|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
NASA is teaming up with Russia to put a new space station near the moon. Here's why.
JF Mezei wrote:
On 2017-10-02 05:58, Jeff Findley wrote: Only for the center lower stage. It has to be different than the boosters, which are essentially Falcon 9 first stages with nose cones instead of their own upper stage. Musk said that it _all_ had to be re-engineered. Consider that the boosters don't push a payload up, they push a payload attached it to its side. Carbon fiber tanks will be something new for SpaceX, so it's a risk. The question is, how big of a risk? My concern with the 1 big tank design is that for a long duration flight, a failure of the one tank is sayonara for everyone. It's always 'one big tank'. Using a ****load of little tanks is a great way to build a vehicle that is too heavy to fly. But today, "efficiency" isn't the design metric, it's the eventual cost per pound to orbit that's the design metric. Aren't smaller engines more reliable (or easier to make more reliable)? If so, it makes sense to use multiple smaller engines. It's not the size of the engine that determines reliability. Rather it is how hard a particular engine pushes the envelope to get better power/weight. ****loads of little engines require more plumbing, so you would have to push them harder to get similar performance to fewer larger engines. Howewer, in commercial aviation, the reverse is now true. The 777 has won over the 747 mainly because owning a plane with 2 engines costs a lot less than one with 4 (as engines are costly to buy and maintain). I wonder if rockets will also eventually adopt the "fewer but bigger engines" mentality to cut maintenance costs. They did. Now we're headed in the other direction. Saturn V used five large engines on the first stage. Falcon Heavy uses 27. The primary advantage of having more engines is that you get some degree of 'engine out' capability. The primary disadvantage is that there are more engines to keep synchronized and more for something to go wrong with. more existing engines on the next design than to have to design and build new engines, then both Musk and Bezos will do so, even if it complicates the plumbing, structure, control systems, and etc. But again, once you have more then 3 engines, does using 3 5 or 9 make things that far more complex? Isn't there a lot of "copy/paste" done on the engine mount designs once you are beyond 3 engines ? Think plumbing and directional control. Also think about history. The first stage of the Saturn V had 5 engines. The first stage of the corresponding Russian rocket used 30 engines. N-1 went 4 attempted launches with 0 successes. More engines means more chance that something will go wrong with one or more of them. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
NASA is teaming up with Russia to put a new space station near the moon. Here's why.
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
NASA is teaming up with Russia to put a new space station near the moon. Here's why.
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
... The big issue is funding. This "agreement" is kind of like a memorandum of understanding. The US Congress has not allocated funding for this venture, aside from a pittance to study a HAB module which would be applicable. Ayup, another paper study. They're a dime a dozen. Jeff -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net IT Disaster Response - https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/ |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
NASA is teaming up with Russia to put a new space station nearthe moon. Here's why.
Radiation exposure does increase mortality for lunar travellers.
http://observer.com/2016/07/space-ra...lo-astronauts/ https://www.nature.com/articles/srep29901 https://phys.org/news/2013-05-exposu...rney-mars.html https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf The Apollo missions were less than 1 rad generally, and exposure limit was set to 400 rad - which NASA at that time said was equivalent to an x-ray. How to convert rads, rems, sieverts http://news.mit.edu/2011/explained-radioactivity-0328 http://buzzaldrin.com/files/pdf/2002...ajectories.pdf The BE-330 is a 20 ton six passenger space module that can be configured for use as a base or orbiting station. The Falcon Heavy is capable of placing 63.8 MT into LEO and Delta IV Heavy puts 28.8 MT into LEO. https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/1...t-37-days.html http://bigelowaerospace.com/pages/b330/ So, a single Falcon Heavy launch could place a BA-330 into LEO along with another BA-330 with up to 23.8 MT kick stage. Which is sufficient to kick it into a lunar cycler orbit. One that is 27.32158 days divided by 3. Or 9..1071933 days - which brings it to the vicinity of the moon once a month, every three cycles of the station. A second Falcon Heavy launch could then place a BA-330 into LEO with 43.8 metric ton kick stage. This makes it into LLO with propellant to spare. A third Falcon Heavy launch then places another BA-330 into LEO with a 43.8 metric ton kick/landing stage. This makes it into LLO next to the other one. A portion of the propellant is transferred from the earlier stage, and the last BA-330 lands on the lunar surface. Now, we are in place to send a Dragon capsule, with smaller kick stage/landing stage, to the moon and back, using the cycling stations. Carrying 7 passengers at a time, with six passengers living aboard the cycling station and one aboard the capsule. Another approach is to dispense altogether with the lunar landing BA-330 and instead develop lunar rocket belts that are capable of landing on the moon and returning to orbit. I've written about this possibility here; https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/remem...-william-mook/ On Friday, September 29, 2017 at 7:28:06 AM UTC+13, wrote: "At the International Aeronautics Congress in Adelaide, Australia, representatives of NASA and the Russian space agency Roscosmos announced that they had signed an agreement to work together on venturing into deep space, with the first conceptual goal being a deep space gateway. In plain language, that means we're building a space station somewhere near the moon. Building on the success of the International Space Station, the plan is to build something that could act as a waypoint for trips to the lunar surface, or even to more distant locales like Mars. And the hope is that it could be built as soon as the 2020’s." See: https://www.popsci.com/nasa-russia-moon-space-station Considering all the problems we've had with building and maintaining an earth- orbiting space station, how likely is this to succeed? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
NASA is teaming up with Russia to put a new space station nearthe moon. Here's why.
On Friday, September 29, 2017 at 7:28:06 AM UTC+13, wrote:
"At the International Aeronautics Congress in Adelaide, Australia, representatives of NASA and the Russian space agency Roscosmos announced that they had signed an agreement to work together on venturing into deep space, with the first conceptual goal being a deep space gateway. In plain language, that means we're building a space station somewhere near the moon. Building on the success of the International Space Station, the plan is to build something that could act as a waypoint for trips to the lunar surface, or even to more distant locales like Mars. And the hope is that it could be built as soon as the 2020’s." See: https://www.popsci.com/nasa-russia-moon-space-station Considering all the problems we've had with building and maintaining an earth- orbiting space station, how likely is this to succeed? https://www.wired.com/2013/07/lunar-flying-units-1969/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BA_2100 Put a space station in a highly elliptic orbit with a 9.1 day period - that travels between the Earth and moon one out of every three orbits. Put a space station in an orbit around the moon that has a perilune at 50 km and an apolune near the apogee of the transfer station - and then - use rocket belts to transfer astronauts between stations and to and from the surface. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
NASA is teaming up with Russia to put a new space station nearthe moon. Here's why.
congress needs to make doing any business with russia at all completely ILLEGAL, as punishment for their meddling in our election.
wind down ISS, no food sales to russia, no nothing.. make it illegal for at least 5 years, after putin leaves office |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
NASA is teaming up with Russia to put a new space station nearthe moon. Here's why.
On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 2:28:06 PM UTC-4, wrote:
"At the International Aeronautics Congress in Adelaide, Australia, representatives of NASA and the Russian space agency Roscosmos announced that they had signed an agreement to work together on venturing into deep space, with the first conceptual goal being a deep space gateway. In plain language, that means we're building a space station somewhere near the moon. Building on the success of the International Space Station, the plan is to build something that could act as a waypoint for trips to the lunar surface, or even to more distant locales like Mars. And the hope is that it could be built as soon as the 2020’s." See: https://www.popsci.com/nasa-russia-moon-space-station Considering all the problems we've had with building and maintaining an earth- orbiting space station, how likely is this to succeed? I would try to place a small asteroid in orbit around the moon. Mine it, and leave a cavity with a single pressure wall with an airlock. The cost in fuel and launches would be what? The longer it takes to get the asteroid captured the lower the fuel cost. Just make the selection the right diameter. About 50 yards. Dropping this on Earth by mistake would not be catastrophic. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
NASA is teaming up with Russia to put a new space station near the moon. Here's why.
In article ,
says... On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 2:28:06 PM UTC-4, wrote: "At the International Aeronautics Congress in Adelaide, Australia, representatives of NASA and the Russian space agency Roscosmos announced that they had signed an agreement to work together on venturing into deep space, with the first conceptual goal being a deep space gateway. In plain language, that means we're building a space station somewhere near the moon. Building on the success of the International Space Station, the plan is to build something that could act as a waypoint for trips to the lunar surface, or even to more distant locales like Mars. And the hope is that it could be built as soon as the 2020?s." See: https://www.popsci.com/nasa-russia-moon-space-station Considering all the problems we've had with building and maintaining an earth- orbiting space station, how likely is this to succeed? I would try to place a small asteroid in orbit around the moon. Mine it, and leave a cavity with a single pressure wall with an airlock. Lunar orbit is terrible for this because lunar orbits are unstable due to the non-uniform mass of the moon. And once it's mined, you have to dispose of the waste. Just letting it impact the moon in an uncontrolled fashion seems ham fisted at best. The cost in fuel and launches would be what? The longer it takes to get the asteroid captured the lower the fuel cost. Then why not mine the thing "in place" and bring back only what's commercially valuable? Just make the selection the right diameter. About 50 yards. Dropping this on Earth by mistake would not be catastrophic. It would be catastrophic for the location that was hit. Jeff -- 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. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
NASA is teaming up with Russia to put a new space station near the moon. Here's why.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Secondary payload that would, advance NASA's exploration of themoon | Sam Wormley | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | April 11th 06 02:15 PM |
Russia Rocket Heads for Space Station | Rudolph_X | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 2nd 05 06:15 PM |
With NASA of Today How long Would it Take To Go To TheMoon? | G=EMC^2 Glazier | Misc | 130 | August 26th 04 07:42 PM |
Russia's Secret: Did Space Station Nearly Die The Day It Was Born? | JimO | Space Station | 24 | November 29th 03 01:37 AM |
Russia's Secret: Did Space Station Nearly Die The Day It Was Born? | JimO | History | 26 | November 29th 03 01:37 AM |