Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
ZZ Top
I am sure there will be legal battles about who can claim ownership of the lagrange points similar to the legal battles of Antarctica.
Saw an inteview this morning on CNN I believe. He talked about the L2 point idea as well as the dificulty with all the other things going on in the world as well as the budget deficit.
Most opponents to this idea don't consider that they are talking about realigning NASA in the direction of achieving this one big mission instead of the aimless direction it has been moving if for quite awhile. Not more money, just applying existing resources in a specific direction.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
I think this is good as it is a step out of the 'Cradle' and probably requires nearly the same energy as a trip to the moon (TLI or whatever).
However the advantage of the moon is that you can burrow in and they might be water at the poles.
Water = H2 and O2 = Fuel and Air = Explore Solar System
Sorry if this is typed fast - I am trying to config a Cisco Router at the same time!!
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:
I wonder if the Chinese (and maybe even the Russians) would be willing to go into a partnership with us for this. They've already said they want to place a man on the moon by 2020, and with Bush's recent indications that the US may be following suit, I'm sure a little cooperation wouldn't hurt.
Interesting article, but it still doesn't address the "building complex things in space" problem. I mean, we're pretty good at building things in gravity, with an abundance of raw materials, but we just haven't built much of note in hard vacuum zero gravity where you have to truck everything you need there. Even the space station was flown in modular format from Earth - at huge expense. Lagrange points are cool - but planets are cooler.
Everything you want to fly to somewhere else from a Lagrangian point you first have to fly to a Lagrangian point from some planet!
Frankly, the best place from which to get to pretty much anywhere in the solar system (including the Moon!) is from the surface of Mars. Two reasons: you can build things there, and the cost in fuel is lower. Here's a table which uses deltaV (total change in velocity required and thus fuel) to illustrate this very point.
First get humans to Mars, then the whole solar system is within reach.
Here is a link the famous Buzz Aldrin "punch" video wherein he punches some moron who calls him a liar about having ever been to the moon. Posted for your enjoyment :)
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
Something like 90% of the energy needed to get to the Moon is spent just getting to low earth orbit. While it might be an interesting project, a Lagrange point space station isn't going to make space travel much cheaper. We've got to solve the "first 100 mile problem", to paraphrase the telecomm industry.
I can't say whether a space elevator is feasible, but it seems a more useful goal to shoot for. That, or some method of launch better than strapping on a shitload of explosives and lighting the fuse.
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
Return to Moon May Be on Agenda : "President Bush's aides are considering a new lunar exploration program and other unifying national goals, including a campaign to promote longevity or fight childhood illness or hunger, as they sift ideas for a fresh agenda for the final year of his term, administration officials said yesterday."
Hmm. Perhaps they would like something to distract from the whole Afghanistan-Iraq thing, and the less than stellar results of those... And the Valerie Plame affair... and vote fraude through unauditable voting systems, like Diebold... and the massive budget and trade deficits.. and the declining value of the dollar...
We can hardly get a space station built in low earth orbit. I would imagine building one at L2 to be even more difficult.
Besides, how do you explain to the Amercian people that getting to L2 is an amazing accomplishment? They barely understand the moon and mars, forget explaining Lagrange points.
I'm sure this point was beaten to death in yesterday's story about moon missions, but space stations don't make much sense.
We've already got ISS for better or worse as a 0g test lab. On the Moon, we could build a solar farm that would fill our energy needs on Earth pretty much entirely. We would also be able to get a telescope bigger and better than anything else in existence. Lastly, the Moon offers a nice balance of construction material and low gravity which would give us a great jump-off point to Mars and the belt.
Speaking of Mars, putting people there would have more benefits than I care to type. New world for humanity, extraterrestrial science (possibly biology), easy access to the asteroids, ability to live off the land that can't be done on the moon or deep space...
Another thing while I'm all steamed up, isn't the LaGrange point between the earth and moon L1? That's an unstable point that would probably require regular correction so it doesn't fall to earth or the moon. SOHO has to deal with issues like that. I would hope that they would at least think to put it at L4 or L5 for stability's sake.
Could someone please enumerate the benefits of a L1 station cause I don't see them.
