pstinson@pbs.org (10/03/90)
The cargo bay of the Shuttle could hold an Apollo command & service module inside it. Unfortunately, there are no more flight worthy Apollos on hand. We could design the next generation Apollo as a lunar taxi that would fit inside a Shuttle. This craft, possibly called Artemis (the sister of Apollo), would be modular in design and carried into orbit with one or two shuttle launches, using the Earth Orbit Rendezvous scheme that was one time considered for Apollo before the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous approach was selected. For safety reasons it would be carried into orbit without fuel. The fuel and propulsion module would be launched by a Titan IV. Assembly would take place at a modest Space Operations Center (SOC) as once outlined before space station Freedom was choosen. The whole lunar taxi would land on the moon and later return to the SOC in earth orbit. Another shuttle launch would bring up a new supply module for the next lunar run. Another Titan would launch a new propulsion module. The old, now empty, propulsion module would be carried back to Earth by the Shuttle where it would be serviced and launched again by a Titan for a later mission. If we make use of what we already have - all of it - Shutles and expendibles, we could design everything to work together giving us regular access to the moon.
donehoo@olivee.olivetti.com (Doyle W. Donehoo) (10/03/90)
In article <10265.2708917a@pbs.org> pstinson@pbs.org writes: >We could design the next generation Apollo as a lunar taxi that would fit >inside a Shuttle. What a great idea! Is this being worked on/considered? Heck, if this could be a regular thing, it could be developed into cooperative ventures to help finance this, charge other countries for their explorer/scientist/passengers, send unmanned cargo to the moon for extended visits, etc, etc..... This invites a flood of ideas....
jmck@norge.Eng.Sun.COM (John McKernan) (10/04/90)
In article <49492@olivea.atc.olivetti.com> donehoo@olivee.olivetti.com (Doyle W. Donehoo) writes: >In article <10265.2708917a@pbs.org> pstinson@pbs.org writes: >>We could design the next generation Apollo as a lunar taxi that would fit >>inside a Shuttle. > >What a great idea! No, what a dumb idea. The posting you quote envisioned launching an Apollo derivative in two pieces on shuttles, followed by fuel on a Titan IV, and then rendezvousing the whole mess in Earth orbit. At $500 million per shuttle launch, an estimated $200 million for the Titan IV, and God only knows what amount for the to be developed Apollo derivative, the cost would be well over 1.5 billion per launch. And that huge expense only results in a relatively tiny lunar lander on the moon. NASA needs to get its launch costs under control before it puts up a space station, let alone goes back to the moon. John L. McKernan. jmck@sun.com Disclaimer: These are my opinions but, shockingly enough, not necessarily Sun's -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ahughes@dg-rtp.dg.com (Arch Hughes) (10/04/90)
In article <10265.2708917a@pbs.org>, pstinson@pbs.org writes: > >If we make use of what we already have - all of it - Shutles and expendibles, >we could design everything to work together giving us regular access to the >moon. Of what value is regular access to the moon over a space station? Would there be a cost savings or greater scientific cabability? If I want to set up a low gravity manufacturing or lab facility, does the moon's mass prohibit it as a satisfactory site (assuming a surface facility)? Arch Hughes
pstinson@pbs.org (10/05/90)
In article <1017@dg.dg.com>, ahughes@dg-rtp.dg.com (Arch Hughes) writes: > > Of what value is regular access to the moon over a space > station? Would there be a cost savings or greater scientific > cabability? If I want to set up a low gravity manufacturing > or lab facility, does the moon's mass prohibit it as a > satisfactory site (assuming a surface facility)? > Lunar gravity is 1/6 G. For some applications that may be low enough. A dedicated microgravity lab the size of ESA's Columbus can be set up for specialized use in LEO. The value of regular access to the moon is the resouces that can be mined there. They invite operations not possible from Earth orbit due to the prohibitive costs of launching raw materials from the depths of Earth's gravity well. It requires less energy to launch from the moon. Lunar regolith can be hurled into space for shielding needed by colonies at L-5 or L-4 and the moon itself, particularly the far side, is a great place for astronomical observatories. A telescope larger than Hubble could be operated easier from a lunar outpost. The real payoff would be a lunar farside radio observatory which would use the whole mass of the moon to block out unwanted signals from Earth, band width polution that is becoming an increasing problem. This just scratches the surface. There is more growth potential at a lunar base than there is on a space station.
