|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#681
|
|||
|
|||
Andrew Gray wrote:
Remember all those fifties novels where U-238 would be a *currency*? Talk about burning a hole in your pocket... (Yes, I know the half-life. Joke, OK?) |
#682
|
|||
|
|||
Alex Terrell wrote:
Len wrote: I understand that Griffin is rightfully reluctant to support ideas that would conflict with NASA's basic plan. If there are no companies capable of delivering water or equivalent payload at low cost, then this should have little impact on present planning. However, the unplanned availability of perhaps 1000 tonnes, or 10,000 tonnes, of water in LEO should open up a lot of new possibilities for NASA. You need to sell this as a benefit to NASA. If the plan fails, it has no impact on NASA. If the plan succeeds, does it: A: Make NASA look stupid, having invested in HLV etc to get to the moon. They now need to completely revise their architecture Yes--although this is tempting for some of us-- shooting oneself in the foot is usually not a good idea. On a more idealistic plane, NASA is not monolithic, and there are many good people in NASA trying to do a good job. Market gaurantees should be careful with respect to NASA's image. I think the ideal environment would be skeptical hope on the part of NASA with respect to the possiblility of very low cost transport of water, propellants or ??? to LEO. The non-NASA entrepreneurial community should recognize this as a enlightened position on the part of NASA, and concentrate on making CATS real for some types of payloads. B: Enable NASA to continue with Constellation but at a much reduced cost / enhanced capability, by reducing the costs of the basic low value components, whilst maintaining NASA's ability to launch the precious stuff on the Stick. Yes, I think that launching the CEV, and large components according to the basic plan could continue to make economic sense, even if the tranport of small payloads and divisible payloads such as water and/or propellants gets to be dirt cheap. It will be important to emphasize the complementary aspects. Any need for a HLV beyond launching a large CEV might be justified as insurance against the risk of depending upon low-cost transport of propellants and on-orbit propellant storage, transfer, etc. The Manhattan Project funded four basically different approaches for insurance purposes. Those of us who are convinced that HLV is unnecessary should back off with respect to HLV development plans. Provision of water creates problems of electrolysis and pumping. Would not hydrogen and oxygen be more useful? That can be made into water and power, or used as rocket fuel. Or perhaps Kerosene and LOX? Perhaps. Hydrogen seems to be an important part of NASA's basic exploration direction. Accordingly, it might make a lot of sense coming up with ways of making LH2 space storable with improved insulation, cooling and reliquefaction concepts. Transport of LH2 might be combined with 5 or 6 times as much LOX to minimize volume effects on space transportation costs. Kero and LOX would be more space storable, but might be more disruptive to the basic NASA plan. An initial market might be to replace the EDS with 20 ton flexi rocket modules. Private contractors would deliver these for under $40 million (in your figures). A simple design would only add a few million on top of that. Three of these would be attached to provide the Earth Departure and Lunar Insertion Stage. Manwhile, one or two Sticks, and no HLV, would bring the precious CEV and Lunar Access Module. The beauty of this is that it doesn't rely on simulateneous launches, or in orbit propeallant transfer. Your space station acts as a Rack, on which several Flexi-Rocket-Modules will be waiting. The rack would equipped with a manipulator arm to assemble the components - plug and play, and no propellant transfer. By my own standards, a gauranteed market should be open to competing concepts. My own agenda--reinforced with economic analyses--suggests that 20-tonne payloads will require vehicles that are too big and investments that are too big to permit commercial, low-cost transport for some time to come. I think that designing to much smaller payloads is much more likely to enable CATS. Once a new traffic level paradigm is established and a corresponding new market emerges, then larger vehicles will also make economic sense. That being said, if some company can deliver 20 tonne paloads cheaply in the near future, then that company should be able to benefit from the market guarantees. Best regards, Len (Cormier) PanAero, Inc. (change x to len) http://www.tour2space.com |
#683
|
|||
|
|||
I think that the Hydrogen storage problems can be reduced by
