Space/Science — HabitableZone

Space/Science » in reply to re: Griffin tries to pitch "lifeboat Mars"

re: Griffin tries to pitch "lifeboat Mars"
Chris Vancil — (archived)

If you boil down Ed's argument it's that the Moon provides a stable surface to place telescopes. It disregards all the negatives of basing anything on the surface of a dusty planet and pretends technology hasn't advanced since they first suggested we put telescopes on the Moon.

As I said it is based in the past understanding of rate gyros, magnetic torquers, reaction wheels and thrusters and there poor performance years ago. Space based telescopes can be made which would provide just as stable pointing as any on the Moon and most importantly at less cost.

And if a gyro fails you simply replace it if the asset is in orbit. The cost of a Moon landing to repair some single critical part is high. So if something fails on the Moon maybe you would abandon the asset over replacing the part. If the telescope was placed near a base maybe this wouldn't be true, but you need at least two of these telescopes or you miss more than half the sky!

He also presumes public support for CAPS which doesn't seem to exist.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (38 posts)