Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to Anonymous,bruncher,niord,gvonge,Shelford, for Donating to support the site

Hey, we're going back to the moon again

Scientific discovery and discussion
ReformedCharacter
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3169
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:12 am
Has thanked: 3733 times
Been thanked: 1539 times

Re: Hey, we're going back to the moon again

#532253

Postby ReformedCharacter » September 25th, 2022, 12:26 pm

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:We're going back to the Moon because it has military collateral advantage.

There - I've said it - it's out there!

The USA would not go back to the moon unless there was;

  1. A military advantage
  2. A financial advantage
Why would they pay a lot of money to go back? There's something there they want!

AiY(D)

Can't see the military benefit at all. On the other hand there are economic benefits, job creation\sustaining existing industries and national prestige, I don't think the US would appreciate the Chinese being the first to re-visit the moon. Fortunately, money gets spent on things which do not appear to offer immediate financial benefits - I can't think of the financial benefits of the JW telescope, I'm sure there are some but it would be hard to see the payback from an economic point of view. There's certainly quite a large group of scientists that think that money would be better spent on robotic missions instead, better bang for the bucks.

RC

odysseus2000
Lemon Half
Posts: 6545
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 1580 times
Been thanked: 993 times

Re: Hey, we're going back to the moon again

#532301

Postby odysseus2000 » September 25th, 2022, 8:40 pm

One of the issues that many have with NASA is that they only see the science and engineering. Nasa is a huge administration and it has many camps and internal frictions. To give you a brief idea of the sort of things I saw and I was only a contractor, not properly on the inside.
When I was at Nasa Marshall there was one guy who the Marshall chiefs wanted out, so they cut his funding, but he had funding from another part of Nasa and could not be removed. Another Nasa guy gave a lecture on his job being to hide the funding for SETI so that a congressman who wanted the whole project stopped could not find it and destroy it. Others were only interested in their pension and didn’t want to do anything that was not 100% within what they saw as the point of NASA and going back to the moon was not one of them. Intense and relentless politics and personality tussles take place all over NASA. Another example. One researcher was trying to get his project completed and wanted all the welds x-rayed, but someone else had loaded x-ray sensitive film into the experiment stopping the x-raying but without x-ray the project could not fly. There were countless examples of little power struggles like that endless rolling around Nasa.

Well above all of this was the political level where various senators and representatives were focused on getting as much Nasa spending in their state and this all interacted with the lobbying by the various defence contractors. When the Shuttle was proposed it was said that it would be so low cost to go to orbit that it would be routine to send graduate students there to do experiments, but it was never low cost and graduate students stayed on earth.

It is my opinion, this will surprise no one, that Elon Musk is the force that has caused the Nasa explorers to gain a dominance over the Nasa, stay on Earth folk. Without him I don’t think we would see Nasa trying, but because of him enough folk in Nasa got enough power to get the program going and then it was sabotaged by congress demanding the use of last century technology.

I have no clue what is going on, but I don’t think what we believe we know about human government and what it really is are compatible. E.g. the evidence for non human craft in the skies of earth is over whelming and if you look at the web site of the airdomainintelligence one sees something interesting in their emblem, bottom left:
https://www.airdomainintelligence.mil/

This is clearly a cartoon image of a flying saucer. Why is it there, what does it mean? Why has the US navy forbidden the release of more UAP images and video?:

https://www.wionews.com/world/us-navy-w ... ore-515069

We may never know what is the reason for the return to the moon. There are times when I fear that there are forces at large that will stop a return to the moon from happening in just the same way that they have stopped realease of information that would confirm UAP are alien.

We live in interesting times.

Regards,

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2609 times

Re: Hey, we're going back to the moon again

#532304

Postby XFool » September 25th, 2022, 8:58 pm

odysseus2000 wrote:One of the issues that many have with NASA is that they only see the science and engineering. Nasa is a huge administration and it has many camps and internal frictions. To give you a brief idea of the sort of things I saw and I was only a contractor, not properly on the inside.
When I was at Nasa Marshall there was one guy who the Marshall chiefs wanted out, so they cut his funding, but he had funding from another part of Nasa and could not be removed. Another Nasa guy gave a lecture on his job being to hide the funding for SETI so that a congressman who wanted the whole project stopped could not find it and destroy it. Others were only interested in their pension and didn’t want to do anything that was not 100% within what they saw as the point of NASA and going back to the moon was not one of them. Intense and relentless politics and personality tussles take place all over NASA. Another example. One researcher was trying to get his project completed and wanted all the welds x-rayed, but someone else had loaded x-ray sensitive film into the experiment stopping the x-raying but without x-ray the project could not fly. There were countless examples of little power struggles like that endless rolling around Nasa.

