|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
NASA and the Vision thing
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
NASA and the Vision thing
And the reaction of the great, unwashed taxpayers who will foot the bill is
"Who is Elle Marche?" Ariane which works unlike some things. The Shuttle is a complete fraud. It is more expensive and works less well than the things it replaced. What you've done, like so many other kooks, is heard a few rumors involving "someday, maybe" underfunded technology and believed the hype. Your argument is unpersuasive. Perhaps but manned space flight withut new technology is a dead end. The exhaust velocity with cryogenic fuel, the best available is 4km/s. To achieve any given impulse you need e^I/4km/s of your mass to be fuel. That is before deadweight and other considerations are brought in. To get 8km/s more you need to ferry uup the loads of e^2 rockets. The Moon (return) represents some 16km/sec (can be reduced slighly as in Apollo by having a mother ship). Basically the Saturn took astronauts to the Moon. Saturn was the pinnacle of rocket design, it represented a mature technology. Anything else, including the shuttle has worked less well. I just don't understand why it was ever built. It represents a clear step backwards. The ISS and any ideas of space stations are simply dead end technology. They are simply soaking up money and doing precious little. Mars requires about 20km/s + very large consumable loads. $80e9 seems a fair price. If we are stupid enough to go there nothing will have been achieved, the price for subsequent visits will be just as great. In fact a visit to the Moon with the Shuttle/Space Station would cost a dickins of a lot more than an Apollo flight. NASA has indeed gone into reverse. New technology is required. What shape? Unmanned exploration has always been successful. We should be sending up a repair robot (non returnable) on Ariane (qui marche!) to serviuce Hubble. To servicew H we only need Virtual Reality, to service something deeper into space we need AI. AI and robotics are technologies with a future. A Von Neumann machine is a logical extension of robotic exploration and would be my prime candidate for "new technology". There are other possibilities. A fission based rocets could deliver specific impulses of 12km/s from LEO. And He3/Deuterium would achieve 50 quite easily ans might operate from ground level. He/Tritium with its neutrons is unsuitable for space propulsion. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
NASA and the Vision thing
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message ... Rusty wrote: In this case there's not much difference between a vision and a nightmare. Congress is looking around for places to cut money without offending too much of the populace with the 2006 elections coming up. With the deficits we all have to tighten the belt. I hear the military is having to make do with only a billion a day now. It could be that since Bush came up with this they see it as his, not their, responsibility to kill it. They'll stall till after the midterms as you say. But with the repubs steadily imploding, they seem to have a growing obsession with places far-far-away. Griffin obviously seriously screwed up his math when he said this could all be done with only minimal added funds. He forget to factor in the pork index. The repubs are padding the ground for the crash landing to come. s Pat |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
NASA and the Vision thing
wrote in message ups.com... "Who is Elle Marche?" It means it works in contrast to the Shuttle which has problems working. I understand that. However, almost nobody else does. What you've done, like so many other kooks, is heard a few rumors involving "someday, maybe" underfunded technology and believed the hype. Your argument is unpersuasive. Conventional rockets, the Shuttle, Ariane and the Saturn C5 have cryogenic upper stages. This gives an exhaust velocity of some 4km/sec. And right there you've just put your involuntary venture capitalists to sleep. Telling the American taxpayer to stop using homegrown technology and to buy foreign rockets, particularly French made products, will not only get you laughed at, but might even get you Sibreled. If you argue tech, you will not get funded. Logic is not relevant to the process. If it was, we'd be making active progress to Mars using some of Zubrin's ideas. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
NASA and the Vision thing
"Scott Hedrick" a écrit dans le message de news: ... Telling the American taxpayer to stop using homegrown technology and to buy foreign rockets, particularly French made products, will not only get you laughed at, As an aside, Ariane is not french, it's european ( and I'm saying this, even though I'm french ). But I agree that doesn't change the NIH factor. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
NASA and the Vision thing
"frédéric haessig" wrote in message ... "Scott Hedrick" a écrit dans le message de news: ... As an aside, Ariane is not french, it's european To Joe Lunchbox Taxpayer, it's the same thing. It's not fair or right, but that's the way it is. If the rocket were called the Brittania, there'd be a greater likelihood of making a deal. Frankly, I see no good reason *not* to use it occasionally. However, the funding process for US government projects is as stupid as the funding process for ESA. The big difference is that the ESA could have avoided it, *particularly* since the inherent failure of the distribution process used was well known. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
NASA and the Vision thing
You're seriously confusing exhaust velocity, delta-V and specific
impulse. Go take an astrodynamics class or at least read a book and do the math. Hydrogen going through Uranium Oxide close to the melting point. The Nerva engine was reckoned to be 3 times better than a chemical propellant. With fusion you directly mix the stream of gases. 50km/s since you are not dependent on solid materials. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
NASA and the Vision thing
Right, and just continue to launch them with expensive expendable.
This is just NASA propaganda. Expendibles cost LESS than the Shuttle (per kg) |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
NASA and the Vision thing
"Scott Hedrick" a écrit dans le message de news: ... It's not fair or right, but that's the way it is. If the rocket were called the Brittania, there'd be a greater likelihood of making a deal. Frankly, I see no good reason *not* to use it occasionally. However, the funding process for US government projects is as stupid as the funding process for ESA. The big difference is that the ESA could have avoided it, *particularly* since the inherent failure of the distribution process used was well known. Well, for the US it's a law. For ESA, an internal rule. However, ESA rule is more flexible than US laws, as it allows to pay for non-european launcher. The problem is getting the budget approved by elected official. In the US it's called pork-barrelling. In ESA it's called geographical return. In this case, the US system is more flexible and outwardly more efficient. The ESA system has the advantage of being aboveboard. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|