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/05/90)
In article <1017@dg.dg.com> ahughes@dg-rtp.dg.com (Arch Hughes) writes: >>we could design everything to work together giving us regular access to the >>moon. > >Of what value is regular access to the moon over a space >station? ... It depends on what you want to do. If epxloring the Moon is your priority, then yes, regular access to the Moon is better. :-) The Moon is also a better place to do materials-intensive operations, since lunar dirt is cheap once you're there, while shipping materials to a space station is very expensive. >... If I want to set up a low gravity manufacturing >or lab facility, does the moon's mass prohibit it as a >satisfactory site (assuming a surface facility)? Almost certainly, if really low gravity is what you want. If access to vacuum and materials is more important, the gravity may be an asset, since many industrial processes are a pain to do in free fall. -- Imagine life with OS/360 the standard | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology operating system. Now think about X. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
wes@loft386.uucp (Wes Peters) (10/08/90)
In article <1990Oct5.163422.25830@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > It depends on what you want to do. If epxloring the Moon is your priority, > then yes, regular access to the Moon is better. :-) The Moon is also a > better place to do materials-intensive operations, since lunar dirt is > cheap once you're there, while shipping materials to a space station is > very expensive. > In article <1017@dg.dg.com> ahughes@dg-rtp.dg.com (Arch Hughes) writes: % ... If I want to set up a low gravity manufacturing % or lab facility, does the moon's mass prohibit it as a % satisfactory site (assuming a surface facility)? > Almost certainly, if really low gravity is what you want. If access to > vacuum and materials is more important, the gravity may be an asset, > since many industrial processes are a pain to do in free fall. On the other hand, if you have some way of creating fuel on the Lunar surface, Low Lunar Orbit is much easier to obtain that Low Earth Orbit. Both would, presumably, provide a suitable microgravity environment for such edeavors as manufacturing fine ball bearings, optic fibers, and optic filters. -- Wes Peters wes@loft386 {bigtex, uunet}!loft386!wes Sail South Dakota... they'll never believe you on the coast!
ahughes@dg-rtp.dg.com (Arch Hughes) (10/08/90)
In article <1990Oct5.163422.25830@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: |> In article <1017@dg.dg.com> ahughes@dg-rtp.dg.com (Arch Hughes) writes: |> >>we could design everything to work together giving us regular access to the |> >>moon. |> > |> >Of what value is regular access to the moon over a space |> >station? ... |> |> It depends on what you want to do. If epxloring the Moon is your priority, |> then yes, regular access to the Moon is better. :-) The Moon is also a |> better place to do materials-intensive operations, since lunar dirt is |> cheap once you're there, while shipping materials to a space station is |> very expensive. |> |> >... If I want to set up a low gravity manufacturing |> >or lab facility, does the moon's mass prohibit it as a |> >satisfactory site (assuming a surface facility)? |> |> Almost certainly, if really low gravity is what you want. If access to |> vacuum and materials is more important, the gravity may be an asset, |> since many industrial processes are a pain to do in free fall. |> -- |> Imagine life with OS/360 the standard | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology |> operating system. Now think about X. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry So the need for the "space taxi" for earth/moon transport depends very much on what use is contemplated. Are we engaged in a program to harvest lunar dirt or to explore the last crater on the dark side of our moon, or at this point are we still on the steps of learning how to use the space environment to our advantage? I support a space station over a lunar base with exploration (manned and unmanned) going in both directions from the earth (to Mars and Venus). Perhaps with more first hand information on the composition of those 3 bodies (moon, mars, venus) a more informed decision of where a future base might be established could be made based on the materials needs of the time.
