Some of you may receive the Moon Miners' Manifesto, a periodical of the
Moon Society. Recently there have been some articles advocating NASA's
plans for a space station located at the Earth-Moon L1 Lagrangean point.
such a station were built prior to the establishment of a healthy Moon
base, then all of its radiation protection and resupply needs would have
to be satisfied from Earth. This is not the position in which we want to
be as advocates of the goals of SSI. We should instead advocate going
directly to the Moon and then possibly building such an L1 transportation
node at a much later date. The MMM advocates building both in parallel,
but this is sheer fantasy --- no foreseeable budget is going to be able to
support both a Moon base and an L1 station.
An L1 station is a couple of kilometers-per-second removed from a source
of raw materials for radiation shielding, oxygen supply, and the like. We
need to begin to utilize extra-terrestrial resources as soon as possible,
not build another ship in the desert.
If at a later date we build a mass-driver or some similar mechanism for
moving raw materials off the Moon into cislunar space, then would be an
appropriate time to consider building an L1 transportation node. That
time is not now. We have to get to the Moon first and do a lot of things
there before we should consider building an L1 station. To do it before
or contemporaneously with going to the Moon would be folly.
Ron
I have not read the MMM but I am familiar with NASA's
proposal. I think alot of this boils down to the same
arguements NASA had during the Apollo mission. Does a
lunar descent vehicle have to rendevous with something
near the Moon or something orbiting the Earth?
something close to the Moon, hence L1. The proposals
I have seen argue for an L1 station as it can also be
used for launching missions to Mars in the far future
as well as serve as a platform for servicing GEO
satellites.
Another reason for an L1 base is because of the Lunar
Transfer Orbit. From Earth we cannot just shoot
directly at the Moon with human cargo but need someway
to break our descent. One option is through using an
L1 that we are able to do so. Now I have also heard
of proposals of using the ISS as a platform for
jumping into a LTO but I have not read those
proposals.
Perhaps someone more well versed in orbital dynamics
can explain better lunar transfer orbits but you get
the gyst that it is something which must be
considered.
Ryan
p.s. Sorry for the somewhat garbled response but it is
still to early in the morning for me :)
The proposals
I have seen argue for an L1 station as it can also be
used for launching missions to Mars in the far future
as well as serve as a platform for servicing GEO
satellites. Seems like it would be awfully far fromGEO for the servicing of satellites there. (If we were refueling GEO satellites with lunar-derived propellants, I might could see a case for using Gateway Station for that.) As big a lover of HEO as I am, I think I'd still advocate LEO: There would be launch windows to a specific GEO slot every hundred minutes or so, it would be below the magnetic field (reducing radiation shielding requirements), aerobrakingcan reduce the fuel requirements for thereturn leg, and it's the orbit most easily reached from Earth. Perhaps someone more well versed in orbital dynamics
can explain better lunar transfer orbits but you get
the gyst that it is something which must be
considered. My understanding is that there's only one real advantage of staging at L-1, and that is if you're transferring from an Earth-to-L1 shuttle with an aerobrakingshield to a L1-to-lunar surface shuttle equipped with landing gear, and back again. The advantage being that you don't have to haul the dead weight of the heat shield at the lunar end, nor the landing gear at the Earthward end. I'm generally favorably disposed toward the building of Gateway Station. It almost seems like NASA proposing anything beyond LEO is a good thing. ButRon makes some valid points.
Mike Combs
I have no objection to possibly using the L1 point as a rendezvous point
for some lunar-landing architecture, if that proves beneficial towards the
immediate and tightly-controlled purpose of landing on the Moon. I am
vehemently opposed to building a crewed space station there any time in
the near future. We've got to keep our focus on getting to the Moon, and
utilizing the vast resources it has (such as radiation shielding, as a
source of oxygen, and the like) to bootstrap our further efforts. If we
need to temporarily rendezvous in LEO or at L1 in order to get to the
Moon, then so be it. But let's not make L1 a destination of its own.
--- assembled entirely from Earth-launched components --- that would then
become a monster of its own a la ISS, consuming vast financial resources
and further delaying our return to the Moon. Let's avoid scope creep.
Get to the Moon, and start living off the land rather than launching
everything from Earth.
