying, usually after you've said something stupid and I
>
>
> >fred knows nothing while coming off as a know everything person
>
> point out the facts. Since you can't rebut the facts, you try to pop
> smoke and think that no one will notice that you have screwed up yet
> again.
>
even if we were able to move a asteroid and it impacted earth, its
realtive velocity will be slow, since we dont have the ability to
move it fast.....
Message has been deleted
Wayne Throop
Dec 24, 2012, 7:02:23 PM12/24/12
to
: bob haller <hal...@aol.com>
: even if we were able to move a asteroid and it impacted earth, its
See, there's this thing called "gravity". Things approaching the earth
in freefall are freely falling "towards" it; that is, going faster and
faster. So anything coming from far enough away in freefall (eg, an
asteroid with a failed propulsion system attached), will hit the earth
with at least escape velocity, or about 11 km/sec. Even if it started
with zero velocity. That's 11 km/sec at minimum.
Now, in just rough order-of-magnitude numbers, the hundred meter rock
you mentioned upthread is about a million tons. Which implies upwards
of 10 megatons equivalent at impact. At minimum. A city-buster.
A kilometer-wide rock is more like 10 gigatons.
A boswash metropolitan area buster. Or maybe a tristate area buster.
Not quite but getting close to wouldn't-want-to-be-on-the-same-continent-
and-I-hope-it-doesn't-impact-in-the-ocean size.
: even if we were able to move a asteroid and it impacted earth, its
: realtive velocity will be slow, since we dont have the ability to move
: it fast.....
Wow. That's... an impressive display of uninformedness.
: it fast.....
See, there's this thing called "gravity". Things approaching the earth
in freefall are freely falling "towards" it; that is, going faster and
faster. So anything coming from far enough away in freefall (eg, an
asteroid with a failed propulsion system attached), will hit the earth
with at least escape velocity, or about 11 km/sec. Even if it started
with zero velocity. That's 11 km/sec at minimum.
Now, in just rough order-of-magnitude numbers, the hundred meter rock
you mentioned upthread is about a million tons. Which implies upwards
of 10 megatons equivalent at impact. At minimum. A city-buster.
A kilometer-wide rock is more like 10 gigatons.
A boswash metropolitan area buster. Or maybe a tristate area buster.
Not quite but getting close to wouldn't-want-to-be-on-the-same-continent-
and-I-hope-it-doesn't-impact-in-the-ocean size.
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Dec 26, 2012, 8:27:46 AM12/26/12
to
On Dec 24, 9:22 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> >: bob haller <hall...@aol.com>
> Modern estimates put the Tunguska object as a 50-100 meter
> carbonaceous meteor. Blast equivalent was around 15 MT; definitely a
> city buster.
couldnt be hazardous if it somehow accidently hit the earth.......
> thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> >: bob haller <hall...@aol.com>
> carbonaceous meteor. Blast equivalent was around 15 MT; definitely a
> city buster.
>
> --
> "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
> truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
> -- Thomas Jefferson
on a fist attempt a asteroid would be selected thats small enough it
> --
> "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
> truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
> -- Thomas Jefferson
couldnt be hazardous if it somehow accidently hit the earth.......
Message has been deleted
bob haller
Dec 26, 2012, 1:27:51 PM12/26/12
to
On Dec 26, 9:18 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> common. Turns out that that is FAR too big and Earth impacts from
> object that large are far from common. The problem is that moving
> something the size of your fist just doesn't prove anything.
or move the asteroid to mars orbit or a very far earth orbit, that
cant endanger earth..
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 24, 9:22 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> >> >: bob haller <hall...@aol.com>
> >> >: even if we were able to move a asteroid and it impacted earth, its
> >> >: realtive velocity will be slow, since we dont have the ability to move
> >> >: it fast.....
>
> >> >Wow. That's... an impressive display of uninformedness.
>
> >> >See, there's this thing called "gravity". Things approaching the earth
> >> >in freefall are freely falling "towards" it; that is, going faster and
> >> >faster. So anything coming from far enough away in freefall (eg, an
> >> >asteroid with a failed propulsion system attached), will hit the earth
> >> >with at least escape velocity, or about 11 km/sec. Even if it started
> >> >with zero velocity. That's 11 km/sec at minimum.
>
> >> >Now, in just rough order-of-magnitude numbers, the hundred meter rock
> >> >you mentioned upthread is about a million tons. Which implies upwards
> >> >of 10 megatons equivalent at impact. At minimum. A city-buster.
>
> >> >A kilometer-wide rock is more like 10 gigatons.
> >> >A boswash metropolitan area buster. Or maybe a tristate area buster.
> >> >Not quite but getting close to wouldn't-want-to-be-on-the-same-continent-
> >> >and-I-hope-it-doesn't-impact-in-the-ocean size.
>
> >> Modern estimates put the Tunguska object as a 50-100 meter
> >> carbonaceous meteor. Blast equivalent was around 15 MT; definitely a
> >> city buster.
>
> >On Dec 24, 9:22 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> >> >: bob haller <hall...@aol.com>
> >> >: even if we were able to move a asteroid and it impacted earth, its
> >> >: realtive velocity will be slow, since we dont have the ability to move
> >> >: it fast.....
>
> >> >Wow. That's... an impressive display of uninformedness.
>
> >> >See, there's this thing called "gravity". Things approaching the earth
> >> >in freefall are freely falling "towards" it; that is, going faster and
> >> >faster. So anything coming from far enough away in freefall (eg, an
> >> >asteroid with a failed propulsion system attached), will hit the earth
> >> >with at least escape velocity, or about 11 km/sec. Even if it started
> >> >with zero velocity. That's 11 km/sec at minimum.
>
> >> >Now, in just rough order-of-magnitude numbers, the hundred meter rock
> >> >you mentioned upthread is about a million tons. Which implies upwards
> >> >of 10 megatons equivalent at impact. At minimum. A city-buster.
>
> >> >A kilometer-wide rock is more like 10 gigatons.
> >> >A boswash metropolitan area buster. Or maybe a tristate area buster.
> >> >Not quite but getting close to wouldn't-want-to-be-on-the-same-continent-
> >> >and-I-hope-it-doesn't-impact-in-the-ocean size.
>
> >> Modern estimates put the Tunguska object as a 50-100 meter
> >> carbonaceous meteor. Blast equivalent was around 15 MT; definitely a
> >> city buster.
>
> >on a fist attempt a asteroid would be selected thats small enough it
> >couldnt be hazardous if it somehow accidently hit the earth.......
>
> So you've said. You then suggested 300 feet or so, claiming they were
> >couldnt be hazardous if it somehow accidently hit the earth.......
>
> common. Turns out that that is FAR too big and Earth impacts from
> object that large are far from common. The problem is that moving
> something the size of your fist just doesn't prove anything.
>
> --
> "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
> truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
> -- Thomas Jefferson
a size that proves it can be done and isnt a danger to the earth....
> --
> "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
> truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
> -- Thomas Jefferson
or move the asteroid to mars orbit or a very far earth orbit, that
cant endanger earth..
Message has been deleted
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages