New Mars Forums

Grypd

Member

From: Scotland, Europe

Registered: 2004-06-07

Posts: 1,879

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

You should be able to Google the words for a chemical formula. Feldspar comes in three end types: calcium, sodium, and potassium feldspars. Some feldspars are a mix of two of the three (sodium grades into potassium because they are both +1 valence; sodium grades into calcium because they're of similar size and fit the same crystal structure; but calcium and potassium do not grade into each other). Calcium feldspar is commn on the moon but not so much on the Earth, it tends to be dark in color.

        -- RobS

But there is a lot more to the Moon than just materials similar to those we have. the Mineral Kreep which is a radioactive is an example which we could well use and more importantly the way the Moon is. In this case not necassarily a solid but with all the impacts the regolith is a loose collection of rocks which seem to be slightly more compressed about 50cm into the "ground"

It means mining on the Moon may well be different than on Earth but also may well be easier.

---

Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.

Michael Bloxham

Member

From: Auckland, New Zealand

Registered: 2002-03-31

Posts: 426

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

Your blind ignorance surpasses that of Mr Bush himself. And I am astonished.

You've all been swindled...

---

- Mike,  Member of the [b][url=http://cleanslate.editboard.com]Clean Slate Society[/url][/b]

Grypd

Member

From: Scotland, Europe

Registered: 2004-06-07

Posts: 1,879

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

Your blind ignorance surpasses that of Mr Bush himself. And I am astonished.

And what do you mean by that...

---

Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.

dicktice

Member

From: Nova Scotia, Canada

Registered: 2002-11-01

Posts: 1,764

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

Swindle away ... just as long as we get beyond LEO, eh?

Grypd

Member

From: Scotland, Europe

Registered: 2004-06-07

Posts: 1,879

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

Your blind ignorance surpasses that of Mr Bush himself. And I am astonished.

You've all been swindled...

Ah an edit but it still beggars the question in what way have we been swindled.

At the moment we have a space program which is pouring funds into a white elephant space station and we are as noted not leaving LEO.

If we where an Alphabet we would be at ABC where as we want to be XYZ. But going to the Moon will give us a lot more letters in between.

---

Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

More Bush Bashing, Bill?

VSE entails the transformation of NASA by nessesity, that in itself speaks much more then you give credit for.

I support the Bush vision announced in January 2004. Very little has happened since.

= = =

PS - - Once January 2009 arrives, George Bush becomes irrelevant.

First a note about Michael's statement: "Your blind ignorance surpasses that of Mr Bush himself. And I am astonished."

Here we go again... now ask yourself, if John Kerry were to have been elected back in November (*shivver*) and he proposed going back to the Moon and eventually Mars, would you think that was the greatest thing ever? Label him a neo-JFK (even sharing the same initials, convienant)? ...Of course though, Bush bad! VSE bad! LM/Boeing = space Haliburton! Bush lied!  Abu Ga-... etc etc

If not, do realize what we will get out of a Lunar program... we'll probobly get a heavy lifter (Griffin is dead-set on SDV probobly), we'll get our nuclear reactor, cryocooler/compressor (ISRU), lander engines, improved LSS tech, and other goodies that we'll need for Mars.

As far as your statement Bill:

Your expectations for huge changes and sweeping plans are farfeched and unfair to NASA, especially with the fairly sudden departure of O'Keefe. It takes the majority of NASA's manned spaceflight reasources to operate Shuttle/ISS, and until it is done there really isn't much left over to "Vision" with. NASA is a buracratic battleship, ingrained with the unspoken purpose to maintain maximum engineer employment for the last thirty years... Forcing it to change much at all, which they seem to at least be trying to, IS a huge change.

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

Michael Bloxham

Member

From: Auckland, New Zealand

Registered: 2002-03-31

Posts: 426

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

Swindle away ... just as long as we get beyond LEO, eh?

Dicktice, I thought you were wiser than that. This is exactly the same kind of thinking that led to the shuttle and ISS.