Blaze a trail to the New World
A manned moon base would encourage astronauts to practice In Situ Resource Utilization, making fuel and oxygen out of the moon, or mars' geological resources. This would be good practice for a future Mars mission, and would be useful in producing fuel for other missions in our solar system. Also, it would demonstrate whether or not there is commercial viability for a moon-based mining operation.
On the other hand, if we start building stuff on the moon we will probably get into a whole "territorial fight" with other countries and wind up killing ourselves because the weapons we used on the moon somehow changed its orbit. Thus allowing the earth to fall into natural disaster chaos.
Have you considered writing for hollywood? I hear Bruce Willis is bored...
====
Crudely Drawn Games
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.
That's clearly faked. The shadow cast by Buzz Aldrin's fist is all wrong.
First off you have to remember that Buzz is now in the spaceflight hardware business. While the Earth Moon L1 LaGrange point does offer intersting possibilites for being a gateway to the solar system, this really just sounds like another International Space Station. I worry about under utilization, a wandering mission objective, and massive operational costs. Not that a lunar surface base will be cheap. The big difference in my mind is the availability of raw materials on the surface. You won't have to launch as much mass from Earth. This would especially true if there really is water in the polar craters. Nevertheless, having a bunch of lunar soil to pile up for shielding would be a tremendous advantage. You also do not have to maintain the orbit of the moon (unlike an EM-L1 gateway). The other big advantage of the lunar base over EM-L1 is that once there you actually have things to do and places to explore. Just imagine having some large otpical, IR, and radio telescopes on the darkside of the moon - away from all of the earth-bound noise/light pollution. The possibilities are vast. Maybe we should go to the moon first and then build one of those carbon nanotube elevators from the surface to EM-L1 later.
-- Instant Karma's gonna get you! [320848 = 2*2*2*2*11*1823]
In the article, he recommends retooling the boosters and tanks with a new crew module and a separate cargo module. While I can see his point with regard to reuse of existing proven technology, I can't quite get away from the idea that sending people in the same craft as cargo is just a bad idea. Big Dumb Rockets (BRDs) are the only way that we should be putting cargo of any sort into space. We have become very good at orbital rendevous manuevers, so I can't see that separate launch vehicles for people and cargo will present a significant complication.
Perhaps the booster and tanks can be recycled with ONLY a crew module that can actually reach the L1 point. The current shuttles can barely make it to low orbit.
On the whole, he is right. An L1 base would be a nice permanent move into space and is probably something that should have been done in the mid-70's. The establishment of a moon base will be an easier political sell though. Once we hammer out manufacturing techniques, it should be possible to grow a spawling complex on the moon without needing to carry everything from earth. And you know we Americans love to spawl. If we can find water in sufficient quantities and are willing to take nuclear reactors with us to the moon, the fuel for future space flights will probably come from the moon.
What the heck does Buzz Aldrin know, anyway? He hasn't been in space for, like 30 years now! ;-P
$8.95/mo web hosting
Nobody wants to pay taxes, but they all want good schools, safe and well-maintained streets, etc.
I think I'm the only person on the freaking planet who actually considers paying taxes a civic duty, and that pays them willingly and with the knowledge that it is in my best interest to do so. (And no, not in some "if you don't you go to jail" way, either.) Taxes pay for bad things, taxes pay for good things. I oppose the former and support the latter.
Too many people are patriotic right up until you ask them to put their money where their mouth is.
People seem focused on the technical issues and the benefits, but how about that unpleasant, though unavoidable issue of cost?
... are we really going to fall for it?
Let's not be suckers like other interest groups, and let the government run up even more debt (remember that federal surplus of long ago?) by promising us our dreams to get our votes, ignoring the cost side of the equation
In fact, given our roles in the technology community, it's up to us to say 'it's not worth it'. Let's make the crazy assumption we must take money from something else in order to go to the moon, or build a space port -- is it worth it? What else should we sacrifice?
This is the crux of almost all problems in our efforts to evolve any further as a society, be it a push into space or whatever.
People are just plain ignorant. Not stupid. Ignorant. Most people I know never even crack open a book on ANY subject, much less something scientific. Sufficient scientific knowledge to graduate high school is knwoing the sky is blue and the ability to point to the sun in the sky. There's parts of the world where if you tell them the Earth revolves around the Sun, you'll get blank stares, and some of those parts are here in the USA. Smart people continue to be generally depicted in the media as outcasts and acceptable objects of ridicule.
