From: Adrian Tymes (wingcat@pacbell.net)
Date: Sat Jul 13 2002 - 20:00:04 MDT
Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> 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?
Money, and behind that, motivation. Why do we wish to return to Luna?
Despite their overtures to big buisness, the administration is deaf to
even the wildest possibilities of profit ('cause, keep in mind, it's
profit *to them* that they're worried about, and there's no guarantee
that any corporation formed with government money would become a big
donator to that which created them - and there does not seem to be the
same kind of political capital to win re-election, as there is with,
say, environmentalism or security).
Now, if you could get enough private money invested, you could do it
on private resources...but, again, why would those who can contribute
the $millions necessary for such an effort want to donate such a large
chunk of their fortune? Again, they do not seem to see much profit
opportunity, and most of those who got lots of money got it by caring
first and foremost about getting lots of money.
That said...some people are trying. People without *lots* of money, but
just enough to get some results by being frugal. If one could direct
lots of money to the right such effort, one could quite possibly buy
(and have fulfilled) a ticket to the Moon within a few years.
>>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.
If you're going to refuel in orbit, might as well assemble a craft in
orbit. Subtracting the weight of the shuttles' wings alone (which a
lunar craft, never touching significant atmosphere, would have no need
for), and the fuel to push said wings alone, would probably result in
fewer total trips to put the necessary components in orbit.
>>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.
Again, motivation. For all the rhetoric, there is far less perceived
danger of war with China among the voting public than there was with the
USSR. Sure, China makes all kinds of bolsterous public threats - but
then they turn around and try to get special trade status, and try to
compete economically instead of militarily. That kind of thing gets
noticed. And with *that* as the Big Enemy, who cares if they get a moon
base? From this point of view, that might even be a good thing, because
at least our ally will have done it even if we didn't.
>>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.
Japanese, India: they don't have a self-launched manned space program
yet. Kinda hard to effectively respond without one.
America, Russia: commercialism uber allies. Can we sell you some
support services?
> 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.
And (c) private launch efforts so that we can put (a) or (b) to actual
use. When it costs $10k/lb. to get off this rock, ain't much you can do
up there *period*. We need to drop that to $100/lb. or less. (Frankly,
that needs to happen first, because everything else one might do in or
beyond Earth orbit is made more difficult, or in many cases stopped, by
this sole problem.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:24 MST