NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture

Brad Guth wrote:
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.


Never heard of h2o2 before. Makes things burn good, eh? Any chance
you could give me some detail on this? What kinds of things can it
enrich? How expensive is it to make or distribute? Have experiments
been done?


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.

He3 does seem to be getting suppressed. Everything coming from the
University of Wisconsin where they have had a He3 reactor up and
running is super fantastic. We just need to go get it.


tomcat

"Len" wrote:

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

You stated earlier that the water would not be required to be launched
into a specific orbit or altitude - only that it be launched. Now you
are adding complexity...

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

tomcat wrote:

Never heard of h2o2 before. Makes things burn good, eh?

You've never heard of hydrogen peroxide?

Paul

tomcat;
Never heard of h2o2 before. Makes things burn good, eh? Any chance
you could give me some detail on this? What kinds of things can it
enrich? How expensive is it to make or distribute? Have experiments
been done?
You should know of H2O2 as Hydrogen Peroxide, though usually retail for
good moron-proofing reasons at 3%, commercially available at 30% and
otherwise special order for the typical mad scientist as obtained at
70%, which is starting to get somewhat energy testy.

H2O2 is exactly what it sounds like it is. It's good old hydrogen(H)
with a double extra dosage of Oxygen (2O2), thus in concentrations of
70% or greater offers nearly good enough fuel density as is, although
if utilized in addition to or entirely in place of consuming
atmosphere, such as on behalf of the combustion of coal or whatever's
diesel fuel or kerosene(C12H26), it's absolutely terrific.

Of course, you can also feed it directly into any natural gas, coal,
fuel-oil or even corn fed infernal in place of having to forcibly
induce massive volumes of compressed atmosphere at sufficient pressure
that's unfortunately mostly comprised of worthless N2, and thereby lo
and behold is exactly why a clean and easily injectable fluid of H2O2
makes almost anything burn extremely hot and clean, especially hotter
and cleaner the closer to 95% or better grade of H2O2.

I believe the best dosage ratio is between 7.25:1 and 7.5:1, thus up to
7=2E5 kg of H2O2 per kg of diesel or similar fossil fuel-oil. I'm usually
confused about this ratio being in terms of mass or volume, at any rate
the mixture is always based upon using a good amount of H2O2 per
whatever else is getting consumed, thus greatly reducing if not
entirely eliminating the consumption of raw atmosphere, thereby making
the IRRCE(Internal Rocket Rotary Combustion Engine) or (internal Rotary
Rocket Combustion Engine) form of motor into an extremely efficient and
rather powerful yet compact per kg worth of engine mass. If need be
there's no problem putting 1000 SHP under the hood of Hummer. Of
course, at 95+% H2O2 can also be utilized quite nicely as a mono-fuel,
just not as capable of delivery as much bang/kg.

The commercial methods of forcibly obtaining the H2O2 to any great
extent of purity is an energy consuming process (energy-in =3D energy-out
X eff), whereas the efficiency of conversion is likely to be not better
than 75%. The energy transferring from one form of energy being of
electrons into the process of forcing the addition of an extra element
of (O) to the ordinary H2O(water) =3D H2O2(Hydrogen Peroxide). However,
if space and time is on your side, there are a few perfectly natural
stills and/or home-brew electrolytic methods that I'm fairly certain
will keep your neighbors for roughly a hundred meters in all directions
on their toes day and night (it's that powerful). Under the right
conditions, one kg worth of pure H2O2 could pretty much vaporise a good
sized home from the face of Earth, thus something less than 100 proof
H2O2 unless fully crystallized and/or frozen solid is what we'll likely
see unless someone first manages to supply us with the He3/fusion
energy as the safer alternative, although we'll still require that
He3/fusion energy provide the likes of LH2 and/or H2O2 if our 5,000 kg
aerobreaking SUV Hummers are going to obtain good performance and
milage without further polluting the environment. A couple of 100 kg
H2O2/aluminum batteries which should conservatively yield 200 kwh seems
like a perfectly safe and sane alternative for the all electric
Hummer-E.

Once having obtained and/or created a good purity of H2O2, and if
you're still alive to talk about it, now you've got something that
looks almost exactly like water although weighs quite a bit more (1.45
g/cm3), and it even somewhat freezes like water (much safer frozen
solid) but otherwise takes 150=B0C in order to boil off at one bar.
Under proper and well understood methods of storage, H2O2 is relatively
safe, but don't push your luck with any trial and error notions
because, in most all cases you'll error big-time.

