The ISS should have been built in L5 in my opinion. Because its orbit deteriorates constantly, we have to keep boosting the thing back up about every six months or so.
I'm talking moon-earth L5. Same distance as the moon. The Russians
were offering a trip involving orbiting the moon several times and
returning.
So am I. The Saturn 5 rockets got US astronauts to the Moon, and there
were a couple left over when Apollo ended. But they were not maintained
and soon were not functional. The Space Shuttle could never go anywhere
but low earth orbit, and that was only if it was launched going east.
It can not go to higher orbits such as geosynch. So how could the US
build something at the Moon's distance? Now we (the US) can not even
get astronauts to low earth orbit, but must use Russian rockets, which
also can not go to the Moon or L5. We have never had the capabilities
to build the ISS at L5.
detailed plans and a lot of engineering. I find it frustrating that
there is so much bad-mouthing the Shuttle and ISS. They seemed like
good ideas at the time, and it is only in hind sight that their failures
are clear, but the Shuttle has served us well for a long time. Being in
low-earth orbit was a good plan. We went there on the way to the Moon
in Apollo. Just where in space would one go without first getting to
LEO?
Jay Huebner
Behalf Of George Perkins
I'm talking moon-earth L5. Same distance as the moon. The Russians
were offering a trip involving orbiting the moon several times and
returning.
I don't think this is a big leap in technology to do this.
> A significant problem with building anything for humans at L5 is that
no
With a little more thought, maybe an issue here is the difference
between getting some where in space and stopping there. On Earth,
friction makes stopping slowly easy. In space that is not the case. I
think the point Mr. Perkins is making is that if the Russians can get to
the Moon for taking tourists there for a few orbits they should be able
to get to L5. I agree about getting to that place, but I am not sure
about stopping and getting back. Apollo 13 used a trip around the Moon
as the easiest way to get back to Earth. Landing on the Moon requires a
lot more resources, such as rocket fuel, engines, etc. Stopping at L5
would also require resources, although L5 does not have the gravity of
the Moon. The lack of gravity at L5 would change the dynamics of
turning around there to come back.
Sincerely, Jay Huebner
So am I. The Saturn 5 rockets got US astronauts to the Moon, and there
were a couple left over when Apollo ended. But they were not maintained
and soon were not functional. The Space Shuttle could never go anywhere
but low earth orbit, and that was only if it was launched going east.
It can not go to higher orbits such as geosynch. So how could the US
build something at the Moon's distance? Now we (the US) can not even
get astronauts to low earth orbit, but must use Russian rockets, which
also can not go to the Moon or L5. We have never had the capabilities
to build the ISS at L5.
Of course we think we could do it if some one would just pay for
detailed plans and a lot of engineering. I find it frustrating that
there is so much bad-mouthing the Shuttle and ISS. They seemed like
good ideas at the time, and it is only in hind sight that their failures
are clear, but the Shuttle has served us well for a long time. Being in
low-earth orbit was a good plan. We went there on the way to the Moon
in Apollo. Just where in space would one go without first getting to
LEO?
Jay Huebner
Behalf Of George Perkins
I'm talking moon-earth L5. Same distance as the moon. The Russians
were offering a trip involving orbiting the moon several times and
returning.
I don't think this is a big leap in technology to do this.
> A significant problem with building anything for humans at L5 is that
no
Jay, don't get me wrong.
And I hear you on the difficulty RE L5.
Take care.
:)
OK, I'll bite. Exactly how do you get to L5 and get into orbit
there? Can you leave LEO with just enough Delta-V that you coast into
a cozy little kidney-bean-shaped orbit, or do you need as big a burn
once you get there as you neede to get out of LEO?
been proposed in the first place.
Orbital Mechanics is not my strong suit, but my understanding is that it is
not orbit you want to achieve at L5. With earth/moon gravity canceling each
other out, L5 becomes very stable for objects placed there. Exiting L5 takes
very little Delta-V.
Right, Kent. Exactly.
If the ISS was there we wouldn't have to keep boosting it back up
every six months or so. It would stay there.
But we need to factor everything in to see if there's a real cost
savings and of course we have to be capable of doing it in the first
place.