rminnich@super.ORG (Ronald G Minnich) (10/09/90)
In article <10293.270c7434@pbs.org> pstinson@pbs.org writes: >The value of regular access to the moon is the resouces that can be mined >there. Re the moonbase discussion: I note with no small amount of depression that World Resources Institute took out some BIG ad in the Post (and maybe elsewhere) in opposition to Moon/Mars with the tried-and-true "why spend that money in space when there is so much to do here on earth" argument. Oh boy, here we go again. Write your congresscritter... ron -- "Socialism is the road from capitalism to communism, but we never promised to feed you on the way!"-- old Russian saying "Socialism is the torturous road from capitalism to capitalism" -- new Russian saying (Wash. Post 9/16)
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/09/90)
In article <1990Oct8.033542.27179@loft386.uucp> wes@loft386.uucp (Wes Peters) writes: >On the other hand, if you have some way of creating fuel on the Lunar >surface, Low Lunar Orbit is much easier to obtain that Low Earth Orbit. >Both would, presumably, provide a suitable microgravity environment for >such edeavors as manufacturing fine ball bearings, optic fibers, and >optic filters. We can do the oxidizer part easily enough on the lunar surface, but fuel will be tricky unless there really are frozen volatiles at the lunar poles. Almost all useful fuels need hydrogen, which is quite rare on the lunar surface in general. There are proposals for aluminum-oxygen rockets, but there are some non-trivial problems there. As for low lunar orbit, there is one major problem with it: you can't get a *sustained* microgravity environment there, because you need constant orbit corrections. The Moon's gravitational field is so lumpy and uneven that anything simply left in low lunar orbit crashes before too very long. As I recall, the Space Studies Institute's RFP for its private-lunar-polar- orbiter project specified corrections nominally once a month. This will eat up fuel and limit the period of uninterrupted microgravity. -- Imagine life with OS/360 the standard | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology operating system. Now think about X. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
pstinson@pbs.org (10/09/90)
In article <143360@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>, jmck@norge.Eng.Sun.COM (John McKernan) writes: > In article <49492@olivea.atc.olivetti.com> donehoo@olivee.olivetti.com (Doyle W. Donehoo) writes: >>In article <10265.2708917a@pbs.org> pstinson@pbs.org writes: >>>We could design the next generation Apollo as a lunar taxi that would fit >>>inside a Shuttle. >> >>What a great idea! > > No, what a dumb idea. The posting you quote envisioned launching an > Apollo derivative in two pieces on shuttles, followed by fuel on a > Titan IV, and then rendezvousing the whole mess in Earth orbit.( ETC....) That's just for the first time. After the system is up there fewer launches will be required for subsequent trips. By the way, the vehicle does not have to be a strict Apollo derivative. It can be derived as well from Spacelab modules or something else, if we prefer. The only restraint is that it fit inside the Shuttle. Now I make a challenge. Instead of simply writing this off as a "dumb" idea as some people so readily do in this group, why not see if you can make it better. Some poeple called the Wright brothers idea "dumb". That is the easy part. Now come up with something better, if you can that will get us to the moon on a regular basis.
