EML1 Considerations
Rand Simberg
was asking about the value of L1. Well, despite Brad's interest in
it, there's a lot to be said for it, depending on what you want to do.
I'm reposting this from my blog, for those who whine that my posts are
too short. Feel free to comment over there as well.
http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/008121.html#008121
Background
The choice of transportation node location is strongly driven by both
near-term and longer-term architecture requirements, which are in turn
driven by overall exploration program goals and their phases. More
specifically, the choice of whether and how to utilize the Earth-Moon
L1 location is largely driven by our reasons to go to the moon. For
this reason, it's not possible to recommend a specific location for
lunar transportation staging operations, but we can do analysis that
can help NASA or private entities make such a decision in the context
of other agency choices as the program evolves.
There are at least four schools of thought on the purpose of a human
return to the moon prior to human expeditions to Mars.
* The first, favored by proponents of early Mars missions, is that
there is no purpose to a lunar return in actual furtherance of the
long-term goal, that it is politically driven by the president’s
dictate. In this view (described by some as “touch and go”), the
instant that humans have once again created a booted imprint in the
lunar regolith, we’ve carried out the president’s (pointless, to them)
mandate, and can then get on with the serious business of sending
humans to Mars. Doug Stanley apparently is of this school.
* A second view of the purpose of a lunar return is that we are
going back to finish the job that Apollo started, in terms of
scientific exploration. We will send more geologists, as we did on
Apollo XVII, the last mission, and go to some new places that we
didn’t get to in that initial foray, including the lunar poles.
However, this is simply to carry on a program of solar system
exploration, and there is no direct lineage from it to the Mars
missions, which could continue in parallel, and independently,
assuming that it all fit within the budget profile.
* A third, more ambitious interpretation is that the Moon will
become a spaceport from which we will establish an infrastructure that
can support Mars mission departures, with both ship assembly and fuel
production, and one that will allow the Moon to play the role of St.
Joseph, Missouri to this new frontier. This notion has been ridiculed
by some critics of the president’s plans, calling it unaffordable and
“rebuilding Kennedy Space Center on the Moon.”
* A fourth view is the moon as both a test bed for learning how to
operate a base on another world, but one only a few days away, while
also developing extraterrestrial resources with the potential to
reduce the eventual costs of a trip to Mars (likely a better
interpretation of the president’s speech than the straw man of a lunar
KSC).
In the first two views, any visits to the moon are not for the purpose
of long-term operations or eventual settlement, and so any investment
in infrastructure to support them would be wasted, when it could be
invested instead in getting us on to the actual, eventual goals, Mars
and beyond.
In the third view, the infrastructure would be invested in, but
emplaced on the Moon itself, so orbital activities, not on the lunar
surface, would be superfluous, and again a waste of scarce resources.
It is only in the fourth view, in which the Moon is both a place that
we will be using as an ongoing research and development test bed, and
as a source for new resources (particularly propellant resources),
that orbital nodes related to it become of interest. From that
standpoint, EML1 turns out to be a very interesting location.
In addition to the role of lunar exploration in choosing
transportation nodes, there is another consideration, which is the
degree of desired reusability of transportation elements. This is in
turn a function of the cost of propellants at various nodes. In
general, due to the nature of the rocket equation, the lower the cost
of propellant at any given location, the more likely it is that
reusability of elements operating out of that location will make
sense.
This is because, currently, the cost of propellants at any location in
space is a function largely of the rocket equation, because they must
be delivered to those locations all the way from the earth, using
chemical propulsion. In a sense, from the standpoint of propellant
delivery, a vehicle can be considered a tanker, in which its
propellant payload is whatever is left over after expending the much
larger amount of propellants needed to provide the change in velocity
necessary to get it to its destination. Thus, as a result of the
rocket equation, the cost of propellant at any location in space goes
up roughly exponentially with the amount of velocity change required
to get it there from the production source. This means that, for
locations far beyond earth orbit (such as geostationary orbit, lunar
orbit, EML1 or the lunar surface), the effective cost of the
propellants required to return a vehicle from that location can be
higher than the cost of the vehicle itself, rendering vehicle
reusability pointless from an economic standpoint.
Establishing propellant production in one of those distant locations
can change this logic, perhaps dramatically. (Potentially) cheap
propellants manufactured on the lunar surface transform a reusable
LSAM, whether to low lunar orbit or some other intermediate point
(most notably EML1) from an expensive proposition to an attractive
one, at least for one reuse. In turn, using the LSAM as a tanker to
deliver the propellants to that staging point could perhaps
dramatically reduce the costs of propellants in that location as well,
relative to the cost of delivering them there from earth, because the
velocity change required to do so is much lower. This in turn
potentially makes a multiple-reuse LSAM viable. The LSAM is used to
deliver both propellants and cargo, and the number of economical
reuses of a vehicle would be driven by the LSAM design itself, rather
than propellant logistics issues per se. The issue then becomes—what
is the staging location that best utilizes this scenario, with the two
obvious choices being low lunar orbit (LLO), and EML1?
