Minimum Manned Moon Mission (4M)

In article ,
says...

On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 12:01:56 AM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 2:53:35 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
and ignore *all* development
costs

No I don't.

for all of these insanely expensive bits of aerospace hardware

No they aren't. Only an ignoramus would believe such things and not know that Burt Rutan built the first oblique wing aircraft for less than a quarter million dollars in less than a year. The University of Australia built the first privately funded Billig style dual mode combustion scramjet for less than $150,000 in less than a year.

Only a fool doesn't understand that with modern personal supercomputers, (of the type I have), using modern CFD software (which I run), in combination with 3D print technology (Arcam units that I own), that builds sophisticated hardware out of aerospace materials, costs for very sophisticated hardware is dropping dramatically.

http://www.gizmag.com/ge-fires-up-al...t-einge/37448/


Good luck with that. So, you're asserting you're going to design and 3D
print your own SSTO along with a minimal lunar lander all by yourself?

Sweet Jesus you're fracking insane.

Interesting that you say insane things and then attribute them to others. Its called psychological projection. Its an indicator that you need help! lol.

I'm not the one who is claiming he is going to design and 3D print a
spaceship. Given your track record for such a thing, I won't hold my
breath.

I said 3D printing and personal supercomputing makes designing
and building spacecraft easier only because its true. You're
the one who takes such statements and personalises them in
crazy ways. Despite the fact that its old news by the time I
say it here, you *still* gripe about it. Which is a reflection
of your stupidity.

Just how big is your team of aerospace engineers designing this vehicle
of yours? You make it sound like you're the entire design team.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 12:58:44 PM UTC+12, William Mook wrote:
On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 12:01:56 AM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 2:53:35 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
and ignore *all* development
costs

No I don't.

for all of these insanely expensive bits of aerospace hardware

No they aren't. Only an ignoramus would believe such things and not know that Burt Rutan built the first oblique wing aircraft for less than a quarter million dollars in less than a year. The University of Australia built the first privately funded Billig style dual mode combustion scramjet for less than $150,000 in less than a year.

Only a fool doesn't understand that with modern personal supercomputers, (of the type I have), using modern CFD software (which I run), in combination with 3D print technology (Arcam units that I own), that builds sophisticated hardware out of aerospace materials, costs for very sophisticated hardware is dropping dramatically.

http://www.gizmag.com/ge-fires-up-al...t-einge/37448/


Good luck with that. So, you're asserting you're going to design and 3D
print your own SSTO along with a minimal lunar lander all by yourself?

Sweet Jesus you're fracking insane.

Interesting that you say insane things and then attribute them to others. Its called psychological projection. Its an indicator that you need help! lol.

I'm not the one who is claiming he is going to design and 3D print a
spaceship. Given your track record for such a thing, I won't hold my
breath.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

I said 3D printing and personal supercomputing makes designing and building spacecraft easier only because its true. You're the one who takes such statements and personalises them in crazy ways. Despite the fact that its old news by the time I say it here, you *still* gripe about it. Which is a reflection of your stupidity.

https://www.nasa.gov/content/3-d-pri...hot-fire-tests

http://www.spacex.com/press/2014/05/...draco-thruster

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknap...rocket-engine/

http://3dprint.com/60132/3d-printed-...ngine-project/

http://www.gizmag.com/ge-fires-up-al...t-einge/37448/

http://www.3ders.org/articles/201310...et-engine.html

http://www.fabbaloo.com/blog/2014/9/...next-spacesuit

http://www.draper.com/newsItems.html

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10....69-9_79#page-1

Companies, like Microfabrica, have the ability to produce micro-scale rockets, pumps and sensors, integrated with surface mount electronics. This produces propulsive skin that is quite remarkable.

Propulsive skin has the ability to draw force vectors along its surface the same way HDTV screens draw colour images! With arrays of rockets that have 1000 to 1 thrust to weight! Incorporated in this skin is also an array of sensors, and other devices that give a spacecraft tremendous flexibility and performance.

This is the future! A 15 kg biosuit outperforms traditional spacesuits. Yet is equipped with thermal protection, life support, solar power collection, propulsive arrays, and so forth.