Ron
"Combs, Mike" mikecombs@...
12/12/02 12:03 PM
proposed Earth-Moon L1 station
The proposals
I have seen argue for an L1 station as it can also be
used for launching missions to Mars in the far future
as well as serve as a platform for servicing GEO
satellites.
Seems like it would be awfully far from GEO for the servicing of
satellites there. (If we were refueling GEO satellites with lunar-derived
propellants, I might could see a case for using Gateway Station for that.)
As big a lover of HEO as I am, I think I'd still advocate LEO: There
would be launch windows to a specific GEO slot every hundred minutes or
so, it would be below the magnetic field (reducing radiation shielding
requirements), aerobraking can reduce the fuel requirements for the return
leg, and it's the orbit most easily reached from Earth.
Perhaps someone more well versed in orbital dynamics
can explain better lunar transfer orbits but you get
the gyst that it is something which must be
considered.
My understanding is that there's only one real advantage of staging at
L-1, and that is if you're transferring from an Earth-to-L1 shuttle with
an aerobraking shield to a L1-to-lunar surface shuttle equipped with
landing gear, and back again. The advantage being that you don't have to
haul the dead weight of the heat shield at the lunar end, nor the landing
gear at the Earthward end.
I'm generally favorably disposed toward the building of Gateway Station.
It almost seems like NASA proposing anything beyond LEO is a good thing.
But Ron makes some valid points.
Regards,
Mike Combs
A station at L1 is the logical next step to developing
the Moon.
we have a plentiful supply of radiation shileding from
luna. The L-1 station can be run with frequent crew
rotations, similar to the ISS.
L-1 is the BEST place to put a solar power satellite
demonstrator. We can place a rectenna on the Moon
and solar PV arrays at L-1. The distance from L-1 to
the Moon is the same as the distance from GEO to
Earth, so it will validate the engineering design
perfectly, and prove that useful power can be beamed
over that distance.
>
> The proposals
> I have seen argue for an L1 station as it can also
> be
> used for launching missions to Mars in the far
> future
> as well as serve as a platform for servicing GEO
> satellites.
>
> Seems like it would be awfully far from GEO for the
> servicing of satellites
> there. (If we were refueling GEO satellites with
> lunar-derived propellants,
> I might could see a case for using Gateway Station
> for that.) As big a
Mike, it has already been done ! A commercial Hughes
Galaxy satellite was inserted into GEO by lunar flyby.
So an L-1 station could indeed have utility in GEO
sevicing missions. If you want to go to GEO from L1
you can most cheaply go via lunar flyby.
Distance is not the issue, the issue is delta-vee.
The difference in delta-vee between a Gesoynchronous
Transfer Orbit (GTO) and a Lunar Transfer Orbit (LTO)
is tiny, a few tens of metres per second IIRC.
And you said yourself, L1 is the perfect place to
refuel a satellite on its way from Earth to GEO.
Getting from Earth to L1 is much cheaper than going
from Earth to GEO. If we fill with lunar propellant
at L1 then it is effectively free passage from there.
> lover of HEO as I am, I think I'd still advocate
> LEO: There would be launch
> windows to a specific GEO slot every hundred minutes
> or so, it would be
The delta-vee from LEO to GEO is very high, that is
the problem.
If we can get a propellant manufacturing facility up
and running on the Moon, then L1 will be a very
popular refueling point.
But saying that we should wait for lunar surface
facilities prior to having an L1 station makes no
sense to me. Lunar surface facilities are expensive,
it is very costly in delta-vee to soft land equipment
on the Moon. By comparison, an L1 station requires
a lot lower investment, it will be a lot easier to get
the funding, and it will get people thinking about the
next step.
It is too much to expect politicians and taxpayers to
make the mental leap from nothing to lunar surface
failities in one jump. An L1 station would be a
relatively inexpensive way to get people thinking in
the right direction.
We will need the L1 station anyway, and it requires
the least up front investment, so let's get started
with it.
Regards,
Charles R.
The distance from L-1 to
the Moon is the same as the distance from GEO to
Earth, so it will validate the engineering design
perfectly, and prove that useful power can be beamed
over that distance. As well as eliminating the need for a nuke on the moon, which is probably a non-starter, politically speaking. Getting from Earth to L1 is much cheaper than going
from Earth to GEO. Y'know, I keep forgetting that!