A Place In Space
Lagrange points are to the Moon as geostationary orbit is to the
earth. They are the places where gravity and momentum are in continual
balance, and from which the view of the moon (due to its tidal-locked
situation, in which it never rotates with respect to the earth, or the
earth-Moon system itself) never changes, because they rotate around
the system with the Moon.
The one that Dr. Lagrange designated L1 is of particular interest,
because it is the closest one to the Moon that is visible from both
earth and the earth-facing side of the Moon, being located
continuously between them on the line connecting their centers. For
this reason, it is one of the only few places, and the most convenient
place in what the late Congressman George Brown called “Greater
Metropolitan Earth” that can be reached from the lunar surface at the
same cost, any time one wishes, and with no launch windows—there is
essentially no relative motion between it and any point on the Moon
(ignoring slight variations resulting from the eccentricity of the
Moon's orbit and other minor perturbations).
Its advantage lies not only in its location with respect to earth and
Moon. It is also a reasonable location for a spaceport to the rest of
the solar system. It is sufficiently far from earth to be high up in
its gravitational bucket, vastly reducing the amount of propellant
needed to escape the earth-Moon system from there. Such an escape
trajectory is a minimum, and necessary condition to other solar
destinations, whether to Mars or near-earth objects and other inner
and outer planets. The location, unlike the earth’s or Moon’s surface,
or even low earth orbit, is in a little gravity “dimple,” rather than
a deep gravity well. Yet it is close enough to be a convenient trip
from both earth and the lunar surface, in terms of trip time.
Near-Term Benefits of EML1 Utilization
As previously discussed, if we are to utilize lunar resources for
propellant production, having some place in orbit, but off the lunar
surface, would be a convenient location for a depot to store the
propellants delivered from the Moon. For lunar operations itself, this
propellant would have two potential uses: delivery of payloads back to
earth, and delivery of payloads (including a reusable LSAM) back to
the lunar surface, either for use there or as a return trip to get
more propellant.
LLO could be used for this activity, but it has several problems.
First, like LEO, LLO is not a single, unique orbit—there are an
infinite number of them with varying altitudes, eccentricities and
inclinations. The orbital characteristics will vary over time, meaning
that the amount of velocity change to get there from any location on
the lunar surface will vary (perhaps greatly) over time as well. The
only exception to this would be a polar orbit, accessed from one of
the poles (which is a possibility, given that this is viewed as one of
the most promising locations for propellant production). However, the
node of a lunar polar orbit will also vary with time, making it
inconvenient and expensive to return to earth from it much of the
time. Furthermore, any low lunar orbit tends to be unstable over time,
due to mass concentrations on the Moon, which means that any permanent
facility in an LLO will eventually crash into the lunar surface absent
continuous active station keeping.
For all of these reasons, LLO is probably a poor choice for a
propellant depot (or construction hangar—another potential application
for a cis-lunar staging area). It also would require communications
relay when on the far side of the Moon, if continuous communications
with earth is required or desired. Its use as a safe haven (or in fact
any application that implies permanent infrastructure in that
location) would probably be precluded by these considerations as well.
EML1, however, for reasons already discussed, will be relatively
stable (it needs minimal station keeping to remain in place), is
always the same distance, in time and velocity, from any point on the
Moon (providing flexibility in lunar surface activity locations
unavailable from a fixed LLO). In addition, it will always be the same
distance (again, in terms of time and velocity) from the earth.
This stability allows it to be used for all of the things for which
permanent facilities might be desired. Of course, any discussion about
propellant depots or construction hangars at EML1 or, for that matter,
at any off-planet location raises the specter for some of “another
space station,” with all of the attendant concerns about costs and
program complexity. However, as with the Shuttle program, in which
many assume that its shortcomings have somehow “proven” that
reusability is a mistake, it is dangerous to extrapolate any general
conclusions about building space facilities from a single programmatic
data point, such as ISS.
There are many reasons that ISS has turned out as it has, and few,
perhaps none of them are intrinsic to building space facilities.
Without getting into a detailed critique of the program that would be
well beyond the scope of this article, a key point that should be
understood is that the ISS had many purposes, the most important of
which were political, rather than to actually do anything useful in
space (including providing continuing employment in key congressional
districts, providing foreign aid to Russia without dipping into
conventional State Department budgets for such things, justifying the
Shuttle development, etc.). It also suffered from “mission creep,”
with requirements evolving and changing over time. Most of its true
program requirements could, in fact, be satisfied without ever
launching hardware into space, as evidenced by the fact that it
survived for well over a decade (much longer if one counts all of the
concept studies of the seventies and early eighties) without doing so.
