Joseph Friedlander has a guest post up at NextBigFuture which is titled Setting up an Industrial Village on the Moon . It looks like another method of getting matter up there to the Moon in order to make a permanent presense there. But there can be no permanent presense unless there's an economical reason for being there. What could that be? He's looking for a way to bootstrap a colony.
The ideas he mentions say nothing about space elevators or tethers. Rather, it is looked at from another angle entirely. In order to get matter to or from the Moon, or from one location to another in general, a method is needed in order to protect the cargo. The way that he mentions, which by the way, I like, is to use explosions as a decelerator. That idea isn't new, as the Russians used it in the sixties for hard landings on the Moon.
The trick is not to avoid crashes, but make the crashes not quite so hard, so that will not cause disintegrations. The remainder of the mass that's not disintegrated can be salvaged. This makes setting up a Moon base more economical.
As the old saying goes, there's more than one way to skin a cat. It can indeed be an economical way of getting materials up there that can be used to build that permanent presense. Is there yet another way to skin the cat?
I suggest this: why not used controlled crashes to ship stuff from one part of the Moon to another? From the lunar base to a equatorial base? Use mass drivers on the polar base, and then catapult the cargo to the equator. Then send up the cargo by way of a space elevator to the space station that I mentioned earlier.
Why send it all the way from the Earth if the goal is to be more economical? It could be used to send materials not found on the Moon from the Earth, but for matter that is already there on the Moon, try this other way instead.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
At San Jacinto
Just got back from the San Jacinto Battleground. I went there to take some pictures. The location really isn't unfamiliar with me since I've been there many times before. But this time, I decide to look around the park and get the lay of the land. I took several pictures ( about 25 ) of the various markers which show the disposition of the opposing forces on that day in 1836.
I wanted to get the feel for the situation on the ground just before the battle. How did Santa Anna manage to get beaten so badly? It was more of a slaughter than a battle. Sam Houston's army didn't suffer that many casualties; hardly more than a handful. On the other hand, Santa Anna lost hundreds of men and/ or hundreds more captured.
No doubt, the element of surprise figured significantly in the outcome of the battle. But looking over the terrain, it is hard to see how anyone could manage to surprise anyone else. The land is very flat and the grass and bushes don't provide much cover.
I recall reading that Houston's army used a "rise" as cover. I looked for these and didn't find many, but there are some places that are low. Of course, the closer you get to the marshes, the more cover there is. Unless Houston's army was hanging out in the marshes, he didn't have all that much cover.
Another possiblity was the tall prairie grass that grew in those days. The park management is trying to bring that back, but it is still too low to the ground. In those days, the tall grass couldn't have shielded a larger force than what would appear to be the case today.
The battleground doesn't look all that large in area. But one has to keep in mind that they didn't have cars in those days. I found out the distances when walking around the park a bit. Things have a different scale when you are on foot.
Sam Houston was shot out from under his horse in the midst of battle. There was a marker there to indicate the spot. Just a hundred yards away or loss is another marker for the position in which a cannon was in place.
That seems pretty close range for a cannon. But Houston was hit by a bullet in his ankle. Given the surprise, the Mexican army may not have had time to get off a cannon shot.
Marker where Sam Houston was shot from his horse. About 100 yards from cannon marker.
Of course, there is the legend of the Yellow Rose who distracted the Mexican general with her charms.
Note: this picture wasn't taken today. I took it several months ago.
What a misfortune for Mexico to have that kind of failure as a leader. On the other hand, the Texians were lucky. There was at least one other General in Texas during that war who would not have made that mistake. Just goes to show what could happen when the wrong man is in charge.
Santa Anna was captured. And Fannin and his men were massacred at Goliad under Santa Anna's orders.
Both are examples are poor leadership and its consequences.
I wanted to get the feel for the situation on the ground just before the battle. How did Santa Anna manage to get beaten so badly? It was more of a slaughter than a battle. Sam Houston's army didn't suffer that many casualties; hardly more than a handful. On the other hand, Santa Anna lost hundreds of men and/ or hundreds more captured.
No doubt, the element of surprise figured significantly in the outcome of the battle. But looking over the terrain, it is hard to see how anyone could manage to surprise anyone else. The land is very flat and the grass and bushes don't provide much cover.
I recall reading that Houston's army used a "rise" as cover. I looked for these and didn't find many, but there are some places that are low. Of course, the closer you get to the marshes, the more cover there is. Unless Houston's army was hanging out in the marshes, he didn't have all that much cover.
Another possiblity was the tall prairie grass that grew in those days. The park management is trying to bring that back, but it is still too low to the ground. In those days, the tall grass couldn't have shielded a larger force than what would appear to be the case today.
