Topics

Lockheed Martin unveils Mars space station and surface lander

Bobby Hardenbrook
 

https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/29/lockheed-martin-mars-spacecraft-lander/


Nice vaporware they are pushing there. This is all gonna look pretty silly when BFR is lofting 150 tons per launch at 1/100th the cost of SLS and sending ships capable of holding 100 people to Mars. This vaporware doesn't even use Methane fuel which shows they STILL aren't even thinking about local Martian resources to reduce costs and such. 

The idea of a base in Martian orbit is sound, I just have zero faith in the legacy launch industry to get this beyond spreadsheets and fancy computer graphics. Their vision is so lame - lets build an ISS in Mars orbit and then, maybe, at some later date we'll build a cool looking lander as well!

Bobby


Dan Daast
 

Don't hold back, now. Say how you really feel.


On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 03:54 pm, Bobby Hardenbrook wrote:
https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/29/lockheed-martin-mars-spacecraft-lander/
 
 
Nice vaporware they are pushing there. This is all gonna look pretty silly when BFR is lofting 150 tons per launch at 1/100th the cost of SLS and sending ships capable of holding 100 people to Mars. This vaporware doesn't even use Methane fuel which shows they STILL aren't even thinking about local Martian resources to reduce costs and such. 
 
The idea of a base in Martian orbit is sound, I just have zero faith in the legacy launch industry to get this beyond spreadsheets and fancy computer graphics. Their vision is so lame - lets build an ISS in Mars orbit and then, maybe, at some later date we'll build a cool looking lander as well!
 
Bobby
 
 

Allen Pitt
 

I agree completely with you on this.

On Oct 2, 2017, at 6:54 PM, Bobby Hardenbrook <bobby.hardenbrook@...> wrote:

https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/29/lockheed-martin-mars-spacecraft-lander/


Nice vaporware they are pushing there. This is all gonna look pretty silly when BFR is lofting 150 tons per launch at 1/100th the cost of SLS and sending ships capable of holding 100 people to Mars. This vaporware doesn't even use Methane fuel which shows they STILL aren't even thinking about local Martian resources to reduce costs and such. 

The idea of a base in Martian orbit is sound, I just have zero faith in the legacy launch industry to get this beyond spreadsheets and fancy computer graphics. Their vision is so lame - lets build an ISS in Mars orbit and then, maybe, at some later date we'll build a cool looking lander as well!

Bobby

markus baur
 

a spacestation in mars orbit?

why not land it on Phobos or Deimos? – then at least you will get lots of radiation shielding free of charge

Servus

markus

Bobby Hardenbrook <bobby.hardenbrook@...> hat am 3. Oktober 2017 um 00:54 geschrieben:

https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/29/lockheed-martin-mars-spacecraft-lander/


Nice vaporware they are pushing there. This is all gonna look pretty silly when BFR is lofting 150 tons per launch at 1/100th the cost of SLS and sending ships capable of holding 100 people to Mars. This vaporware doesn't even use Methane fuel which shows they STILL aren't even thinking about local Martian resources to reduce costs and such. 

The idea of a base in Martian orbit is sound, I just have zero faith in the legacy launch industry to get this beyond spreadsheets and fancy computer graphics. Their vision is so lame - lets build an ISS in Mars orbit and then, maybe, at some later date we'll build a cool looking lander as well!

Bobby


 

It's basically a sales pitch to NASA and PR for investors. They're betting that if NASA goes for a Mars mission they'll want something modest and related to proven technologies. It uses their existing Orion capsule that they're making for NASA.

Bobby Hardenbrook
 


30 years of watching these legacy aerospace companies and NASA push vaporware and grandiose visions for manned space exploration which is always 30 years away has made me a bit bitter.
  I'll give NASA full credit for their unmanned program, they've done amazing things on a relatively small budget. But their manned program has been a joke since Apollo ended. ISS is a nice piece of hardware but it sure seems like that money could have gone a lot farther.

Bobby


On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:55 PM Dan Daast <paradoqz@...> wrote:
Don't hold back, now. Say how you really feel.

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 03:54 pm, Bobby Hardenbrook wrote:
https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/29/lockheed-martin-mars-spacecraft-lander/
 
 
Nice vaporware they are pushing there. This is all gonna look pretty silly when BFR is lofting 150 tons per launch at 1/100th the cost of SLS and sending ships capable of holding 100 people to Mars. This vaporware doesn't even use Methane fuel which shows they STILL aren't even thinking about local Martian resources to reduce costs and such. 
 
The idea of a base in Martian orbit is sound, I just have zero faith in the legacy launch industry to get this beyond spreadsheets and fancy computer graphics. Their vision is so lame - lets build an ISS in Mars orbit and then, maybe, at some later date we'll build a cool looking lander as well!
 
Bobby
 
 

Allen Pitt
 

100% agree. We haven’t had a manned program for decades, not really.

With SpaceX, we might get it back.

On Oct 3, 2017, at 1:57 PM, Bobby Hardenbrook <bobby.hardenbrook@...> wrote:


30 years of watching these legacy aerospace companies and NASA push vaporware and grandiose visions for manned space exploration which is always 30 years away has made me a bit bitter.
  I'll give NASA full credit for their unmanned program, they've done amazing things on a relatively small budget. But their manned program has been a joke since Apollo ended. ISS is a nice piece of hardware but it sure seems like that money could have gone a lot farther.

Bobby

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:55 PM Dan Daast <paradoqz@...> wrote:
Don't hold back, now. Say how you really feel.

joatsimeon
 

yeah, these guys couldn’t lead three sailors into a cathouse.

On Oct 2, 2017, at 5:25 PM, Allen Pitt <allenpitt2@...> wrote:

I agree completely with you on this.

On Oct 2, 2017, at 6:54 PM, Bobby Hardenbrook <bobby.hardenbrook@...> wrote:

https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/29/lockheed-martin-mars-spacecraft-lander/


Nice vaporware they are pushing there. This is all gonna look pretty silly when BFR is lofting 150 tons per launch at 1/100th the cost of SLS and sending ships capable of holding 100 people to Mars. This vaporware doesn't even use Methane fuel which shows they STILL aren't even thinking about local Martian resources to reduce costs and such. 

The idea of a base in Martian orbit is sound, I just have zero faith in the legacy launch industry to get this beyond spreadsheets and fancy computer graphics. Their vision is so lame - lets build an ISS in Mars orbit and then, maybe, at some later date we'll build a cool looking lander as well!

Bobby


Bobby Hardenbrook
 


The space shuttle was such a boondoggle as well. Countless billions wasted and it killed 14 Astronauts as well. I want to scream when I see traditional NASA/aerospace types critiquing SpaceX while not mentioning the death trap that was the Space Shuttle. 

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 10:59 AM Allen Pitt <allenpitt2@...> wrote:
100% agree. We haven’t had a manned program for decades, not really.

With SpaceX, we might get it back.

On Oct 3, 2017, at 1:57 PM, Bobby Hardenbrook <bobby.hardenbrook@...> wrote:


30 years of watching these legacy aerospace companies and NASA push vaporware and grandiose visions for manned space exploration which is always 30 years away has made me a bit bitter.
  I'll give NASA full credit for their unmanned program, they've done amazing things on a relatively small budget. But their manned program has been a joke since Apollo ended. ISS is a nice piece of hardware but it sure seems like that money could have gone a lot farther.

Bobby

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:55 PM Dan Daast <paradoqz@...> wrote:
Don't hold back, now. Say how you really feel.

Eric Oppen
 

Space travel is inherently dangerous.  And as I've said before, we still lack some technologies that would make it a great deal more practical.  

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Bobby Hardenbrook <bobby.hardenbrook@...> wrote:

The space shuttle was such a boondoggle as well. Countless billions wasted and it killed 14 Astronauts as well. I want to scream when I see traditional NASA/aerospace types critiquing SpaceX while not mentioning the death trap that was the Space Shuttle. 

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 10:59 AM Allen Pitt <allenpitt2@...> wrote:
100% agree. We haven’t had a manned program for decades, not really.

With SpaceX, we might get it back.

