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

NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #731  
Old October 16th 05, 06:45 PM
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture

yeah get launch costs reasonable and everything else will go go go.

tying the US to the faster reuse of solids and SSME just drags things
down futher.

  #732  
Old October 17th 05, 02:04 AM
tomcat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture


Marko Horvat wrote:
What Burt Rutan and Sir Richard Branson are doing is magnificent!
Outer Space is wide open. And, 'The Spaceship Company' is gearing up
for the Space Rush.


Yes it's wonderful, magnificent and inspiring, but... they haven't sill
achieved 7.9 km/sec - the 1st orbital speed.

Lowering the launch costs is the problem number one for ongoing exploration
of space.

Imagine how would Portuguese, Spanish, or English explore the world seas,
and the entire globe, from 15th until 19th century if a pound of their boat
would have cost 5,000 USD? That would be impossible, and this is the primary
reason that is hampering our exploration of space.



There exists a multi-billion dollar market for satellites. Any vehicle
with a 200,000 pound cargo capability could launch multiple satellites
simultaneously.

Lowering the launch costs is the problem number one for ongoing exploration
of space.


Lowering launch costs is a major problem, but not an impossible one.
Why it takes so long and costs so much to build the Shuttle, I don't
know. It was new technology back in the 70's and R&D is very
expensive.

Time should be added to the list of expenses, and is partially
responsible for the extreme expense of R&D.

Using straight lines, not curves, decreases expense of parts and
decreases the amount of time to put the parts together. Curves look
nice and have some utility in shedding the shock wave, but are not
necessary. The X-43a had fairly straight lines.

An equilateral triangle has even straighter lines, though some curves
may be necessary on the top surface to insure proper lift.

R&D is required everytime off-the-shelf isn't used. Today, this is a
requirement for the hull, but not for anything else.

R&D means: designs, design changes, design approvals, testing,
failures, new designs, design changes, design approvals, testing, . . .
, n designs, n design changes, n design approvals, n testing, n
failures -- ad infinitum. Very expensive!

So, do your designs in 6 months. Prepare your outdoor spaceship
building site while designing. (You barbeque steaks outside don't
you?)

Hire your workers and pay them well -- and expect them to . . . work.
Let Rocketdyne build the SSME's. They already know how, so it won't
take them long. Subcontract fuel tank construction, so you put them
together like leggo toys at your 'outdoor' construction site.

Don't test anything -- except the hull -- because store bought is
supposed to work. And, glue it all together with gobs of epoxy.

No! You don't have to use calculus and robots to put the epoxy on.
Just slop it on like tree sap on a Viking Dragon Ship!

And you don't have to weigh each part before installation. If you have
to tether the spaceplane down so it doesn't float off, it's ok.

Hire a brave test pilot.


tomcat

  #733  
Old October 17th 05, 04:28 AM
Alan Anderson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture

"tomcat" wrote:

There exists a multi-billion dollar market for satellites. Any vehicle
with a 200,000 pound cargo capability could launch multiple satellites
simultaneously.


The problem becomes one of finding multiple satellites that want to be
sent to the same place, and customers that don't mind sharing.

R&D is required everytime off-the-shelf isn't used. Today, this is a
requirement for the hull, but not for anything else.

R&D means: designs, design changes, design approvals, testing,
failures, new designs, design changes, design approvals, testing, . . .
, n designs, n design changes, n design approvals, n testing, n
failures -- ad infinitum. Very expensive!


I don't actually see any "R" described there, just "D".

Don't test anything -- except the hull -- because store bought is
supposed to work. And, glue it all together with gobs of epoxy.


I hope you're being facetious.
  #734  
Old October 17th 05, 05:17 AM
Damon Hill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture

Alan Anderson wrote in
:

"tomcat" wrote:

There exists a multi-billion dollar market for satellites. Any
vehicle with a 200,000 pound cargo capability could launch multiple
satellites simultaneously.


The problem becomes one of finding multiple satellites that want to be
sent to the same place, and customers that don't mind sharing.

R&D is required everytime off-the-shelf isn't used. Today, this is a
requirement for the hull, but not for anything else.

R&D means: designs, design changes, design approvals, testing,
failures, new designs, design changes, design approvals, testing, . .
. , n designs, n design changes, n design approvals, n testing, n
failures -- ad infinitum. Very expensive!


I don't actually see any "R" described there, just "D".

Don't test anything -- except the hull -- because store bought is
supposed to work. And, glue it all together with gobs of epoxy.


I hope you're being facetious.


He's being ludicrous. Does that a lot.

--Damon
  #735  
Old October 17th 05, 06:00 AM
Brad Guth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture

tomcat and Marko Horvat,
Yes it's wonderful, magnificent and inspiring, but... they haven't sill
achieved 7.9 km/sec - the 1st orbital speed.