The battleground doesn't look all that large in area. But one has to keep in mind that they didn't have cars in those days. I found out the distances when walking around the park a bit. Things have a different scale when you are on foot.
Sam Houston was shot out from under his horse in the midst of battle. There was a marker there to indicate the spot. Just a hundred yards away or loss is another marker for the position in which a cannon was in place.
That seems pretty close range for a cannon. But Houston was hit by a bullet in his ankle. Given the surprise, the Mexican army may not have had time to get off a cannon shot.
Marker where Sam Houston was shot from his horse. About 100 yards from cannon marker.
Of course, there is the legend of the Yellow Rose who distracted the Mexican general with her charms.
Note: this picture wasn't taken today. I took it several months ago.
What a misfortune for Mexico to have that kind of failure as a leader. On the other hand, the Texians were lucky. There was at least one other General in Texas during that war who would not have made that mistake. Just goes to show what could happen when the wrong man is in charge.
Santa Anna was captured. And Fannin and his men were massacred at Goliad under Santa Anna's orders.
Both are examples are poor leadership and its consequences.
Contest
You know what? This blog is dying out here. No audience to speak of. Instead of crybabying about it, I decided to do something about it. I am considering having a contest. You will be able to have an opportunity to win a prize. How much of a prize? I haven't decided yet. But it can't be huge. Maybe not even big. But something.
If it is a go, then I am going to advertise this contest, so there could be plenty of contestants. Hopefully they'll be plenty of contestants. Here's what I'll do. I'll give a heads up here and let my normal readership have first shot at entering. If anything goes wrong and/or nobody shows, I will cancel the contest, but still give a winner a consolation prize for participating.
The winner will be based upon picking a winning lottery number. No, it is not the Texas lottery, just their winning numbers. In order to win, you have to enter. I'll have the contestants pick 6 numbers between 1 and 50, which corresponds to the Texas lottery numbers. I think I'll have the winning numbers selected from the results of the next Wednesday's drawing.
Here's the procedure. The numbers are sorted in ascending number. We'll chose the winner on the basis of the match in order of the increasing numbers. For example let's says the winning numbers are 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30. If you are the only one who picks 5, you win. If nobody picks 5, we go to the next number and repeat the procedure. We'll go through all 6 six numbers until we get a winner. If there is no winner, or a tie, then we'll use this procedure: tell a joke. The joke I like the best, wins.
Here's how to enter. Select your six numbers between 1 and 50. Tell a joke. Put this into a comment to the go post. You must send an email to me as well. In the email, put a pin number of at least 6 digits. The pin number is necessary in order to identify you. Your pin must match your identification in your comment. Do not put the pin number in the comment. Put it in the email plus your winning number that you selected. This has to match what your commented and emailed. If you can't identify correctly, you can't claim the prize. Please note: I do not want your email addresses!!!!!!!!!!! I am not doing this to put you on a spam list. This is just a way to promote this blog. That is all it is. So, don't worry about my intentions. Please. This is legitimate, ok?
If you are the lucky winner, then you must claim the prize. If you win, you must send me your mailing address so that I can mail you a certified check. You have to include this information, or I can't send you the prize money. Again, I am not interested in selling your information. So, please don't worry about it. By the way, this has to be an address here in the USA. I won't mail to a overseas address.
I will put up the post with the winner numbers from the lottery and you will have to come back to see if you win. Also, if there are no winners from the lottery numbers, I will have to select a winner based upon your joke. In that event, I will post the winner here. But you still have to claim the prize in the procedure that I have mentioned.
Any comments or suggestions are welcome. I will let you know if the contest is a go. Let me know something, please. Participate in the poll at the bottom of the page, or make a comment or give some feedback after the go post. This is not the go post. I will tell you when it is the go post. That should happen sometime today based upon the response here. That way, I'll know if I want to fool around with this idea much further.
I will update with any changes if necessary. That is all for now. Stay tuned.
Update:
The ad has been up for most of one day and I see no response. Let's do this: if there is some indication of an interest in this idea, then I'll consider doing it. Until then, I won't spend time on it. This blog is okay as long as it doesn't cost me money. I can deal with it if I can 't make money with it, but I can't spend money on it if there isn't any response to it.
If it is a go, then I am going to advertise this contest, so there could be plenty of contestants. Hopefully they'll be plenty of contestants. Here's what I'll do. I'll give a heads up here and let my normal readership have first shot at entering. If anything goes wrong and/or nobody shows, I will cancel the contest, but still give a winner a consolation prize for participating.
The winner will be based upon picking a winning lottery number. No, it is not the Texas lottery, just their winning numbers. In order to win, you have to enter. I'll have the contestants pick 6 numbers between 1 and 50, which corresponds to the Texas lottery numbers. I think I'll have the winning numbers selected from the results of the next Wednesday's drawing.
Here's the procedure. The numbers are sorted in ascending number. We'll chose the winner on the basis of the match in order of the increasing numbers. For example let's says the winning numbers are 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30. If you are the only one who picks 5, you win. If nobody picks 5, we go to the next number and repeat the procedure. We'll go through all 6 six numbers until we get a winner. If there is no winner, or a tie, then we'll use this procedure: tell a joke. The joke I like the best, wins.
Here's how to enter. Select your six numbers between 1 and 50. Tell a joke. Put this into a comment to the go post. You must send an email to me as well. In the email, put a pin number of at least 6 digits. The pin number is necessary in order to identify you. Your pin must match your identification in your comment. Do not put the pin number in the comment. Put it in the email plus your winning number that you selected. This has to match what your commented and emailed. If you can't identify correctly, you can't claim the prize. Please note: I do not want your email addresses!!!!!!!!!!! I am not doing this to put you on a spam list. This is just a way to promote this blog. That is all it is. So, don't worry about my intentions. Please. This is legitimate, ok?
If you are the lucky winner, then you must claim the prize. If you win, you must send me your mailing address so that I can mail you a certified check. You have to include this information, or I can't send you the prize money. Again, I am not interested in selling your information. So, please don't worry about it. By the way, this has to be an address here in the USA. I won't mail to a overseas address.
I will put up the post with the winner numbers from the lottery and you will have to come back to see if you win. Also, if there are no winners from the lottery numbers, I will have to select a winner based upon your joke. In that event, I will post the winner here. But you still have to claim the prize in the procedure that I have mentioned.
Any comments or suggestions are welcome. I will let you know if the contest is a go. Let me know something, please. Participate in the poll at the bottom of the page, or make a comment or give some feedback after the go post. This is not the go post. I will tell you when it is the go post. That should happen sometime today based upon the response here. That way, I'll know if I want to fool around with this idea much further.
I will update with any changes if necessary. That is all for now. Stay tuned.
Update:
The ad has been up for most of one day and I see no response. Let's do this: if there is some indication of an interest in this idea, then I'll consider doing it. Until then, I won't spend time on it. This blog is okay as long as it doesn't cost me money. I can deal with it if I can 't make money with it, but I can't spend money on it if there isn't any response to it.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Out and about in the neighborhood
You wouldn't know that there was a recession going on at the mall. It was jam packed. Nowhere to park. Not every mall in town is this busy, but this one definitely is.
Today was a rather dreary day weather wise. A little cool, but very cloudy. No rain, though.
I took some pictures, but they aren't that good. Here's a picture of somebody's house with their decorations up. They are in the spirit of the season.
It's a little hard to see because of the gloom. Can you see the word "JOY"? It is a little to the right and in the middle of the picture.
Today was a rather dreary day weather wise. A little cool, but very cloudy. No rain, though.
I took some pictures, but they aren't that good. Here's a picture of somebody's house with their decorations up. They are in the spirit of the season.
It's a little hard to see because of the gloom. Can you see the word "JOY"? It is a little to the right and in the middle of the picture.
More on the External Tanks
This is the next of a series (to view these, click on label at end of this post) on recycling the External Tanks on the Shuttle derived launch platform, which is now in NASA's budget as the heavy lifter for future space missions.
It occurred to me that a minor redesign of this system may be necessary in order to optimize it. For instance, what will come of the rocket engines after they shut off? It may be more trouble than it is worth to try to recycle those. If you can preserve most of the external tank, that could be a good start in implementing this concept. Let's propose that the rocket engines be jettisoned and a third stage be built inside of the external tank.
This may be a preposterous idea, yet, what to do about that rocket engine? It is in the way, and it would be helpful to jettison it so that the external tank can be put into higher orbit. If the rocket engine and the big hydrogen tank can be jettisoned as a unit, that could be even better. This would free up a lot of space inside of the external tank outer shell. The remaining oxygen tank can be used for habitat and storage.
Now, in the old Shuttle system, there was an intertank module which was located between the big hydrogen tank and oxygen tanks. If a rocket stage is put in there to replace this, it can be used to push out the big expendable rocket engines plus big external tank assembly, and then provide thrust to move the shell into a higher orbit. The shell would be preserved along with the oxygen tank. Perhaps this third stage can be preserved as well, or it can be recycled, which ever is more desirable.
Naturally, you want to facilitate the remaining work in order to finish converting this into a space station. Let's start by placing bolt holes in strategic locations so as to allow multiple tanks to be bolted together. Subsequently, up to 4 of these tanks can be bolted together in and spun at 2 rpm in order to generate artificial gravity.
But before that is done, the tank will require some work. For that, two of these tanks can be tethered together in order to produce .1 g of artificial gravity as mentioned in an earlier post. The artificial gravity will facilitate the wet engineering of the tank. (It is easier to work in gravity than having to work in zero gravity.)
By the time two tanks are ready, they can be reeled in and bolted together. Two more tanks can be processed in a similar fashion giving 4 tanks in the final configuration.
Before the entire system is bolted together and/ or tethered, a docking facility can be launched and put into place between the two pairs. This should be at the center of gravity. The docking facilty will have to set up in such a way as not to introduce instability into the spinning station.
That might be easier said than done. In additon to the foregoing discussion, it may be necessary to include some small thrusters in order to keep the system stable.
Update:
What would this cost? A shuttle mission went for about half a billion. Multiply this by 4 and the cost of launching 4 of these would be comparable, I would suspect. Throw in the costs of reburbing the tanks and bolting them up into a big station, and you've up to a couple billion. Double that and you've got the cost of an aircraft carrier. We could afford it. The payoff could be huge.
Update:
Additional thoughts:
I.
Two options for ejecting the rocket motor and big hydrogen tank 1) using rocket exhaust from internal stage, push against a plate in the same way an internal combustion engine pushes a piston, or 2) use an electric mass driver concept to eject them both away. In both instances, the matter ejected can be thought of as reaction mass.
II.
Spinning the station can produce an electrical current within the magnetic field of the Earth. By supplying one aboard the station, these two fields can repel each other thereby creating rocketless propulsion. Or it can supply electricity for the station.
III.
Perhaps it is possible to deploy the station at EML1 and deploy a tether which would extend all the way to the lunar surface. Cargo and maybe even crew can be sent to the surface and back.
It occurred to me that a minor redesign of this system may be necessary in order to optimize it. For instance, what will come of the rocket engines after they shut off? It may be more trouble than it is worth to try to recycle those. If you can preserve most of the external tank, that could be a good start in implementing this concept. Let's propose that the rocket engines be jettisoned and a third stage be built inside of the external tank.
This may be a preposterous idea, yet, what to do about that rocket engine? It is in the way, and it would be helpful to jettison it so that the external tank can be put into higher orbit. If the rocket engine and the big hydrogen tank can be jettisoned as a unit, that could be even better. This would free up a lot of space inside of the external tank outer shell. The remaining oxygen tank can be used for habitat and storage.
Now, in the old Shuttle system, there was an intertank module which was located between the big hydrogen tank and oxygen tanks. If a rocket stage is put in there to replace this, it can be used to push out the big expendable rocket engines plus big external tank assembly, and then provide thrust to move the shell into a higher orbit. The shell would be preserved along with the oxygen tank. Perhaps this third stage can be preserved as well, or it can be recycled, which ever is more desirable.
Naturally, you want to facilitate the remaining work in order to finish converting this into a space station. Let's start by placing bolt holes in strategic locations so as to allow multiple tanks to be bolted together. Subsequently, up to 4 of these tanks can be bolted together in and spun at 2 rpm in order to generate artificial gravity.
But before that is done, the tank will require some work. For that, two of these tanks can be tethered together in order to produce .1 g of artificial gravity as mentioned in an earlier post. The artificial gravity will facilitate the wet engineering of the tank. (It is easier to work in gravity than having to work in zero gravity.)
By the time two tanks are ready, they can be reeled in and bolted together. Two more tanks can be processed in a similar fashion giving 4 tanks in the final configuration.
Before the entire system is bolted together and/ or tethered, a docking facility can be launched and put into place between the two pairs. This should be at the center of gravity. The docking facilty will have to set up in such a way as not to introduce instability into the spinning station.
That might be easier said than done. In additon to the foregoing discussion, it may be necessary to include some small thrusters in order to keep the system stable.
Update:
What would this cost? A shuttle mission went for about half a billion. Multiply this by 4 and the cost of launching 4 of these would be comparable, I would suspect. Throw in the costs of reburbing the tanks and bolting them up into a big station, and you've up to a couple billion. Double that and you've got the cost of an aircraft carrier. We could afford it. The payoff could be huge.
Update:
Additional thoughts:
I.
Two options for ejecting the rocket motor and big hydrogen tank 1) using rocket exhaust from internal stage, push against a plate in the same way an internal combustion engine pushes a piston, or 2) use an electric mass driver concept to eject them both away. In both instances, the matter ejected can be thought of as reaction mass.
II.
Spinning the station can produce an electrical current within the magnetic field of the Earth. By supplying one aboard the station, these two fields can repel each other thereby creating rocketless propulsion. Or it can supply electricity for the station.
III.
Perhaps it is possible to deploy the station at EML1 and deploy a tether which would extend all the way to the lunar surface. Cargo and maybe even crew can be sent to the surface and back.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
The Moon Shot that may never have happened
If enough people thought the same way during the Apollo Era as they do now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)