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

[marcel_leonard]

If your Troll is living under an American made bridge it probably drowned when the bridge collasped under its ponuds per square inch out-dated british system building code. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[lbiderman]

Hey, I wouldn't be so hard on them, but I believe you have a point. The US is the only country on the planet that mantains the imperial system (GB is making the transition). I think it's time for a change..... although the "i'm the best, you suck" mentality of some people can make that transition a bit difficult

 

[marcel_leonard]

I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this but the British have been using SI units now for at least the past four hundred years... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[larper]

WOW. Great Britain was using SI units two hundred years before they were defined? I had no idea. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

Put your money where your keyboard is... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">The first standardized system of measurement, based on the decimal was proposed in France about 1670. However, it was not until 1791 that such a system was developed.<br /><br /><font color="white">1791-2006=215</font></font>

 

[marcel_leonard]

The bottom line being that the United States is at least two hundred years behind the curve... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[larper]

Agree with that statement. But SI is not 400 years old. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

Just because road signs are in miles doesn't mean that industry is using imperial units too. Also just because someone's road signs are in km, doesn't mean that the thickness of the sheetmetal used for the sign isn't in imperial units. They are both in use around the world, and it's mainly a matter of how old an industry is and where it was born that determines how things are measured in it. <br /><br />I design circuits in microns, that go onto wafers measured in inches, that are connected with bondwires measured in mils, that go to a QFN package measured in mm that are soldered onto copper who's thickness is measured in ounces. Each niche does it's own thing, but it's easy to make them all work together. <br /><br />One can screw up the units just as easilly inside one system as when transfering between two - was that dividend in Ang, nm, um, mm, cm, m or km? Different things are measured in any of those units and conversions need to be straightened out before bringing everything together.

 

[larper]

I know. We get taught SI almost exclusively in college. Then, when I entered the Aerospace industry right out of school, I had to deal with satellite mass properties expressed in slugs. Sheesh.<br /><br />In 1996 I actually warned my soon-to-be coworkers that if we did not write our simulations and flight software using data types like "feet" or "meters" instead of "float", we would slam into Mars. Sure enough, 3 years later...... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">Ang, nm, um, mm, cm, m or km?<br /><br /><font color="white">But the conversion is easy, just move the decimal point, still it'll never be as romantic as furlongs per fortnight.<br /></font></font>

 

[josh_simonson]

For a computer the difference between moving a decimal and dividing by 16 (pounds to oz) is negligible. Actually 16 is a binary power so it's easier. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> If you realize you need to make a conversion, it doesn' matter if it's a wierd one, its where a conversion is skipped that errors occur.

 

[marcel_leonard]

Even illegal drug dealers agree on using the metric system when they purchase their kilos of product; for the simple fact that they don't want any mistakes when in comes to their money. Your rich uncle Sam could build a brand new city the size of New York on the moon with the money they would save if they simply converted to metric tomorrow... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

>Your rich uncle Sam could build a brand new city the size of New York on the moon with the money they would save if they simply converted to metric tomorrow... <br /><br />What pray tell would they be saving money on? It's not like the definition of 'ounce' varies from person to person like, say, a cubit. Plenty of illicit substances are available in ounces and pounds over here too. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> People only use grams when dealing with tiny amounts of something, and kilos because that's how it's packaged by people in evil metric countries where it's produced.<br /><br />Did you know that standardized international shipping containers have dimentions of 8x40x9.5 feet? Oil is traded in barrels, which are 42 gallons, and precious metals are tracked by the ounce. The metric system hasn't penetrated as far as some people (who only read roadsigns) think.

 

[pathfinder_01]

As much as I love metric and as much as I want the US to go to metric, honestly how often do you need to convert units of anything outside of maybe a lab or Manufacturing or an engineering environment?<br /><br />I have worked in plants that make food products and it is rare that you need to change units and for certain applications like temperature the imperial system is a bit easier since a 1 degree difference in Fahrenheit is less than a 1 degree difference in Celsius. You can tell some guy please keep the oven between 400F and 405F instead of 204.44C and 207.22C. It is much harder to generate a decimal place in Fahrenheit since the amount of temperature in a degree is smaller. <br />

 

[qso1]

Excellent point as far as drug dealers but on Uncle Sam building a moon base. NASA has not done that bad a job with their budgets. As for building a moon base the size of New York...the government may save enough to do that, but they would waste it somewhere else. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[brellis]

Enjoyable thread here, thanks to all for the vigor <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />This discussion brings me back to the idea raised by Buzz Aldrin and the Mars Society:<br /><br />http://www.marssociety.org/bulletins/bulletin_200499_01b.asp<br /><br />His contraption was called the Mars Cycler<br /><br />http://www.cosmographica.com/gallery/portfolio/portfolio351/pages/370-MarsCycler.htm<br /><br />Would an earth-moon loop of a construction platform reduce propellant cost? Assembly could occur en route?<br /><br />Did the success of ESA's SMART-1 introduce a lower-cost method of transporting heavy gear gradually out to lunar orbit?<br /><br />Just asking, I don't have any calc's in my back pocket here!<br /><br /><br />Surfing around, i found a page filled with links to ideas related to this discussion...<br /><br />http://www.angelfire.com/space/usis/cyclerorbiters.html<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[qso1]

I think the cycler is a great idea but it will have to have a reason to be implemented in order for it to become economical.<br /><br />I'm not sure that ESAs SMART-1 craft was intended to introduce a lower cost method of transporting heavy gear out to lunar orbit but if it did...all the better. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[brellis]