Mike Combs
I think that going to L1 before going to the Moon is executing things in
the wrong order.
say
"
If we can get a propellant manufacturing facility up and running on the
Moon, then L1 will be a very popular refueling point.
"
Well, it is perfectly reasonable to build your propellant manufacturing
facility on the Moon first, then build your L1 propellant depot later.
You said
"
We can place a rectenna on the Moon and solar PV arrays at L-1.
"
Well, go put your rectenna in place on the Moon first, and put your solar
PV arrays at L1 later.
You said
"
Lunar surface facilities are expensive,it is very costly in delta-vee to
soft land equipment
on the Moon.
"
That's true, but how else do you propose to get your propellant
manufacturing facility up and running on the Moon? How would you propose
to put a rectenna on the Moon? All of that initial equipment has to be
soft-landed on the Moon.
Ron
charles radley cfrjlr@...
12/12/02 02:40 PM
proposed Earth-Moon L1 station
A station at L1 is the logical next step to developing
the Moon.
I disagree with the argument that we should wait until
we have a plentiful supply of radiation shileding from
luna. The L-1 station can be run with frequent crew
rotations, similar to the ISS.
L-1 is the BEST place to put a solar power satellite
demonstrator. We can place a rectenna on the Moon
and solar PV arrays at L-1. The distance from L-1 to
the Moon is the same as the distance from GEO to
Earth, so it will validate the engineering design
perfectly, and prove that useful power can be beamed
over that distance.
>
> The proposals
> I have seen argue for an L1 station as it can also
> be
> used for launching missions to Mars in the far
> future
> as well as serve as a platform for servicing GEO
> satellites.
>
> Seems like it would be awfully far from GEO for the
> servicing of satellites
> there. (If we were refueling GEO satellites with
> lunar-derived propellants,
> I might could see a case for using Gateway Station
> for that.) As big a
Mike, it has already been done ! A commercial Hughes
Galaxy satellite was inserted into GEO by lunar flyby.
So an L-1 station could indeed have utility in GEO
sevicing missions. If you want to go to GEO from L1
you can most cheaply go via lunar flyby.
Distance is not the issue, the issue is delta-vee.
The difference in delta-vee between a Gesoynchronous
Transfer Orbit (GTO) and a Lunar Transfer Orbit (LTO)
is tiny, a few tens of metres per second IIRC.
And you said yourself, L1 is the perfect place to
refuel a satellite on its way from Earth to GEO.
Getting from Earth to L1 is much cheaper than going
from Earth to GEO. If we fill with lunar propellant
at L1 then it is effectively free passage from there.
> lover of HEO as I am, I think I'd still advocate
> LEO: There would be launch
> windows to a specific GEO slot every hundred minutes
> or so, it would be
The delta-vee from LEO to GEO is very high, that is
the problem.
If we can get a propellant manufacturing facility up
and running on the Moon, then L1 will be a very
popular refueling point.
But saying that we should wait for lunar surface
facilities prior to having an L1 station makes no
sense to me. Lunar surface facilities are expensive,
it is very costly in delta-vee to soft land equipment
on the Moon. By comparison, an L1 station requires
a lot lower investment, it will be a lot easier to get
the funding, and it will get people thinking about the
next step.
It is too much to expect politicians and taxpayers to
make the mental leap from nothing to lunar surface
failities in one jump. An L1 station would be a
relatively inexpensive way to get people thinking in
the right direction.
We will need the L1 station anyway, and it requires
the least up front investment, so let's get started
with it.
Regards,
Charles R.
> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 09:03:47 -0500
> proposed Earth-Moon L1 station
>
> Some of you may receive the Moon Miners' Manifesto, a
> periodical of the
> Moon Society. Recently there have been some articles
> advocating NASA's
> plans for a space station located at the Earth-Moon L1
> Lagrangean point.
>
> I think that implementing such an idea would be a terrible
> mistake.
than most of the alternatives on offer.
It can basically be flown with the off-the-shelf systems (unlike the Lunar &
Martian alternatives, which require heavy re-investment in landing
technology); is instantly adaptable to expansion as a means for exploring
the near Earth asteroids; & side-bars all of the divisive attacks between
the Lunar & Mars advocates on which of their potential targets deserve the
most pork.
