Setting the ground rules.
According to the Planetary Society's paper, "International Lunar Way-Stations: First Steps," there are a number of near and longer-term steps that are posed as suitable starting points for developing an overarching, international strategy. For convenience, these include:
1-Completing the lunar gravity model
2-Establishing an inter-satellite telecommunication standard
3-Establishing lunar navigation aides
4-Creating a common lunar geodetic net
5-Establishing a common lunar time base
6-Selecting an international landing site
7-Coordinating cooperative surface operations
8-Standardizing on-board lunar system resources
9-Developing a lunar crew recovery system / program
Of course, some of these aspects are broader than others, and some are obviously farther reaching than the rest. However, I don't believe there is time to realistically make progress on all of these topics simultaneously. Consequently, I believe we should choose a topic or topics that can be realistically approached in the timeframe that we have that are well suited to the expertise of those of us who show up to support the SGAC initiative before the 2007 congress.
For my two cents, I'd like to tackle numbers 3, 6, 7, and 9 before the rest. I believe that these topics have the most room for unique, creative solutions and will benefit most from dynamic discussion and consideration. Others, such as establishing a communications standard or a standard lunar time base, are relatively straightforward. -I feel as though our strongest contribution will be the fresh perspective we can bring to the less-than-straightforward issues, and consequently I'd rather focus on the more dynamic topics.
Anyone else have a preference?
Note 04/2007: The links below are linked to separate threads. -I apologize for any confusion!
I think this sounds like a good approach. Why don't you pick a topic to start with, and we'll see how far we can get and who else we can get to join us. And if you know of or find some good sources of background information, let me know, so we don't just reinvent the wheel.
Kathryn
Well, realistically speaking, I think attacking what we could call a Lunar Global Navigation System (LGNS) would be an ideal place to start, as this has the potential to benefit all future surface operations and is also a necessary step toward any future lunar emergency/recovery infrastructure.
So, as far a global navigation systems go, we have only one case example to use as a starting point: the terrestrial Global Positioning System satellite array. Does anyone else have a good case example of a global navigation aid?
Because the moon is "virgin territory" as far as a system like this goes, we essentially have a clean slate, and I think a successful system will be a combination of GPS transponders and visual markers. To this end, I see two basic fundamental areas to focus on:
1 - the Lighthouse approach: Because the atmosphere is so sparse (negligible), the attenuation of a light signal would be relatively unhindered. This means the range of a light beacon is limited only by interference from surface backscattering and the strength of the light emission (unless I'm missing something). So, there is the very real possibility that a literal array of illuminated beacon towers (for simplicity's sake) could serve a very real function. The advantages of a light signal are (relatively) low power requirements and the ability for a variety of uses, from acting as identification points for spacecraft telemetry to serving as visual cues to aid surface operations and surface-to-surface transportation. I think this is a realistic system that can be cost-effectively implemented in a relatively short period of time. (e.g., sending a fleet of low-mass lunar landers with telescoping towers and imbedded solar arrays.) The limitations of this approach concern the necessity of using automated landers with precision guidance and landing systems, (to deliver the lander/tower/beacon to its appropriate position.)
2 - the GPS approach: This is a more conventional (and more expensive) approach, where a series of orbiting and ground-based GPS transponders are delivered to the lunar environment, with obvious uses and benefits.
I think the power / distribution requirements of a single beacon, as well as an optimal spacing between beacons (total number of beacons) and the rough mass requirements of a given beacon (to be used for calculating lander mass and consequent launch costs), is something that we can relatively-easily calculate.
So - a Lunar Global Navigation System - or maybe (more specifically) a Lunar Demarcation and Navigation System (LDNS)- is something I believe we can seriously attack.
Any thoughts? I think if even just a few of us band together, we can have a serious LDNS proposal ready to go in just a few weeks...
Hey Ben!
Due to time constrains Just a comment on one of your points:
I support your approach to the steps needed for a Lunar Way Station. However we should keep in mind the others. In this specific case, I mean #1-Completing the lunar gravity model.
This is crucial for having a constellation of navigation satellites in lunar orbit in the first place. See the following links for further details:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/06nov_loworbit.htm
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/30nov_highorbit.htm
Keeping that in mind we can go ahead with finding a solution for the LGNS.
