NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket

On 26 Oct, 04:52, Alan Erskine wrote:
On 26/10/2010 9:20 AM, Pat Flannery wrote:

Powered by microwaves or lasers from the ground...sounds a bit much from
a space agency that can't figure out how to get to the Moon on their
budget:

I think most people have lost faith in NASA by now. *I personally am
waiting for private organisations to get there. *I think privateers will
get there looooong before NASA does, more's the pitty.

NASA does essentially what it is told to do by the folks on Capitol
Hill. Blame them for its shortcomings. If you say "Go to the Moon as
soon as possible - cost not important" that is what they will do and
the Saturn C5 will be the result.

NASA is now being told to look at problems from all angles and don't
be afraid to come up with things which are either beyond today's
technology or stretching it. This is in fact stretching todays
technology rather than providing something totally beyond it.

You have a touching faith in private enterprise. Private enterprise
can do amazing things, it set Google up. Private enterprise though :-

1) Cannot work miracles.
2) Is out to make a profit.

Virgin Galactic is not a particularly good example. It is an expensive
sub orbital ride. For the price I would want an orbital flight. Lets
face it the guys in NASA or ESA are the smartest around. If they are
told to brainstorm they will, in all probability, come up with rather
better ideas than the typical member of this group.

This idea is futuristic but not mad. Let us look at current
technology. Focussing a laser on a rocket depends on the ability to
focus a large number of lasers using phase shifts. Phase shifting and
phase locking is fairly well established in lasers. The technology of
a phase conjugate mirror is also fairly well established.

Can NASA do it? You should not simply say you have lost faith. If they
are given funding they will do it. As William Mook points out this is
related to other technologies like SSP.

Question :- Is the power source on the ground or in space? suspect
that lasers from the ground are optimal in going to LEO and that
microwaves generated in space are optimal for deep space. A deep space
craft will have a flimsy parabolic reflector and a plasma thruster as
its propulsive system.

Question is NASA the organization to do this? This depends on what
instructions it receives from on high. I certainly don't think someone
like Richard Bransom has any inkling of how to do it. NASA/ESA/
Glavkosmos are the experts. I don't think there is any real doubt
about that. Where else would you find the same level of expertise.

One quick point - starship? Within the solar system plasma will
provide thrust. To travel at c/10 to c/2 you will use the Forward
concept which is the pressure of light itself.


- Ian Parker

On 10/27/2010 11:35 AM, Ian Parker wrote:

You have a touching faith in private enterprise. Private enterprise
can do amazing things, it set Google up. Private enterprise though :-

1) Cannot work miracles.
2) Is out to make a profit.

Virgin Galactic is not a particularly good example. It is an expensive
sub orbital ride. For the price I would want an orbital flight. Lets
face it the guys in NASA or ESA are the smartest around. If they are
told to brainstorm they will, in all probability, come up with rather
better ideas than the typical member of this group.

Explain how SpaceX is getting ready to do their second Falcon 9 launch
with a operational standard Dragon capsule on it for a complete orbital
mission and recovery, while NASA's efforts in the same direction haven't
even yielded a operational version of the first stage of the Ares I booster?

Pat

In sci.space.history Pat Flannery wrote:
Explain how SpaceX is getting ready to do their second Falcon 9
launch with a operational standard Dragon capsule on it for a
complete orbital mission and recovery, while NASA's efforts in the
same direction haven't even yielded a operational version of the
first stage of the Ares I booster?

One not only needs bucks to get Buck Rogers, but one must also be able
to focus those bucks rather than be forced to peanut butter them
across congressional districts. Or, if forced to peanut butter them,
one needs BUCKS rather than bucks or Bucks.

rick jones
--
oxymoron n, Hummer H2 with California Save Our Coasts and Oceans plates
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

On 28 Oct, 00:00, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 10/27/2010 11:35 AM, Ian Parker wrote:

You have a touching faith in private enterprise. Private enterprise
can do amazing things, it set Google up. Private enterprise though :-

1) Cannot work miracles.
2) Is out to make a profit.

Virgin Galactic is not a particularly good example. It is an expensive
sub orbital ride. For the price I would want an orbital flight. Lets
face it the guys in NASA or ESA are the smartest around. If they are
told to brainstorm they will, in all probability, come up with rather
better ideas than the typical member of this group.

Explain how SpaceX is getting ready to do their second Falcon 9 launch
with a operational standard Dragon capsule on it for a complete orbital
mission and recovery, while NASA's efforts in the same direction haven't
even yielded a operational version of the first stage of the Ares I booster?

Pat

The Falcon is interesting. It is however NOT reusable. LEO payload is
4,500Kg in the normal configuration. Cost per launch is about $45M.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9

The "heavy" configuration is still on the drawing board. The "heavy"
is broadly comperable with Ariane 5. Ariane at present, like the old
Shuttle, has solid fuel boosters. It might be possible in the future
to replace solid fuel with the Falcon's LOX/Kerosene.