Besides the prospects of supplementing or entirely replacing the
consumption of atmosphere, you can also obtain a rather terrific
H2O2/aluminum battery worth of energy density that'll knock your socks
off. I believe I found research stipulating up to 3.47 kwh/kg (12.5
mj/kg) is technically possible, with commercially demonstrated
prototypes of 1 kwh/kg being almost off the shelf.

Of course, if we're speaking of diverting truly spare/surplus energy
that's having been created from the sorts of green/renewable resources
of solar-stirling/PV, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric, then whatever
the conversion or energy transferring process of making H2O into H2O2
becomes somewhat of a non-issue. The next trick is with regard to safe
storage, delivering and safely distributing the energy products of LH2
or H2O2 so that it's robotically injected into the Hummer's specialized
tank that's obviously a fairly large item but also a tough composite
sort of tank, along with a relatively small diesel fuel tank at the
opposite side or other end so that it's unlikely to externally mix
these two elements other than within the dual rail injected IRRCE.

He3 does seem to be getting suppressed. Everything coming from the
University of Wisconsin where they have had a He3 reactor up and
running is super fantastic. We just need to go get it.
Supposedly there's thousands if not megatonnes worth of ready-made He3
upon the moon. If we only had the LSE-CM/ISS up and running, as then it
would have become relatively safe, energy efficient and simple to have
robotically excavated, processed and thus extracted He3 for an even
much easier task of shipping it back to Earth. Of course, anything of
such a clean and much safer alternative as He3/fusion is seriously
taboo/nondisclosure as far as the coal, NG and oil cultism is
concerned, and that's not even limited to the the pack leading American
energy cartel.

However, as I've stipulated before; with H2O2 is where a commercial
utility energy producing plant could burn the likes of the lowest
grades of coal or just oily-dirt as super-hot and extremely clean to
the bone, with as little if any consumption of atmosphere. With H2O2
easily produced on site, as conceivably powered from even a small
He3/fusion reactor is how the high purity of H2O2 can be made safely
available for the clean burning of fossil fuel, with whatever's surplus
H2O2 for distribution to consumers that need to keep their Hummers
continually on the road for no apparent good reason.
~

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.

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

tomcat wrote:

Never heard of h2o2 before. Makes things burn good, eh?

You've never heard of hydrogen peroxide?

I'm assuming 'tomcat' is merely engaging in loon-baiting.

tomcat,
That's a perfectly terrific though somewhat outdated link
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/FALL2001/lecture25.pdf(meaning as of
October 31, 2001) to what's been publicly available for years, which
isn't worth hardly 10% of what was actually being accomplished in
top-secret facilities at the same time.

He3/fusion is here and it does work, with the minor exception that
there's damn little natural He3 upon Earth. I'm certain by now there's
full scale units in the process of final testing or going into full
power in the very near future.

Besides He3 within the moon (near if not just upon the extremely dusty
surface), there's radioactive as well as many other potentially
valuable elements to being had, especially since our icy proto-moon was
NOT made of Earth. There's also a likely geothermal core if not a bit
thermal nuclear induced amount of core, which is entirely better off
than what Mars has to work with, except for the likely aspects that
Mars should have a greater mass of sequestered raw ice below the deck.
~

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.

Derek Lyons wrote:
"Len" wrote:

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

You stated earlier that the water would not be required to be launched
into a specific orbit or altitude - only that it be launched. Now you
are adding complexity...

D.

You raise three issues, I believe:

1) Concentration of water/propellants versus scattered delivery;
2) Choice of altitude;
3) Choice of inclination.

1) Although I needed to clarify this point, I had always
meant that any one launch company would deliver to a specific
orbit. Although it would be obviously good to have everone
delivering water/propellants to the same orbit, the choice
of that orbit would likely favor particular launch sites and
companies. I'm not sure how to handle that; I would prefer
to keep the bureaucracy out of deciding how it is done and
by whom.

2) Choice of altitude: This question is easier. I had
earlier stated a minimum of 450-km to minimize drag
considerations. Performance and radiation considerations
tend to make higher altitudes unattractive. However,
equatorial orbits are likely to be desirable for deep-space
missions that are highly dependent upon lots of rendezvous
opportunities. Higher altitudes may be more appropriate
for equatorial orbits.

3) Choice of inclination: At the present moment, I would
favor launch due east out Wallops Island. I don't think
any other launch site would result in as low launch facility
costs for our type of vehicle. The resulting 38 degree
orbit should not result in any serious performance penalties
for launch of large components from Cape Kennedy. However,
selection of any specific orbital inclination would likely
discriminate against other launch vehicles planned from other
sites --particularly higher inclination sites. However,
inclinations higher than about 38 or 40 degrees probably result
in unnecessarily high performance penalties. Alaskan launch
sites are attractive for some missions, but deep-space
exploration is not likely to be one of them. Eventually,
the strongest case might be made for equatorial orbits
for performance and operational reasons. One wants to be
within about 1 degree of the equator to take full advantage
of the benefits of an equatorial orbit. At this time,
logistic and political considerations probably make other
inclinations more attractive.

If forced to make an immediate selection, I would choose a
40-degree inclination with a 450-km circular altitude.
Gaurantees might also apply to limited launch quantities--
100 tonnes or less for any one launch company--to other
orbits for experimental purposes, as described below.
Comments?

Perhaps the initial gaurantees should be kept quite flexible.
The initial launches might be for experimental quantities to
address questions such as what type of payload is most
appropriate: water for electrolysis, LOX/LH2, LOX/kerosene?
Initial launches might also experiment with electrolysis,
types of handling and long-term storage facilities, and
suitability for interfacing with other component vehicles
and equipment intended for long-term storage. If a primary
tank-farm orbit has not already been selected, then, at some
point, NASA or some other appropriate entity would decide which
orbit should serve as the primary, initial LEO departure point.
Additional departure points may be appropriate later. Our 1967
proposal considered a combination of both LEO and high-orbit
departure points.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com

George Evans wrote:
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


The more complexity during a mission, the greater probability of
failure -- Murphy's Law Paraphrased.

Besides, Astronauts would rather play chess on the ship's computer, or
talk to a HAL 9000 for . . . companionship.

Also, NASA and Private Enterprise need to develop improved handling in
all environments, space and Earth, of liquid hydrogen. It is great
stuff, clean and efficient, only the handling of cryogenics is holding
us back on using it.

Previous problem with LH2 was density: It was too voluminous. New
'slush' tanks have solved that. Even if 'atomic hydrogen' takes a
while to be practical, the use of slush tanks will take us into a new
era of capability with LH2.


tomcat

tomcat wrote:


The more complexity during a mission, the greater probability of
failure -- Murphy's Law Paraphrased.

Staging at plateaus is one way of dealing with complexity.
Consider a multi-stage HLV versus filling propellant tanks
at a tank farm in LEO. The tank farm obviously is a complex
system. However, once the bugs are worked out of this system,
the complexity of a checked-out space system with full tanks
in LEO is largely independent of the complexities of the
tank farm system. The multi-stage HLV, on the other hand,
has the added complexity of perhaps two additional stages to
get the LEO departure to LEO.

Besides, Astronauts would rather play chess on the ship's computer, or
talk to a HAL 9000 for . . . companionship.

Also, NASA and Private Enterprise need to develop improved handling in
all environments, space and Earth, of liquid hydrogen. It is great
stuff, clean and efficient, only the handling of cryogenics is holding
us back on using it.

Yes, we should be doing more of this type of thing
in space. It also fits in with the gauranteed market
plan that I advocate--at least the version that would
encourge experiments in the early part of the program.

Previous problem with LH2 was density: It was too voluminous. New
'slush' tanks have solved that. Even if 'atomic hydrogen' takes a
while to be practical, the use of slush tanks will take us into a new
era of capability with LH2.

Slush was practical 40 years ago. It is mainly valuable
as a heat sink; the additional density is a plus, but
hardly a make or break benefit. However, your suggestion
of learning how to deal with hydrogen and slush on orbit
is good.


tomcat

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com

Thank-you Brad Guth for your explanation of H2O2. I learned a good
deal.

By the way, going to Mars is easier than most people think. Sure it is
millions of miles distant, but the same thrust needed to go to the Moon
can take you to Mars -- just a longer drive.

And, you will need some extra fuel to do more than orbit Mars. If an
orbital mission is all that is wanted then a spaceplane designed for
the Moon could, if properly stocked for the extra time involved, go to
Mars and do a slingshot for the return.

All of this is much more possible than most people think. This is why
I have been extolling the brand new, not yet mass manufactured,
nanotube fabric. The University of Texas at Dallas has made some of
the cloth already. It is fantastic.

The nanotube fabric is 600 times lighter than steel for a given amount
of strength. This means SSTO, the Moon . . . and Mars. That is what a
substantial amount of weight reduction can do for a spaceplane.

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.

Gentlemen, Outer Space is wide open for human exploration right now.
Why is NASA talking about 12 years in the future?


tomcat