bro@eunomia.rice.edu (Douglas Monk) (10/10/90)
In article <143360@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> jmck@norge.Eng.Sun.COM (John McKernan) writes: >In article <49492@olivea.atc.olivetti.com> donehoo@olivee.olivetti.com (Doyle W. Donehoo) writes: >>In article <10265.2708917a@pbs.org> pstinson@pbs.org writes: >>>We could design the next generation Apollo as a lunar taxi that would fit >>>inside a Shuttle. >> >>What a great idea! > >No, what a dumb idea. The posting you quote envisioned launching an >Apollo derivative in two pieces on shuttles, followed by fuel on a >Titan IV, and then rendezvousing the whole mess in Earth orbit. At $500 >million per shuttle launch, an estimated $200 million for the Titan IV, >and God only knows what amount for the to be developed Apollo >derivative, the cost would be well over 1.5 billion per launch. And >that huge expense only results in a relatively tiny lunar lander on the >moon. NASA needs to get its launch costs under control before it puts >up a space station, let alone goes back to the moon. Let's try this again, with a little reworking: Reusable Lunar shuttle (Low Earth Orbit to Lunar Orbit to Lunar Surface to Lunar Orbit to Low Earth Orbit: if you like direct trajectories, remove the "to Lunar Orbit" sections :-), manned section fits in the shuttle payload bay, propulsion section containing fuel goes up on Titan IVs. Assemble in LEO. Fly to moon, land, fly back. Lunar shuttle is reusable and waiting in LEO *ONLY for more fuel* (bring up on Titan IVs) and life support expendables (bring up cheapest way). With *absolutely* no real figures, let's pretend: You can fit *two* manned sections in a payload bay. You can fit *one* propulsion section with fuel on a Titan IV, or *two* without fuel. You can fit *two* fuel loads on a Titan IV. You can fit *four* life support loads on a Titan IV. Let's assume you want a Lunar Shuttle fleet of four vehicles. Initial investment: Two Shuttle Flights (for four manned sections). Two Titan IV Flights (for four unfueled propulsion sections). Total launch to LEO investment costs: (by your estimates: $500 million per Shuttle flight? Is that right? $200 million per Titan IV? Sheesh.) $1.4 billion (about the cost of one Space Shuttle) Repeat as needed: For four flights to the moon, you need: Three Titan IV Flights. Total launch to LEO cost of four Lunar Shuttle flights: (by your estimates) $600 million. Exercises for the reader: Find more real figures for above. Change as needed :-). Add estimates for hardware. (One time costs, remember). Add estimates for expendables. (Repeatable costs, remember). Offer to pay for it :-). *note* : I make no claims as to the "reality" of the above. It just seems a more reasonable way to analyze the original proposal with Mr. McKernan's figures than he was doing. Doug Monk (bro@rice.edu) Disclaimer: These views are mine, not necessarily my organization's.
jwm@wdl76.wdl.fac.com (Jon W Meyer) (10/10/90)
pstinson@pbs.org writes: >In article <143360@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>, jmck@norge.Eng.Sun.COM (John McKernan) writes: >> In article <49492@olivea.atc.olivetti.com> donehoo@olivee.olivetti.com (Doyle W. Donehoo) writes: >>>In article <10265.2708917a@pbs.org> pstinson@pbs.org writes: >>>>We could design the next generation Apollo as a lunar taxi that would fit >>>>inside a Shuttle. >>> >>>What a great idea! >> >> No, what a dumb idea. The posting you quote envisioned launching an >> Apollo derivative in two pieces on shuttles, followed by fuel on a >> Titan IV, and then rendezvousing the whole mess in Earth orbit.( ETC....) >That's just for the first time. After the system is up there fewer launches >will be required for subsequent trips. By the way, the vehicle does not have >to be a strict Apollo derivative. It can be derived as well from Spacelab >modules or something else, if we prefer. The only restraint is that it fit >inside the Shuttle. >Now I make a challenge. Instead of simply writing this off as a "dumb" idea as >some people so readily do in this group, why not see if you can make it better. >Some poeple called the Wright brothers idea "dumb". That is the easy part. >Now come up with something better, if you can that will get us to the moon on a >regular basis. You mind if I start playing this game? What's so magical about fitting inside the shuttle? The idea of a space to space (or even space to space to airless landing) taxi is (IMO) a good one, but why incur the costs of a shuttle launch. Do an earth orbit rendevous for assembly with expendables for your launch vehicles. Use the shuttle (for now) as the earth-leo-earth crew taxi. Jon
Mike.McManus@FtCollins.NCR.com (Mike McManus) (10/10/90)