The Moon Society is out of line here (as indeed is the Mars Soc, which has
made similar yelps); because - if properly funded (admittedly a huge caveat)
- this proposal looks a winner.
Live in peace
Robert.Clements@...
endeavour2 project http://www.geocities.com/robtclements/endeavour2.html>
> Some of you may receive the Moon Miners' Manifesto, a periodical of the
> Moon Society.
to back issues online at http://www.moonsociety.org/ (and I was
recently elected to the board of directors there...)
> The MMM advocates building both in parallel,
> but this is sheer fantasy --- no foreseeable budget is going to be able to
> support both a Moon base and an L1 station.
I don't think the vision is to start with an ISS-scale station
at L1 (though I have yet to hear whether that's what NASA is thinking or
not). Going through L1 has always been a good option for
lunar travel though, because it allows a lot of flexibility in
timing and landing location. So I think the main idea is to drop
things off at L1 on the way to and from the Moon, building up
capacity there as we go. If the two efforts were integrated,
cost should not be much greater than to just do one of them,
and flexibility for the future would be much greater.
From what I've heard, the whole idea of the new "NEXT" strategy
at NASA is to take incremental steps that build on one another,
rather than doing things that don't have a long-term purpose.
L1 provides a reason to use lunar resources in a location close to the Moon,
and reciprocally, a way to take advantage of near-Moon space to help
get lunar development moving. I love Charles Radley's idea for
a SPS demonstrator at L1, for example - this gives us a step-by-step
approach to real, large-scale SPS's built with lunar materials.
> [...]
> We have to get to the Moon first and do a lot of things
> there before we should consider building an L1 station. To do it before
> or contemporaneously with going to the Moon would be folly.
I agree that the focus should be the lunar base, not an independent L1
station. It makes no sense to build at L1 without using lunar resources;
on the other hand, I think they could easily grow up together. At least
I hope that's part of NASA's vision...
Arthur
--- In ssi_list@... "Clements, Robert"
> > Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 09:03:47 -0500
> > proposed Earth-Moon L1 station
> >
> > Some of you may receive the Moon Miners' Manifesto, a
> > periodical of the
> > Moon Society. Recently there have been some articles
> > advocating NASA's
> > plans for a space station located at the Earth-Moon L1
> > Lagrangean point.
> >
> > I think that implementing such an idea would be a terrible
> > mistake.
>
> Actually, the L1 plans make more budgetary, technological &
political sense
> than most of the alternatives on offer.
The L1 station is a project without a mission. It's the next big
ticket item to justify the existence of NASA. I fear it'll meet with
the same "success" as ISS or the shuttle. I was disheartened to read
the press release and the ensuing coverage. It seems to me that the
days of NASA having a clearly defined mission and implementing it
are long gone. Now it seems they must try to get as much as they can
in order to meet the goal of "getting as much as we can" in order to
do something, anything, even if it doesn't make sense.
>
> It can basically be flown with the off-the-shelf systems (unlike
the Lunar &
> Martian alternatives, which require heavy re-investment in landing
> technology); is instantly adaptable to expansion as a means for
exploring
> the near Earth asteroids; & side-bars all of the divisive attacks
between
> the Lunar & Mars advocates on which of their potential targets
deserve the
> most pork.
Why not just invest in boost technology and boost the ISS, or its
disassembled component parts, to the L1 region. It seems to me that
after ISS meets its mission life that NASA needs to find someplace
else to fly to. . .L1 will do nicely.
Here's what NASA brings to the table. . . a whole bunch of
engineers, scientists and administrators and their contractor
cohorts who are all very well versed in the engineering, science,
office politics, and congressional politics of zero-g station design
and shuttle launches.
To advocate lunar development, orbital transfer vehicle development,
landing development, Mars development, etc doesn't use the skill
sets that have been developed over the years. Political fiefdoms
will die and new ones will be created. No, that mustn't be allowed
to happen! Better to have another station that the existing
personnel and contractors will play a big part in. Continue the
status quo. There more things change the more they stay the same.