Most importantly, it was not part of anything larger—it became, and
was, an end in itself.
A facility at EML1 (or anywhere else as part of the VSE) would not
suffer from these problems, at least not intrinsically. It would
simply be another development as part of a much larger activity
(establishing a base on the Moon). It would not be the single focal
point of human spaceflight development, as ISS became, and would be
less prone to hijacking by other interests, allowing the focus to
better remain on the development itself rather than which centers and
congressional districts get the biggest slices of the pie. If it’s
actually necessary as part of the overall infrastructure (in ways that
neither Freedom or ISS ever have been) it will have a much better
chance of success in terms of meeting its program and schedule goals.
It makes no more sense to programmatically fear another “space
station” in orbit than it does to fear a lunar base, or a Mars base,
all essential things to developing robust space capabilities.
There are, of course, disadvantages as well for this location. As an
intermediate point, EML1 adds both velocity and time to the total trip
from LEO to the lunar surface, increasing total propellant
requirements for the mission. However, this wouldn’t necessarily
increase the mission costs, if the reduced propellant costs make up
the difference. In fact, there is actually a benefit to the increased
velocity change, in the sense that doing so increases the size of the
LSAM, increasing the total amount of cargo able to be delivered to the
lunar surface in a single flight (assuming that the LSAM is sized for
the crew mission).
One further consideration of whether or not to use EML1 as a staging
point is whether or not propellant depots based on lunar propellants
are economically viable at all, relative to earth delivery. This will
be a function of the cost of propellant production on the lunar
surface, the cost of mission turnaround of an LSAM, and the cost of
operations at the orbital depot, including propellant storage. An
analysis should be performed to determine this, but it is highly
sensitive to a number of inputs about which we presently still have
too little understanding.
Far-Term Benefits of EML1 Utilization
As previously discussed, EML1 is a potentially interesting departure
point for Mars and other points beyond the earth-Moon system. In
addition to the delta-vee advantages already described, it could also
be a safe place for a quarantine facility. Vacuum makes a good
firewall, and it's better to have a hundred thousand miles of it than
a couple hundred (as would be the case in LEO).
If it turns out that propellants can be delivered more cheaply to this
location from the lunar surface than from earth to LEO, it may be a
more cost effective means of doing outer (and inner, such as
Near-Earth Objects) exploration than staging from LEO. The answer to
this will not be known until the propellant-production technology
requirements and designs are better understood, as well as the
economics and degree of feasible reusability of surface-orbit tankers
from the Moon, subjects beyond the scope of this article.
However, in general, if we are to become a truly space faring
civilization, including the capacity to explore, mine and perhaps move
NEO objects that could become a danger to us, we will at some point
have to develop the capability to fuel and service spaceships off
planet, including gathering extraterrestrial resources with which to
do so (perhaps from those same objects). At some level of activity,
this approach will reduce costs of operations, particularly marginal
costs, an issue to which we tend to devote far too little attention.
The sooner we start to develop such a capability, with all of the
learning and technology development involved, the sooner we will
attain that status. If we are to use the Moon as more than a brief
foray on the way to Mars, or redoing Apollo, and if we want to get a
head start on utilizing extraterrestrial resources, an EML1 base
appears to be a logical way to do this, early on. However, it is also
conceivable that initial forays to the Moon could be direct, until we
understand more about lunar operations, at which time we could
transition to an EML1 architecture as we understand more about the
economics of surface operations, while still providing potential
savings for missions beyond the earth-Moon system. As previously
noted, it depends largely on just what we're trying to accomplish.
Rand Simberg
simberg.i...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>In the midst of engaging in some of Guth's nutballery, Wayne Throop
>was asking about the value of L1. Well, despite Brad's interest in
>it, there's a lot to be said for it, depending on what you want to do.
>I'm reposting this from my blog, for those who whine that my posts are
>too short. Feel free to comment over there as well.
>
>http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/008121.html#008121
<snip>
Sorry about the formatting issues. I didn't realize until after I'd
posted it that the cut'n'paste wasn't as clean as I'd hoped. I think
it's still readable, though.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> is the staging location that best utilizes this scenario, with the two
> obvious choices being low lunar orbit (LLO), and EML1?
>
> A Place In Space
>
> Lagrange points are to the Moon as geostationary orbit is to the
> earth. They are the places where gravity and momentum are in continual
> balance, and from which the view of the moon (due to its tidal-locked
> situation, in which it never rotates with respect to the earth, or the
> earth-Moon system itself) never changes, because they rotate around
> the system with the Moon.
