Manned Venus Flyby
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
Hmm, can't say I've really seen anything on this before.
--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting
sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com
OM
<mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Venus_Flyby
>
>Hmm, can't say I've really seen anything on this before.
...Seems this "Mark Grant" has written a few other space-related
articles. I've dropped him an e-mail to see if he can drop around here
and give some more details on where he picked up this proposal. Hell,
I don't think even Rusty's found it in a PDF!
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
Pat Flannery
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Venus_Flyby
>
> Hmm, can't say I've really seen anything on this before.
>
>
>
Somebody mentioned that before (one of Rusty's PDF finds?) but this is
the first drawings I've seen of it.
It sounds like a workable plan, but a somewhat pointless mission,
considering Venus' cloud cover.
However it would let us test the G.E./Bloom Space Life Raft:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/1crgterm.htm
If anything went wrong, the astronauts could come back home in
coffin-sized boxes... which might be convenient if there was a solar
storm on the way home. ;-)
Or possibly in the three-man space rescue torpedo:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/3crgterm.htm
Pat
Dale Carlson
wrote:
>Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Venus_Flyby
>>
>> Hmm, can't say I've really seen anything on this before.
>Somebody mentioned that before (one of Rusty's PDF finds?) but this is
>the first drawings I've seen of it.
>It sounds like a workable plan, but a somewhat pointless mission,
>considering Venus' cloud cover.
>However it would let us test the G.E./Bloom Space Life Raft:
>http://www.astronautix.com/craft/1crgterm.htm
>If anything went wrong, the astronauts could come back home in
>coffin-sized boxes... which might be convenient if there was a solar
>storm on the way home. ;-)
I don't see any bodily waste disposal/storage in that thing.
Does being packed in human excrement provide any
radiation shielding?
Dale
Pat Flannery
Dale Carlson wrote:
> I don't see any bodily waste disposal/storage in that thing.
> Does being packed in human excrement provide any
> radiation shielding?
>
I was wondering about that also; maybe you just eat pills and don't
excreate... it's a tad shy on water also, unless the urine is supposed
to get recycled.
Wouldn't that be fun?
A few months in a little coffin-sized box drinking your own piss?
It'd also be interesting to see how those solar arrays work like solar
sails, and start the whole thing spinning after awhile.
Faster and faster, until they just rip off.
...then it's you in the darkness, sucking up piss and waiting to die.
....until you feel something moving down by your feet.
Because Venusian Ymir eggs only hatch in darkness, and the little tyke
has been waiting, and the little tyke is hungry.
Pat
surfduke
major flaw, (Solar Flares). Some talk was given to shelter boxes, (For
the crew). The waste was to go into the cont. at the end, (Just like
Skylab). In a sense this was Skylab prep'd for a beyond earth orbit
mission. This idea like so many others was a good dream, (when we had
a Saturn Space port). We lost our way after L.B.J's Boy did his chop
job, (and Nixon did the bait, and switch).
Carl
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:t1t7u29sn6f8b7pmn...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 01:33:31 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
> <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote:
>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Venus_Flyby
>>
>>Hmm, can't say I've really seen anything on this before.
>
> ...Seems this "Mark Grant" has written a few other space-related
> articles. I've dropped him an e-mail to see if he can drop around here
> and give some more details on where he picked up this proposal. Hell,
> I don't think even Rusty's found it in a PDF!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Escape_Systems
Here's another I came across.
Talk about seat of the pants flying.
>
> OM
> --
> ]=====================================[
> ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
> ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
> ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
> ]=====================================[
Henry Spencer
>Hmm, can't say I've really seen anything on this before.
There were a lot of such ideas around at the time. Manned Mars and Venus
flybys came up quite a bit, as interplanetary missions that might not
require much more than Apollo hardware. With Apollo at its peak and soon
to start flying, it was time to start considering follow-ons.
You also have to think carefully about the dates. The Wikipedia article
says this was "studied" in 1967, but if you read carefully, you find that
the final report was dated February 1967. That means it was studied in
1966 and probably 1965, with the decision that the idea was worth a study
going back to 1964 or so. And those were the days when, if you suggested
that preliminary missions to the planets might be done by unmanned probes,
people pointed to the Ranger mess and said "are you crazy?!?". There was
a time window in there when many people on the manned side thought that
even early scouting *had* to be done by manned missions if you wanted it
to work.
So in the mid-60s you see an explosion of proposals and studies for a lot
of manned non-landing missions. Many of them look rather odd from the
perspective of even a few years later, because while those studies were
being done, the unmanned guys redeemed themselves with a bunch of fairly
spectacular successes.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | he...@spsystems.net
Jeff Findley
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote in message
news:LTLEh.6911$tD2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Venus_Flyby
>
> Hmm, can't say I've really seen anything on this before.