The more ambitious the plans of NASA the more the dependence on
earth launch, the more reliance on zero-g stations, the more shuttle
launches, the more expensive contracts to contractors. The new
things never get pushed in a big way because they don't advance
anyone's political agenda or promote career advancement.
Who at NASA will peg their career to launching robotic devices to
the moon to make cast basalt bricks and panels, to lay down mass
quantities of cheap and inefficient silicon solar cells, to
beneficiate lunar regolith into ilmenite, to refine ilmenite into
its iron and titanium oxide components. To have little bulldozers
digging tunnels, moving dirt, parking in sheds or caves for the
lunar night. Doing this for a few years by teleoperation before
there is a need to send astronauts. Which directorate at NASA is
going to push for that agenda to be implemented? NO GROUP AT ALL!
There's no glamor in it. What expertise will all the zero-g people
bring to this new mission? Why bootstrap and develop local materials
when we can lift it all from earth and increase NASA's budget,
increase the need for the shuttle, dole out pork to all of the
congressional districts with big ticket design modules, get jobs
with our favorite contractors after we retire from NASA or congress,
and really advance our careers by helping to salvage our raison
d'etre after the expiration of ISS.
>
> The Moon Society is out of line here (as indeed is the Mars Soc,
which has
> made similar yelps); because - if properly funded (admittedly a
huge caveat)
> - this proposal looks a winner.
A winner usually implies meeting a goal, and other than building it,
what goal will it meet. This is really putting the cart before the
horse.
TangoMan
P.S. Take a look at my post 60 Easy Steps for my lengthy opinion on
how I think it should be done.
> The Moon Society is out of line here (as indeed is the Mars Soc, which has
> made similar yelps); because - if properly funded (admittedly a huge caveat)
> - this proposal looks a winner.
who runs the MMM publication (and is also on the board of directors)
wrote in favor of the L1 plans in a recent issue - that's what
Ron was complaining about. In my opinion, if NASA's NEXT plans
are given the support they need, this will be a major step forward
for space development.
Arthur Smith
Here's an article regarding the L1 station from space.com:
"
said Gary Martin, leader of NExT and assistant associate administrator for
the Office of Space Flight at NASA Headquarters. "We're looking at a
stair-step of capability. Our first stair step is Earth's neighborhood."
...
NASA's Martin said the L1 Gateway, replete with a habitat for crew
occupancy
...
But it can also be the first step on the way to putting people elsewhere
...
"
Note the phrase "Our FIRST step..." (emphasis mine) and "replete with a
habitat for crew occupancy". In other words, before NASA sends anyone
to the Moon or elsewhere, we'll build another ISS at L1 and populate it
with people. Yuck.
Why not go directly to Malapert Mountain at the Moon's South Pole and
establish a base there and begin to live off the land? No need for nukes
or SPS demonstrators, because 93% of the time the peak's in sunlight.
Or, if you want to leverage the zero-G experience with ISS, then build and
send an ISS variant to a NEO and back again. Or if Mars is too popular,
then send it to Deimos and back again.
Cut to the chase.
Ron
> tango_dancer@...
> the proposed Earth-Moon L1 station
>
> --- In ssi_list@... "Clements, Robert"
>
> Au contraire mon ami. I have to weigh in with Ron on this matter.
> The L1 station is a project without a mission.
return to either the Moon or Mars will be without a mission; & can be done
at a fraction of the cost of the competing approaches. Let's stick to the
program here: we will not return to the Moon around Malapert Mountain to
build a self-sustaining base - despite a film script out there by Robert
Clements attrib. Diogenes Kanness which assumes exactly that - because the
necessary technologies aren't close to mature enough to do that on a
sustainable budget; so the Zubrinesque presumption of Peter Kokh saying that
L1 should be roadblocked simply because it doesn't suit the MMM's fantasies
is way out of line (same will be even more true when the Mars Soc nuts start
releasing the same press releases, as they undoubtably will).
The one thing holding back space development is the Apollo-era nonsense that
we keep having to proposing visionary missions to keep the bureaucracy
alive; whereas what we really need is developmental approaches that build
from what we know & don't waste fortunes on mission critical systems pork.