Woven into the structure of the suit is 2 square meters of solar collector generating up to 300 Watts of electrical energy in space. This is enough to power the suit and keep the air and water fresh and the wearer at the right temperature - indefinitely.

A propulsive skin that produces 50 psi of pressure (350 kilopascal) and weighs less than 1 ounce, requires only 5.5 square inches, 14 sq cm, only 2% of the total suit area, to lift the wearer with 750 kg (1,650 lbs) of force. Hanging LOX/LH2 tanks on to the suit, that themselves have the ability to propel themselves through space in response to signals from the suit, provide a seamless easy to use method of landing and take off from the moon.

An all rocket system with a 150 kg payload, requires;

3.1 km/sec - Lunar Surface to Earth Return
3.1 km/sec - TLI to Lunar Surface
3.1 km/sec - LEO to TLI

With a 4.3 km/sec exhaust speed this requires

3,943.8 kg on LEO. Apportioned as follows;

3943.8 - Total
2025.9 - Propellant (TLI stage)
591.6 - Inert Weight (TLI stage)
681.3 - Propellant Lunar Surface Stage
198.9 - Inert Weight Lunar Surface Stage
229.1 - Propellant Lunar Return Stage
66.9 - Inert Weight Lunar Surface Stage


With a 54 km/sec ion rocket, as stated above, this reduces the mass needed at LEO to less than 800 kg!

We start again with delta fee. Note the delta vee for an ion rocket of low thrust requires far more speed than a chemical booth - due to the Oberth effect;

8 km/sec - LEO to LLO
1.6 km/sec - LLO to Lunar Surface
1.6 km/sec - Lunar Surface to LLO
8 km/sec - LLO to LEO

An ion engine imparting 16 km/sec to a payload with an engine that has a 54 km/sec exhaust speed requires 25.64% of its take off weight to be propellant. With a 15% structure fraction this leaves 59.35% payload.

Now, 3.2 km/sec imparted to a vehicle with a 4.6 km/sec exhaust speed requires 50.12% propellant fraction. Subtracting 15% structure obtains 34.87% payload for the lunar lander.

So, starting with 150 kg again, we have 430.1 kg lunar lander which carries 215.6 kg propellant in a 64.5 kg structure. The 430.1 kg lander in turn is part of a 724.6 kg stage that carries 185.8 kg in 108.6 kg structure. Allowing 7 days for the transit the 185.8 kg of propellant consumes propellant at a rate of 307.2 milligrams per second. This requires 448 kilowatts of jet power. At 20 kW per kg this requires 22.4 kg of solar panels.

A solar powered stage orbited in a sun synchronous polar orbit that is in constant sunlight, is ideal. The increase in radial distance is nearly linear - 4,645 km increase in altitude per hour - about 2/3 of an Earth radii per hour - as the spacecraft winds its way out a spiral orbit and then winds into another spiral orbit around the moon.

A polar orbit has the potential to rocket through the van allen belt while missing the intense equatorial region altogether! This is very similar to the way Apollo handled the problem;

http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/v...an-allen-belts

Continuing with our comparison, recalling that 3,943.8 kg are required on LEO to send one person to the moon and return them safely to Earth using cryogenic rockets whilst 724.6 kg is required for the solar powered ion engine boosted transfer stage with cryogenic lander.

Using a three stage cryogenic vehicle to put 4,000 kg on orbit, each stage with a 3.1 km/sec delta fee - with a 4.2 km/sec exhaust speed - and a 15% structure fraction - so; each stage is 3.05x larger than the previous stage;

4,000.0 kg - payload on orbit
12,194.2 kg - Stage 3 - 1829.1 kg inert weight 6,365.1 kg propellant weight
37,174.9 kg - Stage 2 - 5576.2 kg inert weight 19,404.4 kg propellant weight
113,330.0 kg - Stage 1 - 17,000.0 kg inert weight 59,155.6 kg propellant weight

Using an oblique wing with hypersonic air breathing engine to boost a solar powered ion stage and reusable lunar lander with a person in a long duration space suit, that masses 800.0 kg with 800.0 kg inert weight, requires 1,655.4 kg of LH2 and 9,104.4 of gaseous oxygen drawn from the atmosphere. Total take off weight is 3,255.4 kg. Less than 3% of the take off weight of the conventional rocket! Construction cost of the all rocket approach can be expected to approach $490 million. Construction cost of the jet/ion/rocket approach can be expected to cost $4 million.

