Using the ISS/Shuttle to go to both the Moon/Mars

Page 14 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cygnus_2112

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That reminds me of the scene in the Bruce Willis movie, with te crazy Russian.I've tried to ignore this thread as much as possible because it is pretty much rediculous, but with the impending grounding of Shuttles it might make some sense to convert one to carry payloads to lunar orbit and return to LEO and the ISS. Use the other Shuttles and expendables to bring payloads to the ISS. The Shuttle has the capability of taking propellant from an external source, so why not park a Shuttle at the ISS and send up payloads, to fit in the cargo bay, and propellant tanks to fuel the SSME's? Take enough propellant to get to LMO and back to LEO as well as send down and retrieve a lunar transfer vehicle?The remaining Shuttles have flown a very few times and have a lot of airframe time left on them. Most airliners make more takeoffs and landings a month then all the Shuttles have made in the program. Revive the filement wound SRB's and keep them in operation as long as needed. <br /> Posted by scottb50</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;This is as&nbsp; ridiculous as the original proposal. </p><p>It is not viable.</p><p>&nbsp;1.&nbsp; Many shuttle components/systems are outdated.&nbsp; It has out lived its usefulness.&nbsp; </p><p>2.&nbsp; A lunar shuttle is not feasible.&nbsp; The propellant need to go into the lunar orbit&nbsp; is more than what is in the ET.&nbsp; Not to mention the amount to return.&nbsp; </p><p>3.&nbsp; SSME can't be started in space </p><p>4.&nbsp; The payload bay is too constraining for&nbsp; lunar cargo. The cargo is much larger</p><p>&nbsp; </p>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>One of the types of products that comes to mind is composite material structures.&nbsp; Space is a great big vacuum chamber and solar energy is abundant free energy that could be used to cure components. <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>You don't need or particularly want a vacuum chamber to cure composites.&nbsp; There are three&nbsp;primary means used to consolidate composites prior to cure:&nbsp;1) simple compression via tape overwraps 2) vacuum bags that work by allowing atmospheric pressure to be&nbsp; applied to the composite to consolidate it and 3) autoclave/hydroclave pressure cure.&nbsp; In any case one wants to apply very controlled temperature, time varying depending on the particular resin used along with the consolidation method, and it would be difficult to obtain that kind of controlled heat from simple solar energy.</p><p>All that one might get from a vacuum chamber would be a de-gassing effect, and if the bubbles did not escape the composite a very porous structure indeed.&nbsp; Generally you want to go the other way.</p><p>The other problem is that the machinery for manufacturing composites, large composites, tends to be quite massive.&nbsp; A Cincinatti Millicron or Ingersol Rand&nbsp;fiber placement machine is quite heavy, and operates on a very heavy set of rails on&nbsp; an even heavier foundation -- all this to make sure that datums are well-established and controlled so that the heads (commonly six-axis, with cut and add capability) can put the fiber precisely where it is required by the layup that is designed for the part.&nbsp; Other machines can be even heavier and larger.&nbsp; Typically the buildings in which these things are housed are nearly as large as airplane hangars, which would tax the capabilities of a space station.&nbsp;</p><p>Space-based fabrication of composites is not an economically attractive proposition.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
B

