Sciencesciencemoonlandingsestablishpermanentsettlement

Sun Feb 26, 2017, 08:31 AM

How to Get Back to the Moon in 4 Years--This Time to Stay

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/how-to-get-back-to-the-moon-in-4-years-this-time-to-stay/

"According to the Washington Post, Donald Trump wants to make a splash in space. And he apparently wants to make that splash by orbiting the Moon.

Orbiting the Moon? Merely circling it? What a comedown from America’s past high…landing twelve humans on the lunar surface. But there is a way to outdo America’s past achievements. And to accomplish this in a shorter time with a smaller budget than the Trump team imagines.

It’s a way to get to the Moon and to stay there permanently. A way to begin this process immediately and to achieve moon landings in less than four years.

How?

Turn to private industry. Turn to two companies in particular—Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Robert Bigelow’s Bigelow Aerospace. Why? Because the approach that NASA’s acting administrator Robert Lightfoot is pushing won’t allow a Moon landing."

Balance of article at the link.

33 replies, 922 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 33 replies Author Time Post
Reply How to Get Back to the Moon in 4 Years--This Time to Stay (Original post)
Muddling Through Feb 2017 OP
rahtruelies Feb 2017 #1
rampartb Feb 2017 #2
Muddling Through Feb 2017 #3
rampartb Feb 2017 #4
Muddling Through Feb 2017 #7
rampartb Feb 2017 #8
Currentsitguy Feb 2017 #23
Muddling Through Feb 2017 #26
Currentsitguy Feb 2017 #28
LeeCPTINF Feb 2017 #5
Muddling Through Feb 2017 #6
fools_gold Feb 2017 #9
fools_gold Feb 2017 #10
Muddling Through Feb 2017 #12
fools_gold Feb 2017 #13
Jack Burton Feb 2017 #11
oflguy Feb 2017 #14
Muddling Through Feb 2017 #15
Currentsitguy Feb 2017 #24
Badsamm Feb 2017 #16
Muddling Through Feb 2017 #17
Badsamm Feb 2017 #18
Muddling Through Feb 2017 #19
Badsamm Feb 2017 #20
Muddling Through Feb 2017 #21
Badsamm Feb 2017 #22
Currentsitguy Feb 2017 #25
Badsamm Feb 2017 #27
Currentsitguy Feb 2017 #29
Badsamm Feb 2017 #30
Currentsitguy Feb 2017 #31
Badsamm Feb 2017 #32
Currentsitguy Feb 2017 #33

Response to Muddling Through (Original post)

Sun Feb 26, 2017, 08:35 AM

1. 'According to the Washington Post' FAKE NEWS

Private enterprise to the Moon? Good idea, except Elon Musk is one of the very worst scheming rent-seekers. Not private enterprise in any sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Original post)

Sun Feb 26, 2017, 08:47 AM

2. nothing wrong with private enterprise visiting, colonizing, or mining the moon but ...

do not put the us taxpayer or military on the hook to protect or rescue these enterprises or to solve the inevitable lawsuits involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Reply #2)

Sun Feb 26, 2017, 08:50 AM

3. More than one way to skin a cat.

A public-private cooperative effort may be an effective approach. NASA certainly isn't getting the job done as it stands; it took private venture capital to develop a SSTO vehicle. It's certainly worth looking at.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #3)

Sun Feb 26, 2017, 09:03 AM

4. "publc private partnerships" in my opinion are a great way

to socialize costs while keeping the profits private.

perhaps models such as columbus' explorations or the plymouth colony should be explored. the monarchs took much of the risk but also received the "lion's share."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Reply #4)

Sun Feb 26, 2017, 09:20 AM

7. The devil is certainly in the details.

I would still want overall governmental control. No way would I support control being ceded to either George Soros or the Koch Brothers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #7)

Sun Feb 26, 2017, 09:31 AM

8. we agree on that

i would not object to ceding lunar real estate (under american sovereignty) in return for contractual services, but establishing american sovereignty over the claims of nations more able to defend claims (the russians and chinese for example) might be difficult at best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #7)

Mon Feb 27, 2017, 12:20 PM

23. I don't see why multiple models cannot exist

Public, private, combo, commercial, scientific, the more the merrier, I say. Saying all must be under public control would be like saying the only Pioneers who moved West were under the auspices of the Department of the Interior and BLM.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Currentsitguy (Reply #23)

Mon Feb 27, 2017, 12:42 PM

26. In principle, I agree.

The pioneers, however, did not have the ability to drop large rocks on Washington DC.

I think any large scale installation would need to be under a government; preferably ours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #26)

Mon Feb 27, 2017, 12:52 PM

28. I see you have read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Kinetic Energy Bombardment is of concern to me. I am, however, more concerned about the Chinese or the Russians in that regard.