On Oct 3, 2017, at 1:57 PM, Bobby Hardenbrook <bobby.hardenbrook@...> wrote:


30 years of watching these legacy aerospace companies and NASA push vaporware and grandiose visions for manned space exploration which is always 30 years away has made me a bit bitter.
  I'll give NASA full credit for their unmanned program, they've done amazing things on a relatively small budget. But their manned program has been a joke since Apollo ended. ISS is a nice piece of hardware but it sure seems like that money could have gone a lot farther.

Bobby

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:55 PM Dan Daast <paradoqz@...> wrote:
Don't hold back, now. Say how you really feel.

joatsimeon
 

I basically agree with Bobby here.  NASA and the legacy companies are in terminal institutional decay and have become basically a jobs program.

Musk and Bezos are really shaking them up and I don't think they'll be able to adapt.


From: Bobby Hardenbrook <bobby.hardenbrook@...>
To: stirling <stirling@groups.io>
Sent: Tue, Oct 3, 2017 11:58 am
Subject: Re: [stirling] Lockheed Martin unveils Mars space station and surface lander


30 years of watching these legacy aerospace companies and NASA push vaporware and grandiose visions for manned space exploration which is always 30 years away has made me a bit bitter.
  I'll give NASA full credit for their unmanned program, they've done amazing things on a relatively small budget. But their manned program has been a joke since Apollo ended. ISS is a nice piece of hardware but it sure seems like that money could have gone a lot farther.

Bobby

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:55 PM Dan Daast <paradoqz@...> wrote:
Don't hold back, now. Say how you really feel.

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 03:54 pm, Bobby Hardenbrook wrote:
https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/29/lockheed-martin-mars-spacecraft-lander/
 
 
Nice vaporware they are pushing there. This is all gonna look pretty silly when BFR is lofting 150 tons per launch at 1/100th the cost of SLS and sending ships capable of holding 100 people to Mars. This vaporware doesn't even use Methane fuel which shows they STILL aren't even thinking about local Martian resources to reduce costs and such. 
 
The idea of a base in Martian orbit is sound, I just have zero faith in the legacy launch industry to get this beyond spreadsheets and fancy computer graphics. Their vision is so lame - lets build an ISS in Mars orbit and then, maybe, at some later date we'll build a cool looking lander as well!
 
Bobby
 
 

Dan Daast
 

I am utterly unqualified to judge the particulars but the general logic seems drearily familiar.  What was that old crack - "if it was only up to the government to cure polio, you'd have the best iron lung in the world but not a vaccine."


On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:05 pm, joatsimeon wrote:
I basically agree with Bobby here.  NASA and the legacy companies are in terminal institutional decay and have become basically a jobs program.
 
Musk and Bezos are really shaking them up and I don't think they'll be able to adapt.


-----Original Message-----
From: Bobby Hardenbrook <bobby.hardenbrook@...>
To: stirling <stirling@groups.io>
Sent: Tue, Oct 3, 2017 11:58 am
Subject: Re: [stirling] Lockheed Martin unveils Mars space station and surface lander

 
30 years of watching these legacy aerospace companies and NASA push vaporware and grandiose visions for manned space exploration which is always 30 years away has made me a bit bitter.
  I'll give NASA full credit for their unmanned program, they've done amazing things on a relatively small budget. But their manned program has been a joke since Apollo ended. ISS is a nice piece of hardware but it sure seems like that money could have gone a lot farther.
 
Bobby

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:55 PM Dan Daast <paradoqz@...> wrote:
Don't hold back, now. Say how you really feel.

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 03:54 pm, Bobby Hardenbrook wrote:
https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/29/lockheed-martin-mars-spacecraft-lander/
 
 
Nice vaporware they are pushing there. This is all gonna look pretty silly when BFR is lofting 150 tons per launch at 1/100th the cost of SLS and sending ships capable of holding 100 people to Mars. This vaporware doesn't even use Methane fuel which shows they STILL aren't even thinking about local Martian resources to reduce costs and such. 
 
The idea of a base in Martian orbit is sound, I just have zero faith in the legacy launch industry to get this beyond spreadsheets and fancy computer graphics. Their vision is so lame - lets build an ISS in Mars orbit and then, maybe, at some later date we'll build a cool looking lander as well!
 
Bobby
 
 
 
 
 

Michael Walsh
 

They did some interesting things with the magic mystery space truck, but it was clearly a platform in search of a mission once it came online - but then, so was NASA. SO there is that.

