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

Where would our space program had continued to use saturn boosters tolaunch the shuttles



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 3rd 15, 07:23 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Where would our space program had continued to use saturn boosters tolaunch the shuttles

I wonder about this......

with a shuttle like vehicle on the top of the stack, ad no solids. plus the ability to launch very heavy loads when desired.

the 2nd skylab could of been put in orbit, ISS could of been built with fewer larger modules

no solids to have leaky joints, no foam loss damaging TPS.

and we could of slowly done more apolo applications missions.

was the shuttle ever cheaper to operate than apollo
  #2  
Old December 3rd 15, 07:25 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Where would our space program had continued to use saturnboosters to launch the shuttles

On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 1:23:09 PM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:
I wonder about this......

with a shuttle like vehicle on the top of the stack, ad no solids. plus the ability to launch very heavy loads when desired.

the 2nd skylab could of been put in orbit, ISS could of been built with fewer larger modules

no solids to have leaky joints, no foam loss damaging TPS.

and we could of slowly done more apolo applications missions.

was the shuttle ever cheaper to operate than apollo


plus the 3 apollo stacks left to rot in the weather could of been used, either for the 3 planned missions that were canceled, or for other missions
  #3  
Old December 4th 15, 02:59 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default Where would our space program had continued to use saturn boosters to launch the shuttles

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 1:23:09 PM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:
I wonder about this......

with a shuttle like vehicle on the top of the stack, ad no solids. plus
the ability to launch very heavy loads when desired.

the 2nd skylab could of been put in orbit, ISS could of been built with
fewer larger modules

no solids to have leaky joints, no foam loss damaging TPS.

and we could of slowly done more apolo applications missions.

was the shuttle ever cheaper to operate than apollo


plus the 3 apollo stacks left to rot in the weather could of been used,
either for the 3 planned missions that were canceled, or for other missions


Slight detail, but it would have been hard to use 3 of them since only 2
flight vehicles were left. Apollo 20's Saturn V launched Skylab. 18,19 new
flew.

The rest of the components are non-flight worthy.

(and as I recall, really none of the 3 on display are fully composed of
flight worthy equipment but a mix of stuff, but I could be wrong.)

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

  #4  
Old December 4th 15, 04:44 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Where would our space program had continued to use saturnboosters to launch the shuttles

On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 8:59:30 AM UTC-5, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"bob haller" wrote in message
...

On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 1:23:09 PM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:
I wonder about this......

with a shuttle like vehicle on the top of the stack, ad no solids. plus
the ability to launch very heavy loads when desired.

the 2nd skylab could of been put in orbit, ISS could of been built with
fewer larger modules

no solids to have leaky joints, no foam loss damaging TPS.

and we could of slowly done more apolo applications missions.

was the shuttle ever cheaper to operate than apollo


plus the 3 apollo stacks left to rot in the weather could of been used,
either for the 3 planned missions that were canceled, or for other missions


Slight detail, but it would have been hard to use 3 of them since only 2
flight vehicles were left. Apollo 20's Saturn V launched Skylab. 18,19 new
flew.

The rest of the components are non-flight worthy.

(and as I recall, really none of the 3 on display are fully composed of
flight worthy equipment but a mix of stuff, but I could be wrong.)

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net


lets not forget the space certified lunar module hanging over a refreshment stand at KSC

all the bucks sucked up by the shuttle devlopment, at leastsome could of been used other ways
  #5  
Old December 5th 15, 03:56 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Where would our space program had continued to use saturn boosters to launch the shuttles

In article ,
says...

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

plus the 3 apollo stacks left to rot in the weather could of been used,
either for the 3 planned missions that were canceled, or for other missions


Slight detail, but it would have been hard to use 3 of them since only 2
flight vehicles were left. Apollo 20's Saturn V launched Skylab. 18,19 new
flew.

The rest of the components are non-flight worthy.

(and as I recall, really none of the 3 on display are fully composed of
flight worthy equipment but a mix of stuff, but I could be wrong.)


Yes, but it's a mix even weirder than that. Because out of the two
flight worthy Saturn V's (SA-514 and SA-515) which were "surplus", the
third stage from SA-515 was converted into the backup Skylab and now
resides in the Smithsonian. But, there was also a third stage leftover
from SA-513 since only the first two stages of SA-513 were needed to
launch the Skylab Orbital Workshop.

Cite Wikipedia:

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

So, if you rearranged all of the stages, you do get two complete Saturn
V's, but only one has stages which all belonged together.

The only half way realistic plan to use one of the two Saturn Vs would
have been to launch the backup Skylab Orbital Workshop (the one sitting
in the Smithsonian). That gives one flight vehicle and a backup, should
something worrisome be discovered with the flight vehicle before launch.


Furthermore, production contracts were terminated for Saturn V years
before. It would have been difficult, and costly, to restart production
of Saturn V.

Same for Saturn IB. There were difficulties with some of the Saturn IBs
flown in the 70s. Unanticipated repairs had to be made due to age and
corrosion (I believe to the fins and/or thrust structure). In the case
of Saturn IB, the first stage was too complicated and expensive anyway.
It was cobbled together from existing tooling (hence the numerous tanks
instead of one fuel and one oxidizer). It would have needed a redesign
to lower costs.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
  #6  
Old December 5th 15, 04:00 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Where would our space program had continued to use saturn boosters to launch the shuttles

In article ,
says...

bob haller wrote:

and we could of slowly done more apolo applications missions.

was the shuttle ever cheaper to operate than apollo


A difficult question to answer, since it involves how you account for
costs, flight rates, etc. Saturn V is preposterously expensive to
launch, since you're throwing away all that hardware AND need a huge
'standing army' for stacking and flight operations. A Saturn V launch
costs perhaps 6x what a Shuttle launch costs. A Saturn V doesn't
carry 6x the cargo of the Shuttle. So Saturn V was more expensive,
both per launch and per pound (although they weren't that far apart on
per pound costs at the actually achievable flight rates for Shuttle).

If you hate SLS because of the high cost to launch, you'd REALLY hate
Saturn V, which is at least double the cost of SLS per launch.

The reason naive folks are such fans of Saturn V is that they are
comparing costs in 1970's dollars to costs in 2015 dollars for current
systems.


Makes one wonder just how expensive the standing army costs for SLS will
be. Based on the size, number of stages (and how those stages are
fueled), my guess is that they'll need a standing army similar to the
size of Saturn V.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
  #7  
Old December 5th 15, 04:36 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Where would our space program had continued to use saturnboosters to launch the shuttles

well the costs to design and build the shuttle would of been less, since no solids needed, the shuttles main engines neednt of been super powered, easier to build, fly and service, since a saturn derative, would of been more powerful than the shuttle stack.

so one additional lunar mission could of been flown, along with the launch of another skylab.

we would ofended up with a more flexible system too, both heavy lift and a somewhat different shuttle
  #8  
Old January 28th 16, 06:00 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Where would our space program had continued to use saturnboosters to launch the shuttles

On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 2:59:30 AM UTC+13, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"bob haller" wrote in message
...

On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 1:23:09 PM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:
I wonder about this......

with a shuttle like vehicle on the top of the stack, ad no solids. plus
the ability to launch very heavy loads when desired.

the 2nd skylab could of been put in orbit, ISS could of been built with
fewer larger modules

no solids to have leaky joints, no foam loss damaging TPS.

and we could of slowly done more apolo applications missions.

was the shuttle ever cheaper to operate than apollo


plus the 3 apollo stacks left to rot in the weather could of been used,
either for the 3 planned missions that were canceled, or for other missions


Slight detail, but it would have been hard to use 3 of them since only 2
flight vehicles were left. Apollo 20's Saturn V launched Skylab. 18,19 new
flew.

The rest of the components are non-flight worthy.

(and as I recall, really none of the 3 on display are fully composed of
flight worthy equipment but a mix of stuff, but I could be wrong.)

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net


In inflation adjusted dollars we've spent $1.1 trillion on NASA since its inception, most of that on the ISS and Space Shuttle. $0.4 trillion from 1958 to 1978 pays for most of the iconic stuff the historians talk about. Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, Redstone, Jupiter, Saturn, Atlas, Titan rockets, including all the major launch and tracking infrastructure that comes from that era. The deep space stuff that came later was built and launched in this era.

Then $0.7 trilion is spent after 1978 developing a Space Shuttle and the ISS mostly.

Over this same period $5.5 trillion is spend on missile defense during the cold war, according to Brookings. We has something like 2,200 heavy missiles and 6,200 big warheads from 1958 through 1964. The notable detail is that the ICBMs were built around the same core technology as the space launchers. The ICBMs then took a turn away from cryogenics toward solids, and the bombs became smaller and more accurate. So, there was a disconnect from the space faring side and the ICBM side of things.
  #9  
Old January 28th 16, 07:20 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Where would our space program had continued to use saturnboosters to launch the shuttles

On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 4:36:14 AM UTC+13, bob haller wrote:
well the costs to design and build the shuttle would of been less, since no solids needed, the shuttles main engines neednt of been super powered, easier to build, fly and service, since a saturn derative, would of been more powerful than the shuttle stack.

so one additional lunar mission could of been flown, along with the launch of another skylab.

we would ofended up with a more flexible system too, both heavy lift and a somewhat different shuttle


If we look to the future, we see something like SpaceX's reusable launchers, and the creation of the Falcon Heavy capable of putting up 116,600 pounds into LEO. I've discussed how this might grow to a Mars Colonial Transport system here;

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/space...?trk=prof-post

Which pretty much continues the development programme halted by LBJ and McNamara following the death of JFK in Nov 1963.

Yet, advances in manufacturing technology provides other opportunities. For example, the development of ultra-lightweight systems using micro-mechanical assembly methods, an adaptation of the methods of building integrated circuits, opens the possibility of very small life support systems and chemical processing systems, which means we can have small launchers, like the ones described here;

http://www.rocketlabusa.com


That in combination with mechanical counter pressure suits that have built in thermal protection, and micro-mechanical life support, in combination with a parachute, similar to that used by Felix Baumgartner.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/617047main_4..._spacesuit.pdf

The average adult at rest inhales and exhales something like 7 or 8 liters (about one-fourth of a cubic foot) of air per minute. That totals something like 11,000 liters of air (388 cubic feet) in a day.

The air that is inhaled is about 20-percent oxygen, and the air that is exhaled is about 15-percent oxygen, so about 5-percent of the volume of air is consumed in each breath and converted to carbon dioxide.

Therefore, a human being uses about 550 liters of pure oxygen (19 cubic feet) per day. At STP 550 litres is 24.55 moles. At 32 grams per mole of O2 this is 786 grams of oxygen consumed per day producing 1,081 grams of CO2 per day.

Microreaction engineering provides a means to make arbitrarily complex systems in arbitrarily small space and weight. There are also certain advantages to doing things on a small scale - as described here;

http://web.mit.edu/jensenlab/publica...ngineering.pdf

Now the Sabatier process used on board the ISS collects the CO2 and processes it into CH4 and H2O

CO2 + 4 H2 -- CH4 + 2 H2O
1.081 0.197 0.394 0.884

The water is reduced to hydrogen and oxygen through electrolysis in a closed cycle system

2 H2O -- 2 H2 + O2
0.884 0.098 0.786

This is 14 MJ per day - or 162 watts continuous.

and methane is pyrolysed to carbon black

CH4 --- C + 2 H2
0.394 0.296 0.098

This takes 8 MJ per day - or 93 watts continuous.

A total of 255 watts continuous. Now, the ISS solar wing produces 300 W/m2 and 300 W/kg. So, it takes just a kg of solar panel with two wings a half meter square, to continually resupply the oxygen and clear the suit of CO2 indefinitely. The carbon even provides a means to absorb odours!

A 158 lb astronaut with a 84 lb spacesuit capable of sustaining the rigors of launch space flight and recovery, whilst providing long term life support.
  #10  
Old January 29th 16, 02:24 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Where would our space program had continued to use saturnboosters to launch the shuttles

On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 7:20:56 PM UTC+13, William Mook wrote:
On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 4:36:14 AM UTC+13, bob haller wrote:
well the costs to design and build the shuttle would of been less, since no solids needed, the shuttles main engines neednt of been super powered, easier to build, fly and service, since a saturn derative, would of been more powerful than the shuttle stack.

so one additional lunar mission could of been flown, along with the launch of another skylab.

we would ofended up with a more flexible system too, both heavy lift and a somewhat different shuttle


If we look to the future, we see something like SpaceX's reusable launchers, and the creation of the Falcon Heavy capable of putting up 116,600 pounds into LEO. I've discussed how this might grow to a Mars Colonial Transport system here;

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/space...?trk=prof-post

Which pretty much continues the development programme halted by LBJ and McNamara following the death of JFK in Nov 1963.

Yet, advances in manufacturing technology provides other opportunities. For example, the development of ultra-lightweight systems using micro-mechanical assembly methods, an adaptation of the methods of building integrated circuits, opens the possibility of very small life support systems and chemical processing systems, which means we can have small launchers, like the ones described here;

http://www.rocketlabusa.com


That in combination with mechanical counter pressure suits that have built in thermal protection, and micro-mechanical life support, in combination with a parachute, similar to that used by Felix Baumgartner.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/617047main_4..._spacesuit.pdf

The average adult at rest inhales and exhales something like 7 or 8 liters (about one-fourth of a cubic foot) of air per minute. That totals something like 11,000 liters of air (388 cubic feet) in a day.

The air that is inhaled is about 20-percent oxygen, and the air that is exhaled is about 15-percent oxygen, so about 5-percent of the volume of air is consumed in each breath and converted to carbon dioxide.

Therefore, a human being uses about 550 liters of pure oxygen (19 cubic feet) per day. At STP 550 litres is 24.55 moles. At 32 grams per mole of O2 this is 786 grams of oxygen consumed per day producing 1,081 grams of CO2 per day.

Microreaction engineering provides a means to make arbitrarily complex systems in arbitrarily small space and weight. There are also certain advantages to doing things on a small scale - as described here;

http://web.mit.edu/jensenlab/publica...ngineering.pdf

Now the Sabatier process used on board the ISS collects the CO2 and processes it into CH4 and H2O

CO2 + 4 H2 -- CH4 + 2 H2O
1.081 0.197 0.394 0.884

The water is reduced to hydrogen and oxygen through electrolysis in a closed cycle system

2 H2O -- 2 H2 + O2
0.884 0.098 0.786

This is 14 MJ per day - or 162 watts continuous.

and methane is pyrolysed to carbon black

CH4 --- C + 2 H2
0.394 0.296 0.098

This takes 8 MJ per day - or 93 watts continuous.

A total of 255 watts continuous. Now, the ISS solar wing produces 300 W/m2 and 300 W/kg. So, it takes just a kg of solar panel with two wings a half meter square, to continually resupply the oxygen and clear the suit of CO2 indefinitely. The carbon even provides a means to absorb odours!

A 158 lb astronaut with a 84 lb spacesuit capable of sustaining the rigors of launch space flight and recovery, whilst providing long term life support.

A total of 242 lb payload is at the opposite extreme of space lift. About 1/10th the size of the Mercury capsule!

A three element launcher propelled by hydrogen and oxygen with a 9,400 mph exhaust set up to achieve 20,600 mph ideal speed, to attain orbit, has the following properties;

1400 lbs overall stage weight
1232 lbs overall propellant weight
1043 lbs LOX weight
189 lbs LH2 weight
168 lbs structure
242 lbs - astronaut & suit

So the first two outboard stages fire and lift the system to 5,600 mph. Then, the central stage fires and takes the system to orbit, 17,900 mph.

Small rocket engines made with 3D printed parts;

https://www.nasa.gov/content/3-d-pri...hot-fire-tests

Each tank is 14.2 ft long and 2.6 ft in diameter - and each propelled by a small engine producing 2,370 lbf of thrust at lift off and throttles back to 2 gees as it burns off propellant after starting off at 1.6 gees at lift off. The astronaut stands in a 2.6 ft diameter 7 foot long nose cone, that opens out to release the astronaut before the stage returns to Earth - empty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEXT_(ion_thruster)

A person launched to orbit leaves the carrier rocket and joins up with another 242 lb payload placed on the same orbit earlier. This one contains a 6.9 kW solar power system that weighs 50 lbs. Produces 0.85 ounce of force with a 90,000 mph exhaust speed from a 22 lb thruster. It has 100 lbs of Xenon gas. Two panels 10 ft wide and 14 foot long fold out from each side of the ion engine to provide power. 80 lbs of food supply is also carried on board. With 100% water and air recycling, this is sufficient for 180 days of activity.

The 100 lbs of Xenon can kick the pair up another 20,828 mph over 108 days of operation!

The life support system is equipped with a hydrogen sulphide system that permits controlled changes in the metabolic rate of the astronaut. This extends the time in space indefinitely, once safety issues are resolved!

http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v2...bt0109-13.html

With a system like this, a person could fly to the moons of Mars, to nearly all the asteroids inside the asteroid belt, and flyby and orbit Venus, Mercury, Mars, and the Moon. The system could land on the Earth or Mars, using its TPS and landing system.

Radiation protection is afforded by appropriate medicines ingested prior to metabolic shutdown.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/...nder-drug.html

So, these indicate where private initiatives may make significant progress in opening the planets to human exploration over the next decade.


Now, that I've explored in my previous post the potential of sending individuals cheaply into space, and across the inner solar system, I next need to figure out how to land and take off on celestial bodies with surface gravities greater than 1/1000th of a gee which the ion engine is capable of producing, and live off the land so to speak, for periods longer than 180 days.

Crashing into small asteroids and moons that have orbital speeds so low you can leap into orbit from them are one way to go. Small attitude control rockets on a suit are also capable of propelling an astronaut at speeds faster than they can run at up to 1/10th gee.

To do more than that, requires we be more clever. It would be nice to build a rocket and habitat on a planet and use that rocket and habitat to extend our stay time and capabilities.

To do this we have to get in our heads the following capacities, and how these will be modified in the future to permit the achievement of these goals..

We start out with the development of self-replicating machinery;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX-iJLHZt8M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihR9SX7dgRo

Built on a small scale to create arrays of self replicating machine cells that swarm together to make whatever you want from found materials in rock air and water.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvN9Ri1GmuY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK54Bu9HFRw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hha0NsYXS5c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxLfzWDs3HA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F_SRwrCF6Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXpkG93KzdY

So, imagine a 1 kg (2.2 lb) probe carried along by the astronaut we described previously. This traveller having arrived in moon orbit wants to land and build a home and shuttle craft, along with fuel processing, on the moon, and then come and leave whenever they want.

So, to that end, they have allocated 1 kg of their food budget to this probe before leaving Earth.

Now for the moon, given the dry conditions there, the probe consists of a rocket magnesium oxygen fuelled engine that has a 9,400 mph exhaust speed and must land on the moon while the astronaut remains in moon orbit at first.

The 1 kg system must go through a delta vee a change in speed of 3,640 mph in order to settle softly on the moon's surface. That means 321 grams of the 1,000 gram system is propellant. With 119 grams of the probe allocated to structure that's 440 grams of the total to propellant and vehicle, leaving 560 grams for payload. Allocating 60 grams of that for additional payload related structure, we have a budget of 500 grams - a little over a pound - allocated for self replicating machine cell swarm that extracts material from the moon and builds whatever it is told to build, using sunlight during the moon's daylight hours.

Now, we saw before that the ISS has a 300 Watt/m2 solar panel that produces 300 Watts/kg of payload. So, at this level of performance a 200 gram panel driving a 300 gram machine produces 60 Watts and the solar array covers 310 square inches. (2.15 sq ft) and produces 60 watts when the sun is shining. Whjch it does so over a 2 week period.

Now, it takes 15,000 joules to break down one gram of anything into a plasma that can then use additive manufacturing to reassemble it into anything we like!

Now 60 watts processes 4 milligrams of soil per second. This is a growth rate of 1.000008 times per second. During the 2 weeks of daylight on the moon, or 1,209,600 the 500 gram starting mass can grow to 30,000 lbs in less than 2 weeks.


Now a spacecraft capable of taking 242 pounds from orbit to the lunar surface through a delta vee of 3,640 mph using a Magnesium and Oxygen propellant combination, that has a 9400 mph exhaust speed, requires a 53.9% propellant fraction and with a 11.1% structure fraction this leaves a 35% payload fraction. So dividing 242 pounds by 0.35 obtains 692 pound take off weight with 373 lbs of MgO propellant and 76 lbs of structure. About 30,000 lbs of structure is required on the moon to support living there, and processing MgO found in the soil into Mg nano crystals floating in LOX, useful as propellant for this ship.

Going from 1 lb to 30,000 lbs requires two weeks of growth. So, arriving at the moon and entering a low lunar orbit, and shooting a 1 kg probe to the moon - finds a lunar lander built and fuelled on the moon, arriving to pick you up in lunar orbit 15 days after arrival. So, you enter hibernation after deploying your probe, and awaken 15 days later to be shuttled down to the lunar surface. Of course, subsequent visits have fully fuelled vehicles ready to meet you upon your arrival after the initial build cycle.

At Mars you can use far less propellant to deorbit a 1 kg probe onto that planet's surface from orbit, since you can use aerobraking for the probe. Sunlight is 43% as intense, so replication rates are 43% as fast. About two weeks for a replication. So it takes 35 days to process 30,000 lbs of material into a shuttle craft and base. However in this case, its possible for you to land on Mars and set your system into motion. The shuttle allows you to join your ion enigne and leave Mars, once its completed.

On Mars you use water ice to make hydrogen and oxygen propellant. The speed to get to orbit on Mars is higher, 8,050 mph than on the moon. However it takes very little to aerobrake to a landing, unlike the Moon which requires rockets all the way. So, the difference is slight. 57.5% propellant fraction is very nearly the same as the one required for the moon shuttle. So, the vehicles are comparable in size, despite the fact that Mars vehicles use hydrogen and oxygen in this scenario.

Alternatively, you can land on Diemos or Phobos, process either of those moons into a landing craft, and arrive on Mars with an immediate ability to leave should you choose to do so.

EXTENDING FOOD SUPPLY

There are fewer than 2,000 different plant and animal cell cultures that can be cultivated and assembled in a 3D food printer into any food item desired. CO2 and Water can be made into hydrocarbons using sunlight. These can be made by 3D chemical printers into a wide range of nutrients. Sugars oils and so forth. These can be fed to micro-cell cultures and those cell cultures can then be assembled with other cell cultures seasoned and cooked - to produce any food item.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU34o3jG0IY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyxPxcE_4to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoxkvwpFdJU

as predicted in science fiction many years ago...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyMYKWIAR5s

Cell cultures double in size every 33 hours. Approximately 3.9 kg of cells must be cultivated to produce 2.1 kg per day of foodstuff. 364 Watts of solar power are required to produce the nutrients by chemical processing from body wastes at a rate needed by the cell culture. This advanced life support system provides unlimited food supply in any variety. It can also produce any medicine on demand (including radiation treatment pills)

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...ing-for-pills/

* * *

You will recall that it took 567 lbs of hydrogen in three elements, to launch an astronaut into space. To make the hydrogen and oxygen from 2,320 litres of water requires 36.6 gigajoules. Over a 180 day period this requires 3,260 watts of power per person. Launching a person every 4.5 hours means each rocket requires 3.3 MW of continuous power. So our Earth launcher, can support the activity of a small community of 1,000 persons on Earth.

http://www.space.com/22616-mars-one-...olunteers.html

* * *

So, this is another way to go! Not involving big rockets, but involving certain achievable advances that make it possible for people to live freely off world! With 180 million per year leaving Earth, population drops to 100 million on Earth by 2071. With 7,000 celestial bodies across the solar system (primarily the asteroid belt) fewer than 2 million people live on Each off-world location! Raw materials at each small asteroid, processed into a space habitat using self replicating machinery.

The bulk of humanity would be wanderers across the interplanetary frontier;

https://vimeo.com/108650530

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PYOgQEiBu4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD3GMwg4qZo

Going from 1 pound per person to 220,000 pounds per person (which is typical of a space colony) requires 10 weeks - 70 days - at the distance of Ceres..

http://www.space.com/30364-ceres-lon...otos-dawn.html


Year Earth Population Off World Total

2016 7,380 0 7,380
2017 7,284 180 7,464
2018 7,187 362 7,549
2019 7,089 546 7,635

2020 6,990 732 7,722
2021 6,890 921 7,810
2022 6,788 1,111 7,899
2023 6,686 1,304 7,989
2024 6,582 1,499 8,081
2025 6,477 1,696 8,173
2026 6,371 1,895 8,266
2027 6,263 2,097 8,360
2028 6,155 2,301 8,455
2029 6,045 2,507 8,552

2030 5,934 2,716 8,649
2031 5,821 2,926 8,748
2032 5,708 3,140 8,848
2033 5,593 3,356 8,948
2034 5,477 3,574 9,050
2035 5,359 3,795 9,154
2036 5,240 4,018 9,258
2037 5,120 4,244 9,364
2038 4,998 4,472 9,470
2039 4,875 4,703 9,578

2040 4,751 4,937 9,687
2041 4,625 5,173 9,798
2042 4,498 5,412 9,910
2043 4,369 5,654 10,022
2044 4,239 5,898 10,137
2045 4,107 6,145 10,252
2046 3,974 6,395 10,369
2047 3,839 6,648 10,487
2048 3,703 6,904 10,607
2049 3,565 7,163 10,728

2050 3,426 7,424 10,850
2051 3,285 7,689 10,974
2052 3,142 7,957 11,099
2053 2,998 8,227 11,225
2054 2,852 8,501 11,353
2055 2,705 8,778 11,483
2056 2,556 9,058 11,614
2057 2,405 9,341 11,746
2058 2,252 9,628 11,880
2059 2,098 9,918 12,016

2060 1,942 10,211 12,153
2061 1,784 10,507 12,291
2062 1,624 10,807 12,431
2063 1,463 11,110 12,573
2064 1,299 11,417 12,716
2065 1,134 11,727 12,861
2066 967 12,041 13,008
2067 798 12,358 13,156
2068 627 12,679 13,306
2069 454 13,003 13,458 == 100th anniversary Apollo 11.

2070 280 13,332 13,611
2071 103 13,664 13,766





 




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
If the saturn family of launchers had continued, with the shuttleon a saturn, von braun wanted to make saturn reusable William Mook[_2_] Policy 76 July 7th 15 02:52 PM
4-Space Hopping: Propulsion Applied Crystallography (Continued) American Policy 2 October 3rd 08 01:17 PM
Lockheed Martin selected for continued developmet of the innovative space based radar.... Jacques van Oene News 0 May 24th 05 03:37 PM
Cassini program Saturn Observation Campaign Morris Jones Amateur Astronomy 0 March 8th 05 03:17 AM
Space Shuttle Boosters and Launch Pad Revell Model Kit on eBay TB Space Shuttle 2 February 1st 05 08:00 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:23 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.