> Orbital Mechanics is not my strong suit, but my understanding is
that it is
> not orbit you want to achieve at L5. With earth/moon gravity
canceling each
> other out, L5 becomes very stable for objects placed there. Exiting
L5 takes
With regard to L5 as a good location for locating a habitat, how much
energy is required to get material from the moon (or lunar orbit) to
L5? Why go to L5 anyway? Why wouldn't lunar orbit (perhaps a polar
orbit) provide all benefits of L5 while being closer to the source of
materials?
> Right, Kent. Exactly.
>
> It's sticky space.
>
> If the ISS was there we wouldn't have to keep boosting it back up
> every six months or so. It would stay there.
>
> But we need to factor everything in to see if there's a real cost
> savings and of course we have to be capable of doing it in the first
> place.
>
> > Orbital Mechanics is not my strong suit, but my understanding is
> that it is
> > not orbit you want to achieve at L5. With earth/moon gravity
> canceling each
> > other out, L5 becomes very stable for objects placed there. Exiting
> L5 takes
> > very little Delta-V.
> >
> > Kent
> >
> > > OK, I'll bite. Exactly how do you get to L5 and get into orbit
> > > there? Can you leave LEO with just enough Delta-V that you coast
> into
> > > a cozy little kidney-bean-shaped orbit, or do you need as big a
> burn
> > > once you get there as you neede to get out of LEO?
> > >
> > > I'd imagine that L5 can't be that bad a place, else it wouldn't've
>
> > > been proposed in the first place.
> > >
education
History of space My first Space exploration
Materials from an "asteroid of convenience" will be much cheaper. It
still takes some energy from equipment that has to be moved or built on
the Moon, which will cost Billions. All total we humans have only put
perhaps 200 tons on the Moon so far.
asteroid. The effort is called MADMEN; see
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/05/19/asteroid.eater/.
Park an asteroid in a 2 to 1 resonance orbit with the Moon and make a
home there. It is easier to get too than the Moon, not too difficult to
get a small asteroid to providing it is already in a useful orbit, is at
the site of millions of tons (100 M diameter asteroid) of materials, and
the orbit would be stable. A better location by all accounts. A
disadvantage is that it is harder to explain but I expect that will
pass. Jay Huebner
Behalf Of Ron Fox
With regard to L5 as a good location for locating a habitat, how much
energy is required to get material from the moon (or lunar orbit) to
L5? Why go to L5 anyway? Why wouldn't lunar orbit (perhaps a polar
orbit) provide all benefits of L5 while being closer to the source of
materials?
>
> Right, Kent. Exactly.
>
> It's sticky space.
>
> If the ISS was there we wouldn't have to keep boosting it back up
> every six months or so. It would stay there.
>
> But we need to factor everything in to see if there's a real cost
> savings and of course we have to be capable of doing it in the first
> place.
>
> > Orbital Mechanics is not my strong suit, but my understanding is
> that it is
> > not orbit you want to achieve at L5. With earth/moon gravity
> canceling each
> > other out, L5 becomes very stable for objects placed there. Exiting
> L5 takes
> > very little Delta-V.
> >
> > Kent
> >
> > > OK, I'll bite. Exactly how do you get to L5 and get into orbit
> > > there? Can you leave LEO with just enough Delta-V that you coast
> into
> > > a cozy little kidney-bean-shaped orbit, or do you need as big a
> burn
> > > once you get there as you neede to get out of LEO?
> > >
> > > I'd imagine that L5 can't be that bad a place, else it wouldn't've
>
> > > been proposed in the first place.
> > >
education
History of space My first Space exploration
Oops, I sent the wrong reference and link. I should have sent this
one, http://www.oasis-nss.org/articles/2004/08/hopes-gounley.html
Materials from an "asteroid of convenience" will be much cheaper. It
still takes some energy from equipment that has to be moved or built on
the Moon, which will cost Billions. All total we humans have only put
perhaps 200 tons on the Moon so far.
The Europeans are readying an effort to actually push on a small
asteroid. The effort is called MADMEN; see
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/05/19/asteroid.eater/.
Park an asteroid in a 2 to 1 resonance orbit with the Moon and make a
home there. It is easier to get too than the Moon, not too difficult to
get a small asteroid to providing it is already in a useful orbit, is at
the site of millions of tons (100 M diameter asteroid) of materials, and
the orbit would be stable. A better location by all accounts. A
disadvantage is that it is harder to explain but I expect that will
pass. Jay Huebner
Behalf Of Ron Fox
With regard to L5 as a good location for locating a habitat, how much
energy is required to get material from the moon (or lunar orbit) to
L5? Why go to L5 anyway? Why wouldn't lunar orbit (perhaps a polar
orbit) provide all benefits of L5 while being closer to the source of
materials?
>
> Right, Kent. Exactly.
>
> It's sticky space.
>
> If the ISS was there we wouldn't have to keep boosting it back up
> every six months or so. It would stay there.
>
> But we need to factor everything in to see if there's a real cost
> savings and of course we have to be capable of doing it in the first
> place.
>
> > Orbital Mechanics is not my strong suit, but my understanding is
> that it is
> > not orbit you want to achieve at L5. With earth/moon gravity
> canceling each
> > other out, L5 becomes very stable for objects placed there. Exiting
> L5 takes
> > very little Delta-V.
> >
> > Kent
> >
> > > OK, I'll bite. Exactly how do you get to L5 and get into orbit
> > > there? Can you leave LEO with just enough Delta-V that you coast
> into
> > > a cozy little kidney-bean-shaped orbit, or do you need as big a
> burn
> > > once you get there as you neede to get out of LEO?
> > >
> > > I'd imagine that L5 can't be that bad a place, else it wouldn't've
>
> > > been proposed in the first place.
> > >
education
History of space My first Space exploration
energy is required to get material from the moon (or lunar orbit) to
L5? Why go to L5 anyway? Why wouldn't lunar orbit (perhaps a polar
orbit) provide all benefits of L5 while being closer to the source of
materials? Bear in mind that the Summer Study participants needed to strike a balance between being close to the source of raw materials and being close to the final destination for the products being produced (SPS for GEO). Low lunar orbits would be problematic due to perturbations from mascons. And low orbits would also block you from solar power a certain percentage of the time. L-1 gets pretty good sun, but is unstable on one axis. Butwith regard to L-5, I should comment that the later High Frontier studies recommended a circular, 2-week orbit about halfway to lunar orbit over L-5.
Mike Combs
The moon doesn't have much to offer as far as materials go.
SpaceCity for workers, tourists, manufacturing, food processing, space
launching platforms, refueling stations, etc.
The location is an excellent starting point for serious human space
exploration and tourism.
Your best bet if you really want to be a moon prospector is to check
out those craters. Some of them probably have some lumps of good
stuff in them.
Good luck.
Thanks, Jay.
the discovery is that the comet is a seriously very soft snow ball -
very little substance to it.
Consistant to this is that it appears from past close-ups of asteroids
that asteroids are porous and made up of very loosely connected
material having an overall consistancy of hard packed snow.
Also asteroids tend to vibrate when they're struck by another asteroid
or large space rock causing some of its craters to virtually disappear
or "erase".
This is good news as far as extracting materials goes. It doesn't get
much easier.
If striking a balance between sources of material (lunar materials in
early habitats) and products (SPS in geo), was a high earth orbit of say
150,000 km considered? Could the orbit could be slightly inclined so
that the habitat does not pass through the Earth's shadow?
light speed from Earth, making interaction between habitat residents and
Earthbound residents easier which has implications in an integrated
information economy. In the ciruclar orbit around L5, halfway-to-lunar
orbit scenario, round trip propagation delay varies from 1 - 5 seconds
or so.
I realize to some this small delay is of little consequence, but I think
it will be important in a terrestial economy that will be more and more
reliant on "real time" information services. The habitat will attract
the most innovative minds and information services for Earthbound
businesses and residents will be potentially huge, perhaps ultimately
more importatnt than the market for SPS. That is one of the primary
reasons that I feel that Mars is an unsuitable location for near term
human habitation, in addition to the prodigeous travel time required.
I am sure all of these factors and more were considered in later High
Frontier studies and it would be great if you could direct me to
relevant sources of information.
out those craters. Some of them probably have some lumps of good
stuff in them. A good point. Our present view of the lunar resources available is based on what was within easy travel of only 6 landing sites. More extensive exploration geared as much toward prospecting as planetary science might yield presently-unknown bounties.
Mike Combs
that asteroids are porous and made up of very loosely connected
material having an overall consistancy of hard packed snow.
much easier. This is also good news from the point of view of mass-driver advocates. Because it means that the major competitor cited for purposes of changing the course of an asteroid, a stand-off nuclear detonation, might not be very effective.
Regards,
Mike Combs
L5 is the same distance as the moon.
consideration at all to make, is, I think, about 4/5ths of the way to
the moon. Only a little corrective propulsion would be needed if any.
But if the benefits are greater than the costs it really doesn't
matter that much where you are of course.
early habitats) and products (SPS in geo), was a high earth orbit of say
150,000 km considered? Could the orbit could be slightly inclined so
that the habitat does not pass through the Earth's shadow?
light speed from Earth, making interaction between habitat residents and
Earthbound residents easier which has implications in an integrated
information economy. In the ciruclar orbit around L5, halfway-to-lunar
orbit scenario, round trip propagation delay varies from 1 - 5 seconds
or so. No, I think I've let myself be misunderstood. I meant a circular orbit about the Earth about 1/2 theradius of lunar orbit; not an orbit around the L-5 point. An orbitnot terribly different from what you suggest. An orbit halfway to the moon would be in sunlight around 99% of the time. I am sure all of these factors and more were considered in later High
Frontier studies and it would be great if you could direct me to
relevant sources of information. I think Heppenheimer's second book talked a bit about them deciding to take a pass on L-5 in favor of HEO. Toward Distant Suns by T. A. Heppenheimer, 1979, Stackpole Books, ISBN: 0-449-90035-5 I think in Heppenheimer'sfirst book they were still talking about a 2:1 resonance orbit. Past a point, O'Neill said that whenever he said "L-5", that should be considered shorthand for "whatever orbit they finally settle on".
Regards,
Mike Combs
Agreed.
Then I would select the one that looks the most promising economically
and survival-wise.
And that's where I'd set up mining operations as well as the first
moon habitats.
Now, about the overall content of the moon.
to a few hundred ppm in the lunar regolith. M-type asteroids are about
99% metal. C-type asteroids have 5% to 20% water. The lunar surface,
by contrast, has no native water. Solar wind implantation of hydrogen
on the lunar surface offers up to about 50 ppm hydrogen, which, if
fully released and fully converted into water, would optimistically
give the lunar surface about 0.045% water. Overall, the lunar surface
is volatile-poor and metal-poor.
Oxygen yes, but Oxygen is near zilch.
But find a good crater and maybe you'll have an oasis of sorts.
I apologize if I seem misinformed on the constitution of the lunar
regolith, but "The High Frontier" suggests that by weigth, it is
typically 40% oxygen, 20% Silicon, and 20- 30% metals (aluminum, iron,
magnesium, titanium). Is there a more up-to-date assay?
regolith, but "The High Frontier" suggests that by weigth, it is
typically 40% oxygen, 20% Silicon, and 20- 30% metals (aluminum, iron,
magnesium, titanium). Is there a more up-to-date assay?
>
> Free metal concentrations in stony meteorites are about 20%, compared
> to a few hundred ppm in the lunar regolith. The only way that I see he could get to "ppm" is by using "free metal" to mean metal unbound to oxygen atoms. But of course that's what ore refineries are for. The figures you've been seeing are correct for iron in the form of iron oxide, aluminum in the form of alumina oxide, etc.
Regards,
Mike Combs
> making interaction between habitat residents and Earthbound
residents > easier which has implications in an integrated information
economy.
people have floated the proposal that orbital habitats will be a
nirvana for information workers doing contract work for clients on Earth.
I don't buy those scenarios, because I go by the rule of thumb that
anything that can be done on Earth can be done cheaper than in oribt.
Orbital Habitats will excel in specializing in goods and services that
cannot be done on Earth. I don't see guys sitting around coding all
day in orbit being a competitive nitch compared to guys sitting around
and coding all day in Mumbai.
In fact, I would think that all sorts of support work will be
"off-shored" to Earth - such as accounting, payroll, info. processing,
etc.
In these cases I don't see a communications lag being a value killer.
TangoMan
people have floated the proposal that orbital habitats will be a
nirvana for information workers doing contract work for clients on Earth. Yeah, Marshall Savage makes that error. I don't buy those scenarios, because I go by the rule of thumb that
anything that can be done on Earth can be done cheaper than in oribt. Indeed. We need more than an industry which can be done just as well in orbital space. We need one that can be done better in orbital space.
Mike Combs