Here we go again... now ask yourself, if John Kerry were to have been elected back in November (*shivver*) and he proposed going back to the Moon and eventually Mars, would you think that was the greatest thing ever? Label him a neo-JFK (even sharing the same initials, convienant)? ...Of course though, Bush bad! VSE bad! LM/Boeing = space Haliburton! Bush lied!  Abu Ga-... etc etc

GCNR, this has nothing to do with the election. I am not a US citizen and frankly don't give a damn about your country. Don't make a fool of yourself trying to defend Mr Bush, we all know he's a bit... well, you know.

Actually, I think you've cheered me up a bit (Griffin, a man with common sense(!) is at the helm, I hear). A lunar program might be okay if it's kept tight and gives us an HLLV to play with, but don't go dreaming about moon factories and telescopes, or I will start preaching again...

---

- Mike,  Member of the [b][url=http://cleanslate.editboard.com]Clean Slate Society[/url][/b]

BWhite

Member

From: Chicago, Illinois

Registered: 2004-06-16

Posts: 2,635

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

More Bush Bashing, Bill?

VSE entails the transformation of NASA by nessesity, that in itself speaks much more then you give credit for.

I support the Bush vision announced in January 2004. Very little has happened since.

= = =

PS - - Once January 2009 arrives, George Bush becomes irrelevant.

First a note about Michael's statement: "Your blind ignorance surpasses that of Mr Bush himself. And I am astonished."

Here we go again... now ask yourself, if John Kerry were to have been elected back in November (*shivver*) and he proposed going back to the Moon and eventually Mars, would you think that was the greatest thing ever? Label him a neo-JFK (even sharing the same initials, convienant)? ...Of course though, Bush bad! VSE bad! LM/Boeing = space Haliburton! Bush lied!  Abu Ga-... etc etc

If not, do realize what we will get out of a Lunar program... we'll probobly get a heavy lifter (Griffin is dead-set on SDV probobly), we'll get our nuclear reactor, cryocooler/compressor (ISRU), lander engines, improved LSS tech, and other goodies that we'll need for Mars.

As far as your statement Bill:

Your expectations for huge changes and sweeping plans are farfeched and unfair to NASA, especially with the fairly sudden departure of O'Keefe. It takes the majority of NASA's manned spaceflight reasources to operate Shuttle/ISS, and until it is done there really isn't much left over to "Vision" with. NASA is a buracratic battleship, ingrained with the unspoken purpose to maintain maximum engineer employment for the last thirty years... Forcing it to change much at all, which they seem to at least be trying to, IS a huge change.

What we need are efforts to build bi-partisan support for openly discussed objectives. "Why" are we going to the Moon, and on to Mars? It needs to be a shared vision to be sustainable.

The selection of Michael Griffin cheers me greatly because he can give succinct cogent answers to such questions.

---

Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]

Michael Bloxham

Member

From: Auckland, New Zealand

Registered: 2002-03-31

Posts: 426

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

Remember what I said before?

But I also beleive we will go nowhere if we cannot compromise on a plan, even if it means that the plan itself is compromised.

Just keep it realistic, okay?

---

- Mike,  Member of the [b][url=http://cleanslate.editboard.com]Clean Slate Society[/url][/b]

Austin Stanley

Member

From: Texarkana, TX

Registered: 2002-03-18

Posts: 519

Website

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

I secound the comment that there is lots of science to be done on the moon.  It is by no means "been there done that."  I don't think anyone on this board would be happy if we landed a couple of times on Mars, then packed up and said, "well, we've learned all there is to know."  There is always more to know, and the moon is far from reaching the point of dimminishing returns.

On a more practical aspect the moon can teach us ways of doing things that will be vital for our later trip to Mars.  And do so in a much safer manner.  An abort from the moon is only a couple of days.  On Mars it is years, and a critical accident will spell doom.