So, basically, it sounds like a workplace? :(

odysseus2000 wrote:I have no clue what is going on, but I don’t think what we believe we know about human government and what it really is are compatible. E.g. the evidence for non human craft in the skies of earth is over whelming and if you look at the web site of the airdomainintelligence one sees something interesting in their emblem, bottom left:
https://www.airdomainintelligence.mil/

This is clearly a cartoon image of a flying saucer. Why is it there, what does it mean?

LOL!

You aren't the only one wondering: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/nim-as-new-logo.12672/

odysseus2000
Lemon Half
Posts: 6545
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 1580 times
Been thanked: 993 times

Re: Hey, we're going back to the moon again

#532306

Postby odysseus2000 » September 25th, 2022, 9:18 pm

XFool
So, basically, it sounds like a workplace? :(


No, if a business operated like this it would go bust.

Nasa has no commercial rivals, just like the Civil Service, and this can lead to all manner of wild stuff happening within that would lead to a competitive disadvantage in a business.

Regards,

ReformedCharacter
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3169
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:12 am
Has thanked: 3733 times
Been thanked: 1539 times

Re: Hey, we're going back to the moon again

#532586

Postby ReformedCharacter » September 26th, 2022, 9:10 pm

Faced with threatening weather from Hurricane Ian, NASA managers decided Monday to haul the $4.1 billion Artemis 1 rocket off its launch pad and back to the protection of the agency’s Vehicle Assembly Building, likely ending any chance of launching the unpiloted moonshot before November.

https://spaceflightnow.com/

RC

ReformedCharacter
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3169
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:12 am
Has thanked: 3733 times
Been thanked: 1539 times

Re: Hey, we're going back to the moon again

#543791

Postby ReformedCharacter » November 4th, 2022, 1:21 pm

After replacing and recharging batteries in the Vehicle Assembly Building, NASA is rolling the more than 30-story-tall Space Launch System rocket back to its launch pad early Friday at Kennedy Space Center for another try Nov. 14 to send the Artemis 1 test flight around the moon.

https://spaceflightnow.com/

Another episode of the NASA Scrapheap Challenge.

RC

9873210
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1029
Joined: December 9th, 2016, 6:44 am
Has thanked: 237 times
Been thanked: 316 times

Re: Hey, we're going back to the moon again

#543798

Postby 9873210 » November 4th, 2022, 1:42 pm

Stop insulting Scrapheap Challenge.

Scrapheap challenge had a time limit. If they didn't pull it off by the end of the show that's the end to it.

ReformedCharacter
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3169
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:12 am
Has thanked: 3733 times
Been thanked: 1539 times

Re: Hey, we're going back to the moon again

#545123

Postby ReformedCharacter » November 9th, 2022, 11:47 am

NASA said Tuesday the launch of its Artemis 1 moon rocket will be delayed from Nov. 14 to no earlier than Nov. 16 as approaching Tropical Storm Nicole interrupts preflight processing at Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/11/08/first-launch-of-nasas-artemis-moon-rocket-slips-to-nov-16/

RC

ursaminortaur
Lemon Half
Posts: 7271
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 469 times
Been thanked: 1848 times

Re: Hey, we're going back to the moon again

#545157

Postby ursaminortaur » November 9th, 2022, 1:24 pm

ReformedCharacter wrote:
NASA said Tuesday the launch of its Artemis 1 moon rocket will be delayed from Nov. 14 to no earlier than Nov. 16 as approaching Tropical Storm Nicole interrupts preflight processing at Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/11/08/first-launch-of-nasas-artemis-moon-rocket-slips-to-nov-16/

RC


Although vastly different technologies it seems amazing how little progress has been made in turning space launches into an everyday occurrence compared to the rapid moves in that direction with the first aircraft. In 1903 the Wright Brothers first achieved powered flight with a flight lasting 12 seconds. By the first world war planes were being flown pretty much daily from airfields near the front lines and by the 1930s there were profitable commercial passenger flights with planes like the Douglas DC-3 which could carry up to 32 passengers and by the 1950s you had the first commercial jet passenger aircraft. In contrast space launches still require massive preparations and are often subject to delays on the launchpad wth even well proven designs not able to offer launches on a daily basis.