I do, however, fully expect a thriving self sufficient moon colony at some point in the future to make a bit for independence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #3)

Sun Feb 26, 2017, 09:07 AM

5. We have a functional SSTO?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeeCPTINF (Reply #5)

Sun Feb 26, 2017, 09:18 AM

6. Elon Musk's Falcon

Won the "X Prize" for a privately developed SSTO vehicle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #6)

Sun Feb 26, 2017, 10:44 AM

9. It did?

The Ansari X Prize was a space competition in which the X Prize Foundation offered a US$10,000,000 prize for the first non-government organization to launch a reusable manned spacecraft into space twice within two weeks. It was modeled after early 20th-century aviation prizes, and aimed to spur development of low-cost spaceflight.
Created in May 1996 and initially called just the "X Prize", it was renamed the "Ansari X Prize" on May 6, 2004 following a multimillion-dollar donation from entrepreneurs Anousheh Ansari and Amir Ansari.
The prize was won on October 4, 2004, the 47th anniversary of the Sputnik 1 launch, by the Tier One project designed by Burt Rutan and financed by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, using the experimental spaceplane SpaceShipOne. $10 million was awarded to the winner, and more than $100 million was invested in new technologies in pursuit of the prize.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansari_X_Prize

AFAIK, there is no X-prize for a Single Stage to Orbit,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Prize_Foundation

and the Falcon is not an SSTO launcher.

If you have other info I would like to see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeeCPTINF (Reply #5)

Sun Feb 26, 2017, 10:48 AM

10. No, we don't

A single-stage-to-orbit (or SSTO) vehicle reaches orbit from the surface of a body without jettisoning hardware, expending only propellants and fluids. The term usually, but not exclusively, refers to reusable vehicles. No Earth-launched SSTO launch vehicles have ever been constructed. To date, orbital launches have been performed either by multi-stage fully or partially expendable rockets, the Space Shuttle having both attributes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-stage-to-orbit

I believe the poster above is confused.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Reply #10)

Sun Feb 26, 2017, 11:11 AM

12. I could have misread.

Thought for sure it had won the prize.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #12)

Sun Feb 26, 2017, 11:41 AM

13. No problem

I had to go look it up myself, and I try to keep up with this stuff. It's easy to get confused with all the different prizes and "firsts" nowadays. I think SpaceX got a "first" in returning a first stage from an operational mission. I think Bezos and Blue Origin were first to land a booster, but only on test flights. I've lost count of how many SpaceX has brought back (and lost a couple also).

I really enjoy watching the "space race" between the private corps. That is what made our country great.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Original post)

Sun Feb 26, 2017, 11:11 AM

11. All we need is to bring back the Jackie Gleason booster

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Original post)

Sun Feb 26, 2017, 01:49 PM

14. I think it is strange that we spend so much time and money on a space station

And never did what I consider to be an obvious endeavor, which is to build a space station on the moon where we could do enormous exploration on its surface, and perhaps even below the surface.

Isn't the surface of the moon space? What are we doing in a space station aloft that we cannot do on the moon? Couldn't it be done on a larger scale on the moon?

Makes me wonder - What did they find at the moon that has prompted us to almost completely ignore it since the early landings?

A structure on the moon could offer the opportunity to develop many new technologies. Can plants grow and thrive within a moon station?

Or, what were we looking for that we didn't find that caused us to lose interest in the moon? Did we search far enough and long enough?

I'm sure we would not have a shortage of astronauts willing to live on the moon for short periods of time.

We spend tons of money on NASA. Are we spending it wisely?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #14)

Sun Feb 26, 2017, 07:13 PM

15. The space race was an extension of the Cold War

with domination of space for weapons platforms as the goal. We found ways to deploy nukes and keep them concealed from the opposition (SSBNs) that were much cheaper than the space program. Dr. Jerry Pournelle described our effort to get to the moon as designing a motorcycle to jump the Grand Canyon instead of building a bridge.

NASA and private corps are going to have to accept that we will lose people in space for any more progress to be made. We lose people daily in cars, and regularly in busses, planes and ships yet we continue to use those methods of transportation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #14)

Mon Feb 27, 2017, 12:24 PM

24. The micro-gravity environment of the ISS has it's unique benefits.

However I don't see why we couldn't have done both. The question I have always asked is why in the hell didn't we put ISS in lunar rather than Earth orbit? Granted we would have had to adjust the launch of the components but I see nothing particularly difficult technologically speaking to overcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Original post)

Sun Feb 26, 2017, 08:56 PM

16. Elon Musk cant land his rocket but we nailed it on the moon first try. Sure

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Badsamm (Reply #16)

Sun Feb 26, 2017, 09:05 PM

17. We blew up a lot of rockets getting to LEO,

and lost 3 of the Apollo crew in a fire. Did a couple of fly-bys before we landed.