We won't be going to L4, L5, L2 or even the L-train unless knowledge (and especially scientific knowledge) starts getting more respct in this world.
--- Ban humanity.
I would like to see a more detailed analysis of his cost estimates -- $15 billion seems rather low for "developing a new, more flexible launch vehicle," designing a sophisticated (and large) long-life station, shipping the thing up to L1 point, and assembling it.
He also doesn't address things like radiation concerns: Where are the Van Allen belts in relation to L1? L1 is outside the inner (high intensity) Van Allen belt, which means it is likely to get more solar radiation than we do on Earth. You need a lot of shielding to make long-term habitability practical.
Why pick L1 over L4 or L5? L1 is an unstable point -- items there tend to fall to one of the two major bodies; L4 and L5 are stable points.
He doesn't address the fuel cost to go the extra distance; ISS is 250 miles up, while L1 is about 190,000 miles up. Even though neither location is far down the gravity well, astronauts can't afford the slow boat, so you have to spend more fuel to get up to speed and brake at the far end.
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.
"Open the pod by doors, Hal" > "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave" sudo "Open the pod bay doors, Hal" > alright
Why is it that NASA always seems more interested in the public perception than the actual progression of space exploration? The reasoning seems to be that moon landings are "cool" and "sexy" and look great in the short term.
Seems that Aldrin is at least being a little more of a visionary and thinking about where we can go from there rather than appeasing the public and its contant "what have you done for me lately" philosophy.
This comment was generated by a squadron of trained super elite albino ninja chickens for you.
How much energy does it take to balance a broom. L1 is unstable, but that is a benefit not a hinderance. It means that when you want to leave you just "lean" in the direction you want to go while to leave the moon you have to fight its gravity.
Not only can you leave without much effort, you can also get there with as little. You just have to plan well and accept a long trip.
Using the Lagrange points requires a different philosopy to mission planning.
Would you like to own your very own point in space? How about a nice lot on the moon? Well come on down to CraZy Larry's Space Realtor and check out what YOU could own tomorrow! That's right! You could be the proud owner of 30 acres, ON THE MOON! That's enough land to start your own Space Emu Farm. Or you could own your very own LaGrange point and start a Space Port! Have astronauts from around the solar system visiting your Space Port; buying from your many Space Shops; eating in your many Space Restaurants; floating in your many Space Bathrooms. And all at the low low price of $999,999.99 a month with financing! So come on down and check out the deals. You just might be blown away!
Disclaimer: For educational purposes only. Not to be used in conjuction with world domination. Not to be used in conjunction with attack on alien race. CraZy Larry is not responsible for radioactive debris or alien races currently occupying locations. Visa or Mastercard is accepted.
RTFA.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
You are correct for all Lagrange points in line with the Moon and the Earth. The L4 and L5 points, however will never need repositioning because they automatically re-center themselves. Unfortunately, L4 and L5 are just as distant as the moon is, and have no indiginous resources.
Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
Not nearly as much as you think; possibly none at all. That's the whole reason to put one in the Lagrange points, well, half the reason anyway.
You know those "gravity/mass" diagrams that start with a flat Cartesian grid, and whenever a body is added, it sinks down like a well, or a rock weighing down a bedsheet? More massive bodies create larger wells, and so forth? Imagine the Earth (large well) and the Moon (small well). Now imagine 5 tiny dimples, moving in the same stable orbits along with the Earth and Moon.
Anything humans can build anytime soon is going to mass very little than the bodies involved in the system (Earth and Moon), and will fit comfortably within those dimples. The dimples are shallow; it doesn't mean we can just sort of get close and then suddenly the spaceport will fall in and get jerked into place. But "stationkeeping" will require much less work (fuel) than if we had been in some other random orbit point, out there on top of the bedsheet.
The other half of the reason behind choosing a Lagrange point is that they're connected by "superhighways" where the energy required to travel between them is less than normal... I'm explaining this poorly, I know... imagine little grooves carved between the dimples; a small enough marble can just roll between the various dimples with a very small push and not much steering.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Oh give me a locus
Where the gravitons focus
Where the three-body problem is solved
Where the microwaves play
Down at 3 degrees K
And the cold virus never evolved
Home, home on Lagrange,
Where the space debris always collects,
We possess, so it seems, two of Man's greatest dreams,
Solar power and zero-gee sex.
