Brad Guth wrote:
wrote:
You've GOT to be kidding! lol. Is F=ma worn out too? hahaha...

This has GOT to be a joke. Really.

A disinformation tactic!? Those who know laugh, those who don't know
are confused or they actually believe the bull****.

sigh

ROCKET EQUATON

Figure out how fast a rocket stage will go knowing only the exhaust
speed of the rocket and the fraction of propellant.

Vf = Ve * LN(1/(1-u)) is still useful, despite your asinine
bull**** here.

Vf = final velocity of a rocket propelled projectile
Ve = exhaust velocity of the gases coming out of the engine
LN(..) = natural logarithm (base 'e')
u = propellant fractoin (a number between 0 (empty) and 1 (all
propellant)

Typical numbers;

ADVANCED ROCKETS
Solar/laser sail - infinity (no propellant)
Fusion pulse - 100,000 m/s
Ion - 50,000 m/s
Orion Nuclear Pulse -20,000 m/s (effective)
Nuclear thermal - 8,500 m/s

STATE OF ART ROCKETS
LOX/LH2 - 4,200 m/s
LOX/RP1 - 3,000 m/s
Hypergolic - 2,800 m/s
SRB - 2,200 m/s
H2O2 - 1,800 m/s
Nitrogen - 1,500 m/s

THRUST CALCULATION

F = mdot * Ve

F = thrust (Newtons)
mdot = mass flow rate
Ve = exhaust velocity


POWER CALCULATION

P = 1/2 * mdot * Ve^2

Power = watts
mdot = mass flow rate
Ve = exhaust velocity

FRACTIONS


1 = p + s + u

p = payload
s = structure
u = propellant

Typical values for s range from 0.08 to 0.22 depending on details like
thermal protection systems, and so forth.

THRUST TO WEIGHT

The thrust to weight of a typical chemical rocket is around 70 to 1.
That is for each pound or kg of mass you have 70 pounds or kgs of
thrust. But nuclear thermal rockets have a thrust to weight of about
20 to 1 at best. And nuclear pulse rockets like Orion are likely to
have a 5 to 1 thrust to weight. Ion rockets have 1/10,000 to 1 - they
cannot lift off earth. Fusion pulse rockets that have high performance
have very high captue of reaction products which means a very large
thrust structure, so they are likely not to have high thrust to weight.
Since no one has built these systems before there is a disagreement
about what they might achieve. Studies with thrust to weight from 2 to
1 down to 1/3 to 1 have been produced. The 2 to 1 can be used on
Earth. The 1/3 to 1 cannot, but can be used on the moon and mars.

Dear William Mook,
How totally pathetic, and how otherwise typically Jewish and Third
Reich collaborating of yourself.


You are MAD Guthball, literally LOONEY TUNES to say **** like this.
lol.

Good grief, since we can't possibly get ourselves safely onto the moon

Dude, the US sent astronauts to the moon from 1968 through 1972. It
was in all the papers. Where were you? lol.

Your baseless assertion that we couldn't get to the moon with the
Saturn V moon rocket is another form of madness. Its quite easy to
show using the rocket equation and the published performance figures of
each stage, how the trip was carried out.

I've gone through all this for you before. Every step. And showed not
only was it possible to send folks to the moon using the Saturn V, but
that the Saturn V was OPTIMAL for the task. Which isn't surprising
given the amount of money spent on it.


or much less that of mars is why that 1/3 to 1 argument is so
absolutely pathetic beyond any fly-by-rocket joke that can be imagined.

Dude, get a copy of Werner vonBraun's MARS PROJECT published back in
1952 and 1953 - which details how to send a fleet of vehicles to Mars.
The only difficulty we face as a nation and as a world, is our lack of
willingness to spend $500 billion on a project of this magnitude, even
while we spend $5,000 billion on preparations for war each decade.

Jack Kennedy had a vision that America could forge a new relationship
in the world, one where space exploraiton would become the moral
equivalent of war, and people and nations would compete with one
another to develop the solar system - just as European nations competed
in the great age of exploration to develop the Americas and points
West. He was assasinated in Dallas, and Mr. Johnson and Mr. McNamara
dismantled his ambitious program. Following that, Mr. Nixon pulled the
plug following the successful moon landings - grounding a half-dozen
Saturn Vs already in the production line, at more cost than flying them
off would have cost. Why? Because he wanted to focus on the Space
Shuttle - as his contribution to history, and Apollo was too strongly
associated with Kennedy and the Democrats. And because Apollo 13
raised the very sticky issue of astronaut safety far from Earth orbit.


Going one-way via nuclear is however doable, and as such should be
applied.

vonBraun who was a rocket scientist of the first order, you are not.
vonBraun showed in 1952 how to go to mars with all chemical rocket
boosters. Your comments notwithstanding.

At today's prices, this large scale program envisioned by vonBraun
would cost on the order of $500 billion - and take 5 years if done as
ambitously as he envisioned.

