NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture

tomcat wrote:


And, I haven't even brought up the new 5X 'atomic hydrogen' rocket
fuel, or the new hydrogen 'slush tanks' that are being used as we
speak.



On what, exactly?

Pat

tomcat,
I totally agree that CNT fabric at perhaps eventually costing as little
as a million hard earned bucks/kg in real application is going to be
extremely handy stuff.
And, I haven't even brought up the new 5X 'atomic hydrogen' rocket
fuel, or the new hydrogen 'slush tanks' that are being used as we
speak.
You've ignored and/or intentionally excluded the He3/fusion powered
spacecraft, tossing out Radon(Ra222) ions as made easily available on
the fly by merely packing along for the ride a sufficient supply of
good old Radium(Ra226). Isn't that a good energy and fuel density as
well as best ever velocity solution or what?

BTW; going fast in space is potentially lethal, as is standing still
while something quite itsy-bitsy treks along at 100 km/s and summarily
passes through your spacecraft, which may therefore involve quite a few
extra rolls of ductape before you manage to safely get to/from
wherever.

Seems to myself of having several tonnes worth of a basalt/silica
composite hull/m2 in all directions surrounding your butt might not be
such a bad idea.
~

Life on Venus, township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

Brad Guth wrote:
tomcat,
I totally agree that CNT fabric at perhaps eventually costing as little
as a million hard earned bucks/kg in real application is going to be
extremely handy stuff.
And, I haven't even brought up the new 5X 'atomic hydrogen' rocket
fuel, or the new hydrogen 'slush tanks' that are being used as we
speak.
You've ignored and/or intentionally excluded the He3/fusion powered
spacecraft, tossing out Radon(Ra222) ions as made easily available on
the fly by merely packing along for the ride a sufficient supply of
good old Radium(Ra226). Isn't that a good energy and fuel density as
well as best ever velocity solution or what?

BTW; going fast in space is potentially lethal, as is standing still
while something quite itsy-bitsy treks along at 100 km/s and summarily
passes through your spacecraft, which may therefore involve quite a few
extra rolls of ductape before you manage to safely get to/from
wherever.

Seems to myself of having several tonnes worth of a basalt/silica
composite hull/m2 in all directions surrounding your butt might not be
such a bad idea.



I have intentionally excluded the He-3 powerplant because the problem
of getting the He-3 has not yet been solved. I am trying to stay with
the very current situation with regard to Outer Space.

The University of Texas at Dallas is talking about making clothing of
nanotube fabric, so -- mass produced -- it may not cost a million
dollars a kg.

Layer the nanotube fabric with graphite expoxy and you will have a
stronger than steel, lighter than a feather, fiberglass like hull that
can take enormous heat.

And, yes, any spaceplane hull should be capable of taking 20mm fire all
day long without a dent. Anything bigger than that would have to be
incinerated prior to impact.

Spaceplane hull is where the frontier is. Propulsion is solved with
many good options.

Real spaceplanes should be very large in size. This is because they
should be seen as cargo haulers, not as little crew capsules.
Calculations that say size makes no difference are . . . suspect.

I like to reply that a 1 inch perfect replica of a Saturn V will not, I
repeat, will not make it to the moon. Bigger is better! It certainly
increases the cargo load the vehicle can carry.

What is basalt/silica composite hull/m2?


tomcat

Pat Flannery wrote:
tomcat wrote:


And, I haven't even brought up the new 5X 'atomic hydrogen' rocket
fuel, or the new hydrogen 'slush tanks' that are being used as we
speak.



On what, exactly?

Pat


Sorry, can't talk about it.


tomcat

tomcat wrote:




And, I haven't even brought up the new 5X 'atomic hydrogen' rocket
fuel, or the new hydrogen 'slush tanks' that are being used as we
speak.




On what, exactly?

Pat




Sorry, can't talk about it.



Yeah, I'll trust that. :-D

Pat

tomcat,
How robust are CNTs to withstanding the full potential spectrum of the
nasty forms of radiation?

Since CNTs are nano by way of their design, and hard-X-rays are nano or
sub-nano by default, is there going to be any conflict if interest, as
in the CNT fabric and/or constructed of such surviving the radiation
gauntlet without significant compromise in structural integrity?

What is basalt/silica composite hull/m2?
Basalt and/or silica are raw elements that can each be easily made into
continuous fibers. Those fibers of 4.84 or better GPa can then be
transformed and/or formulated into whatever suits the task at hand.
Since neither is based upon nano technology, there's no R&D and damn
little cost in producing them and, there no amount of radiation that'll
affect the end-product integrity unless it has something to do with the
binders.

The point being, is that basalt is already a lunar free for all, plus
all that's needed as for processing that raw basalt into such nifty and
continuous fibers none the less is already there to behold. Thus zero
mass and zero energy is taken from Earth for the task of processing
mass tonnage of lunar basalt into absolutely terrific fibers that can
subsequently be locally made into robust structural elements or just
for providing the massive external surrounds for spacecraft of any
size, offering 5t/m2 or even 50t/m2 worth of outer shell or hull
density is no longer insurmountable, whereas of applying that much
robust shielding should take a real licking and keep ticking without
sacrificing the passengers and crew within.

That conservative 5t/m2 doesn't sound like so much but, if a spacecraft
habitat unit has an outer aluminum shell of 50 meters by merely 6
meters in diameter is going to require at least 1000 m2 worth of an
external covering. Thus 5t/m2 = 5,000 tonnes worth of the composite
material having been applied about the otherwise aluminum spacecraft.
Sorry to say that there's no freaking way 5,000 extra tonnes is getting
affordably or even sanely launched from Earth, or don't you follow my
drift as to utilizing the LSE-CM/ISS and of what already existing on
the moon?
~

Life on Venus, township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


tomcat wrote:




And, I haven't even brought up the new 5X 'atomic hydrogen' rocket
fuel, or the new hydrogen 'slush tanks' that are being used as we
speak.




On what, exactly?

Pat




Sorry, can't talk about it.



Yeah, I'll trust that. :-D


Yeah, as they say:

Those who say don't know and those who know, don't say.



Pat

Brad Guth wrote:
tomcat,
How robust are CNTs to withstanding the full potential spectrum of the
nasty forms of radiation?

Since CNTs are nano by way of their design, and hard-X-rays are nano or
sub-nano by default, is there going to be any conflict if interest, as
in the CNT fabric and/or constructed of such surviving the radiation
gauntlet without significant compromise in structural integrity?



A spaceplane's hull first has to deal with tremendous temperatures --
possibly as high as 20,000 deg. F. Currently, this requires ceramic
thermal reflection and liquid hydrogen cooling.

Carbon nanotubes woven into a fabric have great strength that could be
applied by themselves, in layers, using graphite epoxy, or they could
be combined with ceramic slivers/particles mixed with graphite epoxy
and spattered together, before the epoxy sets, in a vacuum chamber to
produce incredibly light, extremely heat capable, composite with the
strength of an equal volume of steel. I love stuff that floats in the
air! Helps the DV, you know!

The nanotube cloth also transmits heat incredibly well. This makes the
entire hull a heat sink so that concentrations of heat don't build up
on the 'leading edges'. Thick Pyrex glass does this too and a Pyrex
canopy can take heat far beyond what would be believed. I have seen
titanium melt around the edges of a Pyrex canopy with the canopy
unaffected in any way. A Pyrex canopy 1 1/2 inches thick can take an
eagle hit as well, and not crack or break.

As far as radiation goes, new materials can stop radiation without the
weight of lead. If astronauts get irradiated it will be because
someone didn't use what is available. There are 'plastics' that can
stop radiation as well as new light weight metals. Remember:
Beryllium steel reflects neutrons. That is why it is used in atomic
bomb casings. Beryllium steel is light compared to iron/steel and thin
sheets of it can work wonders. Lead foil might be used around crew
quarters. Gold foil is fairly dense as well.

Nanotubes, by the way, conduct electricty. I am guessing that this
will create a faraday cage effect in case of lightning strikes or
microwave radiation. A hull of nanotubes might be used as an antenna
for reception of signals though -- at this point -- this is a guess.

A good spaceplane capable of SSTP (Single Stage To the Planets) should
pierce the Van Allen belt at about 100,000 mph. So, length of that
radiation should be minimal. Remember, however, that in most of my
posts I am referring to a SSTO (Single Stage To Orbit), not a SSTP.
Whether the advantage of ultralight nanotube hulls will allow for SSTP
is questionable. Along with the new 'atomic hydrogen' with 5X thrust,
then an SSTP cargo hauler should be immediately possible.

Now you know why I am upset with NASA announcing 12 years to the Moon
in capsules. 3 years and 3 billion dollars and a sub-orbital can be
built. 5 years and 5 billion dollars and an SSTO can be built. 8
years and 8 billion dollars and a SSTP can be built. Why is NASA
taking 12 years to send an old fashioned rocket with an ancient capsule
on it to the Moon?


tomcat

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

Sorry, can't talk about it.




Yeah, I'll trust that. :-D




Yeah, as they say:

Those who say don't know and those who know, don't say.



I thought it was "those who know don't say, and those who don't
know...teach."
But I always think it's wise to play it safe with classified
information, lest Romulan cats try to pry it out of you:
http://www.navysecurity.navy.mil/st051704.htm

Pat

Here is a URL on nanotube fabric. You will even see a picture of the
fabric. It is very thin, appearing to cast a shadow on the table.

http://nanotechweb.org/articles/news/4/8/13/1#Zhang1


tomcat