I think this option is worth exploring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #17)

Sun Feb 26, 2017, 09:08 PM

18. I understand the risk and i think it is one worth taking. I just dont believe we ever landed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Badsamm (Reply #18)

Sun Feb 26, 2017, 09:09 PM

19. Srsly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #19)

Sun Feb 26, 2017, 09:18 PM

20. Yep. I dont think our technology of the time was capable for such a feat. As i was saying, Elon's

record for landing his rockets sucks, and that is with all the new tech. We were in a Propaganda battle with Russia,( it is getting old) and it was a strategic decision that played out perfectly for the Western World. I'm not against it, I think it was even more brilliant than an actual landing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Badsamm (Reply #20)

Sun Feb 26, 2017, 09:20 PM

21. Hmm..............

And all this time, no one's talked?

Cannot keep a BJ in the White House secret, but no one has spilled the beans about a faked moon landing?

Interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #21)

Sun Feb 26, 2017, 09:24 PM

22. Real quick, list all the classiefied nuclear secrets you know

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Badsamm (Reply #18)

Mon Feb 27, 2017, 12:37 PM

25. You really need to watch this

It would have been harder to fake that to actually go there.



The landing sites are now easily visible from the LCROSS lunar orbiter.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Currentsitguy (Reply #25)

Mon Feb 27, 2017, 12:47 PM

27. Seems like a nice guy, and it sounds like a nice theory.

I like the part when he says there were no high speed cameras at the time, and then says Westinghouse made NASA a special camera to film at a slow speed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Badsamm (Reply #27)

Mon Feb 27, 2017, 01:11 PM

29. Slow has always been easier than fast

In 1928 we did a 60 line transmission of Felix the Cat.



Capturing high speed video is technologically challenging enough it is something that really has only been possible for long periods of time since the advent of digital recording methods.

Have a look at the page linked and the page after. Digital video recording did not even come about until the mid to late 80's

https://books.google.com/books?id=JMTnTBmt7F0C&lpg=PA209&ots=T8-FcIhjDZ&dq=nbc%20olympics%20first%20use%20super%20slo%20mo&pg=PA209#v=onepage&q=nbc%20olympics%20first%20use%20super%20slo%20mo&f=false

The computer technology to capture and record simply did not exist until that time.

Just look at the Apollo Guidance Computer, which was consider stunningly advanced for it's time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer

The AGC was designed at the MIT Instrumentation Laboratory under Charles Stark Draper, with hardware design led by Eldon C. Hall. Early architectural work came from J.H. Laning Jr., Albert Hopkins, Richard Battin, Ramon Alonso, and Hugh Blair-Smith. The flight hardware was fabricated by Raytheon, whose Herb Thaler was also on the architectural team.

The Apollo flight computer was the first to use integrated circuits (ICs). While the Block I version used 4,100 ICs, each containing a single three-input NOR gate, the later Block II version (used in the crewed flights) used 2,800 ICs, each with dual three-input NOR gates.:34 The ICs, from Fairchild Semiconductor, were implemented using resistor-transistor logic (RTL) in a flat-pack. They were connected via wire wrap, and the wiring was then embedded in cast epoxy plastic. The use of a single type of IC (the dual NOR3) throughout the AGC avoided problems that plagued another early IC computer design, the Minuteman II guidance computer, which used a mix of diode-transistor logic and diode logic gates.

The computer had 2048 words of erasable magnetic core memory and 36 kilowords of read-only core rope memory. Both had cycle times of 11.72 micro-seconds. The memory word length was 16 bits: 15 bits of data and one odd-parity bit. The CPU-internal 16-bit word format was 14 bits of data, one overflow bit, and one sign bit (ones' complement representation)...

The AGC timing reference came from a 2.048 MHz crystal clock. The clock was divided by two to produce a four-phase 1.024 MHz clock which the AGC used to perform internal operations. The 1.024 MHz clock was also divided by two to produce a 512 kHz signal called the master frequency; this signal was used to synchronize external Apollo spacecraft systems.

The master frequency was further divided through a scaler, first by five using a ring counter to produce a 102.4 kHz signal. This was then divided by two through 17 successive stages called F1 (51.2 kHz) through F17 (0.78125 Hz). The F10 stage (100 Hz) was fed back into the AGC to increment the real-time clock and other involuntary counters using Pinc (discussed below). The F17 stage was used to intermittently run the AGC when it was operating in the standby mode.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Currentsitguy (Reply #29)

Mon Feb 27, 2017, 07:32 PM

30. Strange that I just ran across this in a comment section on

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Badsamm (Reply #30)

Mon Feb 27, 2017, 07:39 PM

31. The sad shame is

Sen. William Proxmire (may he rot in hell) sponsored a bill that had much of the original Apollo engineering drawings destroyed. We now in many ways have to reinvent the wheel due to his idiotic actions.

Before I die I will travel to his grave just to piss on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Currentsitguy (Reply #31)

Mon Feb 27, 2017, 07:42 PM

32. Why would you want to destroy that history

Not to mention it looks like you are covering up something

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Badsamm (Reply #32)

Mon Feb 27, 2017, 07:44 PM

33. His argument at the time

was that it would prevent more money being "wasted" on space.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencesciencemoonlandingsestablishpermanentsettlement