|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#701
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#702
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#703
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#704
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#705
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#706
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#707
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#708
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#709
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#710
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
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 |