>
> The one that Dr. Lagrange designated L1 is of particular interest,
> because it is the closest one to the Moon that is visible from both
> earth and the earth-facing side of the Moon, being located
> continuously between them on the line connecting their centers. For
> this reason, it is one of the only few places, and the most convenient
> place in what the late Congressman George Brown called "Greater
> Metropolitan Earth" that can be reached from the lunar surface at the
> essentially no relative motion between it and any point on the Moon
> (ignoring slight variations resulting from the eccentricity of the
> Moon's orbit and other minor perturbations).
>
> Its advantage lies not only in its location with respect to earth and
> Moon. It is also a reasonable location for a spaceport to the rest of
> the solar system. It is sufficiently far from earth to be high up in
> its gravitational bucket, vastly reducing the amount of propellant
> needed to escape the earth-Moon system from there. Such an escape
> trajectory is a minimum, and necessary condition to other solar
> destinations, whether to Mars or near-earth objects and other inner
> and outer planets. The location, unlike the earth's or Moon's surface,
> or even low earth orbit, is in a little gravity "dimple," rather than
> a deep gravity well. Yet it is close enough to be a convenient trip
> from both earth and the lunar surface, in terms of trip time.
>
> Near-Term Benefits of EML1 Utilization
>
> As previously discussed, if we are to utilize lunar resources for
> propellant production, having some place in orbit, but off the lunar
> surface, would be a convenient location for a depot to store the
> propellants delivered from the Moon. For lunar operations itself, this
> propellant would have two potential uses: delivery of payloads back to
> earth, and delivery of payloads (including a reusable LSAM) back to
> the lunar surface, either for use there or as a return trip to get
> more propellant.
>
> LLO could be used for this activity, but it has several problems.
> infinite number of them with varying altitudes, eccentricities and
> inclinations. The orbital characteristics will vary over time, meaning
> that the amount of velocity change to get there from any location on
> the lunar surface will vary (perhaps greatly) over time as well. The
> only exception to this would be a polar orbit, accessed from one of
> the poles (which is a possibility, given that this is viewed as one of
> the most promising locations for propellant production). However, the
> node of a lunar polar orbit will also vary with time, making it
> inconvenient and expensive to return to earth from it much of the
> time. Furthermore, any low lunar orbit tends to be unstable over time,
> due to mass concentrations on the Moon, which means that any permanent
> facility in an LLO will eventually crash into the lunar surface absent
> continuous active station keeping.
>
> For all of these reasons, LLO is probably a poor choice for a
Rand stated:" It is only in the fourth view, in which the Moon is
both a place that we will be using as an ongoing research and
development test bed, and as a source for new resources (particularly
propellant resources), that orbital nodes related to it become of
interest. From that standpoint, EML1 turns out to be a very interesting
location. "
Dealing with issue of dust control should be considered very important
for future lunar missions according to interviewed Apollo astronauts,
in a September 1994 published report titled "Interviews with the Apollo
Lunar Surface Astronauts in Support of Planning for EVA Systems
Design".
NASA Technical Memorandum 108846
Interviews with the Apollo Lunar Surface Astronauts in Support of
Planning for EVA Systems Design
MARY M. CONNORS, DEAN B. EPPLER,* AND DANIEL G. MORROW** Ames Research
Center
Summary
Focused interviews were conducted with the Apollo astronauts who landed
on the Moon. The purpose of these interviews was to help define
extravehicular activity (EVA) system requirements for future lunar and
planetary missions. Information from the interviews was examined with
particular attention to identifying areas of consensus, since some
commonality of experience is necessary to aid the design of advanced
systems. Results are presented under the following categories: mission
approach; mission structure; suits; portable life support systems; dust
control; gloves; automation; information, displays,
and controls; rovers and remotes; tools; operations; training; and
general comments. Research recommendations are offered, along with
supporting information.
Page 7
Dust Control
Dust, a pervasive problem on the lunar surface, was viewed by the
respondents primarily in terms of developing a strategy for management.