simply sending it up last. The sequence would be to ship up solid LOX ( high density) along with empty living space to use up the extra volume in the faring. The LOX can easily be stored in LOE while everything is assembled and you will have no boiloff until all of the LOX has melted. On the last flight ship up a load of hydrogen. If the second stage uses hydrogen then one could transfer the hydrogen from the payload section to the second stage during the second stage burn. You would then end up with a stage in orbit fully fueled with Hydrogen and with an engine which had just been tested. This might not be the most mass efficient stage for in space operations but you get the stage for free. Ken Myrtle Len wrote: Perhaps. Hydrogen seems to be an important part of NASA's basic exploration direction. Accordingly, it might make a lot of sense coming up with ways of making LH2 space storable with improved insulation, cooling and reliquefaction concepts. Transport of LH2 might be combined with 5 or 6 times as much LOX to minimize volume effects on space transportation costs. Kero and LOX would be more space storable, but might be more disruptive to the basic NASA plan. Best regards, Len (Cormier) PanAero, Inc. (change x to len) http://www.tour2space.com |
#684
|
|||
|
|||
Andrew Gray, "tomcat" and to all other pro-ETI and frends of humanity,
Because of the oil, NG and coal industry/cultism, and of their firm hold upon the private parts of whomever they could suck into their global-warming and environmentally polluting web of dishonesty and disinformation as fed by way of mainstream infomercials and that of whatever our government and of it's religious backers (more often than not Jewish bankers) deemed viable as to benefitting their point of view, thus maximising the influx to their offshore bank accounts is why every effort was focused upon making every other energy alternative as expensive, as risky and/or as off-limits as possible. The likes of geothermal, wind, solar stirling, solar PV and even U-238 has therefore been made as taboo and as spendy as possible, plus fears touted as though common humanity (the lower 99.9% of Earth's population) need not get involved. The notions of storing whatever spare energy in a format of H2O2 has simply been yet another taboo/nondisclosure and/or need-to-know lock-box as for being kept as information scarce and as spendy and thereby as far out of reach as can be arranged, even though home brew of H2 or better yet H2O2 is easily doable and with less risk than most other forms of energy storage alternatives. With spare energy as having been made into LH2 or best made into H2O2 is an absolute win-win for the need of obtaining the greatest amount of heat from whatever, while least impacting the environment, whereas the likes of almost everything that burns can be converted into an extremely clean resource of heat that consumes the least amount of atmosphere, so effectively that it leaves behind the remains of raw elements that are safe enough to go into preschool sand boxes. Even an aerobreaking Hummer that's getting less than 10 mpg can be boosted to as to obtaining more than 100 mpg while never consuming another m3 of atmosphere along the way, and with no limitations upon performance nor range. H2O2 is that good, and it simply is not as fire and brimstone risky to deal with as those of the mainstream status quo would claim. It's just what H2O2 is, water (as in H2O) with one more Oxygen atom added to the matrix becomes H2O2. Even H2O2/aluminum battery technology has been sequestered, thus out of sight and out of the dumbfounded minds of us suckers. Those that would shun H2O2 are also the very same SOBs that insisted there were WMD in Iraq, and otherwise have been making all of the non-fossil fuel alternatives as far out of reach and as spendy as possible. Even hydroelectric alternatives hasn't been developed to half of it's potential is because of getting taboo/nondisclosure to death once the big fossil guns get their lose cannons firing at will. It's that simple, we've been snookered by the upper most 0.1% of humanity into thinking that fossil fuel and otherwise only spendy alternatives is all there is. Even He3/fusion as a viable alternative has been kept as nondisclosure/sequestered as possible, as much as the 25 kw/m2 footprint of what a good sized solar-sterling/secondary-recoil PV and wind turbine composite solution per tower installation could have been delivering as clean and 100% renewable energy. BTW; that 25 kw/m2 of 100% renewable energy is roughly an honest 100 fold better off than the birth to grave footprint aspects of what most of the nuclear energy alternatives have to offer and, at least 10 fold better off than the absolute best possible nuclear derived energy plan of action that's so gosh darn new and spendy that those simply haven't been constructed. If you'd like to add it all up, I'll gladly comply. Discussing He3 that's supposedly having been established by the laws of physics as supposedly sequestered within the top surface of the moon is simply another taboo/nondisclosure and/or flak tossing environment as for accomplishing any viable Usenet author/topic related notions, as having more flak to deal with than what Saddam had as a result of his inventing and then so well hiding all of those stealth WMD. Thus is why an author/topic that's rocking their mainstream status quo good ship LOLLIPOP is in fact going to be on the receiving end of getting more than their fair share of MI6/NSA spermware/malware directed into their computer, if not far worse things, including terminal death imposed as being their ultimate MI6/NSA cloak and dagger do-everything solution as to sustaining their old plus several ongoing perpetrated cold-wars. It's been a game where the rich get richer and the poor that have become too damn poor to give any more get death. ~ Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm War is war, thus "in war there are no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of having to deal with the likes of others that haven't been playing by whatever rules, such as GW Bush. |
#685
|
|||
|
|||
Ken Myrtle wrote:
I think that the Hydrogen storage problems can be reduced by simply sending it up last. The sequence would be to ship up solid LOX ( high density) along with empty living space to use up the extra volume in the faring. The LOX can easily be stored in LOE while everything is assembled and you will have no boiloff until all of the LOX has melted. On the last flight ship up a load of hydrogen. If the second stage uses hydrogen then one could transfer the hydrogen from the payload section to the second stage during the second stage burn. You would then end up with a stage in orbit fully fueled with Hydrogen and with an engine which had just been tested. This might not be the most mass efficient stage for in space operations but you get the stage for free. Ken Myrtle This might not work too well for the low-cost, small- payload approach that I have in mind. Even a 1000 tonnes of LOX/LH2 might require a 100 or so flights of the small vehicle, if all of the LH2 is delayed to the last flights. Storage in space should be easier than storage on Earth. Very long-term storage on Earth is practical with additional mass. The additional mass should be less in space, because vacuum insulation can be much lighter. Moreover, any additional mass for long-term storage would not have to be accelerated--although it may be advantageous to have some long-term storage capability on a Mars flight. Forty years ago, Linde demonstrate a capability for trucking LH2 cross-country; they started with 50 percent slush hydrogen, and ended up on the other coast with 40 percent slush. Non-mobile storage was even better. I think worry about storing and handling LH2 on orbit is exaggerated. Orbital operations in general should be far easier and less risky with frequent, reliable, low-cost access to space. Best regards, Len (Cormier) PanAero, Inc. (change x to len) http://www.tour2space.com |
#687
|
|||
|
|||
in article , Alex
Terrell at wrote on 10/6/05 1:50 AM: Len wrote: I understand that Griffin is rightfully reluctant to support ideas that would conflict with NASA's basic plan. If there are no companies capable of delivering water or equivalent payload at low cost, then this should have little impact on present planning. However, the unplanned availability of perhaps 1000 tonnes, or 10,000 tonnes, of water in LEO should open up a lot of new possibilities for NASA. You need to sell this as a benefit to NASA. If the plan fails, it has no impact on NASA. If the plan succeeds, does it: A: Make NASA look stupid, having invested in HLV etc to get to the moon. They now need to completely revise their architecture B: Enable NASA to continue with Constellation but at a much reduced cost / enhanced capability, by reducing the costs of the basic low value components, whilst maintaining NASA's ability to launch the precious stuff on the Stick. Provision of water creates problems of electrolysis and pumping. Would not hydrogen and oxygen be more useful? That can be made into water and power, or used as rocket fuel. Or perhaps Kerosene and LOX? An initial market might be to replace the EDS with 20 ton flexi rocket modules. Private contractors would deliver these for under $40 million (in your figures). A simple design would only add a few million on top of that. Three of these would be attached to provide the Earth Departure and Lunar Insertion Stage. Manwhile, one or two Sticks, and no HLV, would bring the precious CEV and Lunar Access Module. The beauty of this is that it doesn't rely on simulateneous launches, or in orbit propeallant transfer. Your space station acts as a Rack, on which several Flexi-Rocket-Modules will be waiting. The rack would equipped with a manipulator arm to assemble the components - plug and play, and no propellant transfer. I agree with your advice to work with NASA. Also, I think the idea Len is suggesting is to build a reservoir of water that could be split into hydrogen and oxygen using solar energy. This could be quite a plus if it is possible. George Evans |
#688
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 19:56:02 GMT, in a place far, far away, George
Evans made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: I think that private companies will have a greater and greater role in LEO transport of supplies in the near future but realistic manned launches are beyond them now. Yes, you think lots of things that aren't so, based on your many posts. In any event, we aren't talking about *now*. We're talking about years from now. |
#689
|
|||
|
|||
George Evans wrote:
Also, I think the idea Len is suggesting is to build a reservoir of water that could be split into hydrogen and oxygen using solar energy. Len suggesting building a reservoir of water - he's talking scattering little barrels all over the plains in the hopes that someday someone will find them useful. A reservoir is concentrated in one place -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#690
|
|||
|
|||
Derek Lyons wrote:
George Evans wrote: Also, I think the idea Len is suggesting is to build a reservoir of water that could be split into hydrogen and oxygen using solar energy. Len suggesting building a reservoir of water - he's talking scattering little barrels all over the plains in the hopes that someday someone will find them useful. A reservoir is concentrated in one place Well, no. For one thing, 2 tonnes is a rather large barrel. For another, the water or propellants would probably get transferred to a larger container or complex-- especially if the substance is liquid hydrogen, which stores much better in very large volumes. Although the large containers might be transported separately by a larger vehicle, IMO, they could be assembled on orbit--assuming frequent, reliable, low-cost access is available to make on-orbit operations eminently more practical than they are now. Another solution for long-term storage of liquid hydrogen might be a complex of tanks, with an insulating envelope. Even our small-payload transport could carry tanks 3 m in diameter by about 4 m long. This size might be appropriate as drop tanks for a deep-space mission. The basic empty tank might have a mass of 2 tonnes, which could be carried on a single flight. The liquid hydrogen, additional vacuum insulation, reliquifiers, etc. could be carried on other flights. From the perspective of the early 1960's, on-orbit operations with many flights to carry propellants was the logical way to conduct large deep-space missions. HLV and direct ascent were viewed as being rather impractical and absurd. Apollo changed that way of thinking, which I feel was a great departure from practical thinking. The absurdity and impracticality of HLV/direct launch has ironically made on-orbit operations seem absurd and impractical as a sort-of self-fulfilling prophecy. It's amazing how this point of view got turned around. And what has it gotten us? Didn't we learn anything from Amundson and Scott? BTW, I would hope that we might rely on something more than hope that someone might be able to use water or propellants in orbit. If NASA's main goal is to explore deep space and no one at NASA can figure out how to make water or propellents in LEO useful, then I think we should be looking for some other group to run the program. Actually, I have little doubt that NASA would not make good use of lots of cheap water or propellants in LEO. However, I do understand that many at NASA would doubt whether that can actually happen, and are naturally reluctant to count on it until it does happen, or, at least, seems much more likely to happen. Logically, the argument is not whether or not water or propellants in LEO can be useful. Rather, the argument should be whether those of us who maintain that water and/or propellants can be transported to LEO reliably and at very low cost are credible. But thanks anyway, Derek. I am trying to work the bugs out of the water/propellents/gauranteed market plan. Your comments help to avoid some of the potential pitfalls. Best regards, Len (Cormier) PanAero, Inc. (change x to len) http://www.tour2space.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | July 4th 05 07:50 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | August 5th 04 01:36 AM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) | Nathan Jones | Misc | 6 | July 29th 04 06:14 AM |
The Apollo FAQ (moon landings were faked) | Nathan Jones | Astronomy Misc | 8 | February 4th 04 06:48 PM |
The Apollo FAQ (moon landings were faked) | Nathan Jones | Misc | 8 | February 4th 04 06:48 PM |