REM@IMSSS (Robert Elton Maas, this host known locally only) (02/02/86)
HPM> Date: 25 Jan 86 20:21:18 EST HPM> From: Hans.Moravec@rover.ri.cmu.edu HPM> Subject: lunarcrete HPM> ... HPM> The 40 grams of dirt will be delivered next week to his lab at HPM> Construction Technology Laboratories in Skokie, said Lin. It was dug HPM> up during the Apollo 16 mission in 1972. HPM> ... HPM> Stan Sadin, a deputy director in NASA's office of aeronautics and HPM> space technology in Washington, confirmed today that Lin's research HPM> could lead to the establishment of a lunar concrete factory and HPM> ''putting an outpost ... in the spirit of an Antarctic outpost'' on HPM> the moon. Horay! HPM> But he said that probably wouldn't happen until after the year 2000. Boo! The Russians sent robot landers to the Moon before Apollo 11. Surely by now both nations are capable (modulo loss of Challanger and consequent delay in all launches, and lack of oldstyle boosters except some the military have and are building) of sending robot landers which could start building an experimental remote-control concrete-processing station as soon as Lin (no relation to our LIN I presume) gets the procedure worked out on Earth. So, except for funding and launch vehicles, why can't we start by 1988 instead of waiting until men can land on Moon after 2000? HPM> Lin said his research could save NASA millions of dollars because HPM> ''it will be much cheaper'' to make concrete on the moon than to HPM> transport it from Earth. You bet your tooting! Concrete is heavy stuff in the quantities typically used to build habitat and factories. (On the other hand, they make boats out of concrete sometimes.) HPM> For the past eight months, Lin, 52, has made concrete with simulated HPM> lunar dirt that is twice as strong as the earthly stuff. Hey, that's pretty damn good! Maybe they can make some on Moon for Earth use, just put in a big bubble and float it down to Earth, just like my earlier proposal for foam-steel containing hydrogen etc.?
mcgeer%ji@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer) (02/03/86)
Can someone please explain to me why we can't go to the moon before the year 2000? In 1962, Kennedy committed us to landing on the Moon within eight years; we had to invent the technology and run three programs (Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo), but we did it in seven years despite a major tragedy that stopped the program for a year. Now. The engineering is done. The Apollo/Saturn design is proven technology. Granted the production lines have to be re-tooled to do it, I still can't undertand why we can't go to the Moon again in five years. Anybody? -- Rick.
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (02/05/86)
> Can someone please explain to me why we can't go to the moon before the > year 2000? ... we did it in seven years despite a major tragedy that stopped > the program for a year. Now. The engineering is done. The Apollo/Saturn > design is proven technology. Granted the production lines have to be re-tooled > to do it, I still can't undertand why we can't go to the Moon again in five > years. Anybody? Because the engineering was done, but is now GONE. We could not build a Saturn V today: all the specialized tooling is gone, and so are most of the detailed plans and specifications. We could build something that would look a lot like a Saturn V, but the imitation would not be accurate enough that we could trust lives to the old calculations and test results... so we'd have to start almost from scratch. If you think this is a national disgrace, I agree. NASA also is no longer equipped to launch Saturn Vs; much of the KSC support equipment has been rebuilt for the Shuttle. Either it would have to be un-rebuilt, sacrificing a good bit of the Shuttle launch capability, or new facilities would have to be built from scratch. Things like the tracking network would similarly have to be rebuilt. New personnel would have to be trained, and so forth. And on top of all this, Apollo was done when NASA was young and vigorous. Hardening of the arteries has set in. To quote Del Tischler, original head of NASA's propulsion effort: [NASA] evolved into what I call management by concurrence. The distinguishing characteristic of management by concurrence is that approval is necessary at every level of the management chain, and at several levels of political support, before anything can be done. Management by concurrence enabled NASA to use its organization and full array of management techniques to study, define, review, restudy, rereview, and ultimately to defer the many mission prospects open to it... ...I personally and single-handedly wrote the request for proposal and specifications for the F-1 engines used in the Saturn V vehicle in one continuous 24-hour period, then reviewed them with contractors the following morning. Within the next three months several contractors made proposals, which were evaluated by NASA personnel, a selection made, a major development contract signed and the work started. Now even minor space projects are contemplated for years, and held in abeyance for lack of funds for additional years before approval to proceed, which may never come... -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
ecl@mtgzz.UUCP (e.c.leeper) (02/06/86)
