Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by Johnny Rico, Sep 8, 2009.

  1. Lindley

    Lindley Moderator with a Soul Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2001
    Location:
    Bonney Lake, WA
    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.
     
  2. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    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.
     
  3. Hober Mallow

    Hober Mallow Commodore Commodore

    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.
     
  4. Saquist

    Saquist Commodore

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    Starbase Houston
    I certainly understand that yet it seems so very academic to even highlight in a disucssion where the risk is inherent.


    What an intresting User name...
     
  5. Australis

    Australis Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2005
    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:
    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...
     
  6. Lindley

    Lindley Moderator with a Soul Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2001
    Location:
    Bonney Lake, WA
    You two seemed to be talking about different things, I was just trying to clarify.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2009
  7. Saquist

    Saquist Commodore

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    Starbase Houston
    Indeed.
    I appreciate the mediation.
     
  8. diankra

    diankra Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    Exactly. Thank you mod.
     
  9. sojourner

    sojourner Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Location:
    A Long Time Ago...
    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.
     
  10. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    ... and as late as 2009 children, some were still defending Saddam Hussain, as not being a threat to peace ...

    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.
     
  11. Hober Mallow

    Hober Mallow Commodore Commodore

    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.
     
  12. darkwing_duck1

    darkwing_duck1 Vice Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2001
    Location:
    the Unreconstructed South
    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"...
     
  13. sojourner

    sojourner Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Location:
    A Long Time Ago...
    ^Haven't heard that one.

    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.
     
  14. Saquist

    Saquist Commodore

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    Starbase Houston
    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.
     
  15. diankra

    diankra Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    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.
     
  16. USS KG5

    USS KG5 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    England's green and pleasant land.
    Those the same ones that finally offed the crew of the Kursk? Poor bastards.
     
  17. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    I don't think the candles are what did them in, eventual they ran out of them. The russian's weren't equiped to deal with the rescue.

    If the saturn five only developed one constant gee of thrust, wouldn't it just sit on the launch pad?

    Government released a list of twenty-eight reasons to go to war with Iraq, WMD was just one item on the list.

    And while we didn't find warehouses packed with them, hundreds of WMD's (chemical and biological) were found, so you can't say no WMD's.

    Al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq still use them (chemicals) in conjuction with regular explosives in bombings of civilian targets.
     
  18. Hober Mallow

    Hober Mallow Commodore Commodore

    From the final report of George Bush's own Iraq Survey Group (ISG):
    And from factcheck.org:
     
  19. SilentP

    SilentP Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Location:
    is in a very lonely Corner of the Circle
    True, unless they meant:

    -1G of overall acceleration i.e. generates 2G, one of which is countered by Earth's 1G in the opposite direction.

    OR

    -1G when the vehicle was effectively 'free' of Earth's Gravity.
     
  20. Alpha_Geek

    Alpha_Geek Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2003
    Location:
    Central VA, US
    Saturn V *peak* acceleration was 6G, which was very brief in duration. Apollo astronauts were subjected to 4 G for longer periods of acceleration.