Cheers,
Alex
Alex,
Excellent point! Thanks for pointing out that very crucial bit of info - (You suddenly jogged my memory to the very lengthy amount of time spent studying lunar gravity/density anomalies in my planetary geology courses in college, which I am now slightly embarrassed that I blazed through in my above post.)
It appears, then, that we have two routes shaping up for a potential Lunar Global Navigation System (submitted for discussion to the group):
//
1) "Lighthouse" array - Physical demarcation via landed beacons, (perhaps called the Lunar Demarcation Array as a part of a larger Lunar Global Navigation System) with the following sub-steps:
1a - Determine useful range of beacons vs. insolation vs. lander mass, i.e. generate preliminary lander-beacon designs and calculate an optimal beacon-lander size/mass configuration to maximize beacon visible range, minimize lander size, and optimize a recharge power system to ensure that the beacons remain active during lunar night.
1b - Based on the calculated feasible beacon strength/range from step 1a, determine global beacon placement interval across the lunar surface, which provides the number of total beacons to complete the array (and total number of launches to implement program).
1c - Based on calculated beacon-lander mass from step 1a and placement interval from step 1b, determine specific lunar landing sites for the array, taking into account topographic limitations.
1d - Based on a preliminary completed array architecture from step 1c, identify potential delivery vehicles and combine estimates of program length from initiation to completion with cost per launch to generate a program total budget.
1e - If step 1d budget/timeline is reasonable, coordinate beacon-lander launch sequence with on-going and planned lunar operations to maximize the use of the beacon array prior to full completion. If step 1d budget/timeline is not reasonable, return to step 1a and modify as needed to bring the budget within reasonable parameters.
1f - Party.
//
2) "Lunar "GPS" system, (self-explanatory,) with sub-steps:
2a - Complete the lunar gravity model (a separate challenge in its own right) to determine ideal/possible satellite orbits.
2b - If suitable orbital trajectories are available, begin to modify existing terrestrial GPS satellite configurations (as necessary) to accomodate lunar architecture.
2c - Using estimated satellite masses from step 2b, identify potential delivery vehicles and develop a program timeline and budget.
2d - If the program outlined in step 2c is found to be reasonable, coordinate launch and coverage areas with ongoing and planned lunar operations to maximize the use of the system prior to delivery of the complete satellite 'constellation'.
2e - Party.
//
After writing this, it appears to me that the challenges and issues relative to each of these two LGNS components may themselves necessitate a separate working group. Thoughts?
And as always, these ideas are submitted to the group for discussion and constructive criticism - feel free to poke holes in logic gaps, etc. My experience is that the sooner we generate a flushed-out, accepted battle plan that details general step-by-step objectives (like above), the easier it is to remain on track, gauge our progress, and integrate newcomers into current work.
Ad Luna!
i have a question,
would we be using the common 24hr rate of earth time
or would we use (like mars)
a lunar time frame
if so
would it be based on revolutions around the planet
or smaller increments, mabe like a 4 "day" cycle for time in each phase
An excellent question! For Mars, the necessity of using a Martian time standard and a Martian day (Sol) was to maximize the intuitive management of surface operations. The rovers can only operate (meaningfully) during the Martian daylight hours, and thus, a timeframe was conceived to accomodate the (slightly) different rate of Martian rotation.
Because the moon rotates at the same rate as it revolves around the Earth, and that rate far exceeds a stardard Earth day, (i.e. 27.3-day period,) the length of a Lunar Sol is therefore nearly a month.
Should this be adopted as the convention for consistency's sake? (e.g. One lunar day = 39,312 minutes)
To try something else, (like adopting the Earth timframe,) might be more useful, but might it invite problems in the future when visiting other satellites and worlds?
I think for the time being (so-to-speak), since the use of sunlight is so essential to surface operations, tracking the amount of lunar daylight is still key, and I don't have a problem adopting a 39,312-minute Lunar Sol.
Anyone else?
MY SELF ASHISH MISTRY.
I AM STUDENT OF 3RD YEAR AERONAUTICAL ENGG.
I AM INTERESTED IN LUNAR WAY STATION PROJECT.
LUNAR WAY STATION PROVE VERY HELPFUL IN ESTABLISHING THE LUNAR BASE AND ALSO STUDYING THE MOON ORIGIN AND ITS SYSTEM.
THE STATION WILL PROVE VERY USEFUL FOR CARRYOUT THE EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES ETC...
