3rd (possible) CLV problem: too much "G" for crew?

[telfrow]

<i>The Apollo astronauts received extensive geologic field training to insure maximum scientific gain and reduce risk to the EVA team. These field exercises proved to be invaluable and contributed greatly to the achievement of all lunar surface science objectives (including intelligent sample acquisition and documentation). Moreover, these field based exercises were also useful in sharpening the skills and interaction of astronauts and the ground science teams.</i><br /><br />http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005ESP/finalprogram/abstract_88856.htm <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[telfrow]

<b>Harrison H. Schmitt (Ph.D.)</b><br />(<i>Lunar Module Pilot, Apollo 17</i>)<br /><br /><b>EDUCATION</b>: Graduated from Western High School, Silver City, New Mexico; received a bachelor of science degree in science from the California Institute of Technology in 1957; studied at the University of Oslo in Norway during 1957-1958; received doctorate in geology from Harvard University in 1964.<br /><br />http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/schmitt-hh.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />I post arguments about astronauts and science in the threads about CEV and ESAS vehicles because I think that this poor science and poor exploration is a DIRECT conseguence of these bad and expensive vehicles...<br /><br />about the geologist on the moon... see my previous posts here... I've already remember it in a post as the ONE and ONLY astronaut-scientist<br /><br />I don't think that moon-astronauts may be scientists also for another VERY VERY IMPORTANT reason:<br /><br />a moon mission is VERY dangerous and CEV/LSAM are VERY complex vehicles<br /><br />in a moon missions we CAN'T predict what may happen... we can't be sure that the LSAM-specialist can pilot the LSAM and the CEV-specialist can pilot the CEV or that may need an EVA or a repair or another compelx emergency operation<br /><br />since moon-astronauts are only four per missions (not 50), ALL must be (FIRST) CEV/LSAM specialists... with some science training...<br /><br />it's TOO RISKY to send ONE pilot and THREE scientists... probably the most optimistic figure will be ONE scientist and THREE pilots... only 12 scientists on the moon in next 20 years!!!!<br /><br />this is a VERY OPTIMISTIC evaluation because, for international and political reasons, in some missions the non-pilot-host may be a RUSSIAN or a JAPANESE or an IRAQI astronaut and NOT a TRUE scientist!<br />

 

[telfrow]

<i>When NASA announced a special recruitment for scientist-astronauts in late 1964, Schmitt applied. Out of more than 1,000 applicants, six were chosen. Of those six, Joe Kerwin, Owen Garriott, and Edward Gibson would fly in the Skylab missions in 1973 and 1974, and Schmitt would go to the Moon on the Apollo 17 mission. </i><br /><br />There would have been more, but the Apollo program was cancelled. But three others still flew. See the above.<br /><br />http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/About/AstroHistory/schmitt.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />I've seen your link and now I know his name (many months ago, without know his name, I've used his image on the moon to "build" a curious PC desktop wallpaper... "Segway on the Moon"... http://www.gaetanomarano.it/segway/segway.html )<br /><br />about scientists and moon... your figures is very close to my prediction:<br /><br />6 apollo moon missions, 12 astronauts, 1 true scientist<br /><br />12 new moon missions, 48 astronauts, 4 true scientists<br /><br />

 

[frodo1008]

Good for you telfrow! The astroanuts that went to the moon (the best example that I can think of would be John Young, but this would apply to any of them) had at least an engineering degree(s). To obtain such a degree would mean getting more education in science than GT has by a long ways. <br /><br />Usually, he is just incorrect and wrong, but this time he has insulted men who are far, far above him. So, I no longer just dislike his ideas, I dislike Him!! <br /><br />The men who went to the moon on Apollo and the men (and quite probably women) that will go to the moon using the CEV, will be some of the best people that humanity has to offer!! Their training will be the best that an organization like NASA (whose even children's educational programs win top educational awards) will give far, far better training and education to than GT will ever get in his entire life!! <br /><br />Although I am a fairly moderate person here, I really begin to tire of this fellow, and I don't think that I am exactly alone here! If he dosen't want to be insulted, perhaps he should stop being insulting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />please, frodo1008... don't use my words as you prefer to use<br /><br />read my previous posts, I've said EXACTLY what you say about astronauts<br /><br />call them non-scientists is NOT an "insult", it's only a the realty<br /><br />an engineers degree is very usefull but close to the knowlendge of the vehicles they use and the missions they must do... it's NOT for science and research in space or on the moon!<br /><br />their knowlendge is very usefull to have a good training for the missions<br /><br />the CEV/LSAM astronauts will be excellent pilots, excellent engineers, excellent people... but NOT scientists<br /><br />Von Braun was an excellent ENGINEER while Einstein was a SCIENTIST... do you are able to understand the difference????????