(to the tune of "Home on the range")
The NASA budget is a mote of dust compared to the war budget. We have the resources. We need the motivation.
Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
So the plan is to build a station at L1 and use it as a jump off point. Let's think about that. We'll have to burn fuel (cash) to get away from Earth. Dock with the station for some reason, then blast off to other places. Does this really save fuel? Wouldn't it be cheaper to just blast off from Earth to Mars or the belt? Why the middle man?
Even if there is fuel savings in that plan, the infrastructure is this: launch hundreds of tons of equipment into L1. Fly up, put it together and maintain it. That would cost billions just to do that. How long until that initial investment is made up by any possible energy savings in going from Earth to L1 then outward? I would guess it would be decades if not centuries if there's any savings at all. Wouldn't we have space elevators, fusion and all that other cool stuff by then anyway?
I maintain that just blasting off to the destination remains the best way to go. No interplanetary rest stops. They'll probably smell like pee just like on Earth anyway.
Blaze a trail to the New World
What strikes me about this plan is that since L1 is the point where Earth's gravity and the Moon's cancel each other out once you go beyond it the moon's pull starts to take over and you get a largely free ride the rest of the way in (minus some braking). So where is the advantage to putting stuff there when for a very small additional cost it could go on the moon? Though I agree with a number of the other posts the moon doesn't seem to hold a lot of promise these days other then potentially as a proving grounds for Mars.
When robots are capable of assembling and maintaining a fully functional and habitable environment for us on the moon or mars, that's the time to start packing our suitcases.
Once the base and (cheap unmanned) supply chain is reliably up and running people can go and do the stuff that robots/remote sensing can't accomplish (still a hell of a lot).
This also has the virtue of enforcing a severe simlicity and modularity on the design of the whole venture since everything has to be autonomously assembled. Who wants a fancy home when you're hundeds of millions of miles from the hardware store anyway.
If we don't yet have the technology to do this then I'd question our ability to reliably send people on such missions and kepp them alive for much longer than it takes to plant a flag.
Why? Because the AIDS vaccines won't help you when the Earth becomes so crowded and unlivable that you have water riots because of the way Asia has f*cked up her groundwater.
Because all the bountiful GM crops won't help you when there is carnage in Europe as Africa's and Asia's hordes invade those greying lands (look up Europe's population dynamics if you can, also look up how well her minorities are integrated - case in point Paris' sensitive districts).
And all the vaccines on Earth won't help you when we've sucked our homeworld dry of minerals.
And all your bleeding-heart piety will not help us when an asteroid decides to change course, or the sun decides to clear its throat a little.
> $10 for ISS, or $10 for a hungry child?
Eggs, Basket. All I'm trying to say is that your goals are laudable, but it is not a question of either/or. We must do both.
Go somewhere random
Keep in mind that there can be more than one spacecraft at or near the L points-- i.e., orbiting about the point. While still stable, it takes slightly less energy to break out of that orbit than to break away from the L point itself. (Both, of course, require much less energy to escape than from lunar or Earth orbit.)
For one thing, you have to include the centripetal forces exerted on the satellite as it's orbiting. The Lagrange points are places where the centripetal forces exactly cancel the gravitational forces.
The L4 and L5 points are stable. If the satellite drifts out of position then the gravitational and centripetal forces acting on it will nudge it back into position.
But the L1, L2 and L3 points are unstable. If the satellite drifts even slightly then the gravitational and centripetal forces will not be cancelled and they will actually pull it further out of position. Even a very small force, like that exerted by the solar wind, would push it out of position given enough time. So a station at L1 would always need some kind of propulsion system to keep it positioned correctly.
See this link for more info.
Fundemental problems of space exploration:
--Air, Water, Food, all building materials, and the humans to operate must be lauched into orbit (first 500 miles are the hardest)
This seems to be slowly being addressed. However the best solution is to minimize the materials needed to be lifted into orbit. Most of the material needed for the construction and operation of an L2 station, Lunar Outpost, or other space infastructure should be produced in space at the lowest possible cost. The proposed NASA Tug's designed to stop small asteroids from hitting earth could quite easily push a NEAR object made of water, iron, nickle, etc into leo were the materials could be extracted.