Many thought the best means of control was to keep equipment that was
exposed to dust separate from the living areas of the habitat. Airlocks
or similar attached storage areas were seen as important in providing
the space for maintenance of suits and other equipment. The role of
tightly sealed connectors and covers to keep the dust out of the suit
and the habitat was also stressed. This emphasis on isolating exposed
materials, complemented by the elimination of
dust through cleaning, vacuuming, mesh floors, etc. and strict
enforcement of maintenance procedures was seen as the primary approach
to dust management. A secondary line of defense emphasized avoiding
disturbing the dust in the first place and preparing areas where high
traffic is anticipated (e.g., around the habitat) so that a stable and
non-deteriorating surface could be maintained. Some also suggested that
materials might be selected with dustavoidance or dust-control
capabilities in mind, such as smooth surfaces and materials that are
dust-repelling rather than dust-attracting. The prevalence of dust was
not generally thought to be a health issue. Some did believe, however,
that over long periods of time it could develop into a health problem
if not properly controlled.6"
tom
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
both a place that we will be using as an ongoing research and
development test bed, and as a source for new resources (particularly
propellant resources), that orbital nodes related to it become of
interest. From that standpoint, EML1 turns out to be a very interesting
location. "
Dealing with issue of dust control should be considered very important
Brad Guth
news:45c20a3c....@news.giganews.com
>However, in general, if we are to become a truly space faring
>civilization, including the capacity to explore, mine and perhaps move
>NEO objects that could become a danger to us, we will at some point
>have to develop the capability to fuel and service spaceships off
>planet, including gathering extraterrestrial resources with which to
>do so (perhaps from those same objects). At some level of activity,
>this approach will reduce costs of operations, particularly marginal
>costs, an issue to which we tend to devote far too little attention.
>The sooner we start to develop such a capability, with all of the
>learning and technology development involved, the sooner we will
>attain that status. If we are to use the Moon as more than a brief
>foray on the way to Mars, or redoing Apollo, and if we want to get a
>head start on utilizing extraterrestrial resources, an EML1 base
>appears to be a logical way to do this, early on. However, it is also
>conceivable that initial forays to the Moon could be direct, until we
>understand more about lunar operations, at which time we could
>transition to an EML1 architecture as we understand more about the
>economics of surface operations, while still providing potential
>savings for missions beyond the earth-Moon system. As previously
>noted, it depends largely on just what we're trying to accomplish.
Wow! I'm seriously impressed that you'd so much as dare to suggest upon
anything that's constructively positive about utilizing China's
MEL1/(moon L1).
I can't hardly think of anything that isn't better off for having the
LSE-CM/ISS up and running, or at least for accommodating the Clarke
Station as an alternative until those tethers to/from the moon itself
and of the new and improved CM/ISS depot of perhaps eventually 1e9 m3
gets established.
I'm still not suggesting that LEO stuff is going to be eliminated or
even diminished, but whatever LEO can't accommodate or otherwise
affordably sustain, the vastly improved logistics on behalf of extended
explorations and direct scientific benefits of MEL1, especially of the
LSE-CM/ISS that China will most likely own and operate on our badly
polluted and energy deficient behalf, should not be underestimated.
Besides this fancy enough "Clarke Station" document that has been nicely
revised and is certainly rather interesting but otherwise remains
seriously outdated,
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/reports/CB-1106/maryland01b.pdf
can I provide a small list of other reasons why MEL1 is so nifty?
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Brad Guth
<columbiaaccide...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165431847.6...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com
> Dealing with issue of dust control should be considered very important
> for future lunar missions according to interviewed Apollo astronauts,
> in a September 1994 published report titled "Interviews with the Apollo
> Lunar Surface Astronauts in Support of Planning for EVA Systems
> Design".
Unless you're situated on top of a given basalt rock, or at least upon a
steep enough rocky terrain (like 45 degrees should work), think in terms
of 10s of meters in highly electrostatic moon dust that's still a bit
salty, as well as locally radioactive and certainly naked enough to
being fully cosmic/solar reactive for contributing gamma and hard-X-rays
(not to mention a good secondary/recoil worth of IR/FIR by day), and
even that's not to further mention as being extensively sooty carbon
dark as coal unless you've managed to uncover a layer of raw salt.
In other words, we're not talking about having all that much surface
tension to work with, and it should also be extremely gritty as all get
out.
Brad Guth
> Dealing with issue of dust control should be considered very important
> for future lunar missions according to interviewed Apollo astronauts,
> in a September 1994 published report titled "Interviews with the Apollo
> Lunar Surface Astronauts in Support of Planning for EVA Systems
> Design".
Using the NASA/Apollo koran of yours simply isn't going to cut the
mustard, much less through all of that moon dust fiasco.
Unless you're situated on top of a given basalt rock, or at least upon a
steep enough rocky terrain (like 45 degrees should work), you'll need to
think in terms of 10s of meters in highly electrostatic moon dust that's
still a bit salty, as well as locally radioactive and certainly naked
enough to being fully cosmic/solar reactive for contributing gamma and
hard-X-rays (not to mention toasty due to a good secondary/recoil worth
of IR/FIR by day), and even that's not to further mention as being
extensively sooty carbon dark as coal unless you've managed to uncover a
layer of raw salt.