BrianSlee

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You don't need or particularly want a vacuum chamber to cure composites.&nbsp; There are three&nbsp;primary means used to consolidate composites prior to cure:&nbsp;1) simple compression via tape overwraps 2) vacuum bags that work by allowing atmospheric pressure to be&nbsp; applied to the composite to consolidate it and 3) autoclave/hydroclave pressure cure.&nbsp; In any case one wants to apply very controlled temperature, time varying depending on the particular resin used along with the consolidation method, and it would be difficult to obtain that kind of controlled heat from simple solar energy.All that one might get from a vacuum chamber would be a de-gassing effect, and if the bubbles did not escape the composite a very porous structure indeed.&nbsp; Generally you want to go the other way.The other problem is that the machinery for manufacturing composites, large composites, tends to be quite massive.&nbsp; A Cincinatti Millicron or Ingersol Rand&nbsp;fiber placement machine is quite heavy, and operates on a very heavy set of rails on&nbsp; an even heavier foundation -- all this to make sure that datums are well-established and controlled so that the heads (commonly six-axis, with cut and add capability) can put the fiber precisely where it is required by the layup that is designed for the part.&nbsp; Other machines can be even heavier and larger.&nbsp; Typically the buildings in which these things are housed are nearly as large as airplane hangars, which would tax the capabilities of a space station.&nbsp;Space-based fabrication of composites is not an economically attractive proposition. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I was thinking more along the lines of simple composite fabrics where micro gravity would dramatically improve wetting.&nbsp; You could use something as simple as a gas filled plastic bag as a pre-form for layup. Not sure about de-gasification but maybe it could&nbsp;be done prior to mixing the resin and hardener components prior to application.&nbsp; I don't know if that would be feasible with current resin/hardener combinations, or if it could be done would it be easier on earth or in a vacuum environment.&nbsp; I would think that some arrangement could also be made to maintain steady and controlled temperauture states which utilized solar energy as the source (we do mange to maintain a controlled temperature environment on ISS).&nbsp; I haven't done detailed scientific and engineering analysis on the idea to prove the feasability of the concept, it is just a thought for exploration.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was thinking more along the lines of simple composite fabrics where micro gravity would dramatically improve wetting.&nbsp; You could use something as simple as a gas filled plastic bag as a pre-form for layup. Not sure about de-gasification but maybe it could&nbsp;be done prior to mixing the resin and hardener components prior to application.&nbsp; I don't know if that would be feasible with current resin/hardener combinations, or if it could be done would it be easier on earth or in a vacuum environment.&nbsp; I would think that some arrangement could also be made to maintain steady and controlled temperauture states which utilized solar energy as the source (we do mange to maintain a controlled temperature environment on ISS).&nbsp; I haven't done detailed scientific and engineering analysis on the idea to prove the feasability of the concept, it is just a thought for exploration. <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>You apparently have never watched a pre-pregging operation.&nbsp; It is not a candidate for a space-based operation.&nbsp; It does not require nor particularly benefit from a vacuum and is not especially energy-intensive.&nbsp; Also the manufacture of the raw material in space would not be vaguely economical.&nbsp; The manufacture of the fiber is distinct from the manufacture of cloth or pre-preg tow, and&nbsp;requires heavy specialized slit furnaces.&nbsp; Keeping oxygen away from the precursor during graphitization is well-known technology and the environment of space would add cost but no particular benefit.&nbsp; The steady and controlled temperatures involved in the manufacture of either composite structures or composite materials require much higher temperatures and much tighter controls over large volumes than is required to maintain human comfort or to do small-scale experiments.&nbsp; Putting a slit furnace, a pre-preg line, or an autoclave for composite cure in orbit would be hugely expensive with no return on investment.&nbsp; I would expect that microgravity would not improve wetting and if it had any effect at all would probably detract.&nbsp;</p><p>Wetting is more a function of the sizing used on the fiber and the chemistry of the resin and is governed by surfact tension and capillary action.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
B

BrianSlee

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You apparently have never watched a pre-pregging operation.&nbsp; It is not a candidate for a space-based operation.&nbsp; It does not require nor particularly benefit from a vacuum and is not especially energy-intensive.&nbsp; Also the manufacture of the raw material in space would not be vaguely economical.&nbsp; The manufacture of the fiber is distinct from the manufacture of cloth or pre-preg tow, and&nbsp;requires heavy specialized slit furnaces.&nbsp; Keeping oxygen away from the precursor during graphitization is well-known technology and the environment of space would add cost but no particular benefit.&nbsp; The steady and controlled temperatures involved in the manufacture of either composite structures or composite materials require much higher temperatures and much tighter controls over large volumes than is required to maintain human comfort or to do small-scale experiments.&nbsp; Putting a slit furnace, a pre-preg line, or an autoclave for composite cure in orbit would be hugely expensive with no return on investment.&nbsp; I would expect that microgravity would not improve wetting and if it had any effect at all would probably detract.&nbsp;Wetting is more a function of the sizing used on the fiber and the chemistry of the resin and is governed by surfact tension and capillary action.&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Ok you win. it's not feasible and will never be done.&nbsp; BTW I would recheck your statements for applicability across the wide range of resins and materiel available for composite structures.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
 