It may ultimately turn out that L1 will be visionary, too; but at least at
this point, it has a scientific, technological & budgetary aesthetic that
makes sense & doesn't currently have to break the NASA bank. As previously
noted, low delta v NEOs can be reached with relatively small improvements of
MIR-2 class technology (the ISS hard-systems are basically worthless); so
depending on the final L1 configuration, this proposal may have clear &
immediate applications beyond the Earth-Moon system; but the important thing
about L1 is that it isn't visionary; & can be designed so you don't have to
keep going back to the taxpayers for more & more money. That's a better bet
for me than any any nonsense about unsustainable SF futurisms.
Live in peace
Robert.Clements@...
endeavour2 project http://www.geocities.com/robtclements/endeavour2.html>
> the Zubrinesque presumption of Peter Kokh saying that
> L1 should be roadblocked simply because it doesn't suit the MMM's fantasies
> is way out of line (same will be even more true when the Mars Soc nuts start
> releasing the same press releases, as they undoubtably will).
at least from what I'd read, he supported the project, and was pointing
out how it and a moon base could work together!
Arthur
Peter Kokh wrote the articles in the Moon Miners' Manifesto supporting the
L1 station. I initiated the ssi_list thread
"Building a ship in the desert: Just say No to the proposed Earth-Moon L1
station"
criticizing the L1 station that Kokh supports. I, not Kokh, should be
the target of your venom with respect to this issue.
Moon/NEO/Mars means that all of its components, radiation protection,
resupply needs, etc. must be lifted from Earth. I maintain that doing
so would be incorrect sequencing, and will ultimately do more harm than
good. Rather, we should focus on beginning to utilize extra-terrestrial
resources as soon as possible.
Ron
"Clements, Robert" Robert.Clements@...
12/15/02 05:15 PM
proposed Earth-Moon L1 station
> tango_dancer@...
> the proposed Earth-Moon L1 station
>
> --- In ssi_list@... "Clements, Robert"
>
> Au contraire mon ami. I have to weigh in with Ron on this matter.
> The L1 station is a project without a mission.
A movement to L1 will be without a mission in exactly the same way that
any
return to either the Moon or Mars will be without a mission; & can be done
at a fraction of the cost of the competing approaches. Let's stick to the
program here: we will not return to the Moon around Malapert Mountain to
build a self-sustaining base - despite a film script out there by Robert
Clements attrib. Diogenes Kanness which assumes exactly that - because the
necessary technologies aren't close to mature enough to do that on a
sustainable budget; so the Zubrinesque presumption of Peter Kokh saying
that
L1 should be roadblocked simply because it doesn't suit the MMM's
fantasies
is way out of line (same will be even more true when the Mars Soc nuts
start
releasing the same press releases, as they undoubtably will).
The one thing holding back space development is the Apollo-era nonsense
that
we keep having to proposing visionary missions to keep the bureaucracy
alive; whereas what we really need is developmental approaches that build
from what we know & don't waste fortunes on mission critical systems pork.
It may ultimately turn out that L1 will be visionary, too; but at least at
this point, it has a scientific, technological & budgetary aesthetic that
makes sense & doesn't currently have to break the NASA bank. As previously
noted, low delta v NEOs can be reached with relatively small improvements
of
MIR-2 class technology (the ISS hard-systems are basically worthless); so
depending on the final L1 configuration, this proposal may have clear &
immediate applications beyond the Earth-Moon system; but the important
thing
about L1 is that it isn't visionary; & can be designed so you don't have
to
keep going back to the taxpayers for more & more money. That's a better
bet
for me than any any nonsense about unsustainable SF futurisms.
Live in peace
Robert.Clements@...
endeavour2 project http://www.geocities.com/robtclements/endeavour2.html>
Message I would say this. Gerard O'Neill was never one to overlook an advantage to an orbital location for an activity. And I don't recall him proposing an L-1 installation prior to returning to the moon and launching material from the lunar surface.
Building a crewed station at Earth-Moon L1 BEFORE going to the
Moon/NEO/Mars means that all of its components, radiation protection,
resupply needs, etc. must be lifted from Earth. I maintain that doing
so would be incorrect sequencing, and will ultimately do more harm than
good. Rather, we should focus on beginning to utilize extra-terrestrial
resources as soon as possible.
