|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket
Powered by microwaves or lasers from the ground...sounds a bit much from
a space agency that can't figure out how to get to the Moon on their budget: http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/ar...rship/19683450 As to why something designed to fly around inside the solar system is called a "starship" is something known only to the NASA PAO. :-D Pat |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket
On 10/25/2010 2:20 PM, Pat Flannery wrote:
Powered by microwaves or lasers from the ground...sounds a bit much from a space agency that can't figure out how to get to the Moon on their budget: http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/ar...rship/19683450 As to why something designed to fly around inside the solar system is called a "starship" is something known only to the NASA PAO. :-D And while we're working on that, it's also time for the US to become "Team America - Asteroid Police": http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/usmust...e advisersays Since asteroids present a threat to the entire planet's surface, this would be an ideal project for the UN to fund, with each country kicking in funding in proportion to its total land area. Try that one on for size, Putin. :-) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket
On Oct 25, 4:34*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Since asteroids present a threat to the entire planet's surface, this would be an ideal project for the UN to fund, with each country kicking in funding in proportion to its total land area. Try that one on for size, Putin. :-) This would be a more serious issue for Canada... Russia has a population of about 150 million people, but our country has one of about 30 million. John Savard |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket
On 26/10/2010 9:20 AM, Pat Flannery wrote:
Powered by microwaves or lasers from the ground...sounds a bit much from a space agency that can't figure out how to get to the Moon on their budget: I think most people have lost faith in NASA by now. I personally am waiting for private organisations to get there. I think privateers will get there looooong before NASA does, more's the pitty. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket
On Oct 25, 5:20*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Powered by microwaves or lasers from the ground... Sounds like some version of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam-powered_propulsion .. As to why something designed to fly around inside the solar system is called a "starship" is something known only to the NASA PAO. :-D Well, the sun is a star, so I suppose the PAO could be cut some slack. ;-) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket
On 10/25/2010 7:52 PM, Alan Erskine wrote:
On 26/10/2010 9:20 AM, Pat Flannery wrote: Powered by microwaves or lasers from the ground...sounds a bit much from a space agency that can't figure out how to get to the Moon on their budget: I think most people have lost faith in NASA by now. I personally am waiting for private organisations to get there. I think privateers will get there looooong before NASA does, more's the pitty. Privateers? Space pirates? "Argh, raise the solar sail and clear the lasers fer action me hearties; it's after the Frenchie's lunar freighter, her hold brimming with helium 3, that we go today. A double ration of Tang fer the first man that lays a magnetic cable on her, and then back to old England for our split of the prize money, and all the pretty wenches in London." ....but little did the crew of the "Lady Diana's Revenge" suspect that the French were waiting for them, and that the freighter "Milady de Winter" was as full of cunning tricks as her namesake. ;-) Pat |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket
Gradual improvements on core capabilities are what's needed.
Consider the Michoud Assembly Facility run by Marshall Space Flight Center In the 1950s and 60s they worked on Saturns http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/HIGH/6870792.jpg In the 1970s they switched to External Tanks http://mm04.nasaimages.org/MediaMana...n&profileid=41 These External Tanks using a design I cam up with become a building block for a very large launcher as I describe here; http://www.scribd.com/doc/30943696/ETDHLRLV To support the development of solar power satellites that beam infrared laser energy to 8,000 ground stations at the same time - making enough money to support continued operation of the system by generating a total of 10,000 MW and earning $4.38 billion per year per satellite. http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/S...-Satellite-GEO This power satellite can operate at GEO to produce 10,000 MW as mentioned. More advanced systems can be orbited nearer the Sun to produce 220,000 MW - upping revenue to $30 billion per year per satellite even while reducing costs from $0.05 per kWh to $0.015 per kWh. A 220,000 MW laser beam energizing a laser propelled rocket that produces an exhaust speed of 22.44 km/sec produces 1,000 metric tons force (the same produced in the ET derived rocket) - but reduces the propellant fraction required to get to orbit (9.2 km/sec) to 0.337 or 263 metric tons of hydrogen alone. Allowing the 50 metric ton empty vehicle carry 467 metric tons to orbit as a single stage vehicle!! The same vehicle - when powered by laser rockets with 22.44 km/sec exhaust speed can carry 315 metric tons to the moon and back or even Mars and back using 415 metric tons of hydrogen in the same 50 metric ton vehicle. This is the capability of laser rocket. But we need to do things well regardless of the technology core. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket
On Oct 26, 11:46*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Privateers? Space pirates? Well, I think he just meant "private businessmen". Space piracy is unlikely to be profitable. And things getting so messy in space that Earth governments actually go to the length of issuing _letters of marque_ by means of which people could be privateers rather than mere pirates... not coming any time soon. I think we can leave such things to Elizabeth Moon's novels about Kylara Vatta for the time being. John Savard |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket
In sci.space.policy Quadibloc wrote:
On Oct 26, 11:46?am, Pat Flannery wrote: Privateers? Space pirates? Well, I think he just meant "private businessmen". Space piracy is unlikely to be profitable. And things getting so messy in space that Earth governments actually go to the length of issuing _letters of marque_ by means of which people could be privateers rather than mere pirates... not coming any time soon. Since no terrestrial governments "own" (speaking legally rather than practically) space wouldn't those letters of marque have to come from the UN?-) Privateers would then be permitted to paint their ships that lovely light blue color rick jones -- The glass is neither half-empty nor half-full. The glass has a leak. The real question is "Can it be patched?" these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket
On 26 Oct, 04:52, Alan Erskine wrote:
On 26/10/2010 9:20 AM, Pat Flannery wrote: Powered by microwaves or lasers from the ground...sounds a bit much from a space agency that can't figure out how to get to the Moon on their budget: I think most people have lost faith in NASA by now. *I personally am waiting for private organisations to get there. *I think privateers will get there looooong before NASA does, more's the pitty. NASA does essentially what it is told to do by the folks on Capitol Hill. Blame them for its shortcomings. If you say "Go to the Moon as soon as possible - cost not important" that is what they will do and the Saturn C5 will be the result. NASA is now being told to look at problems from all angles and don't be afraid to come up with things which are either beyond today's technology or stretching it. This is in fact stretching todays technology rather than providing something totally beyond it. You have a touching faith in private enterprise. Private enterprise can do amazing things, it set Google up. Private enterprise though :- 1) Cannot work miracles. 2) Is out to make a profit. Virgin Galactic is not a particularly good example. It is an expensive sub orbital ride. For the price I would want an orbital flight. Lets face it the guys in NASA or ESA are the smartest around. If they are told to brainstorm they will, in all probability, come up with rather better ideas than the typical member of this group. This idea is futuristic but not mad. Let us look at current technology. Focussing a laser on a rocket depends on the ability to focus a large number of lasers using phase shifts. Phase shifting and phase locking is fairly well established in lasers. The technology of a phase conjugate mirror is also fairly well established. Can NASA do it? You should not simply say you have lost faith. If they are given funding they will do it. As William Mook points out this is related to other technologies like SSP. Question :- Is the power source on the ground or in space? suspect that lasers from the ground are optimal in going to LEO and that microwaves generated in space are optimal for deep space. A deep space craft will have a flimsy parabolic reflector and a plasma thruster as its propulsive system. Question is NASA the organization to do this? This depends on what instructions it receives from on high. I certainly don't think someone like Richard Bransom has any inkling of how to do it. NASA/ESA/ Glavkosmos are the experts. I don't think there is any real doubt about that. Where else would you find the same level of expertise. One quick point - starship? Within the solar system plasma will provide thrust. To travel at c/10 to c/2 you will use the Forward concept which is the pressure of light itself. - Ian Parker |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Super Gravity & Super Spin Equivalent | G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] | Misc | 0 | April 1st 07 12:22 PM |
super agency merge RSA,ESA JSA , NASA, et al | Lynndel K. Humphreys | Space Shuttle | 16 | November 18th 05 01:15 PM |
Russian Super Rocket | Rod Stevenson | Technology | 21 | February 5th 04 04:22 AM |
Russian Super Rocket | Rod Stevenson | History | 34 | February 5th 04 04:22 AM |
Russian super rocket? | Rod Stevenson | Technology | 6 | November 10th 03 09:37 AM |