S

scottb50

Guest
<p>
&nbsp;This is as&nbsp; ridiculous as the original proposal. It is not viable.&nbsp;1.&nbsp; Many shuttle components/systems are outdated....</p><p>So is the DC-3, but quite a few still fly, I was reading an article about a guy who owns a Bonanza made in 1948.</p><p>It has out lived its usefulness......</p><p>Most airliners make more takeoffs and landings in a week then any of the Shuttles have in their careers. </p><p>2.&nbsp; A lunar shuttle is not feasible.....</p><p>Why not? If it is habitable at 200 miles it would be habitable at 250,000 miles. Maybe add some shielding to the cabin Module, window covers and such, but that shouldn't be a problem. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The propellant need to go into the lunar orbit&nbsp; is more than what is in the ET....</p><p>I seriously doubt that, but there are means to position ET's in lunar orbit for the return to LEO, there it would take quite a bit of propellant.&nbsp; </p><p>Not to mention the amount to return.....</p><p>You don't need wings or the vertical stabilizer to get to the moon, or to orbit, why not take those off before sending the Shuttle to the ISS? </p><p>3.&nbsp; SSME can't be started in space.....</p><p>They could be made to start, the RL-10 has done it for years. I doubt it would be that difficult to modify them.</p><p>&nbsp;4.&nbsp; The payload bay is too constraining for&nbsp; lunar cargo....</p><p>With a lander in lunar orbit you could carry quite a bit of cargo in the cargo bay. </p><p> The cargo is much larger...</p><p>&nbsp;Posted by Cygnus_2112</p><p>The cargo can be any size you want it to be.&nbsp; <br /> <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
W

willpittenger

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>2.&nbsp; A lunar shuttle is not feasible.....Why not? If it is habitable at 200 miles it would be habitable at 250,000 miles. Maybe add some shielding to the cabin Module, window covers and such, but that shouldn't be a problem.</DIV></p><p>It's not where ISS is habitable.&nbsp; It's the propellant needed to go from the high inclination orbit that ISS uses (due to Russia's parcipitation) to the Lunar Transfer orbit.&nbsp; Inclination changes require a LOT of propellant. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>
 
S

scottb50

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's not where ISS is habitable.&nbsp; It's the propellant needed to go from the high inclination orbit that ISS uses (due to Russia's parcipitation) to the Lunar Transfer orbit.&nbsp; Inclination changes require a LOT of propellant. <br /> Posted by willpittenger</DIV></p><p>Your absolutely right about that. I was more using it as an example that the Shuttle can be viable pretty much anywhere in Space. That conditions beyond the Earths protective layers might need some added insulation was also addressed. The Apollo vehicles did just fine, so while some retrofitting might be needed it is not impossible.</p><p>If it were to be done I would think a base in a more advantagous orbit would be needed, especially when you consider the modifications to the Shuttle to reduce weight. There would be no way it could do a return for landing manuever for one thing so it would be better launched unmanned.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
T

Testing

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;This is as&nbsp; ridiculous as the original proposal. It is not viable.&nbsp;1.&nbsp; Many shuttle components/systems are outdated.&nbsp; It has out lived its usefulness.&nbsp; 2.&nbsp; A lunar shuttle is not feasible.&nbsp; The propellant need to go into the lunar orbit&nbsp; is more than what is in the ET.&nbsp; Not to mention the amount to return.&nbsp; 3.&nbsp; SSME can't be started in space 4.&nbsp; The payload bay is too constraining for&nbsp; lunar cargo. The cargo is much larger&nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />Couple years ago I was handed a task. Motor from a Shuttle ventilation fan. Cool. Excess vibration. OK, no problem. Wait a minute, the ICD (interface control drawing) is hand drawn and dated when I was in 11 grade.&nbsp; Many of the suppliers of components for Shuttle no longer exist. Yes, anything can be duplicated but at what cost. Yes, we fabricated a new rotor to replace the bent one but it was not cheap. Time to move on soon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

