NASA and the Vision thing

In sci.space.policy wrote:

Conventional rockets, the Shuttle, Ariane and the Saturn C5 have
cryogenic upper stages. This gives an exhaust velocity of some 4km/sec.
To get to the Moon you need a total return impulse of approx 16km/sec.
Roughly 11km to escape the earth and 2.74*2 km/sec to land and then

Yes, so for example in case of Ariane, you want to launch twice to have
comfortable margings - preferably with the drop taks on the first launch.

escape from the Moon. Now this represents a mass ratio of e^4. Apollo
had the mother ship in a parking orbit. A parking orbit reduces the

The mother ship???

There are alternatives. There if the N word. Fission giving specific
impuses or round about 12km/s might be used for trips from LEO. If you
could fuse He3 and Deuteriium (Tritium and Neutrons are no good in
space) you could achieve 40-50km/s no problem.

Sorry, but you have your terminology and numbers seriously mixed up.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

And the reaction of the great, unwashed taxpayers who will foot the bill is
"Who is Elle Marche?"

Ariane which works unlike some things. The Shuttle is a complete fraud.
It is more expensive and works less well than the things it replaced.

What you've done, like so many other kooks, is heard a few rumors involving
"someday, maybe" underfunded technology and believed the hype. Your argument
is unpersuasive.

Perhaps but manned space flight withut new technology is a dead end.
The exhaust velocity with cryogenic fuel, the best available is 4km/s.
To achieve any given impulse you need e^I/4km/s of your mass to be
fuel. That is before deadweight and other considerations are brought
in. To get 8km/s more you need to ferry uup the loads of e^2 rockets.
The Moon (return) represents some 16km/sec (can be reduced slighly as
in Apollo by having a mother ship). Basically the Saturn took
astronauts to the Moon. Saturn was the pinnacle of rocket design, it
represented a mature technology. Anything else, including the shuttle
has worked less well. I just don't understand why it was ever built. It
represents a clear step backwards. The ISS and any ideas of space
stations are simply dead end technology. They are simply soaking up
money and doing precious little.

Mars requires about 20km/s + very large consumable loads. $80e9 seems a
fair price. If we are stupid enough to go there nothing will have been
achieved, the price for subsequent visits will be just as great. In
fact a visit to the Moon with the Shuttle/Space Station would cost a
dickins of a lot more than an Apollo flight. NASA has indeed gone into
reverse.

New technology is required. What shape? Unmanned exploration has always
been successful. We should be sending up a repair robot (non
returnable) on Ariane (qui marche!) to serviuce Hubble. To servicew H
we only need Virtual Reality, to service something deeper into space we
need AI. AI and robotics are technologies with a future.

A Von Neumann machine is a logical extension of robotic exploration and
would be my prime candidate for "new technology". There are other
possibilities. A fission based rocets could deliver specific impulses
of 12km/s from LEO. And He3/Deuterium would achieve 50 quite easily ans
might operate from ground level. He/Tritium with its neutrons is
unsuitable for space propulsion.

November 25, 2005

wrote:

Ariane which works unlike some things. The Shuttle is a complete fraud.

Those 112 successful manned flights never happened, eh?

It is more expensive and works less well than the things it replaced.

And what manned launcher would that be? Saturn?

What you've done, like so many other kooks, is heard a few rumors involving
"someday, maybe" underfunded technology and believed the hype. Your argument
is unpersuasive.


Perhaps but manned space flight withut new technology is a dead end.
The exhaust velocity with cryogenic fuel, the best available is 4km/s.

Actually, it's closer to 4.5 km/s.

To achieve any given impulse you need e^I/4km/s of your mass to be
fuel. That is before deadweight and other considerations are brought
in. To get 8km/s more you need to ferry uup the loads of e^2 rockets.
The Moon (return) represents some 16km/sec (can be reduced slighly as
in Apollo by having a mother ship). Basically the Saturn took
astronauts to the Moon. Saturn was the pinnacle of rocket design, it
represented a mature technology.

They're gone. It's over. Get over it.

Anything else, including the shuttle has worked less well.

Right, we can launch microsatellites with Saturn Vs.

I just don't understand why it was ever built.

It was built. We are flying it. Get over it.

It represents a clear step backwards. The ISS and any ideas of space
stations are simply dead end technology. They are simply soaking up
money and doing precious little.

That doesn't seem to gybe with their existance, and our need to do
something about them.

Mars requires about 20km/s + very large consumable loads. $80e9 seems a
fair price. If we are stupid enough to go there nothing will have been
achieved, the price for subsequent visits will be just as great. In
fact a visit to the Moon with the Shuttle/Space Station would cost a
dickins of a lot more than an Apollo flight. NASA has indeed gone into
reverse.