The cost of Ariane 5 is $120M per launch, but Ariane 5 has an 18,000Kg
LEO payload. Neither, as I understand it, is human space flight
qualified, although there is the possibility that Ariane

Energia is 88,000Kg. A real heavyweight.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/energia.htm

http://www.friends-partners.org/part...vs/energia.htm

Development cost was something over a billion roubles. Launch cost -
vague but probably comparable to Ariane 5.

This potted survey shows that if you want the lowest per Kg cost at
LEO you buy Russian. It is not as simple as that, there are political
questions and the cost may not be a true cost. The real comparison is
with Ariane 5.

This shows that Falcon, while an innovation is not so radically
different from other solutions. The real eye opener is Ariane 5. This
I think is because the Europeans, the French in particular had much
more consistent objectives than NASA. This analysis rubbishes Capitol
Hill but not necessarily NASA that has to live with the objectives
set.

Certainly the quality of the scientific brains that produced this
proposal is not in question.


- Ian Parker

On 10/28/2010 2:26 AM, Ian Parker wrote:

The cost of Ariane 5 is $120M per launch, but Ariane 5 has an 18,000Kg
LEO payload. Neither, as I understand it, is human space flight
qualified, although there is the possibility that Ariane


Ariane 5 was design to be man-rated, as originally one of its payloads
was to be the Hermes mini-shuttle; but the French decided that if they
optimized it to carry the Hermes it would be less economical as a
commercial launcher, and that was the main purpose it was developed for:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hermes.htm


Energia is 88,000Kg. A real heavyweight.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/energia.htm

http://www.friends-partners.org/part...vs/energia.htm


Yeah, but Energia is dead as a doornail despite Russian dreams of
somehow restarting the program. For starters, the four strap-on Zenit
boosters are made in Ukraine, not Russia, and Russia and Ukraine aren't
on very friendly terms...probably a result of Stalin starving between
seven and ten million Ukrainian farmers to death while exporting all the
wheat they grew to show the triumph of the Soviet collective farm concept.


Development cost was something over a billion roubles. Launch cost -
vague but probably comparable to Ariane 5.

This potted survey shows that if you want the lowest per Kg cost at
LEO you buy Russian. It is not as simple as that, there are political
questions and the cost may not be a true cost. The real comparison is
with Ariane 5.

This shows that Falcon, while an innovation is not so radically
different from other solutions. The real eye opener is Ariane 5. This
I think is because the Europeans, the French in particular had much
more consistent objectives than NASA. This analysis rubbishes Capitol
Hill but not necessarily NASA that has to live with the objectives
set.


The French were out to make a buck on commercial space launches; an idea
completely alien to NASA.


Certainly the quality of the scientific brains that produced this
proposal is not in question.


Ares I/Orion was supposed to be an easy-to-build system that could be
done quickly, and at low cost.
Then it began...Orion weighed too much, so the ground landing via
airbags or landing rockets and reusable heatshield got replaced by a sea
landing and non-reusable ablative heatshield.
But that was still too heavy to use a stock four-segment Shuttle SRB for
the first stage, so that had to be replaced with a five segment one.
Then it was found that the upper stage still wouldn't give sufficient
power to get the Orion into orbit unless it fired its service module
engine once separating from the second stage, cutting into its
propellant supply.
Whatever these scientific brains were good at, figuring out the math of
what their spacecraft was going to weigh vs. their planned booster's
lifting capabilities apparently wasn't one of their gifts.

Pat

On Oct 27, 1:35*pm, Ian Parker wrote:

You have a touching faith in private enterprise. Private enterprise
can do amazing things, it set Google up. Private enterprise though :-

1) Cannot work miracles.
2) Is out to make a profit.

Exactly.

There was supposed to be this big conspiracy, hiding Nazi plans to
make oil at $5 a barrel from coal, after OPEC raised its prices.

But since the cost to the Arabs of pumping oil out of the ground was
below $5, even if their price was well above $5, someone building such
a plant would have no way of selling the oil it made - the Arabs would
drop their price to $4.98 when it became operational.

The same problem applies to mining and refining rare earths in the
United States.

There are things that governments have to do.

John Savard

On 30 Oct, 06:33, Quadibloc wrote:
On Oct 27, 1:35*pm, Ian Parker wrote:

You have a touching faith in private enterprise. Private enterprise
can do amazing things, it set Google up. Private enterprise though :-

1) Cannot work miracles.
2) Is out to make a profit.

Exactly.

There was supposed to be this big conspiracy, hiding Nazi plans to
make oil at $5 a barrel from coal, after OPEC raised its prices.

But since the cost to the Arabs of pumping oil out of the ground was
below $5, even if their price was well above $5, someone building such
a plant would have no way of selling the oil it made - the Arabs would
drop their price to $4.98 when it became operational.

The same problem applies to mining and refining rare earths in the
United States.

There are things that governments have to do.

The same applies to solar power as well. The policy for Western
governments is quite clear. You set the price of oil to the consumer
at the solar price, or a little bit above. If the Arabs reduce the
price a Western Government should impose a tax so that alternatives to
oil are not priced out of the market. W Governments can never allow
the Arabs, or the Chinese to hold them to ransom.