Looks similar to a Skylab Wet Workshop to me, but minus the ASTP and a few
other bits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab
Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)
Jeff Findley
"OM" <om@all_trolls_must_DIE.com> wrote in message
news:t1t7u29sn6f8b7pmn...@4ax.com...
> <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote:
>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Venus_Flyby
>>
>>Hmm, can't say I've really seen anything on this before.
>
> ...Seems this "Mark Grant" has written a few other space-related
> articles. I've dropped him an e-mail to see if he can drop around here
> and give some more details on where he picked up this proposal. Hell,
> I don't think even Rusty's found it in a PDF!
The link to the original study is at the bottom of the page in the
References section:
Manned Venus Flyby - Bellcom, Inc.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790072165_1979072165.pdf
A Google Groups search shows that Rusty originally posted a message to the
group, with a link to this PDF on Oct 31 2006, 5:52 pm, so Rusty is still
the master. ;-)
What's cool about the Wikipedia page is the picture of the "Mockup of
Phase-A test, in an 'eyeballs-out' burn.", which wasn't included in the
original PDF.
mike flugennock
>
> Hmm, can't say I've really seen anything on this before.
>
Wow, hm. Istr several mentions of manned planetary flyby missions,
including a kind of inner solar system "tour" which was largely a Mars
flyby, but which included a Venus flyby as a form of gravity assist for
the reduction of re-entry velocity for Earth -- that is, iirc. Looks
like it's time to hit Mark Wade's again...
--
.
"Though I could not caution all, I yet may warn a few:
Don't lend your hand to raise no flag atop no ship of fools!"
--grateful dead.
_______________________________________________________________
Mike Flugennock, flugennock at sinkers dot org
"Mikey'zine": dubya dubya dubya dot sinkers dot org
mike flugennock
>
> Hmm, can't say I've really seen anything on this before.
>
But whoa, get outta' here, this is almost exactly as I'd have imagined
such a ship. Good clean illustration quality, too. Why the hell isn't
Mark Wade on top of:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/49/VenusFlybyCutaway.jpg
When I think about it, what really sucks is that we really might well
have been able to pull it off with the technology available at the time.
mike flugennock
> news:t1t7u29sn6f8b7pmn...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 01:33:31 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
>><mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Venus_Flyby
>>>
>>>Hmm, can't say I've really seen anything on this before.
>>
>>...Seems this "Mark Grant" has written a few other space-related
>>articles. I've dropped him an e-mail to see if he can drop around here
>>and give some more details on where he picked up this proposal. Hell,
>>I don't think even Rusty's found it in a PDF!
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Escape_Systems
>
> Here's another I came across.
>
> Talk about seat of the pants flying.
I think I've seen this in some form or other already. Mark Wade has a
really nice spread of proposed lunar "leapers", "jumpers" and "fliers"
designed to help Apollo crews traverse farther from the LM than they
could on foot, before they settled on the Lunar Roving Corvette...uh,
Vehicle.
Sorry, just listening to the commentary from the LMP seat on John
Young's LRV driving style.
mike flugennock
> "OM" <om@all_trolls_must_DIE.com> wrote in message
> news:t1t7u29sn6f8b7pmn...@4ax.com...
>
> Phase-A test, in an 'eyeballs-out' burn.", which wasn't included in the
> original PDF.
Whoa, look out. Looks like Lunar Gemini on steroids _and_ acid. (;^>
Pat Flannery
mike flugennock wrote:
>
> But whoa, get outta' here, this is almost exactly as I'd have imagined
> such a ship. Good clean illustration quality, too. Why the hell isn't
> Mark Wade on top of:
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/49/VenusFlybyCutaway.jpg
>
>
> When I think about it, what really sucks is that we really might well
> have been able to pull it off with the technology available at the time.
Send him the link; I send him stuff all the time. :-)
Pat
Henry Spencer
Jeff Findley <jeff.f...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
>Looks similar to a Skylab Wet Workshop to me, but minus the ASTP and a few
>other bits.
(You presumably mean the ATM...)
There were a bunch of ideas for wet workshops at the time, many of them
based on the idea -- which proved a bit over-optimistic in the end -- that
you could build a docking/airlock module into the top of an S-IVB without
penalizing its performance much.
For example, Douglas came up with the notion that a somewhat-improved
S-IVB could put itself into lunar orbit, with substantial cargo. So it
carries the docking/airlock module, two spare LM descent stages, and tanks
for refilling an LM ascent stage... and a manned Apollo using it as a base
gets to make three landings instead of one, plus bigger orbital living
quarters and a chunk of orbital-science payload. (Or, still better, add
some further upgrades to the S-IVB and it can land itself plus 12t of
cargo on the Moon.)
Jeff Findley
"surfduke" <surfdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1172581126.3...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> The hardware was well on it's way to final design!