True, there is this great need to recoupe or STS and ISS investments,
by using them to leverage a new, better, less expensive SSTO / RLV.
It definitely won't be a Saturn V, though. Get used to that result.

New technology is required. What shape?

Of the cryogenic SSTO and RLV shape.

Unmanned exploration has always
been successful. We should be sending up a repair robot (non
returnable) on Ariane (qui marche!) to serviuce Hubble.

And what repair robot would that be pray tell.

To servicew H
we only need Virtual Reality, to service something deeper into space we
need AI. AI and robotics are technologies with a future.

Right, and just continue to launch them with expensive expendable.

A Von Neumann machine is a logical extension of robotic exploration and
would be my prime candidate for "new technology". There are other
possibilities. A fission based rocets could deliver specific impulses
of 12km/s from LEO. And He3/Deuterium would achieve 50 quite easily ans
might operate from ground level. He/Tritium with its neutrons is
unsuitable for space propulsion.

Right. Nuke the Earth. Let the nanobots have it. Got it.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://cosmic.lifeform.org
http://www.lifeform.net/talkshop

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Rusty wrote:

In this case there's not much difference between a vision and a
nightmare.




Congress is looking around for places to cut money without offending too
much of the populace with the 2006 elections coming up.


With the deficits we all have to tighten the belt. I hear the military
is having to make do with only a billion a day now.


It could be that
since Bush came up with this they see it as his, not their,
responsibility to kill it.


They'll stall till after the midterms as you say. But with the
repubs steadily imploding, they seem to have a growing
obsession with places far-far-away.


Griffin obviously seriously screwed up his math when he said this could
all be done with only minimal added funds.


He forget to factor in the pork index. The repubs are
padding the ground for the crash landing to come.


s




Pat

wrote in message
ups.com...
"Who is Elle Marche?"

It means it works in contrast to the Shuttle which has problems
working.

I understand that. However, almost nobody else does.


What you've done, like so many other kooks, is heard a few rumors
involving
"someday, maybe" underfunded technology and believed the hype. Your
argument
is unpersuasive.

Conventional rockets, the Shuttle, Ariane and the Saturn C5 have
cryogenic upper stages. This gives an exhaust velocity of some 4km/sec.

And right there you've just put your involuntary venture capitalists to
sleep.

Telling the American taxpayer to stop using homegrown technology and to buy
foreign rockets, particularly French made products, will not only get you
laughed at, but might even get you Sibreled.

If you argue tech, you will not get funded. Logic is not relevant to the
process. If it was, we'd be making active progress to Mars using some of
Zubrin's ideas.

"Scott Hedrick" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
Telling the American taxpayer to stop using homegrown technology and to
buy foreign rockets, particularly French made products, will not only get
you laughed at,
As an aside, Ariane is not french, it's european ( and I'm saying this,
even though I'm french ). But I agree that doesn't change the NIH factor.

"frédéric haessig" wrote in message
...

"Scott Hedrick" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
As an aside, Ariane is not french, it's european

To Joe Lunchbox Taxpayer, it's the same thing.

It's not fair or right, but that's the way it is. If the rocket were called
the Brittania, there'd be a greater likelihood of making a deal. Frankly, I
see no good reason *not* to use it occasionally. However, the funding
process for US government projects is as stupid as the funding process for
ESA. The big difference is that the ESA could have avoided it,
*particularly* since the inherent failure of the distribution process used
was well known.

You're seriously confusing exhaust velocity, delta-V and specific
impulse. Go take an astrodynamics class or at least read a book and do the math.

Hydrogen going through Uranium Oxide close to the melting point. The
Nerva engine was reckoned to be 3 times better than a chemical
propellant. With fusion you directly mix the stream of gases. 50km/s
since you are not dependent on solid materials.

Right, and just continue to launch them with expensive expendable.

This is just NASA propaganda. Expendibles cost LESS than the Shuttle
(per kg)

"Scott Hedrick" a écrit dans le message de news:
...

It's not fair or right, but that's the way it is. If the rocket were
called the Brittania, there'd be a greater likelihood of making a deal.
Frankly, I see no good reason *not* to use it occasionally. However, the
funding process for US government projects is as stupid as the funding
process for ESA. The big difference is that the ESA could have avoided it,
*particularly* since the inherent failure of the distribution process used
was well known.
Well, for the US it's a law.
For ESA, an internal rule.

However, ESA rule is more flexible than US laws, as it allows to pay for
non-european launcher.

The problem is getting the budget approved by elected official. In the US
it's called pork-barrelling. In ESA it's called geographical return. In this
case, the US system is more flexible and outwardly more efficient. The ESA
system has the advantage of being aboveboard.