From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Sat Jul 13 2002 - 19:39:21 MDT
On Saturday, July 13, 2002 7:46 PM Robert J. Bradbury
bradbury@aeiveos.com 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.
I've heard much the same, but can't some of this be reverse-engineered
and improved on? I mean there is better engineering today, no? And
better modeling technology too, no?
Also, we know a Saturn V can be built. They didn't know that in 1960.
(Okay, it wasn't an article of irrational faith, but it was still a very
risky proposal -- as anything new is.) We also know it can accomplish
it's mission -- another fact they might have rightfully been unsure of
40 years ago.
I'm sure, also, many of the people who worked on the project are still
alive and can be interviewed if not retained for such a project.
> 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/
Also, aside from this, such a mission could be built in orbit to some
extent. This gives a chance to test the equipment out before sending it
off to the Moon. (Didn't someone recently propose using Alpha (ISS) to
do final assembly on satellites out before insertion into final orbit?)
> 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.
Certainly.
> 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?
I agree. It's only lack of will and funding that keeps it from
happening today.
> 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?
Add to this, why this can't be done for more exotic targets, such as
Mars and even NEOs?
>> 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.
Maybe, though the design costs are no zero. Off-the-shelf technology
can be used and I bet a private launch firm with a limited budget would
take that approach.
>> 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.
Agreed, though since there are only four of them, it might be a waste
risking it for such missions.
> 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.
Let's wait and see what the Chinese actually do. Like the Soviets,
they're very talkative about long range goals, but quiet about short
range plans.
> 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.
BTW, there's a beanstalk egroup at Yahoo that I regularly participate
in. See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/space-elevator
> 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.
I wholeheartedly agree. When are you going to let me out of this box?:)
Cheers!
Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:24 MST