Cygnus_2112

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's not where ISS is habitable.&nbsp; It's the propellant needed to go from the high inclination orbit that ISS uses (due to Russia's parcipitation) to the Lunar Transfer orbit.&nbsp; Inclination changes require a LOT of propellant. <br /> Posted by willpittenger</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>incorrect.&nbsp; The higher inclination of the ISS actually allows for more launch windows.&nbsp; The payload difference from 28 to 51 degrees is only 6%. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
 
M

marcel_leonard

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think it would be great if we could find a way to extend the useful life of these systems.&nbsp; But, it's going to take more than ductape, some plastic bags and cardboard to rescue them.&nbsp; Maybe we could move the ISS a bit and use it as a Rest Stop?&nbsp; Put in some vending machines and pay toilets maybe?&nbsp; Of course, Coca-Cola and the Lance potato chip guy would have to service it.&nbsp; But, that would serve to inspire interest in the commercial uses of space.&nbsp; So, it's a definite benefit for everyone.&nbsp; The Lunar Astronauts can stop off and get a Coke, a bag of chips and can use the restroom without having to tape a bag to their butt.&nbsp; Coke and the Lance cracker people can clean up on the proceeds!&nbsp; win/winIn all seriousness, I would really like to see some life-extension for certain systems but it has to be worth it.&nbsp; If it is a waste of money that could be going to develop more long-term systems, then it's just not the smart thing to do.Using the ISS for Moon/Mars related missions may not be in the cards.&nbsp; Even extending its mission beyond 2016 may not be possible.&nbsp; If its not designed for that sort of lifetime, it just isn't.&nbsp; But, in anything where you're looking to extend its service life, then you need to stay within its capabilities in order to get the most use out of it and not spend more time repairing it than you do using it.For instance (not that this is realisitc, btw) the ISS operating budget, aside from service flights, is around 2 billion dollars a year.&nbsp; Pfizer's drug research budget for 2003 was 7.1 billion dollars a year. http://www.pfizer.com/about/history/pfizer_pharmacia.jsp (Just a random link.)&nbsp; Drug companies have notorious R&D budgets.&nbsp; It's the life-blood of their business and they always plan for the long-term.Microgravity has certain benefits for people trying to combine compounds that would otherwise be recalcitrant in normal Earth gravity.&nbsp; Pharmco companies have pursued interests in this area already: http://www.spaceandtech.com/digest/sd2001-16/sd2001-16-007.shtml , http://www.spaceandtech.com/digest/sd2001-01/sd2001-01-001.shtmlThe most promising of all early developments of space manufacturing seem to be pharm/bio and taking advantage of the most simplest and freely available resources space offers: microgravity.&nbsp; It takes nothing extra to take advantage of this.&nbsp; It doesn't require any extraction, collection or processing.So, lease the ISS out.&nbsp; Turn it into a Pharmco research park.&nbsp; The ISS is modular so get some modules up there. Get the top 10 Pharmcos involved.&nbsp; Work at developing a useable product, partnering if necessary and work on developing manufacturing capabilities with eyes towards a dedicated manufacturing facility for antibiotic cultures, crystals, etc.While that isn't, necessarily, as easy as it sounds and was offered just as an example, it is more in keeping with the initial designs of the ISS than using it as a potential asset for Moon/Mars missions.&nbsp; Stay within design constraints. Poke and prod and tweak where necessary without exceeding them and maybe a workable program can be found where the ISS (or anything else) could be of use.Of course, there's a very, very significant problem- No Shuttle.&nbsp; ... .. . <br />Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>What alot of people keep forgetting is that space exploration is a work in progress and so is our current understanding of physics. There are alot of thing we will have to figure out before we go site seeing around the solar system. The main thing is to at least try using some of our existing infrastructures like the ISS to make some baby stepps toward this goal....</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>
 