In other words, we're not talking about having all that much surface
tension to work with, and such moon dust should also be extremely sharp
and gritty as all get out (much worse off than Mars).
Hop David
> In the midst of engaging in some of Guth's nutballery, Wayne Throop
> was asking about the value of L1. Well, despite Brad's interest in
> it, there's a lot to be said for it, depending on what you want to do.
> I'm reposting this from my blog, for those who whine that my posts are
> too short. Feel free to comment over there as well.
>
> http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/008121.html#008121
>
An interesting and informative article.
> Establishing propellant production in one of those distant locations
> can change this logic, perhaps dramatically. (Potentially) cheap
> propellants manufactured on the lunar surface transform a reusable
> LSAM, whether to low lunar orbit or some other intermediate point
> (most notably EML1) from an expensive proposition to an attractive
> one
(snip)
>
> However, as with the Shuttle program, in which
> many assume that its shortcomings have somehow “proven” that
> reusability is a mistake, it is dangerous to extrapolate any general
> conclusions about building space facilities from a single programmatic
> data point, such as ISS.
The shuttle would be a bad example in arguing against reusable LSAMs.
You already noted the moon's more shallow gravity well. Single stage
from the moon to EML1 seems more doable than SSTO in the usual sense. A
LSAM doesn't have to lift off through a thick atmosphere. You don't need
heat shields for re-entry.
On the minus side, you don't enjoy aerobraking delta vee savings on
re-entry. But that's less of a consideration with the moon's shallower
gravity well.
Hop
Rand Simberg
David <ho...@cunews.info> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:
>Rand Simberg wrote:
>
>> In the midst of engaging in some of Guth's nutballery, Wayne Throop
>> was asking about the value of L1. Well, despite Brad's interest in
>> it, there's a lot to be said for it, depending on what you want to do.
>> I'm reposting this from my blog, for those who whine that my posts are
>> too short. Feel free to comment over there as well.
>>
>> http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/008121.html#008121
>>
>
>An interesting and informative article.
>
>> Establishing propellant production in one of those distant locations
>> can change this logic, perhaps dramatically. (Potentially) cheap
>> propellants manufactured on the lunar surface transform a reusable
>> LSAM, whether to low lunar orbit or some other intermediate point
>> (most notably EML1) from an expensive proposition to an attractive
>> one
>(snip)
>>
>> However, as with the Shuttle program, in which
>> many assume that its shortcomings have somehow “proven” that
>> reusability is a mistake, it is dangerous to extrapolate any general
>> conclusions about building space facilities from a single programmatic
>> data point, such as ISS.
>
>The shuttle would be a bad example in arguing against reusable LSAMs.
Well, to be fair, I'm not sure that many use the Shuttle to argue
against reusable LSAMs. The best argument against them right now is
the one that I make--that earth-launched propellants cost more to
deliver to the vicinity of the moon than the vehicle costs.
Joe Strout
simberg.i...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
You did say "at least" so I can't fault you for leaving one out -- but I
think it bears stating in the clear manner you demonstrated above:
* A fifth view is that the moon is in itself the most interesting and
important place for us to develop if we wish to expand humanity's
economic sphere beyond the Earth. Mars is, conversely, much too far
away to be of more than scientific interest in the near future, which is
why it (quite rightly) got only a couple of passing mentions in the
President's speech. In this view, the question "why the Moon before
Mars" is based on the false assumption that Mars should be a goal at
all, and any effort directed at Mars is wasted unless it also helps
develop cislunar space.
With respect to your subsequent discussion, I'd say that in this view as
well, EML1 would be a very useful location to develop.
Best,
- Joe
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Rand Simberg wrote:" There are many reasons that ISS has turned out as
it has, and few, perhaps none of them are intrinsic to building space
facilities. Without getting into a detailed critique of the program
that would be well beyond the scope of this article, a key point that
should be understood is that the ISS had many purposes, the most
important of which were political, rather than to actually do anything
useful in space (including providing continuing employment in key
congressional districts, providing foreign aid to Russia without
dipping into conventional State Department budgets for such things,
justifying the Shuttle development, etc.). It also suffered from
"mission creep," with requirements evolving and changing over time.
Most of its true program requirements could, in fact, be satisfied
without ever launching hardware into space, as evidenced by the fact
that it survived for well over a decade (much longer if one counts all
of the concept studies of the seventies and early eighties) without
became, and was, an end in itself."
Hey rand, the following information from the sts-116 press kit shows
the scientific studies that will take place from the beginning of the
sts-116 mission until the end of the expedition 14 mission that will
assist in making your above post a reality.
Tom
STS-116 press kit page 93 (pdf)
Additional Space Station Research From Now Until the End of Expedition
14
Anomalous Long Term Effects in Astronauts' Central Nervous System
(ALTEA) integrates several diagnostic technologies to measure the
exposure of crew members to cosmic radiation. It will further our
understanding of radiation's impact on the human central nervous and
visual systems, and provide an assessment of
the radiation environment in the station.
Crew Earth Observations (CEO) takes advantage of the crew in space to
observe and
photograph natural and human made changes on Earth. The photographs
record the Earth's surface changes over time, along with more
fleeting events such as storms, floods, fires and volcanic eruptions.
Together, they provide researchers on Earth with vital, continuous
images to better understand the planet.
Space Flight Induced Reactivation of Latent Epstein Barr Virus (Epstein
Barr) performs
tests to study changes in the human immune function. Using blood and
urine samples
collected from crew members before and after spaceflight, the study
will provide insight for possible countermeasures to prevent the
potential development of infectious illness in
crew members during flight. Behavioral Issues Associated with Isolation
and
Confinement: Review and Analysis of Astronaut Journals, using journals
kept by the
crew and surveys, studies the effect of isolation to obtain
quantitative data on the importance of different behavioral issues in
long duration crews. Results will help NASA design equipment and
procedures to allow astronauts to best cope with isolation and long
duration spaceflight.
Microgravity Acceleration Measurement System (MAMS) and Space
Acceleration
Measurement System (SAMSII) measure vibration and quasisteady
accelerations that
result from vehicle control burns, docking and undocking activities.
The two different
equipment packages measure vibrations at different frequencies.
Materials on the International Space Station Experiment 3 and 4 (MISSE
- 3 and 4) are the third and fourth in a series of five suitcase
sized test beds attached to the outside of the spacestation. The beds
were deployed during a spacewalk on STS-121 in July 2006. They will
expose hundreds of potential space construction materials and different
types of solar cells to the harsh environment of space. After being
mounted to the space station about a year, the equipment will be
returned to Earth for study. Investigators will use the resulting data
to design stronger, more durable spacecraft.
Nutritional Status Assessment (Nutrition) is the most comprehensive in
flight study done by NASA to date of human physiologic changes during
long duration space flight; this includes measures of bone metabolism,
oxidative damage, nutritional assessments, and hormonal changes. This
study will impact both the definition of nutritional requirements and
development of food systems for future space exploration missions to
the Moon and Mars. This experiment will also help to understand the
impact of countermeasures (exercise and pharmaceuticals) on nutritional
status and nutrient requirements for astronauts.
SleepWake Actigraphy and Light Exposure During Spaceflight Long
(SleepLong) will
examine the effects of spaceflight on the sleep wake cycles of the crew
members during longduration stays on the space station.
EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY
EXPERIMENTS
The majority of Christer Fuglesang's time at the station will be
taken up with station assembly tasks. However, he will still be
undertaking a number of experiments and additional activities during
the mission. One experiment (Chromosome2), one activity monitoring
radiation dosimetry (EuCPD), and two education activities (ALTEA Filmed
Lesson, Frisbee Competition) are supported by the European Space Agency
(ESA). The Particle Flux Demonstrator is a Swedish National Space Board
education experiment, and ALTEA is supported by ASI, the Italian Space
Agency.
ALTEA (Human Physiology/Radiation Dosimetry) The ALTEA project
investigates the effects of cosmic radiation on brain function. The
focus of the program will be on abnormal visual perceptions (often
reported as ''light flashes'' by astronauts) and the impact
that particle radiation has on the retina and visual structures of the
brain under weightless conditions. ALTEA will also provide more
information on the radiation environment in the station. The ALTEA
facility is a helmet shaped device, which covers most of the
astronaut's head. It consists of six particle detectors and will
permit a 3D reconstruction of cosmic radiation passing through the
brain: measuring particle trajectory, energy and particle type. At the
same time, a 32channel EEG will measure the astronaut's brain
activity and a visual stimulator and a pushbutton will be used to
determine visual performance and occurrence of light flashes. When not
in use by an astronaut, the ALTEA device will be used to collect
continuous measurements of the cosmic radiation in the U.S. Destiny
laboratory on the station."
Brad Guth
news:joe-BDC49D.1...@comcast.dca.giganews.com
> * A fifth view is that the moon is in itself the most interesting and
> important place for us to develop if we wish to expand humanity's
> economic sphere beyond the Earth. Mars is, conversely, much too far
> away to be of more than scientific interest in the near future, which is
> why it (quite rightly) got only a couple of passing mentions in the
> President's speech. In this view, the question "why the Moon before
> Mars" is based on the false assumption that Mars should be a goal at
> all, and any effort directed at Mars is wasted unless it also helps
> develop cislunar space.