https://simpleflying.com/the-evolution-of-the-airplane/

https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/

ReformedCharacter
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3169
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:12 am
Has thanked: 3733 times
Been thanked: 1539 times

Re: Hey, we're going back to the moon again

#545169

Postby ReformedCharacter » November 9th, 2022, 2:11 pm

ursaminortaur wrote:
Although vastly different technologies it seems amazing how little progress has been made in turning space launches into an everyday occurrence compared to the rapid moves in that direction with the first aircraft. In 1903 the Wright Brothers first achieved powered flight with a flight lasting 12 seconds. By the first world war planes were being flown pretty much daily from airfields near the front lines and by the 1930s there were profitable commercial passenger flights with planes like the Douglas DC-3 which could carry up to 32 passengers and by the 1950s you had the first commercial jet passenger aircraft. In contrast space launches still require massive preparations and are often subject to delays on the launchpad wth even well proven designs not able to offer launches on a daily basis.

https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/

Yes, your Spaceflight Now link makes that quite clear, delay, delay delay...! Although there have been changes at the edges - satellite launches by aircraft as a first stage, 3D printing of major components, Spinlaunch https://www.spinlaunch.com/ (maybe), the technology hasn't changed much and the use of cryogenic propellants makes the fueling and preparation a significant undertaking. At the moment there seems to be little prospect of a new technology for rocket propulsion analogous to the replacement of piston-engine planes to jet power. SpaceX promises to make launches much more frequent and inexpensive but that remains to be seen, and essentially the same technology used 50 or more years ago.

RC

NotSure
Lemon Slice
Posts: 924
Joined: February 5th, 2021, 4:45 pm
Has thanked: 690 times
Been thanked: 316 times

Re: Hey, we're going back to the moon again

#545171

Postby NotSure » November 9th, 2022, 2:21 pm

ursaminortaur wrote:
ReformedCharacter wrote:
NASA said Tuesday the launch of its Artemis 1 moon rocket will be delayed from Nov. 14 to no earlier than Nov. 16 as approaching Tropical Storm Nicole interrupts preflight processing at Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/11/08/first-launch-of-nasas-artemis-moon-rocket-slips-to-nov-16/

RC


Although vastly different technologies it seems amazing how little progress has been made in turning space launches into an everyday occurrence compared to the rapid moves in that direction with the first aircraft. In 1903 the Wright Brothers first achieved powered flight with a flight lasting 12 seconds. By the first world war planes were being flown pretty much daily from airfields near the front lines and by the 1930s there were profitable commercial passenger flights with planes like the Douglas DC-3 which could carry up to 32 passengers and by the 1950s you had the first commercial jet passenger aircraft. In contrast space launches still require massive preparations and are often subject to delays on the launchpad wth even well proven designs not able to offer launches on a daily basis.

https://simpleflying.com/the-evolution-of-the-airplane/

https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/


We just need a couple of world wars fought with rocket tech, and we'd be good! It is very illuminating to map aircraft advances with WWI and WW2. Not much has fundamentally happened to aircraft since WW2 (or really, between WWI and WWII). WWI led to huge improvements in props, and WWII to jets.

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2609 times

Re: Hey, we're going back to the moon again

#545226

Postby XFool » November 9th, 2022, 5:41 pm

NotSure wrote:We just need a couple of world wars fought with rocket tech, and we'd be good! It is very illuminating to map aircraft advances with WWI and WW2. Not much has fundamentally happened to aircraft since WW2 (or really, between WWI and WWII). WWI led to huge improvements in props, and WWII to jets.

But what significant "improvements" are possible, for space launches? The physical requirements to get into orbit are not going to change. They are currently achieved by using chemically derived energy, the only other conceivable greater energy source would be nuclear. Nobody has so far come up with any feasible way of safely harnessing nuclear power for space launches, so we seem stuck with chemical rockets.

Once in space things can be a little more optional, but for heavy launches I can't imagine any obvious alternatives. HOTOL?

Similarly, most aeroplanes are using the identical aerodynamics to the Wright brothers' Flyer. It is the design of propulsion systems over time, and hence flight performance, that changed. Which even today is simply one design or another of internal combustion engine. (No nuclear-powered aeroplanes either.)

mc2fool
Lemon Half
Posts: 8082
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:24 am
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 3121 times

Re: Hey, we're going back to the moon again

#545245

Postby mc2fool » November 9th, 2022, 7:02 pm

XFool wrote:
NotSure wrote:We just need a couple of world wars fought with rocket tech, and we'd be good! It is very illuminating to map aircraft advances with WWI and WW2. Not much has fundamentally happened to aircraft since WW2 (or really, between WWI and WWII). WWI led to huge improvements in props, and WWII to jets.

But what significant "improvements" are possible, for space launches? The physical requirements to get into orbit are not going to change. They are currently achieved by using chemically derived energy, the only other conceivable greater energy source would be nuclear.

https://www.spinlaunch.com/

Suitable for satellites and lightweight two dimensional astronauts that can be folded flat. :D

NotSure
Lemon Slice
Posts: 924
Joined: February 5th, 2021, 4:45 pm
Has thanked: 690 times
Been thanked: 316 times

Re: Hey, we're going back to the moon again

#545254

Postby NotSure » November 9th, 2022, 8:12 pm

XFool wrote:
NotSure wrote:We just need a couple of world wars fought with rocket tech, and we'd be good! It is very illuminating to map aircraft advances with WWI and WW2. Not much has fundamentally happened to aircraft since WW2 (or really, between WWI and WWII). WWI led to huge improvements in props, and WWII to jets.

But what significant "improvements" are possible, for space launches? The physical requirements to get into orbit are not going to change. They are currently achieved by using chemically derived energy, the only other conceivable greater energy source would be nuclear. Nobody has so far come up with any feasible way of safely harnessing nuclear power for space launches, so we seem stuck with chemical rockets.

Once in space things can be a little more optional, but for heavy launches I can't imagine any obvious alternatives. HOTOL?

Similarly, most aeroplanes are using the identical aerodynamics to the Wright brothers' Flyer. It is the design of propulsion systems over time, and hence flight performance, that changed. Which even today is simply one design or another of internal combustion engine. (No nuclear-powered aeroplanes either.)


I was just responding to this

ursaminortaur wrote:Although vastly different technologies it seems amazing how little progress has been made in turning space launches into an everyday occurrence compared to the rapid moves in that direction with the first aircraft.


i.e. could space launches become really routine. No nail-biting, will it, won't it every time, and only cancelled when weather is really bad (I've flown a lot over the years, but never had a cancellation due to weather, though I accept I've never flown in a hurricane!).

AJC5001
Lemon Slice
Posts: 460
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 4:55 pm
Has thanked: 163 times
Been thanked: 162 times

Re: Hey, we're going back to the moon again

#545273

Postby AJC5001 » November 9th, 2022, 9:11 pm

NotSure wrote:I was just responding to this

ursaminortaur wrote:Although vastly different technologies it seems amazing how little progress has been made in turning space launches into an everyday occurrence compared to the rapid moves in that direction with the first aircraft.


i.e. could space launches become really routine. No nail-biting, will it, won't it every time, and only cancelled when weather is really bad (I've flown a lot over the years, but never had a cancellation due to weather, though I accept I've never flown in a hurricane!).


What about Virgin Orbit? Soon to launch from Cornwall https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63218251

All we need then is to hang a Falcon 9 underneath to take advantage of the SpaceX landing ability to recover the main rocket.

Adrian

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2609 times

Re: Hey, we're going back to the moon again

#545281

Postby XFool » November 9th, 2022, 10:11 pm

mc2fool wrote:https://www.spinlaunch.com/

Suitable for satellites and lightweight two dimensional astronauts that can be folded flat. :D

If it works. There are some technical issues in scaling up their existing trial system.

ReformedCharacter
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3169
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:12 am
Has thanked: 3733 times
Been thanked: 1539 times

Re: Hey, we're going back to the moon again

#545402

Postby ReformedCharacter » November 10th, 2022, 11:06 am

AJC5001 wrote:
What about Virgin Orbit? Soon to launch from Cornwall https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63218251

All we need then is to hang a Falcon 9 underneath to take advantage of the SpaceX landing ability to recover the main rocket.

