| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Space - History Forum » Manned Venus Flyby
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
|
| Author |
Message |
| Pat Flannery |
 Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
mike flugennock wrote:
Quote:
But whoa, get outta' here, this is almost exactly as I'd have imagined
such a ship. Good clean illustration quality, too. Why the hell isn't
Mark Wade on top of:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/49/VenusFlybyCutaway.jpg
When I think about it, what really sucks is that we really might well
have been able to pull it off with the technology available at the time.
Send him the link; I send him stuff all the time. :-)
Pat |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jeff Findley |
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 5:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"surfduke" <surfduke2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1172581126.331185.155050@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Quote: The hardware was well on it's way to final design!
You forgot the smiley face. :-)
This was a study, not a final design.
Quote: The idea had one
major flaw, (Solar Flares). Some talk was given to shelter boxes, (For
the crew). The waste was to go into the cont. at the end, (Just like
Skylab). In a sense this was Skylab prep'd for a beyond earth orbit
mission. This idea like so many others was a good dream, (when we had
a Saturn Space port). We lost our way after L.B.J's Boy did his chop
job, (and Nixon did the bait, and switch).
If the budget cuts NASA had in the late 60's were really seen as a bad
thing, that funding would have been restored by now. It's a bit higher now
than what it was in the late 70's through the mid to late 80's, but it's not
going to go back to the peak of 1966 anytime soon, IMHO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_budget
Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jeff Findley |
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 5:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Henry Spencer" <henry@spsystems.net> wrote in message
news:JE59z6.FI2@spsystems.net...
Quote: In article <1d1d7$45e48623$927a2cda$26334@FUSE.NET>,
Jeff Findley <jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
Looks similar to a Skylab Wet Workshop to me, but minus the ASTP and a few
other bits.
(You presumably mean the ATM...)
You're right, as usual. ;-)
Quote: There were a bunch of ideas for wet workshops at the time, many of them
based on the idea -- which proved a bit over-optimistic in the end -- that
you could build a docking/airlock module into the top of an S-IVB without
penalizing its performance much.
For example, Douglas came up with the notion that a somewhat-improved
S-IVB could put itself into lunar orbit, with substantial cargo. So it
carries the docking/airlock module, two spare LM descent stages, and tanks
for refilling an LM ascent stage... and a manned Apollo using it as a base
gets to make three landings instead of one, plus bigger orbital living
quarters and a chunk of orbital-science payload. (Or, still better, add
some further upgrades to the S-IVB and it can land itself plus 12t of
cargo on the Moon.)
Orbital lunar operations base? Interesting idea. You get three landings
for the price of two Saturn V launches.
Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Brad Guth |
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote in
message news:LTLEh.6911$tD2.1087@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net
Quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Venus_Flyby
Hmm, can't say I've really seen anything on this before.
Venus L2 need not be a flyby, but rather a 19 month stayover. However,
you're not going to get yourself very hot, much less roasted to death.
All that's needed is a good cache of TP plus lots of beer and pizza
that'll last between those mostly robotic resupply missions. The VL2
radiation that's potentially lethal to our frail DNA isn't nearly as bad
off as being with ISS as it manages to avoid the ever expanding SAA
contour, and there's certainly going to be less cosmic influx trauma to
deal with, not to mention VL2 not having that gamma and hard-X-ray
producing moon to deal with.
By one analogy of our 1AU raw sunlight spectrum UV to IR being worth
1390 w/m2: However, if the earthshine/planetshine upon average IR
radiance is being worth 266 w/m2, adding half the other direct influx,
as having been shuttle instrument reported as 1354 w/m2 = 266 + 677 =
943 w/m2, as representing what ISS or most any other terrestrial
orbiting platform has to externally contend with.
If it weren't for the nighttime portion of each ISS orbit, they'd be
summarily roasted to death long ago, and it's actually worse off at the
moon's L1 because of the same 1390 w/m2 potential plus a moonshine
radiance worth of IR that I believe has to be worth nearly 695 w/m2,
thereby being at roughly 58,000 km from that IR emitting surface might
suggest 1390 + 20 = 1410 w/m2 (not to forget about a little something
extra from earthshine IR), along with hardly any amount of that time
spent at the moon's L1 as for being shaded by way of Earth or by the
moon itself (in other words, you'll have to provide an artificial shade,
or else).
As opposed to the solar radiance being less than 390 w/m2 at Venus L2,
whereas the VL2 halo station-keeping orbit is upon average receiving
perhaps as little as 41% of the ISS thermal trauma. Even if there's an
extra 10 w/m2 of IR planetshine to deal with (of which there isn't),
that's still only 400 w/m2, and if that's not Bigelow POOF or most any
other space depot certified, then perhaps nothing is. The better could
obviously be said for establishing the Earth L2 (EL2) space depot, but
clearly we're not smart enough or otherwise having enough rad-hard DNA
as for pulling that one off, either.
Therefore, once again I may have to agree with the intelligent mindset
of Dr. Van Allen, that the vast majority of open space travels and of
such planetary or moon expeditions needs to be given as much robotics as
possible, that is unless we can affordably launch and sustain a
sufficient physical shield against the solar, moon and cosmic sorts of
lethal radiation trauma that tends to summarily nail our frail DNA (not
to mention having to defend ourselves from nearly all directions, as
from those pesky fast moving debris encounters of the potentially lethal
kind).
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Brad Guth |
| Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote in
message news:LTLEh.6911$tD2.1087@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net
What's with all of this silly and otherwise spendy flyby crapolla?
As long as it's on your dollar/euro, it seem relocating our ISS to Venus
L2 is actually doable, and there'd be plenty of folks that would pay
big-time for taking that once in a lifetime ride (even though it could
represent the very last ride they'll ever take). Therefore, the mission
could actually return a profit.
As things stand, we'll not likely terraform our global warming moon
that's so hot by day and otherwise extremely nasty, though ever so much
easier than accomplishing Mars, it's just not within those spendy cards
unless it's something China and/or India can pull off. Even our
accomplishing any space depot/gateway worth from within the moon's L1 is
downright iffy, unless an artificial shade were incorporated along with
the extra tonnage of required shielding. The relocation of our moon to
Earth's L1 is simply too much pie in the sky, that would only take away
from our plan or foucs of pulling off WWIII. However, the Venus L2
platform as offering a manned habitat is perfectly doable as is, along
with that location offering more than sufficient PV energy and otherwise
shade to spare.
This VL2 application is ideal for the Bigelow POOF, because it's not an
exposed flyby.
Venus L2 need not be a flyby limited mission, but rather a 19 month
destination stop-over. However, you're not going to get yourself very
hot, much less roasted to death. All that's needed is a good cache of
TP plus lots of beer and pizza that'll last between those mostly robotic
resupply missions. The VL2 radiation environment that's potentially
lethal to our frail DNA isn't nearly as bad off as being with ISS, as it
manages to avoid the ever expanding SAA contour, and there's certainly
going to be less (nearly 50% less) of the cosmic influx trauma to deal
with, not to mention VL2 not having that gamma and hard-X-ray producing
moon to deal with.
By one analogy of our 1AU raw sunlight spectrum of UV to IR being worth
1390 w/m2:
However, if the earthshine/planetshine upon average IR radiance is worth
266 w/m2, adding half the other direct influx, as having been shuttle
instrument reported as 1354 w/m2 = 266 + 677 = 943 w/m2, as for
representing the external energy budget of what ISS or most any other
terrestrial orbiting platform has to externally contend with.
A correction for the following worth of moon's L1 IR = 2 w/m2 (not
hardly a big factor, but it's there to behold at least 50% of the time)
If it weren't for the nighttime portion of each ISS orbit, as such
they'd be summarily roasted to death long ago, and it's actually worse
off at the moon's L1 because of the same 1390 w/m2 potential plus a
moonshine surface radiance of IR that I believe has to be worth nearly
695 w/m2, thereby being at roughly 58,000 km away from that IR emitting
surface might suggest 1390 + 2 = 1392 w/m2 (not to forget about a little
something extra that's contributed from earthshine IR). With hardly any
amount of that time spent at the moon's L1 as for being shaded by way of
Earth or by the moon itself (in other words, you'll have to provide an
artificial shade 97.6% of the time according to Clarke Station analogy,
or else get yourself prepaired to sweat like a slow roasted pig in a
can).
As opposed to the solar radiance being less than 390 w/m2 at Venus L2,
whereas the VL2 halo station-keeping orbit is upon average receiving
perhaps as little as 41% of the ISS thermal trauma. Even if there's an
extra 1 w/m2 of IR planetshine to deal with (of which there isn't),
that's still only 391 w/m2, and if that's not Bigelow POOF or most any
other space depot certified, then perhaps nothing is. The better
argument could obviously be said for establishing Earth L2 (EL2) space
depot, but clearly we're not smart enough or otherwise having enough
rad-hard DNA as for pulling that one off any better than we could
accomplish the moon's L1. I guess we don't actually have "The Right
Stuff".
Therefore, once again I may have to agree entirely with the intelligent
mindset of Dr. Van Allen, that the vast majority of open space travels
(external to our protective magnetosphere) and of such other planetary
or moon expeditions needs to be given as much robotics as possible, that
is since our going terribly fast isn't an option and unless we can
affordably launch and sustain a sufficient physical shield against the
solar, moon and cosmic sorts of lethal radiation trauma that tends to
summarily nail our frail DNA (not to mention having to defend ourselves
from nearly all directions, as from those pesky fast moving debris
encounters of the potentially lethal kind), as such robotics are just
about exactly what the doctor ordered, the same as having been insisted
by Dr. Van Allen.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Brad Guth |
| Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:80197$45e5f5c6$927a2cda$32573@FUSE.NET
Quote: Orbital lunar operations base? Interesting idea. You get three landings
for the price of two Saturn V launches.
The LSE-CM/ISS (space depot/gateway situated at roughly a little past
the moon's L1) offers unlimited moon access, as well as tonnes of other
space exploration, nearly unlimited science and badly needed earth
environment benefits, along with billions if not trillions in profits to
cleanly burn.
Sorry about all that.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 05, 2008 2:06 am
|
|