THE LUNAR WAY STATION IS ALSO USEFUL IN SPACE TOURISM AND IN MAKING OF SPACE COLONY IN FUTURE.....
BY STUDYING THE LAGRANGE POINT SYSTEM .
I HAVE FOUND THAT L1 (LAGRANGE L1 POINT) POINT IS SUITABLE POINT FOR THE LOCATION OF LUNAR WAY STATION.
IT IS ABOUT 3,25,000 KM FROM EARTH AND 56,000 KM FROM MOON.
THE ORBITAL VELOCITY OF LUNAR WAY STATION IS 1.10 KM/S. AND IT WILL TAKE 22 DAYS TO COMPLETE THE ORBIT.
THE STATION REMAIN IN BETWEEN OF THE EARTH AND THE MOON.
THIS IS THE CALCULATIONS I HAVE CALCULATED AFTER STUDYING THE LAGRANGE POINT SYSTEM.FOR MORE IMFORMATION SEARCH LAGRANGE POINT IN WWW.GOOGLE.COM
The International Lunar Way Station (ILWS) will be a little “city in space” orbiting 3,25,000 km above the Earth. The space station will be a place where people from around the world can live and study in space over long periods of time. The many modules of the station—from its laboratories to living quarters to power sources—will be constructed in space.
The ILWS is the most ambitious and expensive construction project ever attempted, but it will someday serve as a stepping-stone for future space exploration.
I believe the intent of a lunar way station currently under discussion is a facility physically located on the lunar surface. While a Lagrange-point orbiting space station is a fascinating concept, having been explored in multiple fiction and non-fiction settings, I believe we're working here toward much more fundamental objectives. Please take a look at the Planetary Society report that served as the guide for the creation of the lunar waystation project, and see if any of the objectives listed therein pique your interest.
It will shorten the length of mission.
It will make mission less expensive.
Easy mission control.
Helps in human habitat on moon.
Experimental studies of the earth and moon. (resources and origin of moon).
Space tourism.
It will help in repair and maintenance of the satellites and spacecrafts.
And many more !.........
Again, I invite you to read the Planetary Society report or the inital post in this thread for a summary of options we have been presented with as objectives for this Lunar Waystation project. While hypothetical discussions of a literal waystation between the Earth and Moon are beneficial, the objective here relates to establishing the foundation and fundamental architecture for a waystation on the lunar surface. While I respect your enthusiasm, a significant amount of confusion is being established on these threads by posts that are "off topic." Please help us orient new members by posting ideas and technical discussions as they relate to the Planetary Society objectives or related / comparable infrastructural concepts. Thanks much!
I am curious about the way the beacon stations will full function in the sunlight area of the moon. What amount of energy needs to pumped in to make these beacons discernible in these regions of the moon? Would the surface reflectivity of the moon to sunlight make these requirements complicated and higher?
Yes, surface reflectivity would most certainly be an issue for discerning beacons in sunlit conditions. I believe daytime interference can be overcome by making the beacons wavelength-specific. -i.e. the beacons emit a single wavelength or a diagnostic 'fingerprint' of wavelengths that are easily picked up with filters. As you implied, useful calculations here would be:
1) maximum power storage / output of beacon system (as defined by total possible payload weight for as-yet-unidentified space transportation systems) = possible beacon signal strength.
2) analyze net wavelength and intensity distribution for areas of the moon during partially-lit and fully-lit conditions
3) Identify intensity 'gaps' per wavelength in light reflected from the lunar surface as candidates for beacon colors
4) Plug in available power at target wavelengths to see if a beacon is feasible at useful distances w/ or without filters!
no ben, first we have to know the what benefits we can take from lunar waystation and than according to that we can design the architecture of lunar way station.
benifits of station is not off-topic they relate to station too much if u think about it.
When we design any project like building,bridges,stations ....etc then we are first looking about the benefits of that project and then taking the task of design it..
well come for more questions
thank you.......