The all rocket approach has two downrange recovery operations, and the need to throw the descent stage away with each flight.

The oblique wing with solar ion engine combined with cryogenic lunar operations, retrieve all the hardware at the launch centre when the wing glides back from orbit.

Six vehicles cost $24 million - less than half the cost of a Gulfstream. With two tour guides and four tourists every two weeks, a total of 104 tourists can be taken to the moon and back each year. At a cost of $12.5 million per person, over $1.2 billion per year can be earned. With marketing and other costs, $1.0 billion EBITDA can be eared on $24 million invested.

On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 3:58:06 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 12:01:38 PM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

Astronaut in long duration mechanical counter pressure suit
equipped for 15 days of travel: 150 kg.

...

A fleet of six vehicles carries four paying clients and two
tour guides to the moon and back every 30 days - at a cost
of $10 million each. This is $480 million per year revenue
- supporting a 7 year life cycle cost of $400 million per
vehicle at an 8% discount rate.

So, we start with an imaginary space suit

Like many stupid people you have trouble distinguishing between imagination (the ability of the mind to be creative or resourceful) and imaginary (existing only in the imagination)!


Like many stupid people, you have trouble distinguishing between what
is imagined and what is real. For a prime example, see below...


Fact is, the spacesuit I describe is not imaginary at all!

http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spa.../holschuh.html


Uh, do you read your own cites?

Yes.

No such suit exists. "The research
objectives of this proposed effort..." You understand that means that
it's RESEARCH vice DEVELOPMENT and it is PROPOSED RESEARCH vice
EXISTING HARDWARE, right?

You obviously have never been involved in product development.



which can be worn continuously

Only an ignoramus believes the Apollo suits couldn't be worn continuously for 15 days.


Only an intellectually dishonest ignoramus keeps comparing apples and
aardvarks.

Fact is the Apollo suits could be worn continuously for 15 days. Something you said was imaginary.

We're talking about your imaginary magic suits, not the
Apollo moon suits.

No, we're talking about your foolish assertion that spacesuits couldn't be worn continuously for 15 days to carry out a moon mission. Been there done that. Today's suits are far more capable, comfortable, and safe.

snip remaining Mook****e and MookSpew

Mookie, this is a 'sci' group.

You keep saying that, yet are profoundly ignorant of current science.

Handwavium and proposed studies are
NOT proof of existence for operational hardware.

Your statement proves once again you've never been involved in the development of hardware.

You really seem to
not understand this.

Funny how you are the one who doesn't understand, yet you imagine others don't understand when you cannot understand what is being said.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

You're an adherent of scientism not science. There's a difference.

On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 2:10:28 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

Because one MookSpew is seldom enough...

On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 12:58:44 PM UTC+12, William Mook wrote:
On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 12:01:56 AM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 2:53:35 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
and ignore *all* development
costs

No I don't.

for all of these insanely expensive bits of aerospace hardware

No they aren't. Only an ignoramus would believe such things and not know that Burt Rutan built the first oblique wing aircraft for less than a quarter million dollars in less than a year. The University of Australia built the first privately funded Billig style dual mode combustion scramjet for less than $150,000 in less than a year.

Only a fool doesn't understand that with modern personal supercomputers, (of the type I have), using modern CFD software (which I run), in combination with 3D print technology (Arcam units that I own), that builds sophisticated hardware out of aerospace materials, costs for very sophisticated hardware is dropping dramatically.

http://www.gizmag.com/ge-fires-up-al...t-einge/37448/


Good luck with that. So, you're asserting you're going to design and 3D
print your own SSTO along with a minimal lunar lander all by yourself?

Sweet Jesus you're fracking insane.

Interesting that you say insane things and then attribute them to others. Its called psychological projection. Its an indicator that you need help! lol.

