From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Sat Jul 13 2002 - 17:46:02 MDT
Harvey Newstrom, commenting on Samantha's comments recently wrote:
> The moon landings were created with Saturn V's that can no longer be
> produced because the factories are gone. The computer software no
> longer runs on today's computers.
Perhaps. I've heard that the blueprints no longer exist which might
be a more significant factor.
But, I'm relatively confident that the plans and ability to launch the
Energia still exist and it had close to a Saturn 5's lift capability.
Its probably likely that the plans for the Soviet N-1 are still around
as well. Some of the engines still are:
http://gargravarr.cc.utexas.edu/ob-aero/n1/
The Shuttle and several Russian capsules seem to be space rated for
the time it would take for a moon trip. The computer software isn't
*that* big a deal considering the more complex multi-planet gravity
assist flybys we manage on a fairly regular basis today.
I don't see any argument that one would have to go to the moon today
the way we did it in the '60s (one shot from the ground). What is
the feasibility of launching a mini-external tank, fueling it
with resources launched on smaller vehicles -- a Delta IV has about
25% the payload capacity of a Saturn V -- and then sending a shuttle
off to the moon?
Can our resident rocket scientists point out some concrete reason that
we could not go to the moon using combined U.S. and Russian resources
within a couple of years?
> Most analysts agree that it would be better to design future craft
> from scratch rather than try to reproduce anything we once had.
True. Our design and semi-automated manufacturing capabilities
are much better today.
> Our current shuttle fleet cannot leave earth's gravity. They only
> achieve a temporary low orbit at best. In this sense, our manned
> space program has definitely lost ground rather than gaining ground.
As they are currently structured. But I know of no reason that
would be true if one could refuel them in space. This isn't a
difficult concept -- we send B-1's and B-2's halfway around the world
using similar methods.
> I'm not sure we can garner enough money and support to launch a
> manned program today. The incentive combination of the cold-war, support
> of government, and economics that made the moon landings possible were a
> rare fluke that probably is not repeatable. I doubt we could achieve
> such a huge undertaking today.
Hard to say. I suspect the people would rise to the challenge if
one had the leadership. In any case its going to get interesting
later in this decade since it looks like the Chinese seem pretty
serious about going there.
> Therefore, we need new designs with new technology that work for
> smaller organizations without massive government funding, without reusing
> old stuff that doesn't work anymore. In other words, we are reinventing
> space flight from scratch with new technology.
NIAC does this (http://www.niac.usra.edu/). It is one of the reasons that
the "space elevator" concept is getting such serious attention. I
spoke with the people involved in that effort last week to plant
the idea in their heads that if they could design one or more
enzymes that assisted in the manufacture of carbon nanotubes
they could lower the cost estimate for the elevator significantly.
> The old system doesn't work and won't be repeated or revived.
That is hard to predict Harvey. If the Chinese are successful
in establishing a lunar colony it is difficult to predict how
American, Russian, Japanese, or Indian "pride" would respond.
> In a way, we are a pre-space civilization that is just starting
> to venture into space. It will be years before we have a spacecraft
> capable of taking humans to the moon again.
I don't think that is accurate. I think there might be multiple
spacecraft existing today that with minor modifications could make
the journey. An open question is whether we would need to redesign
a LEM equivalent from scratch or whether someone has had the foresight
to preserve that design.
Perhaps much more important is a strategy for developing the moon.
Ok, we may have ice at the bottom of craters. We can turn ice
into rocket fuel using solar power. But solar power requires
solar cells existing outside of the crater which in turn require
power cables running from the solar cells to the ice melting &
electrolysis apparatus. These are not such trivial concerns.
The way to go to the moon again is to use space based materials
to the greatest extent possible. So one needs to foster (a)
the Near-Earth-Observation (NEO) program so we can identify
much smaller bodies than are identified currently; and (b)
micro-sat based material harvesting and manufacturing which
eliminates the costs of lifting materials out of the Earth's
gravity well.
As solar sail efforts by the Planetary Society show -- small
organizations can launch "large" efforts with respect to the
development of space. We need more "out-of-the-box" thinking
with respect to how to enable our collective personal access
to space.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:24 MST