Ashish,
Your point is taken, but our goal here is not to design a lunar waystation. Our point here is to develop the necessary infrastructure for any future lunar waystation, as well as to enhance surface operations (landers, etc.) currently on the drawing board. Assuming we're already here on the boards, we're already "sold" on the spectrum of potential benefits of a lunar waystation, and the discussion in our limited amount of space is a little superfluous. Since this is a technical board, we're trying to identify specific objectives from the planetary society report, work out technical feasibility details, and begin working calculations, models, etc. Discussion about the benefits of potential future activities, while admittedly useful, should in my opinion be left to a separate discussion thread. Again, I invite you to weigh in on which of the planetary report objectives you think we could best approach in our time before the SGC, and please, let us know so we can begin working on them! For your convenience, these objectives are:
1-Completing the lunar gravity model
2-Establishing an inter-satellite telecommunication standard
3-Establishing lunar navigation aides
4-Creating a common lunar geodetic net
5-Establishing a common lunar time base
6-Selecting an international landing site
7-Coordinating cooperative surface operations
8-Standardizing on-board lunar system resources
9-Developing a lunar crew recovery system / program
Ben, thanks for fleshing these out. I think that objectives 1 and 4 might be a little out of scope for us given the time constraints we have to work under. I don't necessarily see anything wrong with working objective 2, however. If we can pull it off well, I think our contribution to inter-satellite communications can be appreciated, whether or not it is straightforward.
I agree that 3, 6, 7, and 9 will be good objectives for us to work as well.
Mike,
Well, let's narrow down to one or two objectives, and we can expand from there if more invested individuals come aboard. Anyone else agree / disagree?
Also, even though I stressed numbers 3, 6, 7, and 9, I'm open to working on the communication standard (#2) if everyone thinks we have time and access to the appropriate info to give it a legitimate shot. =) If I understand correctly, in order to approach that problem, we have to first identify how many different communications standards are being used (Russia, ESA, NASA, Japan?), and then it would be useful even to identify what protocols are being used by each of them and develop a strategy for converting to a common protocol - and perhaps we should even decide which one should be the 'master' protocol. Thoughts?
I notice some remarks about a timeframe in the technical topic. Is the idea that we will focus our efforts on a selected few issues, so we actually may complete a recommendation regarding these few issues by the SGAC 2007 Congress? I am of course game anyway, I ask this because I would like to be aware of any milestones/deadlines :)
By the way; the Planetary Society report is a draft from nov 2004... Is there a final version?
Cheers
Olav
Olav,
Well, with no guidance from the SGAC - (the content on these boards is all I've found that we have to go on) - my assumption is that, yes, we should focus on a select few issues and complete a recommendation by the 2007 SGC.
-And, I should note, even if this turns out not to be the case and we have a more open-ended timeframe, I think we should still approach and complete recommendations for a smaller number of objectives, rather than beginning a large number and contributing very little in the end.
--I haven't seen anything more recent as far as the report goes. However, I and others have been trying to post useful resources up to the 'technical resources' board...
Hey all,
I am Aravind, student from the International Space University. I am now active (atleat online) and could really have good conversation with y'all. I agree with Ben and Mike for their opinion on specific topics due to time constraints. Now, we have come up with the following objectives and start working underway:
2-Establishing an inter-satellite telecommunication standard; 3-Establishing lunar navigation aides; 6-Selecting an international landing site; 7-Coordinating cooperative surface operations; 9-Developing a lunar crew recovery system / program. I hope I pulled it off correct, although I am a beginner in this discussion now.
Let us have some serious discussions going on here!
Cheers,
Aravind
-----------------------------------------
Aravind Seeni,
M.Sc. in Space Studies '07 candidate,
International Space University,
France
Hello friends,
I finally had some time to review closer the report from the Planetary Society and the points made so far in this forum regarding the steps towards a lunar way station. Taking timescientists points, I’m looking for a slightly different approach. I would appreciate any thoughts on this (even complete disagreement if present ;)).
The report gives us some recommendations regarding what to do first, and I suggest the following priorities with that in mind:
******************************************
1. Establish an inter-satellite communication standard (or improve the existing one)
The report stresses the urgency of this matter, because they mean that standardized communication modules should be implemented as soon as possible on orbiters (and landers/rovers) going to the Moon. Even as straightforward as this topic may be, it is the most urgent one.
2. Common geodetic net and a common time frame
As a part of creating the gravity model, choosing landing sites, an accurate navigation system etc, I believe it is crucial to have an international agreement regarding the common reference frame in space/location and time. That is why I put these two topics together, and I believe this is as important and nearly as urgent as the communication standard.
3. Gravity model
Since the establishment of a good gravity model must be based upon the use of several orbiters (in different types of orbits), it is important that a common communication standard and reference model is in place. Therefore I put this up as number 3.
