Buzz Advocates Lagrange Point Spaceport

thrasymachus writes "Buzz Aldrin has an editorial in the New York Times (free reg req) advocating a spaceport at a Lagrange point between the Earth and the moon over simply more moon missions. He emphasizes the cost and practicality of such a station, as well its potential as a 'bridge to the heavens.'"

Comments

Google Link

[erinacht]

It's actually quite a good read but not enough to make me want to register...

Just click on the link after the text
If the URL is valid, try visiting that web page by clicking on the following link:

Lagrange Points

[DarkDust]

A really interesting article about Lagrange Points can be found here. What I found really fascinating is the fact that it seems like that the earth pulls/pushes dust around space on the earth-moon Lagrange Points L4 and L5.

For those who dont know what Lagrange Points are..

[Manhigh]

AKA Libration Points...

For any heavenly body with a satellite in a relatively circular orbit, there are 5 points where gravitational forces and centripetal accelerations cancel each other out. Three fall on a line that connects the two bodies, and the other form a pair of equilateral triangles with the heavenly bodies.

L1 between the two bodies
L2 on the far side of the smaller body
L3 on the far side of the larger body
L4 is the "leading" equilateral point
L5 is the "trailing" equilateral point

L4 and L5 are relatively stable. Putting a station at L1-3 would require more propellant to keep it there, though not an unreasonable amount.

Personally, I'd rather go for a base on the Moon that at a libration point. Sure, it requires more propellant to get to and from there, but its also a permanent fixture, rather than something that would need to be disposed of eventually.

Re:The Moon or Lagrange? I still choose Mars.

[Keebler71]

Well direct injection and aerocapture (not aerobraking which still required capture propellant) have their own drawbacks. In the case of direct transfer injection, you are much more constrained by launch windows than if you use a parking orbit. As for aerocapture (my thesis by the way), while there are significant propellant cost savings you now have to have a robust thermal protection system (TPS). Aerocapture has not yet been used on any mission as it is relatively high risk (due in large part to insufficient understanding of the Mars atmosphere and what type of heat loads would be encountered). The closest to aerocaputre that has been accomplished were the direct entries of the Apollo missions. Moreover, aerocapture guidance is still in its infancy (again, point designs have been done but we need a guidance algo that is robust enough to account for huge errors in Mars' atmospheric model). Further complicating matters is the fact that for large (manned spaceflight sized) missions, the heat loads and instantaneous heaing rates really push the limit of what current ablative technologies can sustain.

Don't get me wrong, I think that eventually we will have the technology to stage missions from Mars. However, I think that by the time we overcome some of the human related issues (long zero-g exposure, radiation, psycological, etc...) we will likely have made other advances that mitigate the benefit of launching from Mars over simply staging from Earth (i.e. cheaper access to space here at home).

I am not saying that Zubrin has misled you, and I never finished reading my copies of his books. He does an excellent job of pointing out the current deficiencies with our current technologies and policies, but I think he is overly optimistic in the alternatives that he suggests.

Why yes, I am ALSO a rocket scientist! :)