>
> With respect to your subsequent discussion, I'd say that in this view as
> well, EML1 would be a very useful location to develop.
No kidding folks, as not only the absolute best and otherwise the one
and only viable alternative that'll fly.
MEL1 is especially a win-win on behalf of accomplishing the one and only
LSE-CM/ISS configuration, as I've proposed.
Our MEL1 or moon L1 represents the one and only holy grail of high
ground, that simply must be utilized, or else.
Unfortunately, it'll take a wee bit more shield than what the Clarke
Station offers, as currently proposed by Arthur C. Clarke.
Brad Guth
news:45c20a3c....@news.giganews.com
>In the midst of engaging in some of Guth's nutballery, Wayne Throop
>was asking about the value of L1. Well, despite Brad's interest in
>it, there's a lot to be said for it, depending on what you want to do.
>I'm reposting this from my blog, for those who whine that my posts are
>too short. Feel free to comment over there as well.
What's there to despite or nutballery about utilizing our EML2 or
MEL1/(moon L1)?
The laws of physics haven't changed, and the best of replicated science
is roughly the same as it was as of decades ago.
Other than the matter of this L1 gravity pit or well (a gravity
nullification hill if you like) being roughly 95+% solar illuminated
from the direction of sol, and otherwise getting a healthy load of
secondary IR/FIR from the IR reflective and reactive moon itself, thus
you're going to require a substantial amount of forced heat exchanging,
plus as much shielding depth of h2o or whatever's similar due to the
primary and secondary TBI worth of gamma and hard-X-rays that are almost
never passive or otherwise quiet.
I'm not at all sure POOF is quite up to this task, but something similar
that's a bit more robust unless it's purely robotic should be doable.
My LSE-CM/ISS plan of action with its tether dipole element that could
safely reach to within 4r of Earth is just Clarke Station on steroids,
as rather easily and effectively tethered to the moon for good measure,
thus not hardly 10% the monthly reactive station keeping budget, if even
1%.
Otherwise, I totally agree with the jest of this topic, that this
relatively nearby moon/L1 is offering the absolute best of nearly
everything imaginable, including the best of renewable energy, star-wars
high ground and being NEO defense capable as Earth is ever going to get,
short of having those substantial facilities actually on and/or within
the moon itself.
Brad Guth
news:45c20a3c....@news.giganews.com
Could you give us some EML1/MEL1 specific numbers that by all rights
should not differ regardless of the research methods utilized?
After all, we've supposedly been there and done that L1 thing multiple
times, haven't we?
Brad Guth
news:45c20a3c....@news.giganews.com
Too bad that EML1/MEL1 (moon's L1) is still so gosh darn taboo or
need-to-know.
Oddly it's the most payload efficient parking orbit in town, always in
view of Earth, always in view of our side of the moon, nearly always in
the sun, getting loads of extra IR/FIR energy off the moon, as well as
getting the full secondary share or gauntlet of lunar gamma and
hard-X-rays.
L1 is close enough that an Apache Point 3.5 meter class of instrument
with an extra 10X projection lens and the 1.5 micron CCD could easily
pull in Apollo details of their original surface expeditions, although
it would also put the likes of Hubble to shame by a good 100 fold
improved resolution at nearly twice the light gathering potential, and
there's certainly no image stacking problems of getting the PhotoShop
composite image resolution of our earthshine illuminated moon down to
well below 1 meter (similar to what KECK can manage if they masked off
99% of each primary mirror).
L1 as the VLA portion of an SAR image receiving via terrestrial radar
transmitters is of course out of this silly world impressive, not that
it couldn't easily accommodate the entire SAR do-everything of something
10 fold or larger than our shuttle bay configured alternative that from
LEO pulled in 1.5 meter raw image resolutions of Earth, and even that
accomplished was as of nearly a decade ago.
Perhaps soon enough China will accomplish their initial version of my
LSE-CM/ISS, thereby control most all of the moon's L1 and damn near
everything related, including the physically dark and salty moon itself
that supposedly has all of that nifty He3 that's so fusion invaluable,
plus a cosmic morgue worth of other nifty elements and a few of those
weird ET spores to spare.
The following topic is chuck full of ideas and more than a few notions
for utilizing our moon's L1. Too bad that it's still so
taboo/nondisclosure rated, with little mention of myself and I believe
nothing of any Clarke Station, other than via my contributions that are
banished because I tend to ask too many of those pesky questions, and I
otherwise impose too much of the truth and nothing but the truth, along
with my fair share of deductive common sense and remorse to boot.
Location, Location, Location! / by: Space Cadet