This activity (mining, extracting, refining, and molding in 0-G) could have huge benefits scientifically in the US (and other countries) manufacturing community and bring support for further space projects.
--Radiation and 0-G are not condusive to long term life in space. This is addressed using brute force engineering on the Moon (bury yourself under a ton of regiloth. This can then be modified to be used in space. A condenced hardened shell of the lunar surface should provide a Mars mission with sufficient radiation and heat shielding at a fraction of the cost of launching that material from earth. Same with shielding manned Lagrange stations.
--Costs: Definiately difficult to justify because of the lack of positive returns on investment to date. However long term research and science along with creative problem solving are the precursers to creative success. Suriving in space nessesitates such problem solving and long term benefits will present themselves in the challeges we overcome.
Questions:
-Is the Lunar station to be preminantly manned form the start or will it resemble plans for early mars mission plans? (Completing early constuction missions using such a plan could be highly beneficial.)
-Is L1 suposed to be manned or just serviceable by passing ships? (Given radiation and other hazards of living that far from assistance it would make more sence to construct a serviceable automated platform.)
-Who is resonsible to make the New Saturn V's capable of large payloads?
--"Sorry for the inconvience." Gods Last Words to his Creation
DNA, So Long and Thanks for all the Fish
Imagine the scene in the White House..
......oh, the hell with this...it's in Irag..sir
NASAGuy: Mr President, we'd like to set up a station at one of the Lagrangian points.
Dubya: Lagrangian - sounds like one them cheese-eating surrender monkeys - that in France?
NASAGuy: No, Mr President, its in space
Dubya: Oh, wherebouts?
NASAGuy: Well, sir, its at an imaginary point between the Earth and the Moon
Dubya: So it ain't real?
NASAGuy: No sir, its a stable point determined by the relative gravitational attraction of
Dubya: Well why didn't ya say so - let's go
If the IRS added a line to contribute funds to NASA, I would gladly donate money to them during tax time every year.
Even if people just donated $1 on their tax forms, imagine how much money that would generate for NASA.
In fact, they can replace the "presidential campaign fund" line with the NASA one. (I think they collect enough campaign funds with $1000/per plate dinners year round.) It would be a much better use of ink.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
Fallacies of false dilemna seem to be really popular these days.
Hint: We can do both.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Some reasons to pick an unstable point:
Any system based on "runoff rounds" is going to fail. All the candidates need to be evaluated simultaneously not sequentially. Instant Runoff Voting is just a a dressed-up Plurality system; worse actually, because third parties are given the illusion that they can win. We need Condorcet Voting - cast votes in the same was as IRV, but count them differently. Condorcet is the only system I know of that allows voters to vote honestly instead of strategically - that in itself is a worthy goal for a voting system. Any good voting system must allow this liberty of conscience, and not ask voters to choose the "lesser of two evils".
Constitutionally Correct
Constitutionally Correct
Yes. And while all the Lagrange points are stable, the L4 and L5 points are even more stable (more massive objects can sit in them and catch the ride, as it were).
No. While all the Lagrange points are *balanced* - that is, there's no net acceleration towards either of the two objects, only L4 and L5 are stable. If you nudge something at L1,L2, or L3, they fall away.
L1 is between the two objects. This is obvious why it works: because one object pulls one way, and one object pulls the other way. Where the two pulls are equal, there's no net force.
L2 is on the other side of the (smaller) mass. Since it's farther away from the (larger) body, it should orbit slower than the (smaller) mass, but the added gravity makes it orbit at the same speed as the (smaller) mass, making it stationary.
L3 is on the other side of the (larger) mass. Same reasoning, just substitute "faster" for "slower".
All of these three are unstable: if you push something at L1, it goes towards the body you pushed it towards, ditto with L2,L3.
They talk about L1/L2/L3 because of the positional convenience of them. Yes, you have to active stationkeep, but this isn't impossible, and the drift rate would still be slow for reasonable timespans.
Regarding L4 and L5, L5 is more convenient than L4 because of dynamics of the Earth-Sun-Moon system, rather than just the Earth-Moon system.