In article <10265.2708917a@pbs.org> pstinson@pbs.org writes: > We could design the next generation Apollo as a lunar taxi that would fit > inside a Shuttle. ... > For safety reasons it would be carried into orbit without fuel. The fuel and > propulsion module would be launched by a Titan IV. Assembly would take place > at a modest Space Operations Center (SOC) as once outlined before space > station Freedom was choosen. Not to cut down this idea (I'm not sure if I think it's good or bad, yet) but just to play the devil's advocate... If we spend $X to build this taxi, $Y for the shuttle launch, $Z for the Titan launch, and $Q to either build this SOC or outfit Fred to serve the purpose, I'd have to think that X+Y+Z+Q is getting pretty big! Surely we could redesign and operate a dedicated, Saturn-type earth-to-moon system for less. OK, tell me why not... -- Disclaimer: All spelling and/or grammar in this document are guaranteed to be correct; any exseptions is the is wurk uv intter-net deemuns,. Mike McManus Mike.McManus@FtCollins.NCR.COM, or NCR Microelectronics ncr-mpd!mikemc@ncr-sd.sandiego.ncr.com, or 2001 Danfield Ct. uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-mpd!garage!mikemc Ft. Collins, Colorado (303) 223-5100 Ext. 378
ron@pmafire.UUCP (ron clayton) (10/11/90)
In article <10314.2711c063@pbs.org> pstinson@pbs.org writes: >Now I make a challenge. Instead of simply writing this off as a "dumb" idea as >some people so readily do in this group, why not see if you can make it better. >Some poeple called the Wright brothers idea "dumb". That is the easy part. >Now come up with something better, if you can that will get us to the moon on a >regular basis. OK! I'll give this challenge a try. Instead of a earth-lunar "taxi", lets try a "tugboat/barge" concept. Taxis carry only people, barges can carry materials and supplies. Let's put some of these tugboats into earth orbit. How? Unmanned using an expendable. Let the crew tag along on a normal shuttle mission. After the shuttle has completed its mission, it can rendezvous with the tugboat and the crew can board it. The barges are lauched into orbit using expendables. The barge consists of a number of payload canisters. Each canister is in the shape of short cylinder. These canisters are stacked to create a long cylinder shaped barge. The end canister is a special supply canister for the tugboat. In this supply canister is food, air, water, etc. Also fuel for the tugboat's rocket engines. OK, here's the scenario. Launch a barge into an earth orbit very close to the tugboat's orbit. Launch a crew aboard the shuttle. Rendezvous with the tugboat and board it. Tugboat then rendezvous with the barge and docks with the supply canister. When docked, a access hatch provides access into the supply canister, so that the crew can get needed supplies. Also, fuel lines are connected between the tugboat and the supply canister to replenish the tugboat's fuel tanks. Use the tugboat's rocket engines to blast out of earth orbit and head for the moon. On the way, turn around for lunar insertion. Blast into lunar orbit. A lunar lander (already stationed at the moon and put there by a previous mission) docks with the end payload canister. The payload canister disconnects from the barge and the lunar lander takes it down to the lunar surface. Unload the payload canister and blast up to orbit to get the next canister. Each of the payload canisters can carry fuel for the lunar lander so that each time it docks with a payload canister, it gets refueled. Meanwhile, the tugboat and it's supply canister can disconnect from the barge and blast out of moon orbit and head back to earth. In earth orbit, the shuttle rendezvous to pickup the crew and the supply canister (it can be taken back to earth to be reused). A space station would be usefull in this scenario. The tugboats can dock with the space station. The crew can live at the station between missions. Maintenance of the tugboat can be done at the station. etc. A small station in lunar orbit might be useful for the same reasons. Ok, your turn. Is this a workable idea? What are the flaws? Is it economical? I'll let the experts take this idea apart. Be nice :) Ron Clayton -- Ron Clayton - WINCO Engineering Technologies, Idaho Falls, ID front-door: uunet!pmafire!ron side-door: bigtex!pmafire!ron back-door: ucdavis!egg-id!pmafire!ron
demers@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Robert DeMers) (10/11/90)
Of the ideas that I have seen so far on regular access to the moon, only one has dealt (briefly) with the problem of maintenance. This seems like a pretty weak point in the whole scheme. Current and foreseeable space technology will require continual maintenance to stay operational. In this respect I am talking about manned vehicles, not small probes. Shuttle experience and the Fisher-Price report on the space station indicate that we could not keep a reusable orbital transfer vehicle or moon lander in operation long enough to justify being called reusable.
