Author Topic: 44th Moon Landing Anniversey  (Read 7069 times)

rebs

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 15655
  • Et tu, Brute?
Re: 44th Moon Landing Anniversey
« Reply #60 on: 28 July 2013, 11:53:27 »
Interestingly enough, it would take more energy to send a "drone" to Mars as to send it to a half-way orbit. Breaking Earth orbit is the kicker, and getting to Mars means matching Mars orbital speed. Mid-point orbital speed is greater, so you'd need to leave faster. Counterintuitive? Yes; but that's orbital mechanics for you. To catch up with something ahead of you in in orbit, slow down*.

It would be simpler to send the supplies directly to Mars, if one had confidence that

a) they'd land safely, and survive intact over a long period. Mars probes have a dodgy track record as is, and the Martian surface is suprisingly hostile.

b) We could land close enough to them - again, not to be taken for granted with people involved.

A far more sensible approach, albeit not much less expensive, would be to put the supplies in orbit. Then send a crewed "tug", to capture the supplies and base off Phobos. Orbit is the ultimate "dry storage" environment, and arriving in orbit is far less risky than landing. Then assemble your lander, fuel it up, and Boris is your uncle, comrade!

W.

Could Phobos or Demos be used as the "supply depot"?  Besides, I've heard that one of these moons has significant iron composition (not sure as to which one, I'm going from memory).  Would it be easier to exploit one of these objects, as opposed to the planet itself?
Playing Guitar On My YouTube Channel:
Current cover tune: "The Wind Cries Mary" (by Jimi Hendrix)
https://youtu.be/m6a8wZiCsjM?si=0w7tVOgk7yylNv6a

"Thou shalt not create a machine in the image of the human mind." ~ The Orange Catholic Bible, Dune, Frank Herbert

Taurevanime

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1778
Re: 44th Moon Landing Anniversey
« Reply #61 on: 28 July 2013, 12:47:04 »
As an aside, fallout does a lot more than simply kill folks; the risk of it isn't terribly high but the potential is literally nightmarish.
That's what he calculated. Not the potential someone would die then and there, but over the years after a launch. Dyson was a smart man after all.

ANS Kamas P81

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13208
Re: 44th Moon Landing Anniversey
« Reply #62 on: 29 July 2013, 04:16:02 »
That's what he calculated. Not the potential someone would die then and there, but over the years after a launch. Dyson was a smart man after all.
I'm referring to things like Chernobyl Heart or the Semipalatinsk medical museum, you don't need to be killed by the radiation to be affected.  You don't even need to be born yet either...
Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen,
Tod und Verzweiflung flammet um mich her!
Fühlt nicht durch dich Jadefalke Todesschmerzen,
So bist du meine Tochter nimmermehr!

Taurevanime

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1778
Re: 44th Moon Landing Anniversey
« Reply #63 on: 29 July 2013, 06:49:50 »
Yesyes, but their criteria was death, since it is something that is kind of more easily predictable.

worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25565
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: 44th Moon Landing Anniversey
« Reply #64 on: 29 July 2013, 20:23:50 »
That's what he calculated. Not the potential someone would die then and there, but over the years after a launch. Dyson was a smart man after all.

As someone who was a numerical modeller, it's definitely a case of lies, damned lies, and statistics. I don't accuse Dyson of fudging the data, I'd just point out that numerous assumptions would have been involved in making that calculation, and we don't have really good base data to work on - absent a series of planned detonations across inhabited territory.

(No, two data points aren't enough, and the absence of controls is an issue)

W.
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

Taurevanime

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1778
Re: 44th Moon Landing Anniversey
« Reply #65 on: 29 July 2013, 23:33:21 »
He used the linear no-threshold model for his work. Which was the only model available at the time. (Over which there is currently discourse as three models compete for acceptance, but it is still the only one generally accepted). Initial launch was to be conventional explosives with fissionable explosives only to be used in the air.

All I said was that the figures Dyson came up with based on that gave them an acceptable death toll for the scientists to go ahead with the project. I recall Dyson saying that if there was 100% certainty a person would die he would not support the project himself. Did he pull the number out of his ass? Maybe, but I am not going to make that accusation without proof. Especially if you are basing it off of my spotty memory.

ANS Kamas P81

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13208
Re: 44th Moon Landing Anniversey
« Reply #66 on: 30 July 2013, 18:17:46 »
Only way to make someone 100% dead from a nuclear bomb is to put them in the fireball radius.  Everything else is uncalculatable variables; Tsutomu Yamaguchi lived another 54 1/2 years after surviving both atomic weapons.  It's just not something you can mathematically calculate.  If it were possible to account for that many variables and get a realistic number that isn't a complete WAG, we'd never play sports, we'd know the weather forever, and so on.
Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen,
Tod und Verzweiflung flammet um mich her!
Fühlt nicht durch dich Jadefalke Todesschmerzen,
So bist du meine Tochter nimmermehr!

Taurevanime

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1778
Re: 44th Moon Landing Anniversey
« Reply #67 on: 31 July 2013, 02:43:31 »
I'm sorry to say, but since we can't be 100% certain, we have to make an educated guess. And these models that exists are just there to assist that. Because as you point out. Even the 100% certainty isn't actually 100% on the models. IIRC how they calculate the toxicity of poisons is how much is needed to kill 50% of a test group. Because there are too many variable in individuals to just use one test case. So it's not perfect, but it's good enough to get the job done.

With radiation as I mentioned there are three competing models and there is an on-going debate as to which one is most valid. We know surprisingly little the effects of low doses of radiation have on living cells. And that is what the debate is about.

Why are these models important you might ask? They are used to set safety standards. There are only X amount of heavy metals per litre allowed in drinking water. Areas where radiation levels are over Y in a nuclear power plant are only to be accessed by personnel  wearing the appropriate levels of protection. The coal plant is only allowed to emit Z amount of certain materials into the atmosphere. Any higher and it will pose a health risk and be shut down.