D

dryson

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Obviously you don't realize a couple of things either:<br />1) The ISS is far from ready to become a space construction facilty. Reconversion would require a major redesign, the construction of new tools, new modules, and a way to get that stuff up.<br /><br />2) The shuttle is being retired and there is no means of transporting large elements such as construction material and large quantities of fuel to the ISS. So it's either many many launches or develop a heavy lift automated cargo vehicle. Both solutions would be costly.<br /><br />3) Above all, the ISS is in the wrong orbit to be of any use for serving as a base for deep space missions. Getting out of the ISS orbit and into lunar orbit would require as much propellant as getting there in the first place, negating the point of LEO assembly.<br /></DIV></p><p>&nbsp;All of this is correct. This is called progressionary evolution of space exploration. From the Chinese bottle rockets we got an International space station.&nbsp; " Young minds, new ideas, be tolerant"</p>
 
C

Cygnus_2112

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Obviously you don't realize a couple of things either:<br />1) The ISS is far from ready to become a space construction facilty. Reconversion would require a major redesign, the construction of new tools, new modules, and a way to get that stuff up.<br /><br />2) The shuttle is being retired and there is no means of transporting large elements such as construction material and large quantities of fuel to the ISS. So it's either many many launches or develop a heavy lift automated cargo vehicle. Both solutions would be costly.<br /><br />3) Above all, the ISS is in the wrong orbit to be of any use for serving as a base for deep space missions. Getting out of the ISS orbit and into lunar orbit would require as much propellant as getting there in the first place, negating the point of LEO assembly.<br /> Posted by dryson</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;All of this is wrong.</p><p>1.&nbsp; The ISS would need very little to support contruction. &nbsp;</p><p>2.&nbsp; EELV's could deliver hardware and propellant.&nbsp; All that is needed is an easily designed tug&nbsp; </p><p>3,&nbsp; Very incorrect.&nbsp; The ISS orbit actually allows for more launch opportunities. &nbsp; Also the difference in ascent payload mass from 28 to 51 degrees is only 6%</p>
 
A

a_lost_packet_

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>..IF you can come up with a product, like a cure for cancer, that can be produced only in space or even developed effectively only in space, then you will have come up with precisely what is needed to promote commercial operations in space.&nbsp; What that is&nbsp;is a product that cannot be produced on Earth, that is extremely valuable, and that is very light.&nbsp; With such an incentive to go to space, the necessary financing will be available to get there and to complete the incentivizing task.&nbsp; With such a product you not only might extend the life of the ISS, but more importantly would have a real reason to have a space station, and no doubt a first-class&nbsp;private space station would be put up by the commercial enterprises involved. You could stop worrying about government programs and financing altogether because there would finally be a commercial reason (beyond communications and survey satellites) to go to space.&nbsp; Free enterprise would take over.&nbsp; Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>That's exactly why I think that if some independent use for the ISS was proposed to extend its life, my example would be the way to go.&nbsp; Preliminary research for drug manufacturing in space has shown promise with some processes like bacteria culturing for antibiotics being 75% more efficient. (refs not on hand atm).&nbsp; Other base processes show improvements as well in micro-gravity.</p><p>Considering how much these companies spend on R&D (Arguably the most in private industry) they'd be prime candidates for a partnership program for a "fictional life-extension" for the ISS, in my opinion. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
 
A

a_lost_packet_

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What alot of people keep forgetting is that space exploration is a work in progress and so is our current understanding of physics. There are alot of thing we will have to figure out before we go site seeing around the solar system. The main thing is to at least try using some of our existing infrastructures like the ISS to make some baby stepps toward this goal.... Posted by marcel_leonard</DIV></p><p>I agree.</p><p>But, I just don't agree that it is efficient to use the ISS/Shuttle in projects that are outside of their design specs.&nbsp; That's fine though, we can disagree on specifics while agreeing on the generalities.</p><p>But, if you were going to try to extend the life of the ISS/Shuttle, something like what I suggested would be easily within their capabilities and mirrors their design intent to begin with.&nbsp; Of course, that is a fictional, "what if" type of suggestion.&nbsp; I don't believe it would happen unless someone besides myself was interested in that type of option and had the "pull" to get more meaningful people interested as well. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
 
