Geeking : 4575


Off-Topic / Geek / 4575

We're here to go —Dave Schuler

By now, everyone knows about Dubya's Brave New Vision of America's future in space, specifically regarding the Moon and Mars. One of Dubya's selling points for a permanent Moon base (perhaps modular, in 48x48 squares) is that it will make it easier (...) (21 years ago, 16-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: We're here to go —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Boost the fuel (and oxidizer) from earth? Fuel maybe, oxidizer no. The moon has among its most common elements: oxygen, silicon and aluminum Solar cells can be made from silicon and aluminum + trace elements. Just add energy. (and technology (...) (21 years ago, 16-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We're here to go —Dave Schuler

(...) Okay, that's pretty cool (but you lose points for using "bootstrap"). I was only thinking of vehicles launched from Earth and using the Moon as a waystation, rather than craft built in orbit or on the Moon. But wouldn't it be monstrously (...) (21 years ago, 16-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: We're here to go —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Um, no I don't. And stop resetting the FUT back to geek. (...) For NASA, sure. They blew 100B on something that could have been built out of spent shuttle fuel tanks if they had spent about 100M early in the program. For Burt Rutan, no. (or (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We're here to go —Dan Boger

(...) Why? I think this discussion is very appropriate to .geek, except for the parts where you are starting a debate. Any reason we can't talk about NASA here? (21 years ago, 17-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We're here to go —Larry Pieniazek

(...) "lugnet.off-topic.geek (group): Geeking and geek toys (computing, games, peripherals, hacking, science, etc.): discussions of a generally (but not necessarily always) positive and serious or helpful nature." You may not agree, but it seems (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We're here to go —Dave Schuler

(...) If I read the original post correctly, the question was of fuel efficiency and the physical implications of a Moon-based versus an Earth-based launch toward Mars and beyond. Naturally this entails the cost of development, because fuel costs (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We're here to go —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Well, there's expensive and there's *VERY expensive*, in terms of dollars per unit of work on task. Asserting that NASA falls into the latter camp (as I do) is debate fodder, so if you want to stay out of .debate, as you seem to, we won't get (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We're here to go —Dave Schuler

(...) I don't have any problem with pursuing that end of the discussion, but I wasn't trying to kick of a debate with my original question. If it winds up there, though, I say groovy! I enjoyed that previous debate re: cost-value of space (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We're here to go —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'm not sure you need to develop a new launch vehicle per se, remember the assumption that the person heading this had just won the X prize.... but certainly some of the 12B cost figure is for launching things... Now the X prize vehicle (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We're here to go —Scott Arthur

(...) I'm a big fan of space exploration. I'm an even bigger fan of universal state funded healthcare & education. Who in society will benifit most from a manned trip to Mars? Who in society benifits most from a lack of universal state funded (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We're here to go —David Koudys

(...) If I recall correctly, 90 percent of the fuel of any launch from the earth is used to get thru the atmosphere--that it's only 10 percent that is used for combatting gravity. That said, lifting off the earth, then landing on the moon, then (...) (21 years ago, 16-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: We're here to go —Larry Pieniazek

Dave K and I are both right although the casual reader may not see it. He's right under the assumption that all your mass is going to come from earth and you need a place to assemble all the bits and pieces into a ship that was too big to launch in (...) (21 years ago, 16-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We're here to go —David Laswell

(...) Dollar cost of the total amount of fuel aside, it is more efficient. When you launch a rocket into space, it has to carry itself, its payload, its crew, and its fuel. Making a rocket that can manage that from an Earth-based launch site would (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: We're here to go —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Um, no, you wouldn't. Not necessarily, anyway. (...) Again, no, it wouldn't. Not necessarily, anyway. Read the rest of the thread before you start in on responding to the first post in it, that's often a good approach in my view. Especially (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: We're here to go —David Laswell

(...) I posted that response over 8 hours ago, when there were no second-tier responses, but I didn't get around to authorizing it until just a little while ago (compare the date-time stamps if you don't believe me, which you probably won't). I (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: We're here to go —Matthew Miller

(...) The posts Larry is referring to were from much longer than 8 hours ago, though. (21 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)