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Bobby Hardenbrook <bobby.hardenbrook@...> wrote:

30 years of watching these legacy aerospace companies and NASA push vaporware and grandiose visions for manned space exploration which is always 30 years away has made me a bit bitter.
  I'll give NASA full credit for their unmanned program, they've done amazing things on a relatively small budget. But their manned program has been a joke since Apollo ended. ISS is a nice piece of hardware but it sure seems like that money could have gone a lot farther.

Bobby

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:55 PM Dan Daast <paradoqz@...> wrote:
Don't hold back, now. Say how you really feel.

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 03:54 pm, Bobby Hardenbrook wrote:
https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/29/lockheed-martin-mars-spacecraft-lander/
 
 
Nice vaporware they are pushing there. This is all gonna look pretty silly when BFR is lofting 150 tons per launch at 1/100th the cost of SLS and sending ships capable of holding 100 people to Mars. This vaporware doesn't even use Methane fuel which shows they STILL aren't even thinking about local Martian resources to reduce costs and such. 
 
The idea of a base in Martian orbit is sound, I just have zero faith in the legacy launch industry to get this beyond spreadsheets and fancy computer graphics. Their vision is so lame - lets build an ISS in Mars orbit and then, maybe, at some later date we'll build a cool looking lander as well!
 
Bobby
 
 

Marvin Carlson
 


ISS was a bad design. I t had no purpose. Zero G the sweet spot is about a 1M sphere in the docking area everything else is subject to tidal force.  TO make a space station useful for zero G the sweet spot is going to be proportional to the square altitude of the station  as defined from the center of the Earth.  TO be a truly Useful Zero G lab it should more properly be in GEO not LEO.  GEE would have meant much more costly missions, and a much heavier shielding as the orbit would be outside of protection of the Earth's magnetic field.   It has never been used or was it designed to be used for orbital transfer point from LEO to higher orbits leaving the weightier atmospheric vehicles behind.  Not enough docking and docking is far from secure. in a transfer sense further docking contains ports that are small for transferral of equipment. The Russian Modules were always a pain.  While the Russians did have good launch capability, their electronics always caused massive transients. The Russians would delay launches and charge rent for the modules to be launched  because they were not launching them.
Too much of the missions were show missions without utility that could not have been done ins simple space shuttle modules. 
The ISS was a political game to get NASA continued funding.  I believe the unmanned missions have been good from a scientific point of view and if either a commitment for space presence via a transfer space station would have been a good way to expand and make a moon base.  Money wasted on political games.
  When I was at the Alfred R Neumann (Not Alfred E Neumann) library at the University of Houston Clear Lake (a public repository of the NASA Records) . I found that NASA spent considerably  money on Academic studies bout proposed missions to return to the moon to the point that if the academic studies would have been replaced with a mission to make a Moon Base, the moon Base could have been built and manned for the same money that  apparently went to every congressional district in the USA as a sort of academic welfare program under the NASA budget.

On 10/03/2017 12:57 PM, Bobby Hardenbrook wrote:

30 years of watching these legacy aerospace companies and NASA push vaporware and grandiose visions for manned space exploration which is always 30 years away has made me a bit bitter.
  I'll give NASA full credit for their unmanned program, they've done amazing things on a relatively small budget. But their manned program has been a joke since Apollo ended. ISS is a nice piece of hardware but it sure seems like that money could have gone a lot farther.

Bobby

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:55 PM Dan Daast <paradoqz@...> wrote:
Don't hold back, now. Say how you really feel.

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 03:54 pm, Bobby Hardenbrook wrote:
https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/29/lockheed-martin-mars-spacecraft-lander/
 
 
Nice vaporware they are pushing there. This is all gonna look pretty silly when BFR is lofting 150 tons per launch at 1/100th the cost of SLS and sending ships capable of holding 100 people to Mars. This vaporware doesn't even use Methane fuel which shows they STILL aren't even thinking about local Martian resources to reduce costs and such. 
 
The idea of a base in Martian orbit is sound, I just have zero faith in the legacy launch industry to get this beyond spreadsheets and fancy computer graphics. Their vision is so lame - lets build an ISS in Mars orbit and then, maybe, at some later date we'll build a cool looking lander as well!
 