4. Lunar navigation system
Being a ground based system or an orbital system (like GPS); this will only serve well as the three topics above are complete. I believe the best way is to have several minor satellites in orbit serving as both a GPS system and a satellite phone (comm.) system. This way, if a landing with personnel or robots is unsuccessful and have crashed/landed somewhere else on the moon, it is possible to both make contact and to determine where they are. And carrying GPS receivers, they may find out themselves where they are and where to go. Being the most costly approach, I think this is more beneficial to the safety and recovery issue.
5. International landing site selection
To choose the safest and most accurate landing site, I believe the four topics above must be in place. The best landing trajectory must be derived from the gravity model, and of course a suitable surface.
***********************************************
These are my suggestions. The other topics are more long term issues, and I think we can wait with those. I can understand the point to discuss more dynamic topics, but I believe it is important to begin with the most urgent ones.
As soon as we have agreed upon our priorities and subjects (gravity model, comm. standard etc), these subjects may represent a own thread/topic in this forum - this to keep each subject to themselves and separated for our convenience. What to do think?
Cheers
Olav
Olav-
Great to have this discussion moving forward! I agree with the top four you've selected, though not in that order for two very simple reasons: resources and time. It was for this reason that I believed the implementation of a ground-based navigation system was likely our best tangible contribution. However, I also believe justifying a lunar time standard is within our capacity to set up.
As far as completing the lunar gravity model, implementing a GPS navigation/communication system or unifying the satellite communications standard, I don't believe we'll have the manpower or resources to seriously tackle these issues, especially before the SGC next fall. (-Though if anyone feels differently, I'd be happy to be proven wrong!)
In my opinion, the important thing is this: On whatever objectives we take on here, I would like to produce something concrete (even if just calculations) that are a definitely step beyond the hypothetical, or else we really haven't done much to advance the issues beyond where the Planetary Society detailed them in their initial report.
So, as far as technically achievable goals, I believe we can realistically tackle:
1) Common geodetic net / timeframe
2) Architecture of ground-based navigation system
Also, since my background is in planetary geology, I'd like to put a word in for:
3) International landing site location
-If only from a perspective of identifying locations with suitable incoming sunlight, position w/ respect to Earth, scientific interest, etc.
Thoughts?
Ben,
I appreciate your point which sounds rationale and achievable within the time-span and man-power we have. Certainly, I agree with you on tackling the main goals and narrowing down the scope.
To make the final product realistic and possible, is there a need to develop to time chart on how the goals will be acheived in time. I know that there is still has to be discussed related to priorities. I'm wondering whether I am going a bit further, but a GANTT chart on how the whole work will proceed from the start to the end, will keep the work focussed and completed.
~Aravind
If you consider the manpower and resources to be small, Ben, I will have to say I agree to your points - actually it would be very interesting to identify our actual resources. Being new to the Space Generation, there is too little I know of this.
Aravind - excellent point regarding the Gantt diagram. It would visualize our timeframe and tasks very well. I only have limited experience with MS Project - but I might suggest this as a tool for us to manage our efforts. This will also provide an overview over our resources, manpower and expertise. What do you think?
I am currently studying for three exams and will soon deliver my main thesis - hope you'll excuse me for being slightly absent from the forum for a little while.
Cheers :)
Olav
Ben,
It is reasonable to tackle the 3 objectives. Development of ground-based navigation architecture is a cool one, as far as my knowledge on the subject is concerned. Also, if the scope extends to(not particularly) orbital mechanics for identifying suitable trajectories for the landing site locations, identifying key sites for trajectories of motion for rovers, my brain is compatible too :)
~ Aravind
Moving further, would a timeframe model be hugely varied from what we follow, the UT system? How to account for variations in the duration of day and night between Earth and Moon?
Are we completely on a ground based system? The Planetary Society suggest other options.
If we have agreed upon our priorities (or should we discuss this further...?);
1) Common geodetic net / timeframe
2) Architecture of ground-based navigation system
3) International landing site location,
maybe we should formulate a mission statement for our workgroup, to specify our purpose, mission and timeframe (as good as possible). I believe that this statement, accompanied by a Gantt diagram, is necessary to have a common frame/guideline for our work. After that we could start deriving each priority into actual tasks for each participant (or sub groups).
What do you think?