I'm not the one who is claiming he is going to design and 3D print a
spaceship. Given your track record for such a thing, I won't hold my
breath.


I said 3D printing and personal supercomputing makes designing and building spacecraft easier only because its true. You're the one who takes such statements and personalises them in crazy ways. Despite the fact that its old news by the time I say it here, you *still* gripe about it. Which is a reflection of your stupidity.

https://www.nasa.gov/content/3-d-pri...hot-fire-tests

http://www.spacex.com/press/2014/05/...draco-thruster

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknap...rocket-engine/

http://3dprint.com/60132/3d-printed-...ngine-project/

http://www.gizmag.com/ge-fires-up-al...t-einge/37448/

http://www.3ders.org/articles/201310...et-engine.html

http://www.fabbaloo.com/blog/2014/9/...next-spacesuit

http://www.draper.com/newsItems.html

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10....69-9_79#page-1

Companies, like Microfabrica, have the ability to produce micro-scale rockets, pumps and sensors, integrated with surface mount electronics. This produces propulsive skin that is quite remarkable.

Propulsive skin has the ability to draw force vectors along its surface the same way HDTV screens draw colour images! With arrays of rockets that have 1000 to 1 thrust to weight! Incorporated in this skin is also an array of sensors, and other devices that give a spacecraft tremendous flexibility and performance.

This is the future! A 15 kg biosuit outperforms traditional spacesuits. Yet is equipped with thermal protection, life support, solar power collection, propulsive arrays, and so forth.

Woven into the structure of the suit is 2 square meters of solar collector generating up to 300 Watts of electrical energy in space. This is enough to power the suit and keep the air and water fresh and the wearer at the right temperature - indefinitely.

A propulsive skin that produces 50 psi of pressure (350 kilopascal) and weighs less than 1 ounce, requires only 5.5 square inches, 14 sq cm, only 2% of the total suit area, to lift the wearer with 750 kg (1,650 lbs) of force. Hanging LOX/LH2 tanks on to the suit, that themselves have the ability to propel themselves through space in response to signals from the suit, provide a seamless easy to use method of landing and take off from the moon.

On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 3:45:43 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

Astronaut in long duration mechanical counter pressure suit
equipped for 15 days of travel: 150 kg.

...

A fleet of six vehicles carries four paying clients and two
tour guides to the moon and back every 30 days - at a cost
of $10 million each. This is $480 million per year revenue
- supporting a 7 year life cycle cost of $400 million per
vehicle at an 8% discount rate.

So, we start with an imaginary space suit which can be worn continuously
for 15 days, stick it into an imaginary scissor wing vehicle powered by
imaginary hypersonic air breathing engines, and ignore *all* development
costs for all of these insanely expensive bits of aerospace hardware
when coming up with an imaginary price to fly people to the moon for an
absurdly low cost.

I call bull****.


I believe the phrase you're looking for is 'Mook****'...

Mere bull**** doesn't hold a candle to it...

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Fred and Jeff love stroking one another. They're the only ones who gain any pleasure from it however.

On Sunday, July 5, 2015 at 2:56:13 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 3:45:43 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

Astronaut in long duration mechanical counter pressure suit
equipped for 15 days of travel: 150 kg.

...

A fleet of six vehicles carries four paying clients and two
tour guides to the moon and back every 30 days - at a cost
of $10 million each. This is $480 million per year revenue
- supporting a 7 year life cycle cost of $400 million per
vehicle at an 8% discount rate.

So, we start with an imaginary space suit which can be worn continuously
for 15 days, stick it into an imaginary scissor wing vehicle powered by
imaginary hypersonic air breathing engines, and ignore *all* development
costs for all of these insanely expensive bits of aerospace hardware
when coming up with an imaginary price to fly people to the moon for an
absurdly low cost.

I call bull****.


I believe the phrase you're looking for is 'Mook****'...

Mere bull**** doesn't hold a candle to it...


Fred and Jeff love stroking one another. They're the only ones who gain any pleasure from it however.


Mookie just loves stroking himself because nobody else will.