adam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Adam Hamilton) (10/12/90)
In article <1990Oct10.221645.29969@pmafire.UUCP> ron@pmafire.UUCP (ron clayton) writes: :In article <10314.2711c063@pbs.org> pstinson@pbs.org writes: :>Now I make a challenge. Instead of simply writing this off as a "dumb" idea as :>some people so readily do in this group, why not see if you can make it better. :>Some poeple called the Wright brothers idea "dumb". That is the easy part. :>Now come up with something better, if you can that will get us to the moon on a :>regular basis. : :OK! I'll give this challenge a try. : :Instead of a earth-lunar "taxi", lets try a "tugboat/barge" concept. :Taxis carry only people, barges can carry materials and supplies. : :Let's put some of these tugboats into earth orbit. How? Unmanned using :an expendable. Let the crew tag along on a normal shuttle mission. :After the shuttle has completed its mission, it can rendezvous with the :tugboat and the crew can board it. : :The barges are lauched into orbit using expendables. The barge consists :of a number of payload canisters. Each canister is in the shape of :short cylinder. These canisters are stacked to create a long cylinder :shaped barge. The end canister is a special supply canister for the :tugboat. In this supply canister is food, air, water, etc. :Also fuel for the tugboat's rocket engines. : :OK, here's the scenario. Launch a barge into an earth orbit very close :to the tugboat's orbit. Launch a crew aboard the shuttle. Rendezvous :with the tugboat and board it. Tugboat then rendezvous with the barge :and docks with the supply canister. When docked, a access hatch :provides access into the supply canister, so that the crew can get :needed supplies. Also, fuel lines are connected between the tugboat and :the supply canister to replenish the tugboat's fuel tanks. Use the :tugboat's rocket engines to blast out of earth orbit and head for the :moon. On the way, turn around for lunar insertion. Blast into lunar :orbit. A lunar lander (already stationed at the moon and put there by :a previous mission) docks with the end payload canister. The payload :canister disconnects from the barge and the lunar lander takes it down :to the lunar surface. Unload the payload canister and blast up to orbit :to get the next canister. Each of the payload canisters can carry fuel :for the lunar lander so that each time it docks with a payload canister, it :gets refueled. Meanwhile, the tugboat and it's supply canister can :disconnect from the barge and blast out of moon orbit and head back to :earth. In earth orbit, the shuttle rendezvous to pickup the crew and :the supply canister (it can be taken back to earth to be reused). : :A space station would be usefull in this scenario. The tugboats can :dock with the space station. The crew can live at the station between :missions. Maintenance of the tugboat can be done at the station. etc. :A small station in lunar orbit might be useful for the same reasons. : :Ok, your turn. Is this a workable idea? What are the flaws? Is it :economical? I'll let the experts take this idea apart. Be nice :) : Sounds reasonable. Now redo it using Energia to put up the heavy stuff, Soyuz for shifting people around, Mir for the rendezvous in LEO and Proton for the supply. Hey, I just saved $5 billion. Gee, for that I can have tugboat big enough to go to Mars as well. Not to mention having enough $ left for an inflatable space station (courtesy of LLL) and enough $ to launch it (on Energia of course). No development costs either; better make that $10 billion. Of course, its all proven technology (safe). Better use trained personnel on this - one advantage is they can read the instruction manual - guess what language its in! Actually, what I REALLY want to know is how far from this the USSR thinks it is. Any opinions? Adam
) (10/15/90)