Bobby
 
 

Allen Pitt
 

I respect the accomplishments of our unmanned probe program, we’ve gotten a lot out of that. Our manned program post - Apollo, not so much. Completely stagnant, and once the shuttle was dead…. it was dead in the water.

We were reduced to using Russian rockets to loft much of anything. That’s pretty bad.

It’s changing now at least in part due to Elon Musk. Others are working in this area too—Bezos/Blue Origin etc, but Musk is out in front by a wide margin. We might actually get those lunar bases & LARGE space stations at long long last. Not in “2001” like the movie, but by 2031, maybe.

On Oct 3, 2017, at 6:42 PM, Marvin Carlson via Groups.Io <moors710@...> wrote:


ISS was a bad design. I t had no purpose. Zero G the sweet spot is about a 1M sphere in the docking area everything else is subject to tidal force.  TO make a space station useful for zero G the sweet spot is going to be proportional to the square altitude of the station  as defined from the center of the Earth.  TO be a truly Useful Zero G lab it should more properly be in GEO not LEO.  GEE would have meant much more costly missions, and a much heavier shielding as the orbit would be outside of protection of the Earth's magnetic field.   It has never been used or was it designed to be used for orbital transfer point from LEO to higher orbits leaving the weightier atmospheric vehicles behind.  Not enough docking and docking is far from secure. in a transfer sense further docking contains ports that are small for transferral of equipment. The Russian Modules were always a pain.  While the Russians did have good launch capability, their electronics always caused massive transients. The Russians would delay launches and charge rent for the modules to be launched  because they were not launching them.
Too much of the missions were show missions without utility that could not have been done ins simple space shuttle modules. 
The ISS was a political game to get NASA continued funding.  I believe the unmanned missions have been good from a scientific point of view and if either a commitment for space presence via a transfer space station would have been a good way to expand and make a moon base.  Money wasted on political games.
  When I was at the Alfred R Neumann (Not Alfred E Neumann) library at the University of Houston Clear Lake (a public repository of the NASA Records) . I found that NASA spent considerably  money on Academic studies bout proposed missions to return to the moon to the point that if the academic studies would have been replaced with a mission to make a Moon Base, the moon Base could have been built and manned for the same money that  apparently went to every congressional district in the USA as a sort of academic welfare program under the NASA budget.
On 10/03/2017 12:57 PM, Bobby Hardenbrook wrote:

30 years of watching these legacy aerospace companies and NASA push vaporware and grandiose visions for manned space exploration which is always 30 years away has made me a bit bitter.
  I'll give NASA full credit for their unmanned program, they've done amazing things on a relatively small budget. But their manned program has been a joke since Apollo ended. ISS is a nice piece of hardware but it sure seems like that money could have gone a lot farther.

Bobby

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:55 PM Dan Daast <paradoqz@...> wrote:
Don't hold back, now. Say how you really feel.

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 03:54 pm, Bobby Hardenbrook wrote:
https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/29/lockheed-martin-mars-spacecraft-lander/
 
 
Nice vaporware they are pushing there. This is all gonna look pretty silly when BFR is lofting 150 tons per launch at 1/100th the cost of SLS and sending ships capable of holding 100 people to Mars. This vaporware doesn't even use Methane fuel which shows they STILL aren't even thinking about local Martian resources to reduce costs and such. 
 
The idea of a base in Martian orbit is sound, I just have zero faith in the legacy launch industry to get this beyond spreadsheets and fancy computer graphics. Their vision is so lame - lets build an ISS in Mars orbit and then, maybe, at some later date we'll build a cool looking lander as well!
 
Bobby
 
 

Stephen Van Sickle
 


(And as I've said before, we still lack some technologies that would make it a great deal more practical.  )


Such as?

Eric Oppen
 

Gravity control, just for starters.