The moon gives us a safe and stringent testing ground for virtual all critical aspects of a Martin mission.  Reactor, rover, hab, spacesuit, and perhaps most criticaly, long term life-support.  Neither the US nor Russia has every fielded a the sort of long term regenerative life suport system that will be critical for the opperation of this mission.  If we had to use the systems we currently have developed (such as for the ISS) our astronaut would be very dead right now.  And I said before (perhaps in this very thread), if you don't test things in the manner you plan to use them, what is the point?

As fora  permeant base building on the moon.  I think there is some pay off to be made here as well.  Learning to build things via on-planet resources is another new challange for us.  While some the methods used on the moon will be diffrent then those used on mars, many lessons may still be learned.  And while safet is not as big a factor, cost certianly may be.  Building a base on the moon well be much cheaper, so it's a cheaper place to learn.  Also, developing a cheap reusable method of access to the moon will likely assist in developing the much more robust method that it necessary for mars.

In reality the US and the world at large can easily afford to do both.  Especialy if some cuts are made in some of the absurd defence spending that is made both here and abroad.  I say go to mars, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't go to the moon to.

---

He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

RobS

Banned

From: South Bend, IN

Registered: 2002-01-15

Posts: 1,701

Website

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

The world probably can aford both. t has a lot to do with how we do tem; as we have seen from Shuttle and ISS, there are expensive, wrong (and easy?) ways to do things.

A report by an international astronatics body--I can't remember its name--about the time of the Columbia disaster estimated that a moon + Mars program would cost 50% more than either one separately, because of some common systems.

        -- RobS

BWhite

Member

From: Chicago, Illinois

Registered: 2004-06-16

Posts: 2,635

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

The world probably can aford both. t has a lot to do with how we do tem; as we have seen from Shuttle and ISS, there are expensive, wrong (and easy?) ways to do things.

A report by an international astronatics body--I can't remember its name--about the time of the Columbia disaster estimated that a moon + Mars program would cost 50% more than either one separately, because of some common systems.

        -- RobS

Which is exactly why we should maximize the common systems.

---

Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 29,433

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

Sounds like it is time to revisit this old plan of attack.

NASA's future lies on moon, Mars

Griffin In a previous job at NASA about a decade ago, championed a mission called "First Lunar Outpost" that the Congressional Budget Office says would cost $35 billion now. The 45-day manned mission would propel an astronaut habitat and four-person lander to the moon. Astronauts would test to see whether lunar soil can generate oxygen for breathing and rocket fuel.

EuroLauncher

Member

From: Europe

Registered: 2005-10-19

Posts: 299

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

Wind tunnel tests
http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=dn8819

Lockheed plan would assemble, test CEV in Florida
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0602/22cev/

The Northrop Grumman Corporation and The Boeing Company
- Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) team already named Leonard Nicholson, a former International Space Station executive for Boeing, as its new deputy program manager.
Northrop, Boeing merged CEV efforts
http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/2637

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 29,433

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

Still fixing this topic but need to call it a night

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 29,433

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

Was trolling for other posting only to find that I had not finished fixing the topics posts for the shifting and artifacts fully....

Still searching but will surely find what I am hunting for when I least expect it.

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 29,433

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

Here is the science that we are searching for in why we shold go back to the moon as well as go to Mars....

Ice near the lunar north and south poles show a shift in the moon's axis

This polar hydrogen map of the moon’s northern and southern hemispheres identifies the location of the moon’s ancient and present day poles.

Over the past 4.5 billion years, the moon has changed its orientation with respect to the Earth, revealing many different faces. This tilting of the moon, known as true polar wander, is preserved in the distribution of lunar polar volatiles.

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 29,433

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

Bump for the why we are going back to the moon....

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 29,433

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

Still trolling for moon direct topics and this is the second from 2004 and I think that there is a third one in which more discusion is continued in. The train of thought was a result of Nasa changing from going in circles to getting back to the moon...
Recently zubrin has put forth a plan using 3 Falcon 9 heavies in orcer to get s

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 29,433

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

once we hit the 300-post limit, we would close the topic and make a continuing one to further discuss the issues.