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

[Lindley]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Hober Mallow]

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.

 

[Saquist]

[
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.

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...

 

[Australis]

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...

 

[Lindley]

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.

 

[Saquist]

Indeed.
I appreciate the mediation.

 

[diankra]

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.

 

[sojourner]

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.

 

[T'Girl]

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 ...

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.

 

[Hober Mallow]

... 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.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

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"...

 

[sojourner]

^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.

 

[Saquist]

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.

 

[diankra]

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.

 

[USS KG5]

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.

Those the same ones that finally offed the crew of the Kursk? Poor bastards.

 

[T'Girl]

Those the same ones that finally offed the crew of the Kursk? Poor bastards.

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.

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.

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

Unless those pesky WMD are actually in a crater of the moon, Saddam was all talk and no threat.

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.

 

[Hober Mallow]

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.

From the final report of George Bush's own Iraq Survey Group (ISG):

Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter.

In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW [biological warfare] weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes.

And from factcheck.org:

Q: Were there really weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when the U.S. invaded in 2003?

A: No. The Iraq Survey Group determined that Iraq had abandoned its quest to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and that it had already destroyed all of its existing stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons

 

[SilentP]

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.

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

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.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

Saturn V *peak* acceleration was 6G, which was very brief in duration. Apollo astronauts were subjected to 4 G for longer periods of acceleration.