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Stephen Van Sickle <sjv2006@...> wrote:

(And as I've said before, we still lack some technologies that would make it a great deal more practical.  )


Such as?

markus baur
 

Am 04.10.2017 um 00:42 schrieb Marvin Carlson via Groups.Io:
ISS was a bad design. I t had no purpose. Zero G the sweet spot is about a 1M sphere in the docking area everything else is subject to tidal force.
sphere? should the zero volume not be a cylinder, centered on the orbit and parallel to it?

and is that not the reason why the unmanned z.g. free flyer station was a simple cylinder?

servus

markus

TO make a space station useful for zero G the sweet spot is going to be proportional to the square altitude of the station  as defined from the center of the Earth.  TO be a truly Useful Zero G lab it should more properly be in GEO not LEO.  GEE would have meant much more costly missions, and a much heavier shielding as the orbit would be outside of protection of the Earth's magnetic field.   It has never been used or was it designed to be used for orbital transfer point from LEO to higher orbits leaving the weightier atmospheric vehicles behind.  Not enough docking and docking is far from secure. in a transfer sense further docking contains ports that are small for transferral of equipment. The Russian Modules were always a pain.  While the Russians did have good launch capability, their electronics always caused massive transients. The Russians would delay launches and charge rent for the modules to be launched  because they were not launching them.
Too much of the missions were show missions without utility that could not have been done ins simple space shuttle modules.
The ISS was a political game to get NASA continued funding.  I believe the unmanned missions have been good from a scientific point of view and if either a commitment for space presence via a transfer space station would have been a good way to expand and make a moon base.  Money wasted on political games.
  When I was at the Alfred R Neumann (Not Alfred E Neumann) library at the University of Houston Clear Lake (a public repository of the NASA Records) . I found that NASA spent considerably  money on Academic studies bout proposed missions to return to the moon to the point that if the academic studies would have been replaced with a mission to make a Moon Base, the moon Base could have been built and manned for the same money that  apparently went to every congressional district in the USA as a sort of academic welfare program under the NASA budget.
On 10/03/2017 12:57 PM, Bobby Hardenbrook wrote:

30 years of watching these legacy aerospace companies and NASA push vaporware and grandiose visions for manned space exploration which is always 30 years away has made me a bit bitter.
  I'll give NASA full credit for their unmanned program, they've done amazing things on a relatively small budget. But their manned program has been a joke since Apollo ended. ISS is a nice piece of hardware but it sure seems like that money could have gone a lot farther.

Bobby

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:55 PM Dan Daast <paradoqz@... <mailto:paradoqz@...>> wrote:

Don't hold back, now. Say how you really feel.

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 03:54 pm, Bobby Hardenbrook wrote:

https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/29/lockheed-martin-mars-spacecraft-lander/

Nice vaporware they are pushing there. This is all gonna look
pretty silly when BFR is lofting 150 tons per launch at
1/100th the cost of SLS and sending ships capable of holding
100 people to Mars. This vaporware doesn't even use Methane
fuel which shows they STILL aren't even thinking about local
Martian resources to reduce costs and such.
The idea of a base in Martian orbit is sound, I just have zero
faith in the legacy launch industry to get this beyond
spreadsheets and fancy computer graphics. Their vision is so
lame - lets build an ISS in Mars orbit and then, maybe, at
some later date we'll build a cool looking lander as well!
Bobby

--
markus baur SCA: markus von brixlegg
schluesselgasse 3/5 tel: +43 - (0)1 - 50 40 662
a-1040 wien email: baur@...
austria/europe icbm: 48°11'39"N; 16°22'06"E

a portrait: http://www.abcgallery.com/A/arcimboldo/arcimboldo9.html

"der Markus?? .... das ist der mit dem Buch..."

Marvin Carlson
 

The ability  the solar power supply determined that it was a sphere as it the rotation of the station as well as tidal forces from the Earth Orbit determined the size and shape of the sweet spot. If you have a nuclear power plant to supply power than it could be a cylinder with the extent limited by the orbit . A cylinder is only when stable spinning in orbit either end over end or with the cylinder spinning along its axis . Only bodies symmetric in three orthogonal axes are stable in orbit without spin or tidal locking. The instability comes the  as the primary axis of rotation passes through disturbances such as lunar passage, passing between the line of the Sun and the Earth tend to set the object to rotating about the long( greatest inertial) axis.  If you want zero G stability it depends on the object being roughly the same in all axes ( Sphere or Cube for instance)  or you need periodic jets to nudge the object back into its inherently unstable orbital, rotational configuration. Gyros can work for a few years, but eventually the inertia of the gyros has them falling apart due to stress a the gyro must continually increase in speed to offset each disturbance.