> Can someone please explain to me why we can't go to the moon before the > year 2000? In 1962, Kennedy committed us to landing on the Moon within eight > years; we had to invent the technology and run three programs (Mercury, > Gemini, and Apollo), but we did it in seven years despite a major tragedy > that stopped the program for a year. Now. The engineering is done. The > Apollo/Saturn design is proven technology. Granted the production lines > have to be re-tooled to do it, I still can't undertand why we can't go to > the Moon again in five years. Anybody? We can't go to the moon in five years because we (the collective populace of the United States) don't want to. If we wanted to we could. As Lawrence of Arabia said of Aqaba, I say, "[The moon] is that way. It only takes going there." Evelyn C. Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!ecl
jlg@lanl.UUCP (02/07/86)
In article <6361@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> Can someone please explain to me why we can't go to the moon before the >> year 2000? ... we did it in seven years despite a major tragedy that stopped >> the program for a year. Now. The engineering is done. The Apollo/Saturn >> design is proven technology. Granted the production lines have to be re-tooled >> to do it, I still can't undertand why we can't go to the Moon again in five >> years. Anybody? > >Because the engineering was done, but is now GONE. We could not build a >Saturn V today: all the specialized tooling is gone, and so are most of >the detailed plans and specifications. We could build something that would >look a lot like a Saturn V, but the imitation would not be accurate enough >that we could trust lives to the old calculations and test results... so >we'd have to start almost from scratch. Why build another Saturn V at all? Put a Lunar Lander and Lunar Orbiter into the Space Shuttle cargo bay. Next flight - bring up a trans lunar booster. Now dock the things together and go to the moon. This stuff probably wouldn't even fill the whole cargo bay - even if it were roomier and more comfortable (and could stay on station longer) than the original Apollo stuff. We could go to the moon again in much less than five years if it were an important project that got fully funded. And the project would be safer as well. We may have discarded all the original designs, but the engineering techniques were kept and have been further refined since the sixties. We could not build a Wright Flier today either, but who would want to except as a historical exercise? We could build something that would look a lot like a Wright Flier, but he imitation would not be accurate enough that we could fool an aviation historian - it would be safer, with modern materials, more subtile and efficient airfoil, etc.. Of course, we could do a lot better by starting from scratch. J. Giles Los Alamos
barb@oliven.UUCP (Barbara Jernigan) (02/08/86)
> ...Now even minor space > projects are contemplated for years, and held in abeyance for > lack of funds for additional years before approval to proceed, > which may never come... > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology You think that's bad, try building a *minor* power plant. A single- turbin bump on the side off an existing dam takes five years to approve. (And that's a conservative estimate.) Barb
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (02/21/86)
> >... the engineering was done, but is now GONE. We could not build a > >Saturn V today: all the specialized tooling is gone, and so are most of > >the detailed plans and specifications. ... > > Why build another Saturn V at all? Put a Lunar Lander and Lunar Orbiter > into the Space Shuttle cargo bay. Next flight - bring up a trans lunar > booster. Now dock the things together and go to the moon. This stuff > probably wouldn't even fill the whole cargo bay - even if it were roomier > and more comfortable (and could stay on station longer) than the original > Apollo stuff. Of course, we'd use the Shuttle rather than re-building the Saturn V. But my comments apply equally to the Lander -- note that the Apollo LM development was a major pacing element in the whole program -- and the other pieces of hardware you describe. None of it exists in any form, unless the Centaur G-prime would do for the booster (but as far as I know it isn't man-rated, which is an issue). > We could go to the moon again in much less than five years if it were > an important project that got fully funded... If it were a desperate-priority military project, maybe. Not otherwise. Project Apollo needed nearly the full time span between early planning and Apollo 9 to get the Lunar Module designed and built. And this was with much simpler and more flexible management than it would have today. There is less uncertainty about lunar conditions now, but that only helps a little. "much less than five years"!?! What have you been smoking? :-) NASA can't get *anything* major built in much less than five years. > ... We could not build a Wright Flier today either, but who > would want to except as a historical exercise? We could build something > that would look a lot like a Wright Flier... it would > be safer, with modern materials, more subtile and efficient airfoil, etc.. It would also cost many times as much and take longer to develop and test. Especially if it was done by the government. That is exactly the problem. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry