A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Commercial Moonship



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 13th 16, 01:19 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Commercial Moonship

On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 10:29:56 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 11:58:45 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
jacob navia wrote:

Le 10/09/2016 Ã* 09:12, William Mook a écrit :

snip


It would be interesting that instead the numbers you write how you come
to those numbers.


He generally pulls them out of his ass.


That's what you do. I generally use FEA solver on CAE.


You generally make **** up and lie.


No I don't. You do.



The weight of each tank's structure is 34.29 metric tons.

Probably. There is no way to know since you do not tell the reader what
is the general outlook of what you are describing.


And no reason to believe that the structure weight he describes


Yes there is since its based on actual results of engineering analysis.


Show your work.


I do, that's why I give papers at conferences and you don't.



(which
is no doubt based on Shuttle ET numbers or general 'mass fractions'
for large tanks) could support the several hundred tons he's going to
stack on top of it (his eighth 'tank' which makes up his second stage)
under several g's of acceleration.


You've never fallen on a football you were carrying after being tackled have you? If you had, and given any thought to it, you'd see how a pressurised cryogenic tank in tension can support substantial external loads.


And so we see the depth of Mookie's engineering...


Obviously you've never read any of the textbooks or papers that explain in simple terms how pressurised propellant tanks can be made less massive in tension by pressurising them. If you had read such materials you would clearly understand the reference and plainly see why your compressive column model is WRONG in this context.

As per usual, YOU are confused and blaming others for your confusion.

http://www.astronautix.com/a/atlasa.html

"The most radical feature of the RTV-A-2 was its internal pressure stabilized flight structure. The missile's skin was very thin, and was inflated by internal pressure like a balloon. This significantly reduced the empty weight of the vehicle."




--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

  #12  
Old September 13th 16, 09:18 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Commercial Moonship

Mookie, you're really becoming too full of **** (yourself) to be worth
bothering with. Seek some psychiatric help.

William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 10:29:56 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 11:58:45 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
jacob navia wrote:

Le 10/09/2016 à 09:12, William Mook a écrit :

snip


It would be interesting that instead the numbers you write how you come
to those numbers.


He generally pulls them out of his ass.

That's what you do. I generally use FEA solver on CAE.


You generally make **** up and lie.


No I don't. You do.



The weight of each tank's structure is 34.29 metric tons.

Probably. There is no way to know since you do not tell the reader what
is the general outlook of what you are describing.


And no reason to believe that the structure weight he describes

Yes there is since its based on actual results of engineering analysis.


Show your work.


I do, that's why I give papers at conferences and you don't.



(which
is no doubt based on Shuttle ET numbers or general 'mass fractions'
for large tanks) could support the several hundred tons he's going to
stack on top of it (his eighth 'tank' which makes up his second stage)
under several g's of acceleration.

You've never fallen on a football you were carrying after being tackled have you? If you had, and given any thought to it, you'd see how a pressurised cryogenic tank in tension can support substantial external loads.


And so we see the depth of Mookie's engineering...


Obviously you've never read any of the textbooks or papers that explain in simple terms how pressurised propellant tanks can be made less massive in tension by pressurising them. If you had read such materials you would clearly understand the reference and plainly see why your compressive column model is WRONG in this context.

As per usual, YOU are confused and blaming others for your confusion.

http://www.astronautix.com/a/atlasa.html

"The most radical feature of the RTV-A-2 was its internal pressure stabilized flight structure. The missile's skin was very thin, and was inflated by internal pressure like a balloon. This significantly reduced the empty weight of the vehicle."




--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

  #13  
Old September 13th 16, 09:39 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Commercial Moonship

On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 8:19:01 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Mookie, you're really becoming too full of **** (yourself) to be worth
bothering with. Seek some psychiatric help.


You're the one who's sick.


William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 10:29:56 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 11:58:45 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
jacob navia wrote:

Le 10/09/2016 Ã* 09:12, William Mook a écrit :

snip


It would be interesting that instead the numbers you write how you come
to those numbers.


He generally pulls them out of his ass.

That's what you do. I generally use FEA solver on CAE.


You generally make **** up and lie.


No I don't. You do.



The weight of each tank's structure is 34.29 metric tons.

Probably. There is no way to know since you do not tell the reader what
is the general outlook of what you are describing.


And no reason to believe that the structure weight he describes

Yes there is since its based on actual results of engineering analysis.


Show your work.


I do, that's why I give papers at conferences and you don't.



(which
is no doubt based on Shuttle ET numbers or general 'mass fractions'
for large tanks) could support the several hundred tons he's going to
stack on top of it (his eighth 'tank' which makes up his second stage)
under several g's of acceleration.

You've never fallen on a football you were carrying after being tackled have you? If you had, and given any thought to it, you'd see how a pressurised cryogenic tank in tension can support substantial external loads.


And so we see the depth of Mookie's engineering...


Obviously you've never read any of the textbooks or papers that explain in simple terms how pressurised propellant tanks can be made less massive in tension by pressurising them. If you had read such materials you would clearly understand the reference and plainly see why your compressive column model is WRONG in this context.

As per usual, YOU are confused and blaming others for your confusion.

http://www.astronautix.com/a/atlasa.html

"The most radical feature of the RTV-A-2 was its internal pressure stabilized flight structure. The missile's skin was very thin, and was inflated by internal pressure like a balloon. This significantly reduced the empty weight of the vehicle."




--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson


  #14  
Old September 13th 16, 05:00 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Commercial Moonship

William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 8:19:01 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Mookie, you're really becoming too full of **** (yourself) to be worth
bothering with. Seek some psychiatric help.


You're the one who's sick.


Yeah, Mookie. It's everyone else that's nuts and not you. Crazy
people say that all the time. Yet here we are, with you the one who
insists he's NEVER wrong...


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
  #15  
Old September 13th 16, 05:14 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Commercial Moonship

On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 4:00:15 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 8:19:01 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Mookie, you're really becoming too full of **** (yourself) to be worth
bothering with. Seek some psychiatric help.


You're the one who's sick.


Yeah, Mookie. It's everyone else that's nuts and not you.


I'm not talking about everyone else. I'm talking about you and what you say here in these groups. You are demonstrably insane. You pretend to know things you do not and attack others who call you out on it.

Crazy
people say that all the time.


You would know I suppose exactly what crazy people do wouldn't you?

Yet here we are, with you the one who
insists he's NEVER wrong...


Look, I'm the one who pointed out you've never looked at an engineering drawing of the FTS system for the Falcon and have no idea what you're talking about. When I did that you started calling me names like you're doing now. Fact is, you don't know what the hell you're talking about and it irks you that I do. That's why you spend so much energy trying to say things that are hurtful. This demonstrates that you are quite insane.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine


  #16  
Old September 13th 16, 07:29 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Commercial Moonship

William Mook wrote:

On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 4:00:15 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 8:19:01 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Mookie, you're really becoming too full of **** (yourself) to be worth
bothering with. Seek some psychiatric help.

You're the one who's sick.


Yeah, Mookie. It's everyone else that's nuts and not you.


I'm not talking about everyone else. I'm talking about you and what you say here in these groups. You are demonstrably insane. You pretend to know things you do not and attack others who call you out on it.


And you just lie.


Crazy
people say that all the time.


You would know I suppose exactly what crazy people do wouldn't you?


After dealing with you all these years, pretty much everyone here
knows what crazy people do. You're our resident example.


Yet here we are, with you the one who
insists he's NEVER wrong...


Look, I'm the one who pointed out you've never looked at an engineering drawing of the FTS system for the Falcon ...


How would you know? And when did you review those documents? Cite?


... and have no idea what you're talking about.


And neither do you. You make lots of claims and ask others for cites,
so how about you? Cite?


When I did that you started calling me names like you're doing now.


No, when you did that I started asking you whether you had and for
cites to said documents.


Fact is, you don't know what the hell you're talking about...


Yet I'm the one with real numbers and you're the one with ... well,
your own personal feces.


and it irks you that I do.


Yes, I'm irked by your current hypothesis that a pyrotechnic block
that wasn't there is the cause of everything. I'm irked because
stupid and adamantly ignorant people like you irk me.

So what's your excuse? Hormones?


That's why you spend so much energy trying to say things that are hurtful.


If you don't like being called an idiot, stop acting like one.


This demonstrates that you are quite insane.


Irony. It's not like silvery or bronzey...


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
  #17  
Old September 16th 16, 05:24 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Commercial Moonship

At least I got a theme song...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQj--Kjn0z8


On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 6:05:59 PM UTC+12, William Mook wrote:
Self replicating machine systems that operate on the solar surface and convert sunlight efficiently to positronium which is stored in spares smart crystalline lattice at densities exceeding that of iron, radically transform the paradigm of space-faring humanity.

The sun generates 3.847*10^26 Watts of power. Converted to positronium, this is 4,274,808,252 kg/sec of positrons and electrons. The escape velocity of the Sun is 617.5 km/sec. A kilogram of material moving at this speed has a kinetic energy of 190.65 gigajoules. Thus, an efficient system that selected material from the solar body and ejected it at or near escape velocity, could project no more than 2.018 quadrillion kg/sec from the Sun.

Rockets that operate well below the speed of light follow largely Newtonian and Keplerian mechanics and astrodynamics. Rockets that operate very near light speed have relativistic corrections applied to their motions. Interplanetary rocket performance is determined by the Vis Viva equation and orbital positions and the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation. Interstellar rocket performance is determined by stellar positions and the Rindler rocket equation.

http://www.astro.cornell.edu/pdfs/relrocketderiv.pdf
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...et/rocket.html
http://convertalot.com/relativistic_...alculator.html

For chemical, ion, laser and nuclear rockets plying interplanetary space we have;

Vf = Ve * LN(1/(1-u)) and u = 1 - 1 / EXP( Vf/Ve )

For positronium based photon rockets, we have;

Vf = c * TANH( LN( 1/(1-u) ) ) and u =1 - 1 / EXP( ATANH( Vf/c ) )

Boosting at one gee half way to alpha centauri, attains 95.05% light speed at the half way point. This delta vee requires 84.07% of the take off weight be positronium. A stage that slows from this speed to interplanetary speeds requires that 84.07% of THAT weight be positronium. That leaves only 2.53% of the take off weight as what's left at the end of the journey.

A system that has an arbitrarily small 'seed' to place on a star's surface which then grows into replacement stages for the return journey, or to travel further afield, provides significant capacity for long distance exploration development and settlement.

This may also be used as part of a 'von neuman probe' that produces multiple copies and provides relay points at each star system, to grow a galaxy wide network of information and materiel that flows back to Earth and other nodes on the network.

The Earth becomes a centre of trade at this point.

Ships that go farther than 4.3 light years do so at 95% light speed top speed. It takes 5.96 years star time to complete the voyage, only 3.56 years pass on the ship. At top speed time flows at only 31.00% the speed at which it flows for the rest of the cosmos. So, each year aboard ship at this speed, traverses 3.06 light years! So, a century on board covers 306 light years plus 4.3 light years adding another 4 years - 104 years to travel 310.3 light years whilst 328 years pass on Earth.

Over 14,000 G-type stars are within this radius of Sol out of a total of 262,000 stars within this region. 22.7% of all stars have planets detectable by today's methods according to recent surveys.

http://www.nature.com/news/milky-way...ronomy-1.20569

A new survey is underway that will map very thoroughly all the stars we're discussing here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Harmony_of_the_Seas

With 8800 passengers and crew the Harmony of the Seas carries 20,236 tonnes on board and masses a total of 226,963 tonnes. That's 2.3 tonnes and 25..8 tonnes respectively.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus...Specifications

An Airbus A380 aircraft carrries 544 passengers and has a maximum take off weight of 575 tonnes while carrying 89.2 tonnes of payload. That's 1.08 tonnes and 0.17 tonnes per passenger respectively.

Allocating 0.5 tonnes per passenger for carry-on and 1.5 tonnes per passenger for structure - a total of 2.0 tonnes per passenger and a 10,000 passenger ship - obtains a 20,000 tonne payload. We end up with 79.1 tonnes take off weight - comprised of 77.1 tonnes of positronium per passenger. 790,514 tonne take off weight and 770,514 tonne of Ps. A sphere 57.4 meters in diameter holds this much positronium. A cylinder with spherical end caps with a 86.3 m diameter and 863 meter length, spins at zero boost for synthetic gravity, and has tiled interior that rotates through 90 degrees to maintain gravity during one gee boost along its spin axis.

By 2050 AD Earth's population consists of 240 million permanent residents and 260 million visitors - even though 5 million people per year visit Earth. Throughout the solar system there are 10.6 billion persons alive. Most of these are on one of the 10,000 Bishop Ring Colonies orbiting in the asteroid belt. Each colony has a habitable surface the size of India, but contain only 1 million persons.

123.2 million people are born each year, and are inspired by a variety of means to fly to one of 14,000 G type stars within 300 light years of Earth.. This is 8800 persons per star system - per year. 14,000 departures per year. 790,514 tonnes each, 11.07 trillion kg of material exported from the Sun each YEAR!

Recall the Sun is capable of producing 4.3 billion kg of Ps per second and capable of lifting 2.018 million billion kg of raw materials off Sol per second! So, to produce starships if this size and at this rate requires interception of only 0.00816% of the entire solar output.

In short, we can easily sustain 10.6 billion persons in the Solar system long-term whilst dispatching a billion people every eight years!

Adding 8800 people per star system per year, for 300 years raises population (assuming no one leaves for more distant stars) to 21.9 million persons per star system at the end of the 300 year period.

1 2 3 4 5
1 8,801 324,517 766,797 1,386,376 2,254,331
2 17,700 336,984 784,261 1,410,842 2,288,605
3 26,700 349,592 801,924 1,435,585 2,323,267
4 35,802 362,342 819,785 1,460,607 2,358,320
5 45,007 375,237 837,849 1,485,912 2,393,769
6 54,315 388,277 856,117 1,511,503 2,429,618
7 63,729 401,465 874,591 1,537,383 2,465,873
8 73,249 414,801 893,274 1,563,555 2,502,537
9 82,877 428,288 912,168 1,590,023 2,539,616
10 92,613 441,928 931,275 1,616,790 2,577,114
11 102,460 455,722 950,599 1,643,860 2,615,035
12 112,418 469,672 970,140 1,671,236 2,653,385
13 122,488 483,779 989,903 1,698,921 2,692,168
14 132,672 498,045 1,009,889 1,726,919 2,731,390
15 142,971 512,473 1,030,100 1,755,233 2,771,054
16 153,387 527,064 1,050,541 1,783,867 2,811,167
17 163,920 541,820 1,071,212 1,812,825 2,851,733
18 174,573 556,743 1,092,116 1,842,109 2,892,758
19 185,345 571,834 1,113,257 1,871,725 2,934,246
20 196,240 587,096 1,134,637 1,901,676 2,976,203
21 207,257 602,530 1,156,259 1,931,965 3,018,634
22 218,399 618,138 1,178,124 1,962,596 3,061,545
23 229,667 633,923 1,200,237 1,993,573 3,104,940
24 241,062 649,887 1,222,600 2,024,901 3,148,826
25 252,586 666,030 1,245,215 2,056,582 3,193,208
26 264,241 682,357 1,268,086 2,088,621 3,238,091
27 276,026 698,867 1,291,215 2,121,023 3,283,481
28 287,946 715,564 1,314,606 2,153,790 3,329,385
29 299,999 732,450 1,338,261 2,186,928 3,375,807
30 312,189 749,527 1,362,184 2,220,441 3,422,753

6--------- 7--------- 8--------- 9--------- 10---------

3,470,231 5,173,557 7,559,708 10,902,414 15,585,136
3,518,244 5,240,818 7,653,933 11,034,411 15,770,048
3,566,800 5,308,839 7,749,222 11,167,900 15,957,050
3,615,905 5,377,629 7,845,588 11,302,897 16,146,165
3,665,565 5,447,196 7,943,043 11,439,420 16,337,416
3,715,786 5,517,549 8,041,600 11,577,486 16,530,829
3,766,574 5,588,698 8,141,270 11,717,111 16,726,427
3,817,936 5,660,650 8,242,066 11,858,314 16,924,236
3,869,879 5,733,415 8,344,002 12,001,113 17,124,280
3,922,409 5,807,003 8,447,089 12,145,526 17,326,584
3,975,532 5,881,422 8,551,341 12,291,570 17,531,175
4,029,256 5,956,682 8,656,771 12,439,265 17,738,077
4,083,586 6,032,793 8,763,392 12,588,629 17,947,317
4,138,531 6,109,763 8,871,219 12,739,680 18,158,922
4,194,096 6,187,604 8,980,264 12,892,439 18,372,918
4,250,289 6,266,323 9,090,541 13,046,923 18,589,332
4,307,118 6,345,933 9,202,064 13,203,154 18,808,191
4,364,588 6,426,442 9,314,847 13,361,149 19,029,524
4,422,708 6,507,861 9,428,905 13,520,930 19,253,357
4,481,484 6,590,200 9,544,251 13,682,517 19,479,720
4,540,925 6,673,469 9,660,901 13,845,929 19,708,641
4,601,038 6,757,679 9,778,870 14,011,188 19,940,149
4,661,829 6,842,841 9,898,171 14,178,315 20,174,272
4,723,308 6,928,965 10,018,820 14,347,330 20,411,042
4,785,481 7,016,062 10,140,833 14,518,254 20,650,487
4,848,357 7,104,144 10,264,224 14,691,111 20,892,637
4,911,944 7,193,220 10,389,010 14,865,920 21,137,524
4,976,249 7,283,304 10,515,206 15,042,705 21,385,178
5,041,280 7,374,405 10,642,828 15,221,488 21,635,630
5,107,047 7,466,536 10,771,892 15,402,290 21,888,913


The first settlers leave Earth in 2050 AD and arrive in 2380 AD. The settlers attain Earth's current population 816 years after the first settlers arrive 7.44 billion persons in the star system by 3196 AD. By this date if each of the target stars send ships out beyond 300 light years - a shell from 300 light years to 900 light years from Sol - they're sending 9554 ships per year to balance their population there.

The interesting thing is there are 22.8 billion G-type stars within the Milky Way and if each G-type star system houses 7.44 billion humans in the asteroid belts around each of these stars, 168.72 billion billion persons in the Milky Way it takes basically the crossing time to achieve this level - about 100,000 years!

Reproductive rate falls from 1.13% per annum to 0.0024% per annum. A doubling rate of 61.7 years vs a doubling rate of 2906.3 years!

Now, if the loss of ships exceeds this lower growth rate, human numbers will not increase. This is a very general and very powerful corrective. People placed in suspended animation do not reproduce efficiently. People that are time dilated, do not reproduce efficiently. Putting large numbers of surplus people into starships and dispatching them on great adventures far from their birth world, is an efficient method to reduce population growth rate. Furthermore, even slight (and very acceptable losses to those travelling) have the capacity to zero out population growth. This means that on balance, the density of human numbers falls off exponentially with distance - halving every 2,900 light years or so - all things being equal.

That is, the programme described here maintains 10.9 billions on Earth which radiates out 0.125 billion per year. Those are dispatched to the cosmos in general and half of them make it through 2,900 light years, the density will fall by half with this distance. Only one person every two G-type stars on average. In groups of 8800 - only one group established on every 17,600 stars at a distance of 100,000 light years from Sol.

The ability to project people more efficiently and safely longer distances, actually decreases population. This is another interesting finding.

  #18  
Old September 16th 16, 07:58 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Commercial Moonship


80.7 - average adult body mass
35.0 - biosuit with MEMS life support
36.0 - consumables (12 days)
151.7 - total payload

260.7 - propellant (1,140 mm diameter sphere)
40.1 - liquid hydrogen
220.6 - liquid oxygen

412.4 - payload projected to moon

708.6 - inert propellant (water) (767 mm diameter sphere)

1121.0 - total take off weight (Earth)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhUasBcoj-Q

2803 kgf (27,484 Newtons) force produced by energising 2 litres of water per second at the outset, with 190 megawatt laser beam - boosts hydrogen and oxygen to a speed of 14 km/sec. The unit boosts straight up at 2 gees and rises to 7.1 gees at first stage burnout - attaining 10.9 km/sec - a trans-lunar trajectory - before disappearing over the horizon!

The LOX/LH2 on board is used to slow the vehicle to land on the lunar surface and return to Earth - via direct ascent and return. The system is 1.53 meters in diameter and 4.00 meters in length - 3.5 days outbound - 3.5 days inbound - 4 days on lunar surface - 1 day reserve.




  #19  
Old September 16th 16, 11:00 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Commercial Moonship

In article ,
says...

At least I got a theme song...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQj--Kjn0z8

"Put away the crack before the crack puts you away"

--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #20  
Old September 17th 16, 06:55 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Commercial Moonship

On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 6:58:18 PM UTC+12, William Mook wrote:
80.7 - average adult body mass
35.0 - biosuit with MEMS life support
36.0 - consumables (12 days)
151.7 - total payload

260.7 - propellant (1,140 mm diameter sphere)
40.1 - liquid hydrogen
220.6 - liquid oxygen

412.4 - payload projected to moon

708.6 - inert propellant (water) (767 mm diameter sphere)

1121.0 - total take off weight (Earth)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhUasBcoj-Q

2803 kgf (27,484 Newtons) force produced by energising 2 litres of water per second at the outset, with 190 megawatt laser beam - boosts hydrogen and oxygen to a speed of 14 km/sec. The unit boosts straight up at 2 gees and rises to 7.1 gees at first stage burnout - attaining 10.9 km/sec - a trans-lunar trajectory - before disappearing over the horizon!

The LOX/LH2 on board is used to slow the vehicle to land on the lunar surface and return to Earth - via direct ascent and return. The system is 1.53 meters in diameter and 4.00 meters in length - 3.5 days outbound - 3.5 days inbound - 4 days on lunar surface - 1 day reserve.


Now, if we put the 412.4 kg payload atop a three stage rocket that imparted ideally 4 km/sec per stage, and had a 4.5% structure fraction, using LOX/LH2 - you'd have;

Payload 412.4
u.......... 0.5971
p.......... 0.3579.... Propellant LH2.... LOX... Structure
Stage 3 1,152.31 688.05 105.85 582.20 51.85
Stage 2 3,219.72 1,922.53 295.77 1,626.76 144.89
Stage 1 8,996.40 5,371.84 826.44 4,545.40 404.84

Diam Total LH2 vol LOX vol
Stage 3 1.57 2.02 1.51 0.51
Stage 2 2.21 5.65 4.23 1.43
Stage 1 3.11 15.79 11.81 3.99

So, a 9 metric ton vehicle 24 meters tall projects the 412.4 kg lunar capsule on to a direct ascent lunar trajectory. Stage 3 is deflected for a lunar free return and recovery.

This replaces the 190 Megawatt laser beam. Which is more cost efficient? That depends on the details.

For comparison, a 70% efficient solar pumped thin disk terrestrial laser, produces at peak insolation 200 MW of optical energy from an array of concentrating collectors 540 meters on a side.

http://www.explore-atacama.com/eng/a...de-la-luna.htm
http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/10/chile...ergy-shortage/

Building this in the Atacama region of Chile, in the Valley of the Moon, is appropriate! It provides 11 hours of sunlight per day - and with three launches per hour possible, 33 ships could be dispatched every 24 hours. 84 hours out, 84 hours back and 84 hours on the moon, 347 ships in transit, and another 347 ships in the shop for reuse. A one way journey, with return of the empty vehicle, operating as a drone, is capable of placing 200 kg on the lunar surface without return. This permits the construction of shelters and outposts anywhere on the lunar surface. Similar payloads can be placed in lunar orbit to provide real time high resolution mapping of the lunar surface.



 




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
Disk Moonship William Mook[_2_] Policy 147 November 27th 10 10:24 PM
Goddard's 1930 Manned Moonship Pat Flannery Policy 32 September 15th 10 09:56 AM
Goddard's 1930 Manned Moonship [email protected] History 5 September 12th 10 05:56 AM
Goddard's 1930 Manned Moonship William Mook[_2_] History 0 September 10th 10 10:14 PM
Goddard's 1930 Manned Moonship [email protected] History 2 September 3rd 10 06:22 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.