It seems to me odd that the right has insisted on military forces
strong enough to beat the Chinese, but have not addressed the "rare
earth" vulnerabity.


- Ian Parker

On Oct 25, 5:20*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

Powered by microwaves or lasers from the ground...

Sounds like some version of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam-powered_propulsion
..


As to why something designed to fly around inside the solar system is
called a "starship" is something known only to the NASA PAO. :-D


Well, the sun is a star, so I suppose the PAO could be cut some
slack. ;-)

Gradual improvements on core capabilities are what's needed.

Consider the Michoud Assembly Facility run by Marshall Space Flight
Center

In the 1950s and 60s they worked on Saturns
http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/HIGH/6870792.jpg

In the 1970s they switched to External Tanks
http://mm04.nasaimages.org/MediaMana...n&profileid=41

These External Tanks using a design I cam up with become a building
block for a very large launcher as I describe here;

http://www.scribd.com/doc/30943696/ETDHLRLV

To support the development of solar power satellites that beam
infrared laser energy to 8,000 ground stations at the same time -
making enough money to support continued operation of the system by
generating a total of 10,000 MW and earning $4.38 billion per year per
satellite.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/S...-Satellite-GEO

This power satellite can operate at GEO to produce 10,000 MW as
mentioned.

More advanced systems can be orbited nearer the Sun to produce 220,000
MW - upping revenue to $30 billion per year per satellite even while
reducing costs from $0.05 per kWh to $0.015 per kWh.

A 220,000 MW laser beam energizing a laser propelled rocket that
produces an exhaust speed of 22.44 km/sec produces 1,000 metric tons
force (the same produced in the ET derived rocket) - but reduces the
propellant fraction required to get to orbit (9.2 km/sec) to 0.337 or
263 metric tons of hydrogen alone. Allowing the 50 metric ton empty
vehicle carry 467 metric tons to orbit as a single stage vehicle!!

The same vehicle - when powered by laser rockets with 22.44 km/sec
exhaust speed can carry 315 metric tons to the moon and back or even
Mars and back using 415 metric tons of hydrogen in the same 50 metric
ton vehicle. This is the capability of laser rocket.

But we need to do things well regardless of the technology core.

On Oct 26, 2:07*pm, William Mook wrote:
Gradual improvements on core capabilities are what's needed.

Consider the Michoud Assembly Facility run by Marshall Space Flight
Center

In the 1950s and 60s they worked on Saturnshttp://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/HIGH/6870792.jpg

In the 1970s they switched to External Tankshttp://mm04.nasaimages.org/MediaManager/srvr?mediafile=/Size4/nasaNAS...

These External Tanks using a design I cam up with become a building
block for a very large launcher as I describe here;

http://www.scribd.com/doc/30943696/ETDHLRLV

To support the development of solar power satellites that beam
infrared laser energy to 8,000 ground stations at the same time -
making enough money to support continued operation of the system by
generating a total of 10,000 MW and earning $4.38 billion per year per
satellite.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/S...-Satellite-GEO

This power satellite can operate at GEO to produce *10,000 MW as
mentioned.

More advanced systems can be orbited nearer the Sun to produce 220,000
MW - upping revenue to $30 billion per year per satellite even while
reducing costs from $0.05 per kWh to $0.015 per kWh.

A 220,000 MW laser beam energizing a laser propelled rocket that
produces an exhaust speed of 22.44 km/sec produces 1,000 metric tons
force (the same produced in the ET derived rocket) - but reduces the
propellant fraction required to get to orbit (9.2 km/sec) to 0.337 or
263 metric tons of hydrogen alone. *Allowing the 50 metric ton empty
vehicle carry 467 metric tons to orbit as a single stage vehicle!!

The same vehicle - when powered by laser rockets with 22.44 km/sec
exhaust speed can carry 315 metric tons to the moon and back or even
Mars and back using 415 metric tons of hydrogen in the same 50 metric
ton vehicle. *This is the capability of laser rocket.

But we need to do things well regardless of the technology core.

Your conventional LH2/LOx stuff is good enough as is, along with
powerful ion thrusters should more than do the trick, but not if
you're never in charge of anything that matters.

Since you refuse to blame anyone except yourself, and insist that the
past isn't ever supposed to affect or influence the present or future,
then why don't you fix whatever's wrong with yourself, and then show
the rest of us exactly how it's all done faster, better and cheaper.
Try to remember that I'm one of the few that's actually on your side.

Go to your rich and powerful friends and get their unlimited financial
support, and start doing exactly as you say. According to your own
advise, in no time at all you'll become another trillionaire that pays
little if any income or business tax, just like most of your best
friends that are already trillionaires or at least multi-billionaires
keeping most of their loot and other forms of hoarded wealth offshore
or in some other perfectly legal tax-avoidance investments that remain
untouchable to anyone except yourself.

~ BG