On 10/04/2017 09:08 AM, markus baur wrote:
Am 04.10.2017 um 00:42 schrieb Marvin Carlson via Groups.Io:

ISS was a bad design. I t had no purpose. Zero G the sweet spot is about a 1M sphere in the docking area everything else is subject to tidal force.
sphere? should the zero volume not be a cylinder, centered on the orbit and parallel to it?

and is that not the reason why the unmanned z.g. free flyer station was a simple cylinder?

servus

markus

TO make a space station useful for zero G the sweet spot is going to be proportional to the square altitude of the station  as defined from the center of the Earth.  TO be a truly Useful Zero G lab it should more properly be in GEO not LEO.  GEE would have meant much more costly missions, and a much heavier shielding as the orbit would be outside of protection of the Earth's magnetic field.   It has never been used or was it designed to be used for orbital transfer point from LEO to higher orbits leaving the weightier atmospheric vehicles behind.  Not enough docking and docking is far from secure. in a transfer sense further docking contains ports that are small for transferral of equipment. The Russian Modules were always a pain.  While the Russians did have good launch capability, their electronics always caused massive transients. The Russians would delay launches and charge rent for the modules to be launched  because they were not launching them.
Too much of the missions were show missions without utility that could not have been done ins simple space shuttle modules.
The ISS was a political game to get NASA continued funding.  I believe the unmanned missions have been good from a scientific point of view and if either a commitment for space presence via a transfer space station would have been a good way to expand and make a moon base.  Money wasted on political games.
   When I was at the Alfred R Neumann (Not Alfred E Neumann) library at the University of Houston Clear Lake (a public repository of the NASA Records) . I found that NASA spent considerably  money on Academic studies bout proposed missions to return to the moon to the point that if the academic studies would have been replaced with a mission to make a Moon Base, the moon Base could have been built and manned for the same money that  apparently went to every congressional district in the USA as a sort of academic welfare program under the NASA budget.
On 10/03/2017 12:57 PM, Bobby Hardenbrook wrote:

30 years of watching these legacy aerospace companies and NASA push vaporware and grandiose visions for manned space exploration which is always 30 years away has made me a bit bitter.
  I'll give NASA full credit for their unmanned program, they've done amazing things on a relatively small budget. But their manned program has been a joke since Apollo ended. ISS is a nice piece of hardware but it sure seems like that money could have gone a lot farther.

Bobby

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:55 PM Dan Daast <paradoqz@... <mailto:paradoqz@...>> wrote:

    Don't hold back, now. Say how you really feel.

    On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 03:54 pm, Bobby Hardenbrook wrote:

https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/29/lockheed-martin-mars-spacecraft-lander/

        Nice vaporware they are pushing there. This is all gonna look
        pretty silly when BFR is lofting 150 tons per launch at
        1/100th the cost of SLS and sending ships capable of holding
        100 people to Mars. This vaporware doesn't even use Methane
        fuel which shows they STILL aren't even thinking about local
        Martian resources to reduce costs and such.
        The idea of a base in Martian orbit is sound, I just have zero
        faith in the legacy launch industry to get this beyond
        spreadsheets and fancy computer graphics. Their vision is so
        lame - lets build an ISS in Mars orbit and then, maybe, at
        some later date we'll build a cool looking lander as well!
        Bobby

.

markus baur
 

Am 04.10.2017 um 20:36 schrieb Marvin Carlson via Groups.Io:
The ability  the solar power supply determined that it was a sphere as it the rotation of the station as well as tidal forces from the Earth Orbit determined the size and shape of the sweet spot. If you have a nuclear power plant to supply power than it could be a cylinder with the extent limited by the orbit .
or you could have the solar power plant co-orbiting as a second element with beamed power

A cylinder is only when stable spinning in orbit either end over end or with the cylinder spinning along its axis .
if the long axis if the cylinder has to stay parallel to orbit it does have to rotate over a short axis once per orbital revolution