In article <MIKE.MCMANUS.90Oct10132225@mustang.FtCollins.NCR.com>, Mike.McManus@FtCollins.NCR.com (Mike McManus) writes: > In article <10265.2708917a@pbs.org> pstinson@pbs.org writes: >> We could design the next generation Apollo as a lunar taxi that would fit >> inside a Shuttle. > .... >> For safety reasons it would be carried into orbit without fuel. The fuel and >> propulsion module would be launched by a Titan IV. Assembly would take place >> at a modest Space Operations Center (SOC) as once outlined before space >> station Freedom was choosen. > (lots of stuff deleted, to save bandwidth :) Can somebody give me a good (ie not "because it's there") reason why we should be so desperate to go back to the moon ???? I would think that the moon has very few advantages over the earth scientifically, I mean that gravity isn't >that< much less :). Surely our money wuld be better spent on an orbiting free-flyer like Freedom? ( or perhaps on some form of manufacturing plant, to make semi/super conductors in a microgravity, 100% purity environment ?) Ian PS> anybody out there got any info on Columbus (the ESA module, due to be added to Freedom sometime in 1995(HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!) ) PPS> could we perhaps organise some sort of militia to round up and reeducate these people who keep calling the space station "FRED" ???, oh yes, you know that Fisher-Price (the report on the Freedom station) is alo a kiddies toy manufacturer here in the UK? -- ================================================================================ Theora Jones Strathclyde University, SCOTLAND || SUPPORT NASA!!!!!!!! CADP13@uk.ac.strath.vaxa (somewhere on JANET) || (someone's got to) "It's not the wrong way round! you are :)" || (c)1990 Theora Productions ================================================================================
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/16/90)
In article <1990Oct15.110556.2278@vaxa.strath.ac.uk> cadp13@vaxa.strath.ac.uk (Theora Jones, In Person!) writes: > I would think that the moon has very few advantages over the earth >scientifically... It depends on whether you are a materials scientist interested in microgravity, or a lunar geologist. Lunar geoscience still has far more questions than answers. Very few of them can be usefully researched on Earth. A solid and substantial planet also has major advantages for astronomy, as witness quite serious proposals identifying the Moon as a much better place for telescopes than Earth orbit. Don't confuse Space Station Fred's missions with the whole of science. -- "...the i860 is a wonderful source | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology of thesis topics." --Preston Briggs | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
v071pzp4@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Craig L Cole) (10/16/90)
In article <1990Oct15.110556.2278@vaxa.strath.ac.uk>, cadp13@vaxa.strath.ac.uk (Theora Jones, In Person!) writes... >In article <MIKE.MCMANUS.90Oct10132225@mustang.FtCollins.NCR.com>, Mike.McManus@FtCollins.NCR.com (Mike McManus) writes: > >(lots of stuff deleted, to save bandwidth :) > Can somebody give me a good (ie not "because it's there") reason why we should >be so desperate to go back to the moon ???? > I would think that the moon has very few advantages over the earth >scientifically, I mean that gravity isn't >that< much less :). > Surely our money wuld be better spent on an orbiting free-flyer like Freedom? >( or perhaps on some form of manufacturing plant, to make semi/super conductors >in a microgravity, 100% purity environment ?) For materials research, I imagine microgravity is definitely the way to go, but the Moon has a lot of other promising uses. One of the most interesting (I think) is a lunar radio telescope. on the Moon's far side. Since the Moon itself would shield such a telescope from Earth interference, a much larger radio spectrum could be scanned. Raw materials will from the Moon will eventually become very useful in space construction. Aluminum, Silica and a great many other ores can be used to build structures in space cheaply, since the gravity well of the Moon toEarth orbit is smaller than from Earth to Earth orbit! I definitely support Freedom (or some kind of space station) but I think the Moon has quite a bit to offer. >PS> anybody out there got any info on Columbus (the ESA module, due to be added >to Freedom sometime in 1995(HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!) ) ^^^^ Sounds like pretty old info - since Freedom doesn't start flying till 1996! Craig Cole V071PZP4@UBVMS.BITNET V071PZP4@UBVMS.CC.BUFFALO.EDU
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (10/16/90)
In article <40938@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>, v071pzp4@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Craig L Cole) writes: >Sounds like pretty old info - since Freedom doesn't start flying till 1996! If at all....