A question is, what does, "Building a crewed station at Earth-Moon L1
BEFORE going to the
Moon ..." mean? It could mean before building anything substantial on the
Moon. I mean we have already been on the Moon lots of times, and lifted 400
kg of lunar materials off, so it can't mean before any of that. So will any
more of that be allowed? Including lifting shielding dross?
I wonder why such long titles are used for these threads? Shouldn't the
arguments be made in the text and not in the titles?
Jay Huebner
I'll try to remember to limit my future message titles to no more than
40-50 characters --- I can see from many of the replies that some piece of
software that other people are using seems to be inserting a carriage
return or some such after approx. 50 characters. Sorry.
NASA proposed station at Earth-Moon L1 is that it would be entirely
comprised of Earth-launched elements, and that it would be constructed
BEFORE any further significant activity on the Moon.
Ron
"Huebner, Jay" jhuebn@...
12/16/02 11:22 AM
proposed Earth-Moon L1 station
A question is, what does, "Building a crewed station at Earth-Moon L1
BEFORE going to the
Moon ..." mean? It could mean before building anything substantial on the
Moon. I mean we have already been on the Moon lots of times, and lifted
400
kg of lunar materials off, so it can't mean before any of that. So will
any
more of that be allowed? Including lifting shielding dross?
I wonder why such long titles are used for these threads? Shouldn't
the
arguments be made in the text and not in the titles?
Jay Huebner
I guess there is a mis-understanding somewhere (perhaps it is mine) on what
NASA is proposing. As I read the press release, it was to use operations at
Earth-Luna L1 and on the Moon to learn how to operate on Mars and elsewhere.
I think that makes sense since I don't think we will be "up to" a crewed
Mars trip for a long time, beyond the horizon of my imagination, as I think
that trip anytime soon would cost $ trillions without significant
infrastructure in cis-lunar space. And I see few benefits from such a trip
that can not be obtained with developing telepresence with robots on Mars.
Us old folks may think we have to go, but we are being replaced with a
generation that played with computers before they could spell. Telepresence
for the next generation may be more real for them than real is for us. A
great advantage for the Earth-Luna L1 and other operations on the Moon, is
that it can provide solar power to the Earth, which can help with many
industrial and greenhouse problems here on Earth. It could generate
enormous wealth, and huge space capabilities in cis-lunar space. So I don't
think we can go to Mars directly (meaning sending humans). One might also
argue that a 2 to 1 resonance orbit with the Moon (about Earth) would be
better than L 1, but I see that as only one detail, though others may not
see it that way. Jay Huebner
I'll try to remember to limit my future message titles to no more than
40-50 characters --- I can see from many of the replies that some piece of
software that other people are using seems to be inserting a carriage
return or some such after approx. 50 characters. Sorry.
I don't quite understand your further questions. My understanding of the
NASA proposed station at Earth-Moon L1 is that it would be entirely
comprised of Earth-launched elements, and that it would be constructed
BEFORE any further significant activity on the Moon.
Ron
"Huebner, Jay" jhuebn@...
12/16/02 11:22 AM
Just say No to the
proposed Earth-Moon L1 station
A question is, what does, "Building a crewed station at Earth-Moon L1
BEFORE going to the
Moon ..." mean? It could mean before building anything substantial on the
Moon. I mean we have already been on the Moon lots of times, and lifted
400
kg of lunar materials off, so it can't mean before any of that. So will
any
more of that be allowed? Including lifting shielding dross?
I wonder why such long titles are used for these threads? Shouldn't
the
arguments be made in the text and not in the titles?
Jay Huebner
> to the proposed Earth-Moon L1 station
>
> > the Zubrinesque presumption of Peter Kokh saying that
> > L1 should be roadblocked simply because it doesn't suit the
> MMM's fantasies
> > is way out of line (same will be even more true when the
> Mars Soc nuts start
> > releasing the same press releases, as they undoubtably will).
>
> Where'd you get that? Peter Kokh said no such thing! As I was
> trying to say,
> at least from what I'd read, he supported the project, and
> was pointing
> out how it and a moon base could work together!
- in support of a blocking campaign. If i have been misinformed (& indeed,
spread that disinformation), my apologies to Peter Kokh.
Live in peace
Robert.Clements@...
endeavour2 project http://www.geocities.com/robtclements/endeavour2.html>