 

[telfrow]

There were five scientists in the program by 1966 - out of a total of (IIRC) nineteen in the astronaut corps. One out of four. Twenty-five percent. <br /><br />If the program has continued, at least three additional scientists would have walked on the moon (one left the program in 1969, again, IIRC). So the total would have been 18 astronauts and four scientists. <br /><br />The "real" program was just starting. And it would have involved increasing amounts of science.<br /><br />I only jumped in here to point out that, once again, you're wrong. And I stress the word <b>again</b>. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">Von Braun was an excellent ENGINEER while Einstein was a SCIENTIST... do you are able to understand the difference???????? </font><br /><br />Caps, dots, multiple question marks and an insult. Nice. <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />the real figure was 1 on 12<br /><br />also if, this time, they will be 12 on 48 (three missions' specialists and one scientist per flight) this don't appear an "amazing" figure<br /><br />don't forget that each mission will be of a week or a little more and the moon surface range (around the LSAM) they may safely explore in a week may be of a few miles (please compare it with the moon full dimensions...) so, these 12 scientists, may find something of really interesting for science only if they will be very very very lucky (ask the NASA %-men)<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />as I've said in some posts... I use CAPS instead of bold and colors UBBcodes ONLY because they are faster to use while I write the post (english is not my mother language and I can't think, translate, write the post and insert UBBcodes...)<br />

 

[telfrow]

Right. <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[drwayne]

"Von Braun was an excellent ENGINEER while Einstein was a SCIENTIST... do you are able to understand the difference????????"<br /><br />Actually I do, quite well, having served as both in my illustriously medicre career.<br /><br />von Braun was also a scientist. You can't be in rocketry in the days that he was and not be, for example a superb chemist.<br /><br />Seriously, I work with engineers and scientists every day, and while scientists sometimes have that ego things going, good engineers have the same attributes that good scientists have. Quick studies, good problem solvers. Able to look at a problem from all angles, and in depth.<br /><br />I have seen engineers do darn good science. Better than most.<br /><br />Wayne<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />"do you are able to understand" was not in reply of your post...<br /><br />be a chemist is very close to space engineering (in to-day "chemical flights" era, of course)<br /><br />some (rare) very intelligent person may be what he want and do what he wish... but, generally, an engineer "build things" and a scientist "search the unknown"... there is a great difference

 

[drwayne]

"but, generally, an engineer "build things" and a scientist "search the unknown"."<br /><br />In my experience, that generalization is not true.<br /><br />Wayne<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />probably if they works together (e.g.) near a particle accelerator<br />

 

[najab]

<i>...in some missions the non-pilot-host may be a RUSSIAN or a JAPANESE or an IRAQI astronaut and NOT a TRUE scientist!</i><p>Clearly stating that there are no Russian, Japanese or Iraqi scientists. <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /></p>

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">Which makes this entire thread moot!!!! </font><br /><br />The entire thread is moot irregardless. <br /><br />However, from your post; I believe you were discussing combustion induced vibration on the vehicle, e.g., lateral G's, as oppose to "axial G's" as induced from vehicle acceleration. <br /><br />I do agree with both you and SG that the vehicle induced vibration on the CEV/ CLV <i>should be</i> lower than the STS. Two key parameters contribute to this. First, there's only one SRB in the CLV. Second, the <i>location</i> of CEV is much further away from the SRB. <br /><br />The biggest shock induced environment needed to be designed into is, however; the separation shock of the LAS, not any part of the CLV system.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">I have seen engineers do darn good science. Better than most. </font><br /><br />I've seen <i>good smart people</i> do excellent jobs irregardless if they're engineers or scientists. Good and smart scientists learn to be excellent engineers and vice versa. <br /><br />You don't stop learning after college/graduate school. Actually, you start the real learning once on the job. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

Von braun had a phd in physics...<br /><br />There's really no difference between engineering and science. Engineers discover things all the time, and scientists design things all the time too. There are entire fields of science imbedded in engineering, like semiconductor physics.<br /><br /><br />

 

[frodo1008]

I sometimes wonder just what GT's own field of expertise is in (other than annoying and making other posters mad at him). Obviously at least he believes that he is some kind of genius at least!!<br /><br />As the science that will be done on the moon is a science in itself that NASA has by far and away the greatest experience with (per the Apollo moon landings) I am more than certain that NASA is fully qualified to impart what is necessary to the people it sends on to the moon! Further, like the Apollo landings there will be at least one entire room full of the greatest scientific experts in these subjects available at all times. And with a transmission time of only about 3 seconds round trip for radio transmission, these people will have full communication with the explorers on the moon. Or in his scientific genius hadn't GY thought of this simple engineering solution to his problem?<br /><br />After all, a fantastic amount of scientific knowledge has been obtained by just robotic rovers on a planet that is so much farther away than the moon that the minimum times for such transmissions is many minutes! That of course is the planet Mars, and the current and past rovers that are exploring that planet!<br /><br />Now, I am NOT saying that human beings should be replaced by such rovers, they shouldn't! But if such rovers can do this work, than why not just about anybody, including very intelligent astronauts, with help from the Earth?<br /><br />Finally, science itself is nowhere near the only thing that these people will be doing while on the moon. Interesting isn't it, how such people as GT suddenly become so very worried about such things as science when such worry would support their arguments! In fact MOST of what they will be actually doing will be of an engineering and even construction nature!<br /><br />We will go back to the moon. not only for exploration purposes (scientific and otherwise), but to begin the process of exploiting the resources of the moon for

 

[nyarlathotep]

>>"Finally, science itself is nowhere near the only thing that these people will be doing while on the moon."<br /><br />I suppose they'll also be playing golf and having buggy races?

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"I can't think, translate, write the post and insert UBBcodes"</font><br /><br />Yes, obviously you can do only two of those... <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

 

[frodo1008]

No, but they will be building structures to help keep themselves alive. They will be looking for materials, and investigating methods to use those materials both for their own use and the further exploration of space. They will be investigating methodologies for going out further into the solar system (specifically Mars), and indeed they may even conduct occasional recreational experiments! After all, one of the eventual attractions of the moon for tourism may just be recreational uses such as sports! <br /><br />Did you even bother to read my entire post?

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />while you are able only to do the last... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />