Don't Get Sore ...

[RB comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]

In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403301613480.3156-100000.RemoveThis@ccc4.wpi.edu>,
Jonathan D Gibbons <jonored.RemoveThis@WPI.EDU> writes:

 >What i'd like to note on the reuse issue is that the ship probably
 >won't
 >be continuing from wherever it's going on to whatever the next
 >mission is
 >- it will be taking its crew home in between. So at the time we'd
 >have the
 >option of building a new one or retrofitting it, it would most
 >likely be
 >somewhere in accessible orbit around the earth, where the previous
 >crew
 >left it. just as a guess i'd say the ISS...
 >or equivalent station of the time.

As I mentioned in an earlier response, the Mars mission
final destination might be Earth orbit. At mission completion
the capsule could be renamed 'Skylab II'. Skylab II could
serve many United States purposes, including a contingency
'waiting room' in case of Space Shuttle in-mission emergency.
This contingency's solution is a current NASA issue.

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[RB comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]

In article <20040331120216.12493.00000467 DeleteThis @mb-m16.aol.com>,
lvpokerplayer DeleteThis @aol.com (LV Poker Player) writes:

 >That absolute minimum mission still means one person.
 >Nothing says the
 >orbiting mother ship needs to have a person onboard.
 >It may be a good idea,
 >but it is not required in the absolute minimum mission.

A single Mars Rover is the absolute minimum mission.

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[RB comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]

In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403311613480.2423-100000.RemoveThis@ccc3.wpi.edu>,
Jonathan D Gibbons <jonored.RemoveThis@WPI.EDU> writes:

 >But i'm certainly not arguing the launch of a fully constructed
 >spacecraft
 >from the lunar surface. I'm suggesting the launch of components
 >from a
 >manufacturing facility on the lunar surface, to be assembled in
 >earth
 >orbit. The lunar gravity well is considerably lower than the
 >earth's, and
 >the situation on the moon makes a mass driver style of launch
 >system much
 >more feasible. So basically, you build the parts in a lower gravity
 >environment, where you are expending less energy for most
 >activities, but
 >still have enough gravity for convenience, then toss them out of
 >that
 >weaker well into orbit without using the ship's fuel, either using
 >small boosters or a mass driver to achieve the neccesary escape
 >velocity
 >from the moon and drop in velocity to get to low earth orbit.
 >
 >I think that for the first mission we'll most likely be using
 >assembly
 >from earth manufacturing in earth orbit, but this would be the
 >advantage in
 >the lunar base for this mission.
 >
 >-Jonathan

The Moon has less gravity than the Earth, but the Moon
also has less diverse resources than the Earth.

Have you ever worked on a home remodeling project
that required you to return to the local 'Home Warehouse
Store' for tools and materials again and again and again?

Have you ever upgraded electrical equipment and not
foreseen problems required you to return to the computer
and electronics stores for replacement parts again and
again and again?

Commute costs between the Moon and the terrestrial
parts stores are expensive. Combining trips to save
commuting costs will impact critical path completion
schedules in unpredictable ways.

Things happen ... a big part of aeronautical manufacture
is preplanning and infrastructure to eliminate scrap and
waste. Duplicating that manufacturing infrastructure on
the lunar surface will be expensive, and IMO its (re)use
potential will be limited -- less value added. IMO
a Mars mission where the capsule's final destination is
Earth orbit ('Skylab II') offers many of the benefits
accrued from creating a lunar base. I observe no overriding
requirement to create a lunar 'mass driver' -- a catapult
technology that will require creation of an immense
lunar-based power source to power the ma$$ driver.

And we do _not_ have Larry Niven's shielding stasis field
or gravity generator technology. The shortlived abrupt
acceleration that a lunar mass driver created would _crush_
human bodies.

I am not convinced that the cost of a lunar base is
warranted -- what are its cost-effective benefits? The
International Space Station shows the feasibility of
terrestrial module manufacture with inorbit module
assembly. Launch from orbit is less fuel-costly than
launch from the lunar surface -- less gravity.

 >---Original Message---

[RB comment: Richard Ballard wrote:]
 >The issue is at departure time not expending fuel to leave the
 >Moon's gravity well. Launch from Earth orbit requires less
 >fuel expenditure, mission volume/mass that is effectively
 >wasted in a launch from the lunar surface.

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[RB comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]

I am going to anticipate suggestions that a lunar base
equipped with a mass driver electromagnetic cannon
could solve our terrestrial nuclear waste problem. I
provide my comments below.

In article <20040401051532.18733.00000154 RemoveThis @mb-m03.aol.com>,
rball84213 RemoveThis @aol.com (Richard Ballard) writes:

 >In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403311613480.2423-100000 RemoveThis @ccc3.wpi.edu>,
 >Jonathan D Gibbons <jonored RemoveThis @WPI.EDU> writes:
 >
  >>But i'm certainly not arguing the launch of a fully constructed
  >>spacecraft
  >>from the lunar surface. I'm suggesting the launch of components
  >>from a
  >>manufacturing facility on the lunar surface, to be assembled in
  >>earth
  >>orbit. The lunar gravity well is considerably lower than the
  >>earth's, and
  >>the situation on the moon makes a mass driver style of launch
  >>system much
  >>more feasible. So basically, you build the parts in a lower gravity
  >>environment, where you are expending less energy for most
  >>activities, but
  >>still have enough gravity for convenience, then toss them out of
  >>that
  >>weaker well into orbit without using the ship's fuel, either using
  >>small boosters or a mass driver to achieve the neccesary escape
  >>velocity
  >>from the moon and drop in velocity to get to low earth orbit.
  >>
  >>I think that for the first mission we'll most likely be using
  >>assembly
  >>from earth manufacturing in earth orbit, but this would be the
  >>advantage in
  >>the lunar base for this mission.
  >>
  >>-Jonathan
 >
 >The Moon has less gravity than the Earth, but the Moon
 >also has less diverse resources than the Earth.
 >
 >Have you ever worked on a home remodeling project
 >that required you to return to the local 'Home Warehouse
 >Store' for tools and materials again and again and again?
 >
 >Have you ever upgraded electrical equipment and not
 >foreseen problems required you to return to the computer
 >and electronics stores for replacement parts again and
 >again and again?
 >
 >Commute costs between the Moon and the terrestrial
 >parts stores are expensive. Combining trips to save
 >commuting costs will impact critical path completion
 >schedules in unpredictable ways.
 >
 >Things happen ... a big part of aeronautical manufacture
 >is preplanning and infrastructure to eliminate scrap and
 >waste. Duplicating that manufacturing infrastructure on
 >the lunar surface will be expensive, and IMO its (re)use
 >potential will be limited -- less value added. IMO
 >a Mars mission where the capsule's final destination is
 >Earth orbit ('Skylab II') offers many of the benefits
 >accrued from creating a lunar base. I observe no overriding
 >requirement to create a lunar 'mass driver' -- a catapult
 >technology that will require creation of an immense
 >lunar-based power source to power the ma$$ driver.
 >
 >And we do _not_ have Larry Niven's shielding stasis field
 >or gravity generator technology. The shortlived abrupt
 >acceleration that a lunar mass driver created would _crush_
 >human bodies.
 >
 >I am not convinced that the cost of a lunar base is
 >warranted -- what are its cost-effective benefits? The
 >International Space Station shows the feasibility of
 >terrestrial module manufacture with inorbit module
 >assembly. Launch from orbit is less fuel-costly than
 >launch from the lunar surface -- less gravity.
 >
  >>---Original Message---
 >
 >[RB comment: Richard Ballard wrote:]
  >>The issue is at departure time not expending fuel to leave the
  >>Moon's gravity well. Launch from Earth orbit requires less
  >>fuel expenditure, mission volume/mass that is effectively
  >>wasted in a launch from the lunar surface.

A mass driver is an electromagnetic cannon that abruptly
accelerates a mass (e.g., a space capsule) to high velocity.
A lunar mass driver presumably would be powered by a
lunar-based nuclear reactor's electricity, and a lunar-based
nuclear waste disposal problem would exist. No problem --
use the mass driver to fire capsules containing nuclear
wastes into the Sun to burn up! And hope that accidents
never happen ...

If we transported terrestrial nuclear waste to the Moon we
could use the lunar mass driver to fire terrestrial
nuclear waste into the Sun to burn up. Here there are many
concerns. First, hope there never are any accidents in the
Earth's atmosphere -- you do _not_ want atomized nuclear waste
polluting Earth's atmosphere (e.g., Chernoble affected Norway).
Second, terrestrial nuclear waste volume is _immense_,
requiring many shipments from Earth to the lunar base --
enough (expensive) shipments to pollute the Earth's
atmosphere with rocket exhaust. Third, handling that
nuclear waste (e.g., shipment to Cape Canaveral and
loading on the lunar shuttle) is awkward. [BTW, at
Cape Canaveral if you launch eastward over the Atlantic
Ocean you are launching against the Earth's rotation.
The area around Vandenberg AFB (Santa Barbara CA) is
relatively highly populated, but allows a westward,
over ocean launch in the direction of the Earth's rotation.]

This problem (frequent shuttles to the Moon) was studied
in the mid-1970's. The optimal solution was creating
photovoltaic energy farms in the southwestern United
States desert. This (nonpolluting) energy would be used
to electrolyze fresh water, and the resulting hydrogen would
be used to power the lunar shuttles. Burn hydrogen and
you get relatively nonpolluting water vapor. Except so many
shuttle flights would be required and so much water vapor
created from shuttle exhaust that terrestrial meteorological
changes would result. I also would expect localized cooling
around the desert photovoltaic energy farms as the Sun's energy
was converted to electricity and transported elsewhere for
fresh water electrolysis purposes.

IMO you want to transport electricity, not hydrogen gas.
Fresh water is scarce in the desert. Fresh water is relatively
plentiful in the Southeastern United States. Fresh water
is relatively scarce around Vandenberg AFB -- e.g., the
Colorado River provides fresh water for southern California.

I do not know if we can afford the financial or meteorological
cost of this nuclear waste disposal solution. And I do not
know if we can afford the risk of accident, particularly in
the terrestrial atmosphere.

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[RB comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]

In article <20040401060405.09913.00000085 DeleteThis @mb-m26.aol.com>,
rball84213 DeleteThis @aol.com (Richard Ballard) writes:

 >I am going to anticipate suggestions that a lunar base
 >equipped with a mass driver electromagnetic cannon
 >could solve our terrestrial nuclear waste problem. I
 >provide my comments below.
 >
 >In article <20040401051532.18733.00000154 DeleteThis @mb-m03.aol.com>,
 >rball84213@aol.com (Richard Ballard) writes:
 >
  >>In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403311613480.2423-100000 DeleteThis @ccc3.wpi.edu>,
  >>Jonathan D Gibbons <jonored DeleteThis @WPI.EDU> writes:
  >>
   >>>But i'm certainly not arguing the launch of a fully constructed
   >>>spacecraft
   >>>from the lunar surface. I'm suggesting the launch of components
   >>>from a
   >>>manufacturing facility on the lunar surface, to be assembled in
   >>>earth
   >>>orbit. The lunar gravity well is considerably lower than the
   >>>earth's, and
   >>>the situation on the moon makes a mass driver style of launch
   >>>system much
   >>>more feasible. So basically, you build the parts in a lower
   >>>gravity
   >>>environment, where you are expending less energy for most
   >>>activities, but
   >>>still have enough gravity for convenience, then toss them out of
   >>>that
   >>>weaker well into orbit without using the ship's fuel, either using
   >>>small boosters or a mass driver to achieve the neccesary escape
   >>>velocity
   >>>from the moon and drop in velocity to get to low earth orbit.
   >>>
   >>>I think that for the first mission we'll most likely be using
   >>>assembly
   >>>from earth manufacturing in earth orbit, but this would be the
   >>>advantage in
   >>>the lunar base for this mission.
   >>>
   >>>-Jonathan
  >>
  >>The Moon has less gravity than the Earth, but the Moon
  >>also has less diverse resources than the Earth.
  >>
  >>Have you ever worked on a home remodeling project
  >>that required you to return to the local 'Home Warehouse
  >>Store' for tools and materials again and again and again?
  >>
  >>Have you ever upgraded electrical equipment and not
  >>foreseen problems required you to return to the computer
  >>and electronics stores for replacement parts again and
  >>again and again?
  >>
  >>Commute costs between the Moon and the terrestrial
  >>parts stores are expensive. Combining trips to save
  >>commuting costs will impact critical path completion
  >>schedules in unpredictable ways.
  >>
  >>Things happen ... a big part of aeronautical manufacture
  >>is preplanning and infrastructure to eliminate scrap and
  >>waste. Duplicating that manufacturing infrastructure on
  >>the lunar surface will be expensive, and IMO its (re)use
  >>potential will be limited -- less value added. IMO
  >>a Mars mission where the capsule's final destination is
  >>Earth orbit ('Skylab II') offers many of the benefits
  >>accrued from creating a lunar base. I observe no overriding
  >>requirement to create a lunar 'mass driver' -- a catapult
  >>technology that will require creation of an immense
  >>lunar-based power source to power the ma$$ driver.
  >>
  >>And we do _not_ have Larry Niven's shielding stasis field
  >>or gravity generator technology. The shortlived abrupt
  >>acceleration that a lunar mass driver created would _crush_
  >>human bodies.
  >>
  >>I am not convinced that the cost of a lunar base is
  >>warranted -- what are its cost-effective benefits? The
  >>International Space Station shows the feasibility of
  >>terrestrial module manufacture with inorbit module
  >>assembly. Launch from orbit is less fuel-costly than
  >>launch from the lunar surface -- less gravity.
  >>
   >>>---Original Message---
  >>
  >>[RB comment: Richard Ballard wrote:]
   >>>The issue is at departure time not expending fuel to leave the
   >>>Moon's gravity well. Launch from Earth orbit requires less
   >>>fuel expenditure, mission volume/mass that is effectively
   >>>wasted in a launch from the lunar surface.
 >
 >A mass driver is an electromagnetic cannon that abruptly
 >accelerates a mass (e.g., a space capsule) to high velocity.
 >A lunar mass driver presumably would be powered by a
 >lunar-based nuclear reactor's electricity, and a lunar-based
 >nuclear waste disposal problem would exist. No problem --
 >use the mass driver to fire capsules containing nuclear
 >wastes into the Sun to burn up! And hope that accidents
 >never happen ...
 >
 >If we transported terrestrial nuclear waste to the Moon we
 >could use the lunar mass driver to fire terrestrial
 >nuclear waste into the Sun to burn up. Here there are many
 >concerns. First, hope there never are any accidents in the
 >Earth's atmosphere -- you do _not_ want atomized nuclear waste
 >polluting Earth's atmosphere (e.g., Chernoble affected Norway).
 >Second, terrestrial nuclear waste volume is _immense_,
 >requiring many shipments from Earth to the lunar base --
 >enough (expensive) shipments to pollute the Earth's
 >atmosphere with rocket exhaust. Third, handling that
 >nuclear waste (e.g., shipment to Cape Canaveral and
 >loading on the lunar shuttle) is awkward. [BTW, at
 >Cape Canaveral if you launch eastward over the Atlantic
 >Ocean you are launching against the Earth's rotation.
 >The area around Vandenberg AFB (Santa Barbara CA) is
 >relatively highly populated, but allows a westward,
 >over ocean launch in the direction of the Earth's rotation.]

I got the launch sites backwards. An eastward, over ocean
launch from Cape Canaveral is in the direction of the Earth's
rotation. A westward, over ocean launch from Vandenberg AFB
in California is against the direction of the Earth's rotation.
That's what happens when Grandpa has not yet had his
morning oatmeal.

 >This problem (frequent shuttles to the Moon) was studied
 >in the mid-1970's. The optimal solution was creating
 >photovoltaic energy farms in the southwestern United
 >States desert. This (nonpolluting) energy would be used
 >to electrolyze fresh water, and the resulting hydrogen would
 >be used to power the lunar shuttles. Burn hydrogen and
 >you get relatively nonpolluting water vapor. Except so many
 >shuttle flights would be required and so much water vapor
 >created from shuttle exhaust that terrestrial meteorological
 >changes would result. I also would expect localized cooling
 >around the desert photovoltaic energy farms as the Sun's energy
 >was converted to electricity and transported elsewhere for
 >fresh water electrolysis purposes.
 >
 >IMO you want to transport electricity, not hydrogen gas.
 >Fresh water is scarce in the desert. Fresh water is relatively
 >plentiful in the Southeastern United States. Fresh water
 >is relatively scarce around Vandenberg AFB -- e.g., the
 >Colorado River provides fresh water for southern California.
 >
 >I do not know if we can afford the financial or meteorological
 >cost of this nuclear waste disposal solution. And I do not
 >know if we can afford the risk of accident, particularly in
 >the terrestrial atmosphere.

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[RB comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]

In article <406BF8E2.C3277710.TakeThisOut@alcyone.com>,
Erik Max Francis <max.TakeThisOut@alcyone.com> writes:

 >Richard Ballard wrote:
 >
  >>A mass driver is an electromagnetic cannon that abruptly
  >>accelerates a mass (e.g., a space capsule) to high velocity.
  >>A lunar mass driver presumably would be powered by a
  >>lunar-based nuclear reactor's electricity, and a lunar-based
  >>nuclear waste disposal problem would exist. No problem --
  >>use the mass driver to fire capsules containing nuclear
  >>wastes into the Sun to burn up! And hope that accidents
  >>never happen ...
 >
 >Sending something into the Sun requires tremendous deltevees,
 >about 30
 >km/s even best case. Not bloodly likely from a mass driver,
 >lunar or otherwise.

If a mass driver creates sufficient velocity so that the capsule
escapes the Moon's gravity well and the Earth's gravity well,
the capsule then is in the Sun's gravity well. Assuming that
the capsule is pointed (and remotely steered -- obviously you
do not want nuclear waste capsules orbiting the Sun like comets)
appropriately, I observe no difficulty in causing the capsule to
fall into the Sun.

If a lunar mass driver cannot accelerate a cargo capsule out
of the Moon's gravity well and the Earth's gravity well, then
a lunar mass driver cannot support a Mars mission. There
is no reason to argue numbers.

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[RB comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]

One further affordability comment ...

In article <20040401062628.12769.00000095.DeleteThis@mb-m16.aol.com>,
rball84213.DeleteThis@aol.com (Richard Ballard) writes:

 >In article <20040401060405.09913.00000085.DeleteThis@mb-m26.aol.com>,
 >rball84213@aol.com (Richard Ballard) writes:
 >
  >>I am going to anticipate suggestions that a lunar base
  >>equipped with a mass driver electromagnetic cannon
  >>could solve our terrestrial nuclear waste problem. I
  >>provide my comments below.
  >>
  >>In article <20040401051532.18733.00000154.DeleteThis@mb-m03.aol.com>,
  >>rball84213@aol.com (Richard Ballard) writes:
  >>
   >>>In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403311613480.2423-100000.DeleteThis@ccc3.wpi.edu>,
   >>>Jonathan D Gibbons <jonored.DeleteThis@WPI.EDU> writes:
   >>>
   >>>>But i'm certainly not arguing the launch of a fully constructed
   >>>>spacecraft
   >>>>from the lunar surface. I'm suggesting the launch of components
   >>>>from a
   >>>>manufacturing facility on the lunar surface, to be assembled in
   >>>>earth
   >>>>orbit. The lunar gravity well is considerably lower than the
   >>>>earth's, and
   >>>>the situation on the moon makes a mass driver style of launch
   >>>>system much
   >>>>more feasible. So basically, you build the parts in a lower
   >>>>gravity
   >>>>environment, where you are expending less energy for most
   >>>>activities, but
   >>>>still have enough gravity for convenience, then toss them out of
   >>>>that
   >>>>weaker well into orbit without using the ship's fuel, either
   >>>>using
   >>>>small boosters or a mass driver to achieve the neccesary escape
   >>>>velocity
   >>>>from the moon and drop in velocity to get to low earth orbit.
   >>>>
   >>>>I think that for the first mission we'll most likely be using
   >>>>assembly
   >>>>from earth manufacturing in earth orbit, but this would be the
   >>>>advantage in
   >>>>the lunar base for this mission.
   >>>>
   >>>>-Jonathan
   >>>
   >>>The Moon has less gravity than the Earth, but the Moon
   >>>also has less diverse resources than the Earth.
   >>>
   >>>Have you ever worked on a home remodeling project
   >>>that required you to return to the local 'Home Warehouse
   >>>Store' for tools and materials again and again and again?
   >>>
   >>>Have you ever upgraded electrical equipment and not
   >>>foreseen problems required you to return to the computer
   >>>and electronics stores for replacement parts again and
   >>>again and again?
   >>>
   >>>Commute costs between the Moon and the terrestrial
   >>>parts stores are expensive. Combining trips to save
   >>>commuting costs will impact critical path completion
   >>>schedules in unpredictable ways.
   >>>
   >>>Things happen ... a big part of aeronautical manufacture
   >>>is preplanning and infrastructure to eliminate scrap and
   >>>waste. Duplicating that manufacturing infrastructure on
   >>>the lunar surface will be expensive, and IMO its (re)use
   >>>potential will be limited -- less value added. IMO
   >>>a Mars mission where the capsule's final destination is
   >>>Earth orbit ('Skylab II') offers many of the benefits
   >>>accrued from creating a lunar base. I observe no overriding
   >>>requirement to create a lunar 'mass driver' -- a catapult
   >>>technology that will require creation of an immense
   >>>lunar-based power source to power the ma$$ driver.
   >>>
   >>>And we do _not_ have Larry Niven's shielding stasis field
   >>>or gravity generator technology. The shortlived abrupt
   >>>acceleration that a lunar mass driver created would _crush_
   >>>human bodies.
   >>>
   >>>I am not convinced that the cost of a lunar base is
   >>>warranted -- what are its cost-effective benefits? The
   >>>International Space Station shows the feasibility of
   >>>terrestrial module manufacture with inorbit module
   >>>assembly. Launch from orbit is less fuel-costly than
   >>>launch from the lunar surface -- less gravity.
   >>>
   >>>>---Original Message---
   >>>
   >>>[RB comment: Richard Ballard wrote:]
   >>>>The issue is at departure time not expending fuel to leave the
   >>>>Moon's gravity well. Launch from Earth orbit requires less
   >>>>fuel expenditure, mission volume/mass that is effectively
   >>>>wasted in a launch from the lunar surface.
  >>
  >>A mass driver is an electromagnetic cannon that abruptly
  >>accelerates a mass (e.g., a space capsule) to high velocity.
  >>A lunar mass driver presumably would be powered by a
  >>lunar-based nuclear reactor's electricity, and a lunar-based
  >>nuclear waste disposal problem would exist. No problem --
  >>use the mass driver to fire capsules containing nuclear
  >>wastes into the Sun to burn up! And hope that accidents
  >>never happen ...
  >>
  >>If we transported terrestrial nuclear waste to the Moon we
  >>could use the lunar mass driver to fire terrestrial
  >>nuclear waste into the Sun to burn up. Here there are many
  >>concerns. First, hope there never are any accidents in the
  >>Earth's atmosphere -- you do _not_ want atomized nuclear waste
  >>polluting Earth's atmosphere (e.g., Chernoble affected Norway).
  >>Second, terrestrial nuclear waste volume is _immense_,
  >>requiring many shipments from Earth to the lunar base --
  >>enough (expensive) shipments to pollute the Earth's
  >>atmosphere with rocket exhaust. Third, handling that
  >>nuclear waste (e.g., shipment to Cape Canaveral and
  >>loading on the lunar shuttle) is awkward. [BTW, at
  >>Cape Canaveral if you launch eastward over the Atlantic
  >>Ocean you are launching against the Earth's rotation.
  >>The area around Vandenberg AFB (Santa Barbara CA) is
  >>relatively highly populated, but allows a westward,
  >>over ocean launch in the direction of the Earth's rotation.]
 >
 >I got the launch sites backwards. An eastward, over ocean
 >launch from Cape Canaveral is in the direction of the Earth's
 >rotation. A westward, over ocean launch from Vandenberg AFB
 >in California is against the direction of the Earth's rotation.
 >That's what happens when Grandpa has not yet had his
 >morning oatmeal.
 >
  >>This problem (frequent shuttles to the Moon) was studied
  >>in the mid-1970's. The optimal solution was creating
  >>photovoltaic energy farms in the southwestern United
  >>States desert. This (nonpolluting) energy would be used
  >>to electrolyze fresh water, and the resulting hydrogen would
  >>be used to power the lunar shuttles. Burn hydrogen and
  >>you get relatively nonpolluting water vapor. Except so many
  >>shuttle flights would be required and so much water vapor
  >>created from shuttle exhaust that terrestrial meteorological
  >>changes would result. I also would expect localized cooling
  >>around the desert photovoltaic energy farms as the Sun's energy
  >>was converted to electricity and transported elsewhere for
  >>fresh water electrolysis purposes.

The desert photovoltaic energy farms originally were studied
in the mid-1970's. Presumably semiconductor manufacturing
technology has advanced and semiconductor manufacturing
costs have dropped since the mid-1970's, but we have
no photovoltaic energy farms in the southwestern
United States desert. In the past several days the
national news media has reported electricity brownouts
in Southern California due to air conditioning electricity
demands, and March is _not_ the hottest month in the
Northern Hemisphere.

Electricity is a mandatory part of civilized terrestrial
infrastructure and our needs are _not_ being met with
comfortable reserve. A hu/manned mission to Mars
is optional.

  >>IMO you want to transport electricity, not hydrogen gas.
  >>Fresh water is scarce in the desert. Fresh water is relatively
  >>plentiful in the Southeastern United States. Fresh water
  >>is relatively scarce around Vandenberg AFB -- e.g., the
  >>Colorado River provides fresh water for southern California.
  >>
  >>I do not know if we can afford the financial or meteorological
  >>cost of this nuclear waste disposal solution. And I do not
  >>know if we can afford the risk of accident, particularly in
  >>the terrestrial atmosphere.

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[Comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]

In article <20040401102248.04427.00000417.TakeThisOut@mb-m27.aol.com>,
lvpokerplayer.TakeThisOut@aol.com (LV Poker Player) writes:

  >>From: rball84213
 >
  >>A mass driver is an electromagnetic cannon that abruptly
  >>accelerates a mass (e.g., a space capsule) to high velocity.
 >
 >This has many advantages on the moon, and I think it should
 >be a high priority
 >for a lunar colony, but not for the reasons you go into.
 >
  >>A lunar mass driver presumably would be powered by a
  >>lunar-based nuclear reactor's electricity,
 >
 >The thing is, we should be able to build solar panels on the moon,
 >but a
 >reactor has to come from Earth. A reactor does produce electricity
 >at night,
 >which is good. A colony located at a pole can be in sunlight most
 >of the time though.

The sun's energy is diffuse in polar regions due to
incidence angle.

I have worked in a semiconductor fabrication laboratory.
Induction furnaces require _large_ amounts of electrical
energy, and semiconductor doping requires very pure,
very unpleasant chemicals and solvents. Creating a
sufficient number of photovoltaic energy panels at a lunar
base would require a big infrastructure and much ferrying
of unpleasant chemicals and solvents. (To my knowledge
the chemicals and solvents could _not_ be synthesized
from lunar materials.) Assembled photovoltaic panels
could be transported from Earth like plywood sheets.
Why make the investment to manufacture photovoltaic
panels on the moon when such panels also have terrestrial
applications (e.g., desert energy farms)?

BTW, microwave beaming of photovoltaic energy from a
lunar base to Earth cannot be continuous -- the Moon's
orbit is _not_ geostationary. And in case of accident
nobody wants to fry Cincinatti with lunar generated
microwave energy.

  >>and a lunar-based
  >>nuclear waste disposal problem would exist.
 >
 >Oh good grief...
 >
  >>No problem --
  >>use the mass driver to fire capsules containing nuclear
  >>wastes into the Sun to burn up! And hope that accidents
  >>never happen ...
 >
 >Now you are not thinking. Nothing of the sort is necessary.
 >Different
 >situations, different problems. We just put it somewhere,
 >pretty much anywhere
 >on the surface away from the settled areas (with some warning
 >signs for those
 >who do surface work). This is the lunar surface. Under
 >ordinary circumstances
 >it gets blasted by solar radiation. During solar flares that
 >goes up
 >dramatically, and it is a good idea to get inside beneath a
 >rather large amount
 >of shielding. We don't worry about puitting a little more
 >radiation into an
 >environmnent that is already radiated. We have no atmosphere,
 >ground water or
 >soil to worry about contaminating.

Several comments: 1) First, by international treaty the Moon is
international territory. I do not believe we can litter the Moon
with nuclear waste. 2) Second, as I mentioned in another message
in this thread, United States scientists and engineers have studied
the terrestrial nuclear waste disposal problem for _twenty years_
without finding an acceptable answer. I will not credit your
handwaving dismissal of the lunar nuclear waste disposal problem.
3) I do not know if the Moon is absolutely 'lunarologically'
stable -- i.e., no Moonquakes.

  >>If we transported terrestrial nuclear waste to the Moon we
  >>could use the lunar mass driver to fire terrestrial
  >>nuclear waste into the Sun to burn up. Here there are many
  >>concerns.
 >
 >There are so many that this is not an option. If we did though,
 >we just put it
 >somewhere out o the way.

International territory by international treaty.

  >>First, hope there never are any accidents in the
  >>Earth's atmosphere -- you do _not_ want atomized nuclear waste
  >>polluting Earth's atmosphere
 >
 >An excellent reason to do something else with the waste.
 >
  >>Second, terrestrial nuclear waste volume is _immense_,
  >>requiring many shipments from Earth to the lunar base --
 >
 >Another excellent reason. The cost of nuclear generated
 >electricity is already
 >high, and this would make it prohibitive.

Yet nuclear electric generating plants are operating throughout
the United States at the same time that coal fueled electric
generating plants are being mothballed and natural gas fueled
electric generating plants are being hit with rapidly imcreasing
fuel costs. Again, no credit for handwaving dismissals of
nuclear energy (and the nuclear waste disposal problem).

  >>enough (expensive) shipments to pollute the Earth's
  >>atmosphere with rocket exhaust.
 >
 >Sigh. Rocket fuel is hydrogen and oxygen, which produces water.
 >We will
 >pollute the Earth's atmosphere by putting water into it. Right...

Add enough water vapor to an area's atmosphere and you
change its climate. (Relatively nonpolluting) carbon dioxide
and the thermal 'greenhouse effect' is an analogy.

 >Yes, if we use the Shuttle we do have the solid rocket boosters.
 >I think you
 >will find your typical fossil fuel plant puts out a LOT more
 >pollution than
 >these do. There are valid reasons to not send our waste to the
 >moon, but
 >this is ridiculous.

I did not equate a 'lunar shuttle' (perhaps a special purpose
vehicle) with the Space Shuttle, and I am _not_ interested in
joining that detailed discussion.

I read a reputable discussion in a mid-1970's graduate technology
assessment class. Hopes for space exploration were very optimistic
in the mid-1970's and people were exploring all options. Routine
lunar shuttle flights were an issue.

  >>Third, handling that
  >>nuclear waste (e.g., shipment to Cape Canaveral and
  >>loading on the lunar shuttle) is awkward.
 >
 >No more so than sending it to Yucca Mountain in Nevada,
 >which is the current plan.

Yucca Mountain is not densely populated, and IMO the
route is designed to bypass population centers -- not
always possible in a crosscontinent trip. This is an
old issue, and the United States railroad system has
degraded.

  >>[BTW, at
  >>Cape Canaveral if you launch eastward over the Atlantic
  >>Ocean you are launching against the Earth's rotation.
 >
 >Sigh. Another thing you have totally wrong.

How very condescending of you.

 >The Florida location was selected
 >because it does take advantage of the Earth's rotation, which
 >was essential early in our space program and still a big
 >advantage. The sun rises in the
 >east. That is because the Earth rotates toward the east.

I already corrected this error with a follow-on message.
Call my original error 'sleepy eyes and no breakfast'.

  >>This problem (frequent shuttles to the Moon) was studied
  >>in the mid-1970's. The optimal solution was creating
  >>photovoltaic energy farms in the southwestern United
  >>States desert. This (nonpolluting) energy would be used
  >>to electrolyze fresh water, and the resulting hydrogen would
  >>be used to power the lunar shuttles.
 >
 >Maybe this was studied for some reason, but electricity to
 >make rocket fuel is
 >not a concern. We simply don't need all that much of it.

You would have to enumerate the required number of lunar shuttle
trips before you could corroborate that statement.

  >>Burn hydrogen and
  >>you get relatively nonpolluting water vapor. Except so many
  >>shuttle flights would be required and so much water vapor
  >>created from shuttle exhaust that terrestrial meteorological
  >>changes would result.
 >
 >I'm not sure just how many flights would be necessary for this
 >to happen, but
 >it would be so ridiculously high that it is not possible.

You would have to enumerate the required number of lunar shuttle
trips before you could corroborate that statement.

  >>I also would expect localized cooling
  >>around the desert photovoltaic energy farms as the Sun's energy
  >>was converted to electricity and transported elsewhere for
  >>fresh water electrolysis purposes.
 >
 >Not with any sort of even remotely realistic launch schedule.

Launch schedule is _not_ the issue. Photovoltaic cells
convert sunlight to electricity (which presumably then is
transported elsewhere). That sunlight would be converted
to heat at the location if humans did nothing.

  >>I do not know if we can afford the financial or meteorological
  >>cost of this nuclear waste disposal solution.
 >
 >We certainly cannot afford it financially.
 >
  >>And I do not
  >>know if we can afford the risk of accident, particularly in
  >>the terrestrial atmosphere.
 >
 >That too.

This problem was studied in the mid-1970's -- old ground.
And California was _not_ experiencing electricity shortages
in the mid-1970's.

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[RB comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]

In article <20040401103314.04427.00000418 DeleteThis @mb-m27.aol.com>,
lvpokerplayer DeleteThis @aol.com (LV Poker Player) writes:

  >>If a mass driver creates sufficient velocity so that the capsule
  >>escapes the Moon's gravity well and the Earth's gravity well,
  >>the capsule then is in the Sun's gravity well. Assuming that
  >>the capsule is pointed (and remotely steered -- obviously you
  >>do not want nuclear waste capsules orbiting the Sun like comets)
  >>appropriately, I observe no difficulty in causing the capsule to
  >>fall into the Sun.
 >
 >I think you need to understand orbital mechanics better.

Thank you for your condescending opinion in this very high level
discussion.

 >Just because something gets out of the Earth-moon
 >gravity well does not mean it falls into
 >the sun. As was pointed out, getting to the sun is actually
 >quite difficult.
 >
 >Planets don't fall into the sun, do they? Once you have achieved
 >escape speed from the
 >Earth-moon system, you need a lot more delta v to get to someplace
 >like Venus or Mercury, and even more drop to the sun's surface.
 >It can be
 >done, but is not a matter of just getting away from Earth-moon.

My original comment mentioned remote steering. I assumed
some propulsive capability in the waste carrying capsule, and
the ability to control the capsule remotely. I also commented
on the desire to _avoid_ creating nuclear waste comets orbiting
the Sun. 'Nuff said.

  >>If a lunar mass driver cannot accelerate a cargo capsule out
  >>of the Moon's gravity well and the Earth's gravity well, then
  >>a lunar mass driver cannot support a Mars mission. There
  >>is no reason to argue numbers.
 >
 >Another oh good grief...

You are not going to subject a mass driver's electromagnetic
structure to red hot rocket exhaust. Do you expect grounded
astronauts to get behind the nuclear waste capsule and push?

 >Have you ever heard of a concept called onboard propulsion?
 >It is something we
 >have discussed somewhat elsethread. The mass driver just
 >gets the stuff off
 >the ground and into lunar orbit. Then it uses its own
 >propulsion (possibly
 >an ion drive) to get to Mars.

That is YOUR design. Larry Niven and others have envisioned
mass drivers of greater power.

 >It would be possible in theory to build a mass driver powerful
 >enough to send
 >the ship to Mars, but I can see two problems even if we could
 >build it. For
 >one thing, the amount of acceleration needed for this would kill
 >the astronauts. The mass driver would have to be hundreds of miles
 >long to keep
 >the acceleration down to a tolerable level. Also, if we do get
 >there this
 >way, how were you planning to come back?

IMO a mass driver makes sense for not animate cargo capsules
(which have the ability to be remotely steered). You drop a
cargo capsule containing nuclear waste into the Sun -- no
return. Such a cargo capsule also might be placed into
Martain orbit as a food/fuel/breathing air cache for a hu/manned
mission to Mars. But I was discussing lunar and terrestrial
nuclear waste disposal, not the Mars mission -- you butted in
with your integrated lunar base / Mars mission design.

Perhaps this thread's multiple discussions need reorganization.
Wanna join the Reorganization Committee?

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Don't Get Sore ... 

[Comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]

In article <20040401125125.08081.00000146 DeleteThis @mb-m18.aol.com>,
rball84213 DeleteThis @aol.com (Richard Ballard) writes:

 >In article <20040401102248.04427.00000417 DeleteThis @mb-m27.aol.com>,
 >lvpokerplayer@aol.com (LV Poker Player) writes:
 >
   >>>From: rball84213
  >>
   >>>A mass driver is an electromagnetic cannon that abruptly
   >>>accelerates a mass (e.g., a space capsule) to high velocity.
  >>
  >>This has many advantages on the moon, and I think it should
  >>be a high priority
  >>for a lunar colony, but not for the reasons you go into.
  >>
   >>>A lunar mass driver presumably would be powered by a
   >>>lunar-based nuclear reactor's electricity,
  >>
  >>The thing is, we should be able to build solar panels on the moon,
  >>but a
  >>reactor has to come from Earth. A reactor does produce electricity
  >>at night,
  >>which is good. A colony located at a pole can be in sunlight most
  >>of the time though.
 >
 >The sun's energy is diffuse in polar regions due to
 >incidence angle.
 >
 >I have worked in a semiconductor fabrication laboratory.
 >Induction furnaces require _large_ amounts of electrical
 >energy, and semiconductor doping requires very pure,
 >very unpleasant chemicals and solvents. Creating a
 >sufficient number of photovoltaic energy panels at a lunar
 >base would require a big infrastructure and much ferrying
 >of unpleasant chemicals and solvents. (To my knowledge
 >the chemicals and solvents could _not_ be synthesized
 >from lunar materials.) Assembled photovoltaic panels
 >could be transported from Earth like plywood sheets.
 >Why make the investment to manufacture photovoltaic
 >panels on the moon when such panels also have terrestrial
 >applications (e.g., desert energy farms)?
 >
 >BTW, microwave beaming of photovoltaic energy from a
 >lunar base to Earth cannot be continuous -- the Moon's
 >orbit is _not_ geostationary. And in case of accident
 >nobody wants to fry Cincinatti with lunar generated
 >microwave energy.
 >
   >>>and a lunar-based
   >>>nuclear waste disposal problem would exist.
  >>
  >>Oh good grief...
  >>