Adrian

Even if that made sense, the Falcon 9 weighs ten times as much as Launcher One and is about the same length as a 747. That idea won't fly :)

RC

ReformedCharacter
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3169
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:12 am
Has thanked: 3733 times
Been thanked: 1539 times

Re: Hey, we're going back to the moon again

#545424

Postby ReformedCharacter » November 10th, 2022, 12:01 pm

XFool wrote:
NotSure wrote:We just need a couple of world wars fought with rocket tech, and we'd be good! It is very illuminating to map aircraft advances with WWI and WW2. Not much has fundamentally happened to aircraft since WW2 (or really, between WWI and WWII). WWI led to huge improvements in props, and WWII to jets.

But what significant "improvements" are possible, for space launches? The physical requirements to get into orbit are not going to change. They are currently achieved by using chemically derived energy, the only other conceivable greater energy source would be nuclear. Nobody has so far come up with any feasible way of safely harnessing nuclear power for space launches, so we seem stuck with chemical rockets.

Once in space things can be a little more optional, but for heavy launches I can't imagine any obvious alternatives. HOTOL?

Similarly, most aeroplanes are using the identical aerodynamics to the Wright brothers' Flyer. It is the design of propulsion systems over time, and hence flight performance, that changed. Which even today is simply one design or another of internal combustion engine. (No nuclear-powered aeroplanes either.)

HOTOL, a great idea and terrific technology but given the fact that the cost of launches to space (SpaceX, for one) is dropping and satellites getting smaller, I doubt if HOTOL will ever be financially viable.

The US did build a plane that contained a nuclear reactor, the Convair NB-36H:

The original crew and avionics cabin was replaced by a massive lead- and rubber-lined 11 ton crew section for a pilot, copilot, flight engineer and two nuclear engineers. Even the small windows had 25–30 centimetres (10–12 in) thick lead glass. The aircraft was fitted with a 1-megawatt air-cooled reactor, with a weight of 35,000 pounds (16,000 kg). This was hung on a hook in the middle bomb bay to allow for easy loading and unloading, so that the radioactive source could be kept safely underground between the test flights. A monitoring system dubbed "Project Halitosis" measured radioactive gases from the reactor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_NB-36H

As to nuclear rockets, feasible yes, safe probably not. Freeman Dyson and Stanislaw Ulam designed nuclear powered rockets (Project Orion) of immense size with the intention that they would be built in shipyards, apparently the larger the rocket the more efficient they became. They were to be powered by ejecting and detonating small nuclear 'bomblets' behind a 'pusher plate' and shock absorption system. Theoretically capable of reaching c. 10% the speed of light.

A preliminary design for a nuclear pulse unit was produced. It proposed the use of a shaped-charge fusion-boosted fission explosive. The explosive was wrapped in a beryllium oxide channel filler, which was surrounded by a uranium radiation mirror. The mirror and channel filler were open ended, and in this open end a flat plate of tungsten propellant was placed. The whole unit was built into a can with a diameter no larger than 6 inches (150 mm) and weighed just over 300 pounds (140 kg) so it could be handled by machinery scaled-up from a soft-drink vending machine; Coca-Cola was consulted on the design.

Freeman Dyson, group leader on the project, estimated back in the 1960s that with conventional nuclear weapons, each launch would statistically cause on average between 0.1 and 1 fatal cancers from the fallout

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

The principle can be seen here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8Sv5y6iHUM

And definitely on the crazy end of the spectrum, Scott Manley - The Nuclear Salt Water Rocket - Possibly the Craziest Rocket Engine Ever Imagined:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvZjhWE-3zM

RC

ReformedCharacter
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3169
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:12 am
Has thanked: 3733 times
Been thanked: 1539 times

Re: Hey, we're going back to the moon again

#546783

Postby ReformedCharacter » November 15th, 2022, 4:35 pm

NASA’s mission management team unanimously approved pressing ahead to a third launch try at 1:04 a.m. EST Wednesday, the opening of a two-hour window.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/11/14/nasa-clears-artemis-moon-rocket-for-wednesday-launch/

I think that is 6:04 UK time.

RC

pje16
Lemon Half
Posts: 6050
Joined: May 30th, 2021, 6:01 pm
Has thanked: 1843 times
Been thanked: 2068 times

Re: Hey, we're going back to the moon again

#546928

Postby pje16 » November 16th, 2022, 8:38 am

NASA’s oft-delayed Artemis 1 lunar test flight finally got off the ground at 1:47 a.m. EST (0647 GMT) Wednesday with the inaugural blastoff of NASA’s huge Space Launch System moon rocket from Kennedy Space Center. The unpiloted demonstration mission will pave the way for future human missions to the moon.
https://spaceflightnow.com/


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests