RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,701
Posts: 5,213,814
Members: 24,210
Currently online: 799
Newest member: MaileDetty


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Science and Technology

Science and Technology "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." - Carl Sagan.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 14 2009, 01:54 AM   #121
Lindley
Moderator with a Soul
 
Location: Fairfax, VA
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

Yeah, so.....whoops. My previous calculation was way off. Turns out that to move 0.502 AUs with constant acceleration and turnover at the half-way point would only require a bit over 2 gravities. I was suspicious of the previous number because it didn't really seem sane.

So maybe that's doable, if we can figure out a fuel that lets us accelerate for that long. Plus you have to worry about Earth and Mars actually lining up in their orbits in order to make the trip that short-----which means that once it's made, you couldn't easily return for quite a while unless you were willing to take a longer trip.

The good news about the return voyage: It's easier to move to a "lower" orbit around the sun than to a "higher" one. All you have to do is slow down.
__________________
Lead Organizer for EVN: Firefly.
"So apparently the really smart zombies have automatic weapons!"
-Torg, Sluggy Freelance
Lindley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14 2009, 07:39 AM   #122
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

Two gees for twenty-four hours, laying in a tub of some warm fluid, watching porn. Yeah that's do-able.

And doesn't earth and mars line up every twenty-six months? Not close approach mind you, but close enought.

Time to drag NERVA off that dusty shelf.
T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14 2009, 08:31 AM   #123
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

Johnny Rico wrote: View Post
So who wouldda thunk that 'Dubya' was the "space/science-friendly" President?
You misunderstood Bush. His plan was to invade the moon as part of the war on terror. I mean, it was as responsible for 9/11 as Iraq was, so it had to be taught a lesson.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14 2009, 01:56 PM   #124
Saquist
Commodore
 
Location: Starbase Houston
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

Lindley wrote: View Post
[
I think there's a misunderstanding here. I think you both agree that the goal is to minimize the risk/reward ratio.

What diankra is saying is that if there's no payload, then there's no reward, so no risk is justified----don't go. In order for there to be anything meaningful to discuss, you have to assume some payload is present.

Sometimes that payload is materials (heavy lift), sometimes it's merely expertise (service missions), but the whole point of taking off is to get *something* up there. If you don't factor the need for that in then there's nothing to discuss.
I certainly understand that yet it seems so very academic to even highlight in a disucssion where the risk is inherent.

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
Johnny Rico wrote: View Post
So who wouldda thunk that 'Dubya' was the "space/science-friendly" President?
You misunderstood Bush. His plan was to invade the moon as part of the war on terror. I mean, it was as responsible for 9/11 as Iraq was, so it had to be taught a lesson.

What an intresting User name...
Saquist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14 2009, 02:04 PM   #125
Australis
Writer
 
Australis's Avatar
 
Location: The Electric Age
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

This thread is a bit messed up, imo.

Anyway, jus wanted to point out that the Wikipedia article on the ISS had this to say as well:
The Augustine Commission which is currently reviewing NASA's human space flight program has voiced a strong recommendation to extend the ISS program to at least 2020 in their summary report issued on September 8, 2009.
So there really isn't a need to de-orbit it, which to me would seem to be a waste of money, when perhaps 2nd tier space agencies like China and India could take it over. Of course hardware can be stripped out that might compromise 'national security', but I think it would be a good idea.

Aaaand now back to the usual ratbaggery...
__________________
"… Times change, and so must I… we all change. When you think about it, we are all different people, all through our lives and that’s okay, that’s good! You've gotta keep moving, so long as you remember all the people that you used to be."
Australis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14 2009, 02:35 PM   #126
Lindley
Moderator with a Soul
 
Location: Fairfax, VA
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

Saquist wrote: View Post
I certainly understand that yet it seems so very academic to even highlight in a disucssion where the risk is inherent.
You two seemed to be talking about different things, I was just trying to clarify.
__________________
Lead Organizer for EVN: Firefly.
"So apparently the really smart zombies have automatic weapons!"
-Torg, Sluggy Freelance

Last edited by Lindley; September 14 2009 at 04:38 PM.
Lindley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14 2009, 03:59 PM   #127
Saquist
Commodore
 
Location: Starbase Houston
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

Indeed.
I appreciate the mediation.
Saquist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14 2009, 04:11 PM   #128
diankra
Commodore
 
Location: UK
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

Lindley wrote: View Post
Saquist wrote: View Post
diankra wrote: View Post


The payload does matter: the payload is the whole point of taking the risks of flight in the first placce.
I disagree and always will. The payload is secondary.
I give the largest degree of responsibility to Human Life. I am not Military, the mission doesn't come first for me. That is a difference in ideology.

If your goal is to ensure that seven astronauts survive, there is a very simple way to achieve that - don't fly.
If I ever said "ensure" or "garantee" implying 100%, then my apologies for being imprecise. If you're coming up with the word on your own then your comprehension of my argument is poor, and I am forced to dismiss this statement as exaggerative.



Lowering Risk: I concur.
This means doing all (not some) all that is in our power to lower that risk (within reason)
I think there's a misunderstanding here. I think you both agree that the goal is to minimize the risk/reward ratio.

What diankra is saying is that if there's no payload, then there's no reward, so no risk is justified----don't go. In order for there to be anything meaningful to discuss, you have to assume some payload is present.

Sometimes that payload is materials (heavy lift), sometimes it's merely expertise (service missions), but the whole point of taking off is to get *something* up there. If you don't factor the need for that in then there's nothing to discuss.
Exactly. Thank you mod.
__________________
"Some days are better than others. They say that where I come from."
"Loudly, I imagine, on the day you left."
(Blake's 7 - Rumours of Death)
diankra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14 2009, 10:12 PM   #129
sojourner
Vice Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

anti-matter wrote: View Post
The heck with the moon...been there and done that. That money should go into the next generation of engines. Something that can get us to Mars in a day without all those clever orbital slingshot corrections.

Engines, engines, engines!
Getting things from one side of the earth in a day is difficult right now. No need to wait and develop technology to get us to Mars that fast.

A spacecraft capable of 1g acceleration could plot a straight route to mars without worrying about orbital mechanics. I can't remember the exact numbers but with mars at it's closest, it would only take 3 to 5 weeks to get there and even at mars' farthest it would only take about 2 months.

1G of acceleration adds up quick when it is maintained for long periods.

you also have the added benefit of 1d simulated gravity onboard the ship. Makes the design of the ship much simpler.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 15 2009, 12:08 AM   #130
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
You misunderstood Bush. His plan was to invade the moon as part of the war on terror. I mean, it was as responsible for 9/11 as Iraq was, so it had to be taught a lesson.
... and as late as 2009 children, some were still defending Saddam Hussain, as not being a threat to peace ...

Australis;[/QUOTE wrote:
So there really isn't a need to de-orbit it, which to me would seem to be a waste of money, when perhaps 2nd tier space agencies like China and India could take it over. Of course hardware can be stripped out that might compromise 'national security', but I think it would be a good idea.
I still don't see why we insisted on the Russian having to de-orbit their last station. Everything we could savage off it would be something that didn't have to be lifted into LEO. It was an asset.
T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 15 2009, 01:14 AM   #131
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

T'Girl wrote: View Post
... and as late as 2009 children, some were still defending Saddam Hussain, as not being a threat to peace ...
Never heard anyone defend Saddam Hussein, but that's a different thing from saying he was a threat to the U.S. or even his nearest neighbors. Unless those pesky WMD are actually in a crater of the moon, Saddam was all talk and no threat.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 15 2009, 02:47 AM   #132
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
 
Location: the Unreconstructed South
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

sojourner wrote: View Post
anti-matter wrote: View Post
The heck with the moon...been there and done that. That money should go into the next generation of engines. Something that can get us to Mars in a day without all those clever orbital slingshot corrections.

Engines, engines, engines!
Getting things from one side of the earth in a day is difficult right now. No need to wait and develop technology to get us to Mars that fast.

A spacecraft capable of 1g acceleration could plot a straight route to mars without worrying about orbital mechanics. I can't remember the exact numbers but with mars at it's closest, it would only take 3 to 5 weeks to get there and even at mars' farthest it would only take about 2 months.

1G of acceleration adds up quick when it is maintained for long periods.

you also have the added benefit of 1d simulated gravity onboard the ship. Makes the design of the ship much simpler.
Not that I'm in favor of us doing so, but as a matter of technical curiosity, wasn't a 1g contstant-thrust engine developed for Apollo? They abandoned it in favor of the Sat-V because the fuel it required was considered too volatile.

The concept later became part of the background for the short-lived 70s TV series "Salvage I"...
darkwing_duck1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 15 2009, 05:11 AM   #133
sojourner
Vice Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

^Haven't heard that one.

I still don't see why we insisted on the Russian having to de-orbit their last station. Everything we could savage off it would be something that didn't have to be lifted into LEO. It was an asset.
Mir was in the wrong orbit to be useful for ISS. The U.S. wanted it de-orbited to insure the russians' commitment to ISS. With MIR gone they would be less inclined to backout of the project in favor of thier own station.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 15 2009, 03:46 PM   #134
Saquist
Commodore
 
Location: Starbase Houston
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

After the collision Mir was one big liability with one malfunctioning system after another. It's integrity wasn't a certainty. I think there was also a fire. It wasn't large enough, nor did it have the augmentive ability for current technology that most of the world was now employing. It was Russian made and that even today means low qualitity.
Saquist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 15 2009, 04:50 PM   #135
diankra
Commodore
 
Location: UK
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

Saquist wrote: View Post
After the collision Mir was one big liability with one malfunctioning system after another. It's integrity wasn't a certainty. I think there was also a fire. It wasn't large enough, nor did it have the augmentive ability for current technology that most of the world was now employing. It was Russian made and that even today means low qualitity.
There was indeed a fire, though that makes it seem more dramatic than it was (smouldering and smokey, not sheets of flame). The main life support system could only support so many crew, so when more than one crew was aboard at the same time, it had to be supplemented with oxygen generating 'candles' - oxygen producing chemical packs that can overheat and smoulder if not monitored well.
__________________
"Some days are better than others. They say that where I come from."
"Loudly, I imagine, on the day you left."
(Blake's 7 - Rumours of Death)
diankra is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.