Cheers
Olav
Dear Space-Cadets,
As Olav excellently pointed out, that we have narrowed down our top priorities, let's go ahead with creating our Mission Statement. I was actually trying to convince myself with appropriate phrases for developing one. This is how it goes:
"To establish and determine an architecture for future strategic navigation system, common geodetic net, timeframe and landing sites on Moon with a view to promote international cooperation for lunar exploration"
Comments/Thoughts?
Rest in the next.
Aravind
Thank you for your support, friends :)
Aravind, I think your proposal for the mission statement is very good. I have nothing to add or subtract. If someone want to suggest other statements, we could sample a few and put it to a vote within a specific date. For my sake, we could absolutely use Aravinds. What do you think?
Olav
Olav / Aravind / others,
I apologize for my delayed response here - work had taken me 'off the map' for the better part of last week and will do so again later this week. However, I am excited at a consensus for our objectives here and think Aravind's mission statement, "To establish and determine an architecture for future strategic navigation system, common geodetic net, timeframe, and landing sites on Moon with a view to promote international cooperation for lunar exploration" -- is an excellent one. It has my vote!
And on that note, I suggest we go ahead and create five new discussion threads so we can begin focusing our efforts:
1) Lunar Navigation System
2) Common Geodetic Net
3) Common Lunar Timeframe
4) International Landing Sites
5) Timeline, Group Assignments, and Scheduling
With your permission, I'll go ahead and get them created... just give the word, guys. =)
Also, is there a way for the moderator to move other, less-pertinent threads under a "miscellaneous" master thread to ease navigation (especially for new or interested participants?)
To Ben and other Space-lords,
Thanks for the support and 'passing the motion' for the Mission Statement! The 5 new threads Ben suggests for the moment to be created sounds appropriate.
Can I suggest to have technical resources of the particular task within the thread itself and not on the 'global' technical resources thread? It keeps the forum tidy and also keeps new visitors have a clear picture.
As I could not see anyone proficient in MSProject to create a GANTT chart atleast for now, we can have a link to Google docs (if needed) for the moment to show the timeline.
Rest later.
Aravind
______________________________________________________________
M.Sc. in Space Studies candidate,
International Space University,
Strasbourg,
France
Hi my name is Satinder and have only recently been involved with SGC, this is my 1st post as I only finished exams last week so I think I'll use it to introduce myself. I have just finished the 2nd year of an Electronic engineering degree. The course focuses on space technology. I have been reading through some of the posts and some of the threads, though I have some way to go before i've caught up with the discussions so far. I understand that a few of the objectives outlined in the planetary societies report will be focused on and this is currently taking the form of a mission statement. My personal areas of interest would be the International landing site location and the Lunar Navigation System, but if I have any opinions or ideas regarding the other areas I will share them. So please excuse me if I repeat anything that has already been mentioned!
Cheers
Satinder
Having read through the planetary society report I would just like to comment on the importance of In Situ Resource Utilisation (ISRU) on a functioning planetary outpost test bed.
The report makes it clear that planetary society believes that the utilisation of minerals/elements/resources on the moon is speculative and so should not be focused on when designing a lunar way station. I would agree that the presence of water in the form of Ice on the moon is still speculative and would certainly hope that the detection of water soon becomes fact, but I would disagree with the assessment that the utilisation of minerals and elements is speculative and should therefore not be incorporated into planning for a Lunar way station (corrections welcome if I’m off the mark). Even if utilisation of moon resources is not advantageous in itself (which it is!) or analogous with ISRU on Mars, the exercise of tunnelling/drilling, extracting material and then either launching it (possibly into LEO or L1) or processing it would be immensely beneficial (or at least a starting point) for ISRU and underground habitats on Mars and other bodies (such as Asteroids).
ISRU incorporation/integration into Lunar way station capability would be essential for the way station to be a true ‘planetary outpost test bed’, even if materials have to be brought up from earth to simulate mars conditions (as is mentioned in the planetary society report).
I think the discussions so far have mentioned ISRU whenever relevant and I understand that the aim of these threads are to focus on the points chosen by this group from the Planetary society guidelines which now forms the mission statement being worked on by this group. I just think that the planetary society report is conservative in its analysis of the benefits and immediate applications of ISRU on a planetary outpost test bed and wanted to get it off my chest!
Satinder
Receive the lastest announcements, discuss space-related topics with other members.
Joined: 2007-02-14