--
"Adrenaline is like exercise, but without the excessive gym fees."
-- Professor Walsh, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"

Yet you are the one calling things imaginary that are not and quoting fictional characters as if what they say are relevant! lol.

The facts are, the Apollo moon suits were rated for 15 days continuous wear.. Mechanical counter pressure suits were used since the 1950s. Scaled composites built an oblique wing aircraft over 30 years ago. Hypersonic air breathing engines were flown over 30 years ago, shortly after the technology developed in the 1960s was declassified in the 1980s.

On 2015-06-30 06:40:47 +0000, William Mook said:

The pilot lies prone in the root of the oblique flying wing, and is
surrounded by LH2. She/He wears a biosuit with MEMS based life support,

What can you tells us about the MEMS based ECLSS. Does it exist?
Been field tested? I'm not even sure why you say Micro
Electro-Mechanical. Certainly any controller will be a micro-circuit.
You specified LOX so the oxygen requirements can be met. CO2
scrubbing, humidity, pressure and temperature regulation all need to be
accomdated as do those pesky biological eliminations. What about
radiation protection? Does the craft have a radiator for heat
rejection?

This is the aspect of the plan that I find the most ill defined, at
least at first reading.

On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 2:04:11 PM UTC+12, Robert Love wrote:
On 2015-06-30 06:40:47 +0000, William Mook said:

The pilot lies prone in the root of the oblique flying wing, and is
surrounded by LH2. She/He wears a biosuit with MEMS based life support,

What can you tells us about the MEMS based ECLSS. Does it exist?

http://sbir.gsfc.nasa.gov/SBIR/abstr...3.03-8236.html

Been field tested?

http://spot.colorado.edu/~klaus/Bioa...earchGroup.htm

I'm not even sure why you say Micro
Electro-Mechanical.

Because the system uses nanostructure mechanical components.

Certainly any controller will be a micro-circuit.

Yes, and mechanical components as well.

http://www.memx.com/images/ratchet.jpg

You specified LOX so the oxygen requirements can be met.

As an initial gas, sure. AR - air revitalisation is key. The suit contains sufficient solar photovoltaic capability to maintain oxygen and water supply indefinitely.

CO2
scrubbing,

Using hydrogen in the Sabatier reaction to perform AR - air revitalization.

CO2 + 4 H2 -- CH4 + 2 H2O

Then use microwaves to reduce CH4 to C + 2 H2
and use electrolysis to reduce 2 H2O to 2 H2 + O2.

The hydrogen is reused, and the oxygen also.

humidity,

pressure and temperature regulation control humidity levels and recover any surplus water. Water gathered in this way is available to be vaporised to increase humidity when needed.

accomdated as do those pesky biological eliminations.

Manure, urine, ejaculate, sweat, spittle, nasa drainagel, ear, hair growth, oral hygiene, general hygiene, all have specific micro-machinery to process all these details.

What about
radiation protection?

Well, UV and IR protection are afforded by the suit. Eye protection by visor. The suit generally has greater protection than afforded by the Apollo capsule due to extensive use of tungsten microfibre, while still maintaining light weight. Protection against the unlikely massive radiation dose is afforded by MEMS based radiation detection and availability of radioprotectants such as EX-RAD administered at the appropriate time and in the appropriate dose.

Does the craft have a radiator for heat
rejection?

According to Harry Jebens at NASA an adult male breathes in 686 grams of oxygen per day and breathes out 857 grams of CO2.

That CO2 is reduced to 311.6 grams per day of Methane and 701.2 grams per day of water using 155.8 grams per day of hydrogen made from the water and methane leaving 233.7 grams of carbon and 623.3 grams of oxygen.

Another 857 grams per day of water vapour is breathed into the atmosphere and removed by cooling.

Another 400 grams per day of water is consumed directly.

A total of 384.6 grams per day of food solids are consumed along with 2,179..4 grams per day of water mixed in that food.

1936 grams per day excretions are produced. 213.6 grams per day is the total solids in all this, and 1722.4 grams per day is the liquid water in all this. Micro-multi-stage flash evaporator operating at body temperature at the Armstrong limit in pressure (0.063 bar) separates out the solids from this liquid. The sterilised water is recycled. Thus 2,579.4 grams of water per day are cycled through the food system while 701.2 grams per day of water are cycled through the air revitalisation system.

The human body must dispose of energy in the vacuum of space at a rate of 63 watts generally. Another 237 watts of waste heat is produced by the equipment just described. The area of the human body is 2 square meters. So, that's 118.5 Watts/m2 if radiated from the suit. Stephan Boltzman tells us that a temperature of 213.8 Kelvin is required to radiate heat into the vacuum of space at this rate. Competitive swimmers operate at 301 Kelvin which is the temperature the suit maintains. This is higher than the temperature just described. Basically by radiation management, and control of thermal impedance suitable temperatures are maintained.

The biology of digestion and waste elimination is well understood. Water is a byproduct of this process. So, generally speaking stored food supplies that contain water, are converted into surplus water by this SOLAR MEMS AR ECLSS system. This surplus water is evaporated into the vacuum of space to provide additional cooling when radiation balance must be restored. 2.4 megajoules per litre of water evaporated may be removed in this way at 301 Kelvin.


This is the aspect of the plan that I find the most ill defined, at
least at first reading.

You are obviously unaware of modern MEMS based AR ECLSS technology.

In article ,
says...

On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 2:04:11 PM UTC+12, Robert Love wrote:
On 2015-06-30 06:40:47 +0000, William Mook said:

The pilot lies prone in the root of the oblique flying wing, and is
surrounded by LH2. She/He wears a biosuit with MEMS based life support,

What can you tells us about the MEMS based ECLSS. Does it exist?

http://sbir.gsfc.nasa.gov/SBIR/abstr...3.03-8236.html

From above:

an innovative combination of nanomaterials and ceramic MEMS
technology to meet the need for reliable and accurate
humidity process control sensors for spacecraft.

To be used:

Currently, humidity is monitored on the International Space
Station primarily in the crew cabin using a mass spectrometer,
which is complex, costly, and not amenable to in-situ process
control. However, a network of reliable and ultra-compact
humidity microsensors, developed in this program and
distributed at specific locations within the ECLSS, would
allow for real-time process control over the critical O2, H2,
and CO2 gas streams used in ECLSS.

Sensors to replace a mass spectrometer Mook, not MEMS based ECLSS. And
the sort of thing they're talking about is already off the shelf, so
NASA is behind on adopting this technology.

I was looking into buying a temperature, pressure, humidity sensor for
about $15 to use with one of my Raspberry Pi computers to build a web
enabled thermostat.

https://learn.adafruit.com/adafruit-...ture-humidity-
sensor/overview

In other words, your reference does *not* say what you think it says.

snip

You are obviously unaware of modern MEMS based AR ECLSS technology.

Because it doesn't exist!!!!!!

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On 2015-07-09 00:37:34 +0000, William Mook said:

On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 2:04:11 PM UTC+12, Robert Love wrote:
On 2015-06-30 06:40:47 +0000, William Mook said:

The pilot lies prone in the root of the oblique flying wing, and is
surrounded by LH2. She/He wears a biosuit with MEMS based life support,

[cut]


Been field tested?

http://spot.colorado.edu/~klaus/Bioa...earchGroup.htm

That's lots of R&D of components or technologies. Is there a full
test of the complete system you describe or anything like it?

Don't get me wrong, it's interesting reading but seems not a complete
system with a track record.

[cut]

This is the aspect of the plan that I find the most ill defined, at
least at first reading.

You are obviously unaware of modern MEMS based AR ECLSS technology.

It's true, I don't. I know some about the ECLSS systems that supported
Shuttle and now Station.

One last question. Who would voluntarily wear a suit for 2 weeks
without a break? Deep sea divers may go 12 hours wearing a diaper and
in the same suit but I bet they're glad to get it off that 13th hour.
What examples of people wearing enclosing life support can you think
of? What duration? Let's exclude hospital patients where tubes,
wires and supports or restraints are used.

Heck, I know suit techs at JSC Neutral Buoancy Lab. I might ask what's
the longest one of the astronauts have been suited up for a training
session.