To lower these costs Kennedy authorized the adaptation of the
military's old Rover program into NASA's Nerva program, along with
transferring the F1 engine program of the army, to NASA to form the
basis of Saturn and Nova rockets. A Nova rocket combined with a
nuclear thermal upper stage, can do a Mars flight without a space
station or assembling a large fleet on orbit.

At its most ambitious, NASA's mars program involved sending three Nova
launched nuclear thermal rocket powered spacecraft each carrying a
dozen astronauts, to Mars.

These programs and projects were curtailed by Johnson following
Kennedy's assasination in 1963, and in 1964 the money saved was given
to helicopter production and expansion of the Vietnam conflict.


Apparently a Mook moon intended rocket can be made of iron, as having a
inert GLOW of nearly 30% and still get it's 50+t payload past LL-1 in
hardly any time at all.

What the hell are you ranting about? lol. The structural fraction of
the Saturn V are well published, and I've reproduced them here for you
- and even took you step by step through the analysis of the
performance of each, and combined performance of the whole system.


Too bad your rocket-science can't be
replicated

??? What the heck are you talking about? lol

since nothing that's considerably newer and way better can't
seem to manage 80:1 (total rocket/payload ratio) for so much as a
one-way GSO ticket to ride, much less 60:1 for accomplishing such a
quick two-way ticket to/from our moon

Again, what the hell are you talking about? You are terminally
confused on how things work in the rocket field. Too bad you attach
such deep meaning to this sort of thing while at the same time totally
clueless as to the technical details. It must be hell being you! lol.
..

There's no question that your nuclear pumped rocket will accomplish the
task with energy and payloads to spare. However, that previously
mentioned 70:1 ratio is still rather pathetic if having to include each
of the multi-stage inert mass that has to go along for the ride,

The genius of multiple staging is that the inert mass doesn't go along
for the ride. It stays behind, along with the propellant it carried.
You'd know this if you knew anything, which you don't. lol.

whereas some of that liftoff and in route mass has to include spare
retrothrust fuel tonnage plus even a few unavoidable tones that simply
can't ever be fully utilized.

Course correction capacity is well understood - not by you of course -
but it is easly provided for for both the moon mission we've completed
and the mars missions we've planned.

The only liquified rocket fuel, that we honestly know of, which offers
sufficient octane and thus the best possible fuel density and thus best
ISP is somewhat limited to that of your intellectual flatulence.

In this statement you are demonstrably wrong! lol.

Check it out;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V

Size
Height 111 m (364 ft)
Diameter 10 m (33 ft)
Mass 3,038,500 kg (6,699,000 lb)
Stages 3 (2 for Skylab launch)

Capacity
Payload to LEO 118,000 kg (3-stage)
75,000 kg (2-stage)

Payload to
the Moon 47,000 kg

First Stage - S-IC
Engines 5 F-1 engines
Thrust 34.02 MN (7,648,000 lbf)
Burn time 150 s
Fuel RP-1 and liquid oxygen

Second Stage - S-II
Engines 5 J-2 engines
Thrust 5 MN (1,000,000 lbf)
Burn time 360 s
Fuel Liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen

Third Stage - S-IVB
Engines 1 J-2 engine
Thrust 1 MN (225,000 lbf)
Burn time 165 + 335 s
(2 burns)
Fuel Liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen

I won't go into the structural fractions, the propellant efficiencies,
and the velocities attained by each stage. But clearly, using the
rocket equation (whether worn out or not as tomass believes - haha) its
easy to show that these performances are all consistent with accepted
science and engineering principles. (aka by Guthball flatulence)

Therefore, gong fully nuclear is in fact a good solution that needs to
get accomplished before be run ourselves out of terrestrial energy

The world uses annually about 183 billion giga-joules of energy. 3
million kg of LOX/LH propellant contain 426,000 giga-joules of energy.
A nuclear rocket of the same payload capacity would use less energy for
the same payloads and missions since less propellant is needed to be
carried around. So, 426,000 giga-joules of energy is the high end.

One flight of a Saturn V every four months consumes no more than 1.28
milion giga-joules of energy per year. That's only one part in
142,968.75 - or 6.994e-6 of the total. So this subtracts essentially
NOTHING from our annual energy usage.

On the other hand the Earth's SURFACE intercepts 5,826,100 billion
giga-joules of energy per year. This is 31,836 times the amount of
energy humanity uses.

Converting available sunlight to energy at 20% efficiency implies less
surface area of Earth need be covered with solar panels in order to
supply ALL our energy needs than is currently covered by rooftops and
roadways.

So, we needn't leave the Earth to have sufficient energy, since energy
arrives at Earth from deep space everywhere the sun shines. Like Mars,
all it takes is the will to do it, and we could have a solar powered
world free of the polluting effects of oil and coal.


alternatives to the point where we can't even pull off a good WW-IV.

Lots of stupid and looney toon implications in this statement.

The first is that it takes oil and coal to run a nuclear war. No, the
bulk of the warheads and the bulk of the consumables are stockpiled and
ready to go. That's was Mutual Assured Destruction and perpetual war
footing were all about in the Cold War.

The second looney toons things in this statement is that a nuclear
conflagration would be initiated over something like energy which would
benefit the US and make it rich somehow.

Well, if you look at the data - below - you can see that even a very
limited nuclear conflict would cost the US in excess of $15,000 billion
and 20 million casualties. A larger conflict could be 5x worse in both
numbers, $75,000 bilion and 100 million casualties. Anything larger is
not sustainable even by a nation as rich and as powerful as the US.

Would the potential gain be worth it? No.

Because there's a risk a conflagration could end the US as a great
nation, and because the cost of even a limited conflict is high
compared to the cost of creating practical alternatives to oil.

Now, the US consumes about 1/4 of the world's total energy supply. So
that's 46 billion giga-joules of energy per year. This is an annual
rate of about 1.46 trillion watts. Since the sun doesn't shine all the
time you need about 2 watts of solar capacity to provide for power at
night. So, this is around 3 trillion watts. At a cost of $5.00 per
peak watt, this is less than the direct cost of the war.

When you count the indirect cost of 20 million dead you see its easily
affordable. The average US citizen has about 40 to 50 years of
productive life. Assuming the average of the 20 million killed was 25
years left in their life, that's 500 million man-years of productive
activity lost. The per capita GDP is around $35,000 per person per
year.. The value of all the labor lost of 20 million people amounts to
$17.5 trillion - more than the direct cost.

Even a limited nuclear exchange would have combined direct and indirect
costs of $32.5 trillion. That's a cost of nearly $11 per watt of solar
panel avoided. And, since even a successful war for oil would only
extend our supply of energy a short while, compared to the permanent
advantage of tapping solar energy provides, its a nonstarter for many
reasons.

A larger conflagration would be even more costly - even at $55 per watt
of solar panel the solar panels would be cheaper by far! This is 10x
the present day cost of solar panels.


So, clearly any rational person would seek to avoid war and develop
alterantives to oil like solar and others.

Oh wait! That's EXACTLY what we're doing today!

* * * *

Data on the cost of conflicts the US engaged in;

Conflict Population Enrolled Ratio
(millions) (thousands)
Revolutionary War 3.5 200.0 5.7%
War of 1812 7.6 286.0 3.8%
Mexican War 21.1 78.7 0.4%
Civil War: Union 26.2 2,803.3 10.7%
: Confederate 8.1 1,064.2 13.1%
: Combined 34.3 3,867.5 11.1%
Spanish-American War 74.6 306.8 0.4%
World War I 102.8 4,743.8 4.6%
World War II 133.5 16,353.7 12.2%
Korean War 151.7 5,764.1 3.8%
Vietnam War 204.9 8,744.0 4.3%
Gulf War 260.0 2,750.0 1.1%



------------Casualties------------
[-----Deaths---]
-----Percentages----- Duration
Conflict Enrolled Combat Other Wounded Total

Revolutionary War 200.0 4,435 * 6,188
10,623
War of 1812 286.0 2,260 * 4,505
6,765
Mexican War 78.7 1,733 11,550 4,152
17,435
Civil War: Union 2,803.3 110,070 249,458 275,175
634,703
Confederate 1,064.2 74,524 124,000 137,000 +
335,524
Combined 3,867.5 184,594 373,458 412,175 +
970,227
Spanish-American War 306.8 385 2,061 1,662
4,108
World War I 4,743.8 53,513 63,195 204,002
320,710
World War II 16,353.7 292,131 115,185 670,846
1,078,162
Korean War 5,764.1 33,651 * 103,284
136,935
Vietnam War 8,744.0 47,369 10,799 153,303
211,471
Gulf War 2,750.0 148 145 467 ^
760

Conflict Cost in $ Billions Per Capita
Current 1990s (in $1990)
The Revolution (1775-1783) .10 1.2 $ 342.86
War of 1812 (1812-1815) .09 0.7 92.11
Mexican War (1846-1848) .07 1.1 52.13
Civil War (1861-1865): Union 3.20 27.3 1,041.98
: Confederate 2.00 17.1 2,111.11
: Combined 5.20 44.4 1,294.46
Spanish American War (1898) .40 6.3 84.45
World War I (1917-1918) 26.00 196.5 1,911.47
World War II (1941-1945) 288.00 2,091.3 15,655.17
Korea (1950-1953) 54.00 263.9 1,739.62
Vietnam (1964-1972) 111.00 346.7 1,692.04
Gulf War (1990-1991) 61.00 61.1 235.00






ADVANCED ROCKETS
Solar/laser sail - infinity (no propellant)
Fusion pulse - 100,000 m/s
Ion - 50,000 m/s
Orion Nuclear Pulse -20,000 m/s (effective)
Nuclear thermal - 8,500 m/s

STATE OF ART ROCKETS
LOX/LH2 - 4,200 m/s
LOX/RP1 - 3,000 m/s
Hypergolic - 2,800 m/s
SRB - 2,200 m/s
H2O2 - 1,800 m/s
Nitrogen - 1,500 m/s

What's nearly frozen/slush as 98% h2o2 along with c3h4o worth?
-
Brad Guth