You forgot the smiley face. :-)
This was a study, not a final design.
> The idea had one
> major flaw, (Solar Flares). Some talk was given to shelter boxes, (For
> the crew). The waste was to go into the cont. at the end, (Just like
> Skylab). In a sense this was Skylab prep'd for a beyond earth orbit
> mission. This idea like so many others was a good dream, (when we had
> a Saturn Space port). We lost our way after L.B.J's Boy did his chop
> job, (and Nixon did the bait, and switch).
If the budget cuts NASA had in the late 60's were really seen as a bad
thing, that funding would have been restored by now. It's a bit higher now
than what it was in the late 70's through the mid to late 80's, but it's not
going to go back to the peak of 1966 anytime soon, IMHO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_budget
Jeff Findley
"Henry Spencer" <he...@spsystems.net> wrote in message
news:JE59z...@spsystems.net...
> In article <1d1d7$45e48623$927a2cda$26...@FUSE.NET>,
> Jeff Findley <jeff.f...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
>>Looks similar to a Skylab Wet Workshop to me, but minus the ASTP and a few
>>other bits.
>
> (You presumably mean the ATM...)
You're right, as usual. ;-)
> There were a bunch of ideas for wet workshops at the time, many of them
> based on the idea -- which proved a bit over-optimistic in the end -- that
> you could build a docking/airlock module into the top of an S-IVB without
> penalizing its performance much.
>
> For example, Douglas came up with the notion that a somewhat-improved
> S-IVB could put itself into lunar orbit, with substantial cargo. So it
> carries the docking/airlock module, two spare LM descent stages, and tanks
> for refilling an LM ascent stage... and a manned Apollo using it as a base
> gets to make three landings instead of one, plus bigger orbital living
> quarters and a chunk of orbital-science payload. (Or, still better, add
> some further upgrades to the S-IVB and it can land itself plus 12t of
> cargo on the Moon.)
Orbital lunar operations base? Interesting idea. You get three landings
for the price of two Saturn V launches.
Brad Guth
message news:LTLEh.6911$tD2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Venus_Flyby
>
> Hmm, can't say I've really seen anything on this before.
Venus L2 need not be a flyby, but rather a 19 month stayover. However,
you're not going to get yourself very hot, much less roasted to death.
All that's needed is a good cache of TP plus lots of beer and pizza
that'll last between those mostly robotic resupply missions. The VL2
radiation that's potentially lethal to our frail DNA isn't nearly as bad
off as being with ISS as it manages to avoid the ever expanding SAA
contour, and there's certainly going to be less cosmic influx trauma to
deal with, not to mention VL2 not having that gamma and hard-X-ray
producing moon to deal with.
By one analogy of our 1AU raw sunlight spectrum UV to IR being worth
1390 w/m2: However, if the earthshine/planetshine upon average IR
radiance is being worth 266 w/m2, adding half the other direct influx,
as having been shuttle instrument reported as 1354 w/m2 = 266 + 677 =
943 w/m2, as representing what ISS or most any other terrestrial
orbiting platform has to externally contend with.
If it weren't for the nighttime portion of each ISS orbit, they'd be
summarily roasted to death long ago, and it's actually worse off at the
moon's L1 because of the same 1390 w/m2 potential plus a moonshine
radiance worth of IR that I believe has to be worth nearly 695 w/m2,
thereby being at roughly 58,000 km from that IR emitting surface might
suggest 1390 + 20 = 1410 w/m2 (not to forget about a little something
extra from earthshine IR), along with hardly any amount of that time
spent at the moon's L1 as for being shaded by way of Earth or by the
moon itself (in other words, you'll have to provide an artificial shade,
or else).
As opposed to the solar radiance being less than 390 w/m2 at Venus L2,
whereas the VL2 halo station-keeping orbit is upon average receiving
perhaps as little as 41% of the ISS thermal trauma. Even if there's an
extra 10 w/m2 of IR planetshine to deal with (of which there isn't),
that's still only 400 w/m2, and if that's not Bigelow POOF or most any
other space depot certified, then perhaps nothing is. The better could
obviously be said for establishing the Earth L2 (EL2) space depot, but
clearly we're not smart enough or otherwise having enough rad-hard DNA
as for pulling that one off, either.
Therefore, once again I may have to agree with the intelligent mindset
of Dr. Van Allen, that the vast majority of open space travels and of
such planetary or moon expeditions needs to be given as much robotics as
possible, that is unless we can affordably launch and sustain a
sufficient physical shield against the solar, moon and cosmic sorts of
lethal radiation trauma that tends to summarily nail our frail DNA (not
to mention having to defend ourselves from nearly all directions, as
from those pesky fast moving debris encounters of the potentially lethal
kind).
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Brad Guth
message news:LTLEh.6911$tD2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net
What's with all of this silly and otherwise spendy flyby crapolla?
As long as it's on your dollar/euro, it seem relocating our ISS to Venus
L2 is actually doable, and there'd be plenty of folks that would pay
big-time for taking that once in a lifetime ride (even though it could
represent the very last ride they'll ever take). Therefore, the mission
could actually return a profit.
As things stand, we'll not likely terraform our global warming moon
that's so hot by day and otherwise extremely nasty, though ever so much
easier than accomplishing Mars, it's just not within those spendy cards
unless it's something China and/or India can pull off. Even our
accomplishing any space depot/gateway worth from within the moon's L1 is
downright iffy, unless an artificial shade were incorporated along with
the extra tonnage of required shielding. The relocation of our moon to
Earth's L1 is simply too much pie in the sky, that would only take away
from our plan or foucs of pulling off WWIII. However, the Venus L2
platform as offering a manned habitat is perfectly doable as is, along
with that location offering more than sufficient PV energy and otherwise
shade to spare.
This VL2 application is ideal for the Bigelow POOF, because it's not an
exposed flyby.
Venus L2 need not be a flyby limited mission, but rather a 19 month
destination stop-over. However, you're not going to get yourself very
hot, much less roasted to death. All that's needed is a good cache of
TP plus lots of beer and pizza that'll last between those mostly robotic
resupply missions. The VL2 radiation environment that's potentially
lethal to our frail DNA isn't nearly as bad off as being with ISS, as it
manages to avoid the ever expanding SAA contour, and there's certainly
going to be less (nearly 50% less) of the cosmic influx trauma to deal
with, not to mention VL2 not having that gamma and hard-X-ray producing
moon to deal with.
By one analogy of our 1AU raw sunlight spectrum of UV to IR being worth
1390 w/m2:
However, if the earthshine/planetshine upon average IR radiance is worth
266 w/m2, adding half the other direct influx, as having been shuttle
instrument reported as 1354 w/m2 = 266 + 677 = 943 w/m2, as for
representing the external energy budget of what ISS or most any other
terrestrial orbiting platform has to externally contend with.
A correction for the following worth of moon's L1 IR = 2 w/m2 (not
hardly a big factor, but it's there to behold at least 50% of the time)
If it weren't for the nighttime portion of each ISS orbit, as such
they'd be summarily roasted to death long ago, and it's actually worse
off at the moon's L1 because of the same 1390 w/m2 potential plus a
moonshine surface radiance of IR that I believe has to be worth nearly
695 w/m2, thereby being at roughly 58,000 km away from that IR emitting
surface might suggest 1390 + 2 = 1392 w/m2 (not to forget about a little
something extra that's contributed from earthshine IR). With hardly any
amount of that time spent at the moon's L1 as for being shaded by way of
Earth or by the moon itself (in other words, you'll have to provide an
artificial shade 97.6% of the time according to Clarke Station analogy,
or else get yourself prepaired to sweat like a slow roasted pig in a
can).
As opposed to the solar radiance being less than 390 w/m2 at Venus L2,
whereas the VL2 halo station-keeping orbit is upon average receiving
perhaps as little as 41% of the ISS thermal trauma. Even if there's an
extra 1 w/m2 of IR planetshine to deal with (of which there isn't),
that's still only 391 w/m2, and if that's not Bigelow POOF or most any
other space depot certified, then perhaps nothing is. The better
argument could obviously be said for establishing Earth L2 (EL2) space
depot, but clearly we're not smart enough or otherwise having enough
rad-hard DNA as for pulling that one off any better than we could
accomplish the moon's L1. I guess we don't actually have "The Right
Stuff".
Therefore, once again I may have to agree entirely with the intelligent
mindset of Dr. Van Allen, that the vast majority of open space travels
(external to our protective magnetosphere) and of such other planetary
or moon expeditions needs to be given as much robotics as possible, that
is since our going terribly fast isn't an option and unless we can
affordably launch and sustain a sufficient physical shield against the
solar, moon and cosmic sorts of lethal radiation trauma that tends to
summarily nail our frail DNA (not to mention having to defend ourselves
from nearly all directions, as from those pesky fast moving debris
encounters of the potentially lethal kind), as such robotics are just
about exactly what the doctor ordered, the same as having been insisted
by Dr. Van Allen.
Brad Guth
news:80197$45e5f5c6$927a2cda$32...@FUSE.NET
> Orbital lunar operations base? Interesting idea. You get three landings
> for the price of two Saturn V launches.
The LSE-CM/ISS (space depot/gateway situated at roughly a little past
the moon's L1) offers unlimited moon access, as well as tonnes of other
space exploration, nearly unlimited science and badly needed earth
environment benefits, along with billions if not trillions in profits to
cleanly burn.
Sorry about all that.