M

marcel_leonard

Guest
<p>Just like our intelligent cousins the gorilla and the dolphin we are constantly adpating to changes in our environment. No greater change can there be then a child leaving the security of their parents shelter. So is the challenge we face as we learn to live on our own in outer space...</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>
 
F

fatjoe

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just like our intelligent cousins the gorilla and the dolphin we are constantly adpating to changes in our environment. No greater change can there be then a child leaving the security of their parents shelter. So is the challenge we face as we learn to live on our own in outer space...&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by marcel_leonard</DIV></p><p>Unfortunately some of us grow up; while some of us just grow older...</p>
 
M

marcel_leonard

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Unfortunately some of us grow up; while some of us just grow older... <br />Posted by fatjoe</DIV></p><p>This is true that some people don't grow-up; that they just get older. The same can be said for space explorers and extra-planetary excursions. A could example would the The Mars sersis by Ben Bova.</p><p>1. Mars</p><p>2. Return to Mars</p><p>3. Mars Life</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is true that some people don't grow-up; that they just get older. The same can be said for space explorers and extra-planetary excursions. A could example would the The Mars sersis by Ben Bova.1. Mars2. Return to Mars3. Mars Life&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by marcel_leonard</DIV><br /><br />And what does that have to do with the subject of this thread? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
N

nimbus

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And what does that have to do with the subject of this thread? <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV>Looks like his reply to another post in the SF forum ended up here, somehow.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

craigmac

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Looks like his reply to another post in the SF forum ended up here, somehow. <br />Posted by nimbus</DIV></p><p>With nuclear fusion powered habital spacecraft designed to be the mothership for LAV [Land and Ascent Vechials]<br />would make for a more cost effiective and reuseable design; then &nbsp;the current "Eagle has landed model" that we used in the lates 60's and that we plan to use again for the next lunar excursion...</p>
 
F

fatjoe

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>With nuclear fusion powered habital spacecraft designed to be the mothership for LAV [Land and Ascent Vechials]would make for a more cost effiective and reuseable design; then &nbsp;the current "Eagle has landed model" that we used in the lates 60's and that we plan to use again for the next lunar excursion... <br />Posted by craigmac</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Also with the fact that subterranean habits are ripe for developing long term bases on both the surfaces of Moon/Mars; I think a orbital platform on both celestial bodies would increase the chance of success for both excursions. First and foremost when we discuss trips to the Moon, or Mars we have to plan for quick turn-around in case of an emergency. In the case of the Moon the turn-around rate is 3-days-long. In case of Mars the turn-around is two-years long. In either case an orbital platform would expedite an emergency evacuation...</p>
 
C

craigmac

Guest
Re:

fatjoe":nss8a9mx said:
Replying to:With nuclear fusion powered habital spacecraft designed to be the mothership for LAV [Land and Ascent Vechials]would make for a more cost effiective and reuseable design; then  the current "Eagle has landed model" that we used in the lates 60's and that we plan to use again for the next lunar excursion...
Posted by craigmac Also with the fact that subterranean habits are ripe for developing long term bases on both the surfaces of Moon/Mars; I think a orbital platform on both celestial bodies would increase the chance of success for both excursions. First and foremost when we discuss trips to the Moon, or Mars we have to plan for quick turn-around in case of an emergency. In the case of the Moon the turn-around rate is 3-days-long. In case of Mars the turn-around is two-years long. In either case an orbital platform would expedite an emergency evacuation...
Another good idea along those same lines would be to use the frozen CO2/H2O environment of the martian poles by building underground manned or remote bases at these locations for return trips to Mars. This model would probably work for the poles of the Moon as well. Where we could thoroughly test out all the bugs the habitats life support systems before venturing off to Mars.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY