Will NASA really build a 'gateway' L-2 Moon base?

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   


Over the weekend, The Orlando Sentinel reported that NASA is considering building a hovering outpost beyond the Moon at L-2 (Lagrangian point 2) that will be a 'gateway' to serve as a point for launching human missions to Mars and asteroids. The buzz among the space-related social medias ranged from "this is the greatest idea ever" to "this is make-work for the Space Launch System, (NASA's new rocket.)" The newspaper's report cited a White House briefing given in September by NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden, but said "it's unclear whether it has the administration's support. Of critical importance is the price tag, which would certainly run into the billions of dollars." Read more at: phys.org...


Seems like a logical step in space exploration.

But why for only 4-6 people I wonder?



Please review this link.
Starting a New Thread ?... Look Here First.

AboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count.
Please do not create minimal posts to start your new thread.
If you feel inclined to make the board aware of news, current events,
or important information from other sites;
*please post one or two paragraphs,
*a link to the entire story,
*AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item,
as a means to inspire discussion or collaborative research on your subject.


edit on 1-10-2012 by Extralien because: mod note




posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
If they are saying they are going to....

They proberly already have.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


Thanks to Obama cutting NASA's budget, we dont have a ship to even get us there.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
I can't see this as viable model, as to maintain position at L2(or L1) would require constant corrections and an incredible amount of fuel to be stored on board.

Just docking with a space station at a Lagrangian location introduces all sorts of inertial issues that are compounded due to the fact that the station is sitting in a point of near perfect equilibrium.

It would be far more efficient, cheaper and easier to put the station in a - relatively - low orbit around the moon and use the orbital motion to assist in departure.
edit on 1/10/2012 by OccamAssassin because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Juggernog
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


Thanks to Obama cutting NASA's budget, we dont have a ship to even get us there.


If they cant send a ship with 17billion dollars then too bad...



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Juggernog
 


My thoughts exactly! I enjoyed how in the article NASA's response claims that President Obama's space exploration plan is "ambitious." I don't see how flushing billions of dollars of work on the Constellation program down the drain is ambitious...



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
I have always been very skeptical of NASA. I don't believe a word they say when it comes to what they are up to. So many stories, and truth tellers over the years. You can tell astronauts are holding back information they have about what goes on up there.
I guess this base will portray all the archaic technology that follows or matches up with the shuttle fossil program.
Mean while the antigrav fission generator Grey occupied base is around the corner on the lunar surface. Just kidding ... well not really.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
I can't see this as viable model, as to maintain position at L2(or L1) would require constant corrections and an incredible amount of fuel to be stored on board.

Just docking with a space station at a Langrangian location introduces all sorts of inertial issues that are compounded due to the fact that the station is sitting in a point of near perfect equilibrium.

It would be far more efficient, cheaper and easier to put the station in a - relatively - low orbit around the moon and use the orbital motion to assist in departure.


Any orbit requires corrections am I right?

And why would they have to be in a really low orbit to use it for assistance in departure?



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by sparrowstail
I have always been very skeptical of NASA. I don't believe a word they say when it comes to what they are up to. So many stories, and truth tellers over the years. You can tell astronauts are holding back information they have about what goes on up there.
I guess this base will portray all the archaic technology that follows or matches up with the shuttle fossil program.
Mean while the antigrav fission generator Grey occupied base is around the corner on the lunar surface. Just kidding ... well not really.


SEE!

This is the conspiratorial attitude I can respect and even relate to.

An objective view, without unproven absolutes. My kinda guy.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
I can't see this as viable model, as to maintain position at L2(or L1) would require constant corrections and an incredible amount of fuel to be stored on board.
Just docking with a space station at a Langrangian location introduces all sorts of inertial issues that are compounded due to the fact that the station is sitting in a point of near perfect equilibrium.
It would be far more efficient, cheaper and easier to put the station in a - relatively - low orbit around the moon and use the orbital motion to assist in departure.


Any orbit requires corrections am I right?


Yes, but due to the nature of space at L1 & L2, equilibrium between the Earth and Moon means that other influences dominate....most notably, the Sun.

In a normal orbital position, corrections still have to be made, but as the magnitude of opposing forces of angular momentum and gravity dominate - despite balancing near perfectly -, as such, influences from other celestial bodies are too small to make a difference.



And why would they have to be in a really low orbit to use it for assistance in departure?


The lower the orbit, the higher the velocity of the satellite. In order to utilise the Moon's gravity as a kind of sling-shot, an orbit will have to be low as the Moon's gravity is only 1/6th the Earth's. A lack of any - notable - atmosphere on the Moon will mean that the satellite will be able to maintain an altitude considerably lower than its terrestrial equivalent.

To add...
It is probably just as feasible to just make the base on the moon and mark it off as one less thing to worry about. The added fuel costs for the launch could be justified by not having an orbiter to maintain and fuel.
edit on 1/10/2012 by OccamAssassin because: (no reason given)
edit on 1/10/2012 by OccamAssassin because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamAssassin

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
I can't see this as viable model, as to maintain position at L2(or L1) would require constant corrections and an incredible amount of fuel to be stored on board.
Just docking with a space station at a Langrangian location introduces all sorts of inertial issues that are compounded due to the fact that the station is sitting in a point of near perfect equilibrium.
It would be far more efficient, cheaper and easier to put the station in a - relatively - low orbit around the moon and use the orbital motion to assist in departure.


Any orbit requires corrections am I right?


Yes, but due to the nature of space at L1 & L2, equilibrium between the Earth and Moon means that other influences dominate....most notably, the Sun.

In a normal orbital position, corrections still have to be made, but as the magnitude of opposing forces of angular momentum and gravity dominate - despite balancing near perfectly -, as such, influences from other celestial bodies are too small to make a difference.



And why would they have to be in a really low orbit to use it for assistance in departure?


The lower the orbit, the higher the velocity of the satellite. In order to utilise the Moon's gravity as a kind of sling-shot, an orbit will have to be low as the Moon's gravity is only 1/6th the Earth's. A lack of any - notable - atmosphere on the Moon will mean that the satellite will be able to maintain an altitude considerably lower than its terrestrial equivalent.

To add...
It is probably just as feasible to just make the base on the moon and mark it off as one less thing to worry about. The added fuel costs for the launch could be justified by not having an orbiter to maintain and fuel.
edit on 1/10/2012 by OccamAssassin because: (no reason given)
edit on 1/10/2012 by OccamAssassin because: (no reason given)


Not that interested, but did you do the calculations yourself or do you have a source?



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
oh c'mon

that's in a basement in chile



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ubeenhad
 



Not that interested, but did you do the calculations yourself or do you have a source?


The Lagrangian points have been suggested many times as sites for space stations and every time, the same issues arise. If you read New Scientist(or your local equivalent), you'll see a modified clone of the same article resurface every three odd years.

Yes, I have done the calculations as the Lagrangian points were covered in part of a physics module I did for my engineering degree.

To give you an idea of what I'm talking about...The Lagrangian Points are considered to be empty space because anything entering will also leave due to its nature. This follows with Newton's first law of motion....


Newton's First Law (also known as the Law of Inertia) states that an object at rest tends to stay at rest and that an object in uniform motion tends to stay in uniform motion unless acted upon by a net external force.


As an object entering in to Lagrangian space will have a velocity with respect to the said space, unless a force is enacted on the object to change the respective velocity.....it can only pass through.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Please review this link.
Starting a New Thread ?... Look Here First.

AboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count.
Please do not create minimal posts to start your new thread.
If you feel inclined to make the board aware of news, current events,
or important information from other sites;
*please post one or two paragraphs,
*a link to the entire story,
*AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item,
as a means to inspire discussion or collaborative research on your subject.


edit on 1-10-2012 by Extralien because: mod note


idc, wtf is this?



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamAssassin
 





I can't see this as viable model, as to maintain position at L2(or L1) would require constant corrections and an incredible amount of fuel to be stored on board.


According to wikipedia, stationkeeping in L1 and L2 takes 30-100 m/s of delta-v (change in velocity) per year. This is not much, and it is comparable to what ISS needs (



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Juggernog
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


Thanks to Obama cutting NASA's budget, we dont have a ship to even get us there.


Its about time building ships and rockets is outsourced to the more efficient private sector. Let SpaceX handle it.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Despite the fact that ISS is an impressive construction, I always had the feeling that it was built mainly so that NASA's Shuttle fleet had something to do. That being the case, I think that building another space station would be a massive waste of time and money.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by Juggernog
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


Thanks to Obama cutting NASA's budget, we dont have a ship to even get us there.


Its about time building ships and rockets is outsourced to the more efficient private sector. Let SpaceX handle it.


right..one accident with a death, and the lawyers will bury the company, never to be heard from again.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by Juggernog
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


Thanks to Obama cutting NASA's budget, we dont have a ship to even get us there.


Its about time building ships and rockets is outsourced to the more efficient private sector. Let SpaceX handle it.


right..one accident with a death, and the lawyers will bury the company, never to be heard from again.


Because the same thing happened to all aviation companies that had a plane crash..

If they can kill 300 civilian passengers and move on, I am sure SpaceX killing a few professional astronauts that signed on the job (and knew the risks, probably signed a legal disclaimer) wont destroy them.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
reply to post by ubeenhad
 



Not that interested, but did you do the calculations yourself or do you have a source?


The Lagrangian points have been suggested many times as sites for space stations and every time, the same issues arise. If you read New Scientist(or your local equivalent), you'll see a modified clone of the same article resurface every three odd years.

Yes, I have done the calculations as the Lagrangian points were covered in part of a physics module I did for my engineering degree.

To give you an idea of what I'm talking about...The Lagrangian Points are considered to be empty space because anything entering will also leave due to its nature. This follows with Newton's first law of motion....


Newton's First Law (also known as the Law of Inertia) states that an object at rest tends to stay at rest and that an object in uniform motion tends to stay in uniform motion unless acted upon by a net external force.


As an object entering in to Lagrangian space will have a velocity with respect to the said space, unless a force is enacted on the object to change the respective velocity.....it can only pass through.


Why are you sourceing newtons second law? Seems like there are some points your making that deserve a source a little more.





new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join