David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org (David Anderman) (10/18/90)
The Zubrin mission architecture allegedly gets us to the moon and Mars for $10 - 20 billion dollars, soon. You might look into that. -- David Anderman Internet: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org --------------------------------------------------------------------------
megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (MEGAZONE 23) (10/21/90)
In article <1990Oct15.110556.2278@vaxa.strath.ac.uk> cadp13@vaxa.strath.ac.uk (Theora Jones, In Person!) writes: Max around? >PPS> could we perhaps organise some sort of militia to round up and reeducate >these people who keep calling the space station "FRED" ???, oh yes, you know What's wrong with Fred? Give it a personality. It's harder to kill something with a personality. :-) >that Fisher-Price (the report on the Freedom station) is alo a kiddies toy >manufacturer here in the UK? Here is the USA too. I still have many of my kiddy toys down in the basement somewhere, most are Fisher-Price. ############################################################################### # "Calling Garland operator 7G," EVE Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu # # MEGAZONE, aka DAYTONA, aka BRIAN BIKOWICZ Bitnet Use a gateway. Sorry. # ###############################################################################
GIPP@gecrdvm1.crd.ge.com (10/23/90)
>>that Fisher-Price (the report on the Freedom station) is alo a kiddies toy >>manufacturer here in the UK? > >Here is the USA too. I still have many of my kiddy toys down in the basement >somewhere, most are Fisher-Price. > Hope the above two comments are in jest. I thought it was pretty common knowledge that the toy company, and the station investigators are two separate entities. Gets kind of fuzzy here, but I thought the investiga- tion was named after two senators/congresspersons. >############################################################################## ># ># "Calling Garland operator 7G," EVE Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu ># ># MEGAZONE, aka DAYTONA, aka BRIAN BIKOWICZ Bitnet Use a gateway. Sorry. ># >############################################################################## >#
megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (MEGAZONE 23) (10/24/90)
In article <90296.104925GIPP@GECRDVM1.BITNET> GIPP@gecrdvm1.crd.ge.com writes: >>Here is the USA too. I still have many of my kiddy toys down in the basement >>somewhere, most are Fisher-Price. >Hope the above two comments are in jest. I thought it was pretty common >knowledge that the toy company, and the station investigators are two >separate entities. Gets kind of fuzzy here, but I thought the investiga- >tion was named after two senators/congresspersons. Yes, my comment was in jest. :-) ############################################################################### # "Calling Garland operator 7G," EVE Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu # # MEGAZONE, aka DAYTONA, aka BRIAN BIKOWICZ Bitnet Use a gateway. Sorry. # ###############################################################################
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) (10/24/90)
In article <90296.104925GIPP@GECRDVM1.BITNET> GIPP@gecrdvm1.crd.ge.com writes: >Gets kind of fuzzy here, but I thought the investiga- >tion was named after two senators/congresspersons. I don't know who Price is, but Fisher refers to Dr. William Fisher, an astronaut. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. "With design like this, who needs bugs?" - Boyd Roberts
lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) (10/24/90)
In article <4229@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: : In article <90296.104925GIPP@GECRDVM1.BITNET> GIPP@gecrdvm1.crd.ge.com writes: : >Gets kind of fuzzy here, but I thought the investiga- : >tion was named after two senators/congresspersons. : : I don't know who Price is, but Fisher refers to Dr. William Fisher, an : astronaut. And so, as with most questions involving Congress, it all boils down to whether the Price is right. Ouch. Sorry. Larry Wall lwall@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) (10/25/90)
In article <10094@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) writes: >In article <4229@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: >: In article <90296.104925GIPP@GECRDVM1.BITNET> GIPP@gecrdvm1.crd.ge.com writes: >: >Gets kind of fuzzy here, but I thought the investiga- >: >tion was named after two senators/congresspersons. >: I don't know who Price is, but Fisher refers to Dr. William Fisher, an >: astronaut. >And so, as with most questions involving Congress, it all boils down >to whether the Price is right. Bad, Larry. Keep that up and I'll sic Jeff Daiell on you. >Ouch. Sorry. And well you should be. Consider yourself splutted. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. "With design like this, who needs bugs?" - Boyd Roberts