The ion propulsion system with solar sails is only useful once a craft is in orbit. Two of the main issues are re-usability and the cost of fuel, which leads my simple mind to blend the concept of a looping space-bus with ion-solar technology to do the job.<br /><br />Check out ESA's site:<br /><br />http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/SMART-1/index.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Hey now, my mind is simpler than you say yours is LOL.<br /><br />The cycler to Mars idea I think is already a good one and with ion/solar technology, probably better yet since no great accelleration is required to sustain the cycler. Its only obvious drawback, and one I'm sure that is solvable, is rendezveous and docking at the right time for spacecraft resupplying or taking supplies from the cycler craft. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

All the more reason to utilize the ISS/Shuttle in a combined mission; for the simple fact they are existing and not proposed projects. Think about this July the STS is scheduled to go on a flight mission just to show that they solved the debris problem from the tanks. It will most likely rendezvous w/ the ISS as precaution to making sure it hasn't lost a wing or something or other. This mission alone will cost billions. Why not use some of the money to at least send a probe back to the moon in a combined budget Shuttle/Moon/ISS mission?<br /><br />As for my preaching to the choir about the metric system; given the current state of the economy, the price of crude oil, and the war in Iraq I don’t think we have the luxury anymore of thinking that by holding on to our antiquated Foot/Pound British system that we are not losing trillions of dollars a day on our imports and our exports. Think of it this way who is going to by a car from Detroit when the entire world’s highway are in kilometers. Beside domestic sales the automotive if you haven’t noticed is not doing so well overseas. When you think of all the dollars that are wasted keeping the British system, and all the unemployed college graduates who are currently looking for work; at the same time competing for jobs in a global metric economy it is no wonder that each year when we ship 4 billion dollars in raw materials (Cotton, Wheat, Leather, Wood, ect.) to the Peoples Republic of China; they in turn ship back to use 42 billion dollars in finished goods (LCD HDTVs, PCs, Jeans, Sneakers, DVDs, ect.)...<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

>When you think of all the dollars that are wasted keeping the British system, and all the unemployed college graduates who are currently looking for work; at the same time competing for jobs in a global metric economy it is no wonder that each year when we ship 4 billion dollars in raw materials (Cotton, Wheat, Leather, Wood, ect.) to the Peoples Republic of China; they in turn ship back to use 42 billion dollars in finished goods (LCD HDTVs, PCs, Jeans, Sneakers, DVDs, ect.)... <br /><br />Unless cheap peasant labor is part of the metric system, that assertion is complete BS.

 

[marcel_leonard]

The only BS, MS, and PhDs being given out here are the Bachelors of Science degrees being earned by Chinese undergraduate students all across this nation's campuses; because the average American student wants to maintain his/her 4.0 GPA by majoring in finger painting. No wonder we have a deficit in producing enough science and engineering majors to keep our satellites from crashing into planets... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[qso1]

The shuttle and ISS are simply not designed for, or suited for cycler missions beyond what they already do. Shuttle as the access to the new spacecraft that would have to rendezveous, dock, and transfer supplies/equipment to and from the cycler. ISS would provide a place for staging, an example being that the shuttle could dock with station and leave supplies that could be picked up by the next shuttle on its way to the cycler.<br /><br />The problem with this idea is the cost. It would actually be cheaper in the long run IMO to just spring for the new craft, especially the low orbit access craft. Thats where the bulk of cost getting to space is. Shuttle flights are on the order of half a billion a piece. I cannot recall the exact mission profile of the cycler but if memory serves me, on its earth pass, it velocity does not match low earth orbital velocity. A significant delta-V is entailed for any craft that would dock with a cycler. The shuttle is simply not equipped with enough propellant support to make large delta-Vs.<br /><br />Then there is the potential for another accident with the shuttle and one that would probably be the result of something other than ET foam. This would end the shuttle program for good, resulting in the shutdown of the ISS and cycler system.<br /><br />The metric system as I recall, had been adapted by our government as far back as 1982. The problem has been acceptance. This leads to problems in design and engineering of space vehicles if both systems are being utilized without sufficient oversight. Private enterprise was not mandated to adapt the system so some elements of P.E. use it, others don't.<br /><br />http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/2076326.html?page=3&c=y<br /><br />PM excerpt:<br />The Trans-Mars Injection burn lasts about 7 minutes at an acceleration of about 2 g's. If you've done it right, you rendezvous with the Cy <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

Here is the current CEV proposed for returning to the Moon. The problem I have with this scheme is that they might as well forget a redesign and go ahead w/ the existing Saturn V schematics and save some money like the Russians/Chinese do by making good use of their tried and true Soyuz/AK-47 blue prints. <br /><br />In all fairness the CEV proposed design should include an RLV component. I for one think that the proposed VentureStar by Lockheed Martin should be revisited as potential match for this project. As for the Cycler idea I am all for a transport that can be used both on the Moon/Mars. <br /><br />In regards to the metric system during the Jimmy Carter administration he tried unsuccessfully to make the United States adopt the metric system by the year 2000 and as you said certain industries didn’t want to take the effort to make the adjustment, and as a result we are the only country on the face of God’s blue/green bubble that still uses this antiquated system. I could care less if the world used the British system as opposed to SI; just as long they all agreed upon one unified system. The bottom line being with one system cost is reduced. As I said before if Science/Engineering PhDs could make conversion mistakes; how many mistake as far as unit cost are being made as we speak when you buy your favorite pair of jeans at Walmart, or when you buy ten gallons of gas from your local Mobile gas station? If it doesn't make dollars; it doesn't make cents!<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>