A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 27th 10, 10:19 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Rick Jones[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 587
Default NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket

In sci.space.history Pat Flannery wrote:
On 10/27/2010 9:05 AM, Rick Jones wrote:
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


Oh yeah, the UN space pirates: "Strike your flag or I'm going to
issue a strongly-worded letter." :-D


Hey, don't belittle it - the reader could get a nasty paper cut from
it


Since space law is primarily based on the law of the open sea, you
could indeed have two nations at war with each other trying to
either destroy or seize each other's space assets. The Soviets were
concerned we were going to send a Apollo mission to try and board
one of their Salyut stations, And I saw at lest one magazine
illustration back around 1974-75 of two Soyuz grabbing control of
Skylab after our final mission to it.


Is that why the ApolloSoyuz docking adaptor came with the Apollo?-)
Heck, if the Soviets had made one of their own and then boosted Skylab
once or twice they might have actually been doing us a favor
Assuming they didn't spill borscht everywhere. They could have left a
couple plastic bags of vodka as station-warming gifts for when Shuttle
finally got there.

It probably didn't help the Soviet's paranoia that minus its solar
arrays, a Salyut would fit in the Shuttle's cargo bay.


Let me guess - they thought it would launch from a secret site in a
volcano on a Japanese island?

rick jones
--
Process shall set you free from the need for rational thought.
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...
Ads
  #12  
Old October 27th 10, 10:31 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Rick Jones[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 587
Default NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket

In sci.space.history Pat Flannery wrote:
Explain how SpaceX is getting ready to do their second Falcon 9
launch with a operational standard Dragon capsule on it for a
complete orbital mission and recovery, while NASA's efforts in the
same direction haven't even yielded a operational version of the
first stage of the Ares I booster?


One not only needs bucks to get Buck Rogers, but one must also be able
to focus those bucks rather than be forced to peanut butter them
across congressional districts. Or, if forced to peanut butter them,
one needs BUCKS rather than bucks or Bucks.

rick jones
--
oxymoron n, Hummer H2 with California Save Our Coasts and Oceans plates
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...
  #13  
Old October 27th 10, 11:53 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket

On 10/27/2010 9:05 AM, Rick Jones wrote:


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


Oh yeah, the UN space pirates: "Strike your flag or I'm going to issue a
strongly-worded letter." :-D
Since space law is primarily based on the law of the open sea, you could
indeed have two nations at war with each other trying to either destroy
or seize each other's space assets. The Soviets were concerned we were
going to send a Apollo mission to try and board one of their Salyut
stations, And I saw at lest one magazine illustration back around
1974-75 of two Soyuz grabbing control of Skylab after our final mission
to it.
It probably didn't help the Soviet's paranoia that minus its solar
arrays, a Salyut would fit in the Shuttle's cargo bay.

Pat

  #14  
Old October 28th 10, 12:00 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket

On 10/27/2010 11:35 AM, Ian Parker wrote:

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.


Explain how SpaceX is getting ready to do their second Falcon 9 launch
with a operational standard Dragon capsule on it for a complete orbital
mission and recovery, while NASA's efforts in the same direction haven't
even yielded a operational version of the first stage of the Ares I booster?

Pat
  #15  
Old October 28th 10, 12:03 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Alan Erskine[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,026
Default NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket

On 27/10/2010 9:58 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
On Oct 26, 11:46 am, Pat wrote:

Privateers? Space pirates?


Well, I think he just meant "private businessmen".


Exactly. I have a feeling Pat knew that, but the opportunity was too
good to pass up. :-)
  #16  
Old October 28th 10, 11:26 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Ian Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,554
Default NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket

On 28 Oct, 00:00, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 10/27/2010 11:35 AM, Ian Parker wrote:

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.


Explain how SpaceX is getting ready to do their second Falcon 9 launch
with a operational standard Dragon capsule on it for a complete orbital
mission and recovery, while NASA's efforts in the same direction haven't
even yielded a operational version of the first stage of the Ares I booster?

Pat


The Falcon is interesting. It is however NOT reusable. LEO payload is
4,500Kg in the normal configuration. Cost per launch is about $45M.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9

The "heavy" configuration is still on the drawing board. The "heavy"
is broadly comperable with Ariane 5. Ariane at present, like the old
Shuttle, has solid fuel boosters. It might be possible in the future
to replace solid fuel with the Falcon's LOX/Kerosene.

The cost of Ariane 5 is $120M per launch, but Ariane 5 has an 18,000Kg
LEO payload. Neither, as I understand it, is human space flight
qualified, although there is the possibility that Ariane

Energia is 88,000Kg. A real heavyweight.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/energia.htm

http://www.friends-partners.org/part...vs/energia.htm

Development cost was something over a billion roubles. Launch cost -
vague but probably comparable to Ariane 5.

This potted survey shows that if you want the lowest per Kg cost at
LEO you buy Russian. It is not as simple as that, there are political
questions and the cost may not be a true cost. The real comparison is
with Ariane 5.

This shows that Falcon, while an innovation is not so radically
different from other solutions. The real eye opener is Ariane 5. This
I think is because the Europeans, the French in particular had much
more consistent objectives than NASA. This analysis rubbishes Capitol
Hill but not necessarily NASA that has to live with the objectives
set.

Certainly the quality of the scientific brains that produced this
proposal is not in question.


- Ian Parker
  #17  
Old October 28th 10, 08:53 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket

On 10/27/2010 3:03 PM, Alan Erskine wrote:
On 27/10/2010 9:58 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
On Oct 26, 11:46 am, Pat wrote:

Privateers? Space pirates?


Well, I think he just meant "private businessmen".


Exactly. I have a feeling Pat knew that, but the opportunity was too
good to pass up. :-)


That was indeed the case. ;-)

Pat
  #18  
Old October 28th 10, 09:26 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket

On 10/28/2010 2:26 AM, Ian Parker wrote:

The cost of Ariane 5 is $120M per launch, but Ariane 5 has an 18,000Kg
LEO payload. Neither, as I understand it, is human space flight
qualified, although there is the possibility that Ariane



Ariane 5 was design to be man-rated, as originally one of its payloads
was to be the Hermes mini-shuttle; but the French decided that if they
optimized it to carry the Hermes it would be less economical as a
commercial launcher, and that was the main purpose it was developed for:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hermes.htm


Energia is 88,000Kg. A real heavyweight.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/energia.htm

http://www.friends-partners.org/part...vs/energia.htm



Yeah, but Energia is dead as a doornail despite Russian dreams of
somehow restarting the program. For starters, the four strap-on Zenit
boosters are made in Ukraine, not Russia, and Russia and Ukraine aren't
on very friendly terms...probably a result of Stalin starving between
seven and ten million Ukrainian farmers to death while exporting all the
wheat they grew to show the triumph of the Soviet collective farm concept.


Development cost was something over a billion roubles. Launch cost -
vague but probably comparable to Ariane 5.

This potted survey shows that if you want the lowest per Kg cost at
LEO you buy Russian. It is not as simple as that, there are political
questions and the cost may not be a true cost. The real comparison is
with Ariane 5.

This shows that Falcon, while an innovation is not so radically
different from other solutions. The real eye opener is Ariane 5. This
I think is because the Europeans, the French in particular had much
more consistent objectives than NASA. This analysis rubbishes Capitol
Hill but not necessarily NASA that has to live with the objectives
set.



The French were out to make a buck on commercial space launches; an idea
completely alien to NASA.


Certainly the quality of the scientific brains that produced this
proposal is not in question.



Ares I/Orion was supposed to be an easy-to-build system that could be
done quickly, and at low cost.
Then it began...Orion weighed too much, so the ground landing via
airbags or landing rockets and reusable heatshield got replaced by a sea
landing and non-reusable ablative heatshield.
But that was still too heavy to use a stock four-segment Shuttle SRB for
the first stage, so that had to be replaced with a five segment one.
Then it was found that the upper stage still wouldn't give sufficient
power to get the Orion into orbit unless it fired its service module
engine once separating from the second stage, cutting into its
propellant supply.
Whatever these scientific brains were good at, figuring out the math of
what their spacecraft was going to weigh vs. their planned booster's
lifting capabilities apparently wasn't one of their gifts.

Pat



  #19  
Old October 29th 10, 11:38 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Ian Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,554
Default NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket

On 28 Oct, 21:26, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 10/28/2010 2:26 AM, Ian Parker wrote:

The cost of Ariane 5 is $120M per launch, but Ariane 5 has an 18,000Kg
LEO payload. Neither, as I understand it, is human space flight
qualified, although there is the possibility that Ariane


Ariane 5 was design to be man-rated, as originally one of its payloads
was to be the Hermes mini-shuttle; but the French decided that if they
optimized it to carry the Hermes it would be less economical as a
commercial launcher, and that was the main purpose it was developed for:http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hermes.htm

Energia is 88,000Kg. A real heavyweight.


http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/energia.htm


http://www.friends-partners.org/part...vs/energia.htm


Yeah, but Energia is dead as a doornail despite Russian dreams of
somehow restarting the program. For starters, the four strap-on Zenit
boosters are made in Ukraine, not Russia, and Russia and Ukraine aren't
on very friendly terms...probably a result of Stalin starving between
seven and ten million Ukrainian farmers to death while exporting all the
wheat they grew to show the triumph of the Soviet collective farm concept.

Development cost was something over a billion roubles. Launch cost -
vague but probably comparable to Ariane 5.


This potted survey shows that if you want the lowest per Kg cost at
LEO you buy Russian. It is not as simple as that, there are political
questions and the cost may not be a true cost. The real comparison is
with Ariane 5.


This shows that Falcon, while an innovation is not so radically
different from other solutions. The real eye opener is Ariane 5. This
I think is because the Europeans, the French in particular had much
more consistent objectives than NASA. This analysis rubbishes Capitol
Hill but not necessarily NASA that has to live with the objectives
set.


The French were out to make a buck on commercial space launches; an idea
completely alien to NASA.

Certainly the quality of the scientific brains that produced this
proposal is not in question.


Ares I/Orion was supposed to be an easy-to-build system that could be
done quickly, and at low cost.
Then it began...Orion weighed too much, so the ground landing via
airbags or landing rockets and reusable heatshield got replaced by a sea
landing and non-reusable ablative heatshield.
But that was still too heavy to use a stock four-segment Shuttle SRB for
the first stage, so that had to be replaced with a five segment one.
Then it was found that the upper stage still wouldn't give sufficient
power to get the Orion into orbit unless it fired its service module
engine once separating from the second stage, cutting into its
propellant supply.
Whatever these scientific brains were good at, figuring out the math of
what their spacecraft was going to weigh vs. their planned booster's
lifting capabilities apparently wasn't one of their gifts.

Pat


Ares is a pup. there is little doubt about that. Linguistics - Ares
was the Greek god of war. Ares and Mars are therefore synonymous. Ares
was conceived of as taking humans there. There are a number of
problems, weight is only one of them, oscillation is another. This
should indeed have been dealt with with good basic engineering.

It would in fact have been better to have pulled Saturn 5 out of
retirement and fitted it with modern electronics. However the
overriding fact is that Humans on "Ares" are completely under
resourced. This is the root cause of the problem.

Don't do at all what you can't finish.


- Ian Parker
  #20  
Old October 29th 10, 07:44 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,176
Default NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket

On Oct 26, 2:07*pm, William Mook wrote:
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 Saturnshttp://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/HIGH/6870792.jpg

In the 1970s they switched to External Tankshttp://mm04.nasaimages.org/MediaManager/srvr?mediafile=/Size4/nasaNAS...

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.


Your conventional LH2/LOx stuff is good enough as is, along with
powerful ion thrusters should more than do the trick, but not if
you're never in charge of anything that matters.

Since you refuse to blame anyone except yourself, and insist that the
past isn't ever supposed to affect or influence the present or future,
then why don't you fix whatever's wrong with yourself, and then show
the rest of us exactly how it's all done faster, better and cheaper.
Try to remember that I'm one of the few that's actually on your side.

Go to your rich and powerful friends and get their unlimited financial
support, and start doing exactly as you say. According to your own
advise, in no time at all you'll become another trillionaire that pays
little if any income or business tax, just like most of your best
friends that are already trillionaires or at least multi-billionaires
keeping most of their loot and other forms of hoarded wealth offshore
or in some other perfectly legal tax-avoidance investments that remain
untouchable to anyone except yourself.

~ BG
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.