Only bodies symmetric in three orthogonal axes are stable in orbit without spin or tidal locking. The instability comes the  as the primary axis of rotation passes through disturbances such as lunar passage, passing between the line of the Sun and the Earth tend to set the object to rotating about the long( greatest inertial) axis.  If you want zero G stability it depends on the object being roughly the same in all axes ( Sphere or Cube for instance)  or you need periodic jets to nudge the object back into its inherently unstable orbital, rotational configuration. Gyros can work for a few years, but eventually the inertia of the gyros has them falling apart due to stress a the gyro must continually increase in speed to offset each disturbance.
the zero-g facilities will need occasional servicing - the perfect time to unload those gyros by slowing them down while keeping coarse orientation with the attitude jets ..

servus

markus

On 10/04/2017 09:08 AM, markus baur wrote:
Am 04.10.2017 um 00:42 schrieb Marvin Carlson via Groups.Io:

ISS was a bad design. I t had no purpose. Zero G the sweet spot is about a 1M sphere in the docking area everything else is subject to tidal force.
sphere? should the zero volume not be a cylinder, centered on the orbit and parallel to it?

and is that not the reason why the unmanned z.g. free flyer station was a simple cylinder?

servus

markus

TO make a space station useful for zero G the sweet spot is going to be proportional to the square altitude of the station  as defined from the center of the Earth.  TO be a truly Useful Zero G lab it should more properly be in GEO not LEO.  GEE would have meant much more costly missions, and a much heavier shielding as the orbit would be outside of protection of the Earth's magnetic field.   It has never been used or was it designed to be used for orbital transfer point from LEO to higher orbits leaving the weightier atmospheric vehicles behind.  Not enough docking and docking is far from secure. in a transfer sense further docking contains ports that are small for transferral of equipment. The Russian Modules were always a pain. While the Russians did have good launch capability, their electronics always caused massive transients. The Russians would delay launches and charge rent for the modules to be launched  because they were not launching them.
Too much of the missions were show missions without utility that could not have been done ins simple space shuttle modules.
The ISS was a political game to get NASA continued funding.  I believe the unmanned missions have been good from a scientific point of view and if either a commitment for space presence via a transfer space station would have been a good way to expand and make a moon base.  Money wasted on political games.
   When I was at the Alfred R Neumann (Not Alfred E Neumann) library at the University of Houston Clear Lake (a public repository of the NASA Records) . I found that NASA spent considerably  money on Academic studies bout proposed missions to return to the moon to the point that if the academic studies would have been replaced with a mission to make a Moon Base, the moon Base could have been built and manned for the same money that  apparently went to every congressional district in the USA as a sort of academic welfare program under the NASA budget.
On 10/03/2017 12:57 PM, Bobby Hardenbrook wrote:

30 years of watching these legacy aerospace companies and NASA push vaporware and grandiose visions for manned space exploration which is always 30 years away has made me a bit bitter.
  I'll give NASA full credit for their unmanned program, they've done amazing things on a relatively small budget. But their manned program has been a joke since Apollo ended. ISS is a nice piece of hardware but it sure seems like that money could have gone a lot farther.

Bobby

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:55 PM Dan Daast <paradoqz@... <mailto:paradoqz@...>> wrote:

    Don't hold back, now. Say how you really feel.

    On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 03:54 pm, Bobby Hardenbrook wrote:

https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/29/lockheed-martin-mars-spacecraft-lander/

        Nice vaporware they are pushing there. This is all gonna look
        pretty silly when BFR is lofting 150 tons per launch at
        1/100th the cost of SLS and sending ships capable of holding
        100 people to Mars. This vaporware doesn't even use Methane
        fuel which shows they STILL aren't even thinking about local
        Martian resources to reduce costs and such.
        The idea of a base in Martian orbit is sound, I just have zero
        faith in the legacy launch industry to get this beyond
        spreadsheets and fancy computer graphics. Their vision is so
        lame - lets build an ISS in Mars orbit and then, maybe, at
        some later date we'll build a cool looking lander as well!
        Bobby
.

--
markus baur SCA: markus von brixlegg
schluesselgasse 3/5 tel: +43 - (0)1 - 50 40 662
a-1040 wien email: baur@...
austria/europe icbm: 48°11'39"N; 16°22'06"E

a portrait: http://www.abcgallery.com/A/arcimboldo/arcimboldo9.html

"der Markus?? .... das ist der mit dem Buch..."

Previous Topic Next Topic