As per usual, they(scaled & SS2/WK2) are certainly not receiving any
viable support from our MI6/NSA~NASA, instead only the lack of sharing
rocket-science and otherwise need-to-know info upon so much other
science which is simply MOS "high standards and accountability" of our
NASA status quo of evidence exclusions. This is why private ventures
have to tough it out by way of making due with far less cloak and
dagger spookology (meaning you can't have the cloaked advantage of
having three sets of the usual Arthur Andersen cooked books). Perhaps
China, Russia or India might spare a few affordably honest SBRs, that
plus helping to create their CNT/Basalt composite spaceplane for ten
cents on the dollar, and if made large enough may become just as
commercially doable as the C380 R&D required. If using a similar
two-step(SS1) launch method like before, I'm thinking it'll involve at
least 100+ billion for accomplishing something that'll accommodate the
likes of hundreds of folks per flight for achieving those multiple
extended LEOs (possibly 7 days and nights spent aloft) and safely back
to Earth.

In this case, I believe bigger is better. Thus an extremely large
spaceplane as touted by "tomcat" and others is most likely the best
do-everything and all-around ticket to ride. If going a bit further out
than LEO, once in orbit is where the massive outer protective shell of
a mostly basalt composite layer of interlocking armor can be
re-attached and, then it's off they safely go into the wild black
yonder. I see no insurmountable payloads of achieving 200,000 lbs,
although the initial launch phase of getting the entire spaceplane
along with it's full payload to an initial cruising altitude of even
47,000' is going to be impressive by itself, if not pushing a good many
known limits well past the red-line.

Once going past the point of no return and thus obviously having sped
through the Van Allen badlands, of their slowing down into going merely
1+ km/s is somewhat of a coasting velocity that's slightly better off
than a parallel parking speed. From that point on the likes of
Radium(Ra226)--Radon(Rn222) ion thrusters should get real interesting,
with possibly a Xenon/Radon ion cocktail that might offer a little more
push per MJ.

Our moon is only making 1.023+/- km/s, whereas of the ME-L1/EM-L2 zone
of our mutual gravity-well is getting the velocity requirement down to
less than 860 m/s, thus chasing after the moon is more or less about
putting on the breaks, and especially once having somewhat coasted
(retro-thrusting) into being reasonably situated within the interactive
nullification zone, as this is where next to hardly any energy/tonne
can keep that interactive status quo until it's time to return home for
their banked bone marrow injections.

The ME-L1 station-keeping zone should be relatively safe enough of and
external environment (averaging an extra 5 mr/day up to 5 rem/day as
secondary/recoil radiation derived off the solar impacted moon) for
more than a year at a time unless the sun gets seriously nasty along
with whatever pico-flak/m3 within those 1200~2400 km/s winds, in which
case advanced warnings should permit the option of returning home which
should not take but 12 hours at averaging 27 km/s by way of using the
moon itself as a near-miss flyby of having first thrusted nearly
directly down towards the moon and plan-A being thrust diverted just
enough off to the lunar horizon of this spaceplane becoming less than
10 km off the deck should make for the gravity assisted phase of going
extremely fast a rather simple and energy efficient task (not to
mention quite a second by second thrill), as otherwise the Spaceplane
could simply ion thrust itself out of the comfort zone of ME-L1 in
order to temporarily relocate to the solar backside of the moon for a
little timely safe keeping until the worse of the solar flak plus
primary and secondary worth of TBI threat gets past. Then maneuvering
itself back into the relatively safe and sane Earth-side pocket, as
well as being the most energy efficient zone, as this mode of
station-keeping within the ME-L1 sweet-spot should do quite nicely
untill it's time to return to Earth.

Since some of the lunar terrain could be worth 8 km, permitting their
speed-run of cruising this extremely large spaceplane twice past the
lunar surface at perhaps 10 km off the nasty deck might get a little
testy, but that's where computers and TOP-GUN piloting along with those
powerful Radon(Rn222) ion thrusters and full usage of the onboard
multi-hundred MJ energy resources gets to accomplish their thing.
Either that or having a few spare SBRs just in case.

I'll have to believe that I'm not entirely sure that most folks even
remotely appreciate the truly horrific importance and primo relevance
of the mutual gravity-well/nullification zone that's always situated
between Earth and our moon, supposedly at roughly 84% the distance
towards the moon or 16% the distance towards Earth (+/- solar gravity
and just a wee bit of extra influence from Venus every 18 months). Thus
perhaps all of what I'm suggesting is simply going way over thy head
and clean through thy legs. I've attempted many a time as to getting
such a topic regarding this ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot into this Usenet and
many other forums, with essentially a zero return factor, other than my
having to take MOS mainstream status quo flak. So, I guess this is
another taboo/nondisclosure and/or need-to-know facet that's lethally
enforced by those MI6/NSA (aka Skull and Bones) MEN-in-BLACK.
~

Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; War is war, thus "in war there are
no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of having to deal
with the likes of others that haven't been playing by whatever rules,
such as GW Bush.
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

  #736  
Old October 17th 05, 06:08 AM
Brad Guth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture

Einstein was nearly always being "ludicrous" about something, and if he
wasn't so well backed by the almighty might and supreme power of the
Jewish religion, plus a few extremely wealthy and thus powerful Jewish
banks, Einstein probably wouldn't have amounted to squat. What if
Einstein was a Muslim; then what?
~

Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; War is war, thus "in war there are
no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of having to deal
with the likes of others that haven't been playing by whatever rules,
such as GW Bush.
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

  #737  
Old October 17th 05, 10:58 AM
tomcat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture


Alan Anderson wrote:
I don't actually see any "R" described there, just "D".

Don't test anything -- except the hull -- because store bought is
supposed to work. And, glue it all together with gobs of epoxy.


I hope you're being facetious.



Not facetious, just admiring the way the Vikings built their Dragon
Ships. No fooling around. They were the 'can do' types.

Cut the trees, split them, take out the splinters, groove them together
and nail them with wooden dowels. And, cement, seal, and finish with
tree sap. And, off they go!

I admire them and their accomplishment because 'it worked'! They beat
up on everybody with those ships, not to mention swords and mace. And,
I bet they drank beer while they worked. Real gusto!

For some reason, however, the United States is going to take 12 years
to do what it already did back in 1969? It is going to cost 105
billion dollars? Gusto? I think not.

There are probably some that think building a spaceship in a cow
pasture is impossible. It is not.

Put a tarp up to keep rain off the epoxy while it is curing (drying).
When the sun is shining take the tarp away because sunlight will speed
things up.

After all the fuel tanks and crew and cargo modules have been "snapped"
together, complete the double hull. Up to now there has been exposure
to humidity -- out in the desert that it minimal -- and sunlight but
now the delicate aeronautical equipment can be installed with the
shelter of the spaceship hull. Piece of cake.

So, if a nice big hanger is around for all this so much the better, but
it is not an absolute necessity.


tomcat

  #738  
Old October 17th 05, 09:40 PM
Brad Guth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture

tomcat,
I totally agree that bigger is better. Because you're absolutely right
about what's new and always getting improved about rocket engines and
of the fuel they burn, and even SBRs are getting into delivering more
reliable bang for their tonage. Per usable volume of interior, the CNT
spaceplanes of the future should outperform the existing shuttles by at
least 2:1.

Here's a bit more of what a Radon ION thruster might suggest. It's
actually getting a little embarrassingly super terrific as compared to
Xenon, but that may be entirely related to my math running amuck as
suggesting far more than what's actually obtainable. But even if I'm
only 0.1% right, it's still impressive. First look at the proven
Xenon/ion method;

Xenon - Atomic Mass: 131.29 Amu
Xenon ION thrust velocity @30 km/s
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/X/XIPS.html
"These investigations showed that xenon offered the highest thrust of
any non-reactive gas; Ions ejected by XIPS travel in a stream at a
speed of 30 km/s (62,900 mph), nearly 10 times that of a conventional
chemical thruster."

Unlike the non-reactive(dead) aspects of Xenon, obviously Radon(Rn222)
might otherwise be considered as a highly reactive form of gas, as such
it seems entirely possible that the Radon ions should become nearly
photon ejected at half 'c', thus conceivably 150e3 km/s could be
suggesting a 5000:1 exit velocity improvement which should therefore
represent a rather impressive 5e6:1 improvement in the KE worth of
thrust potential and, Radon having the Amu of 222 is certainly much
denser than Xenon at the Amu of 131.3, so as to start with being worth
another 1.69:1

No matters what, besides Xenon having to be artificially obtained and
then highly insulated as a sequestered sub-frozen mass, of whatever
mass of Xenon is eventually going to run out, whereas a cash of
Radium(Ra226) that's creating Radon(Rn222) on the fly is good for a
half life of 1600 years.

Boeing 702: 25 centimeters in diameter = 165 mN of thrust
"Boeing Electron Dynamic Devices (702 Thruster), XIPS is 10 times more
efficient than conventional liquid fuel systems." The 702 offers an
individual range of power consumption up to 4.5 kW that obtains 3500
seconds/kg of Xenon ISP for creating 165 mN worth of thrust.

I'm certainly not the Radon(Rn222) ion thruster wizard but, I'm
thinking the amount of required energy as to ionize Rn222 that's
already somewhat on the go isn't going to be nearly as great as per the
none-reactive and thus passive Xenon. Therefore, the auxiliary power
source of electrons as being derived via PV cells, tether dipole or
that of an onboard reactor might be relatively slight on behalf of
energising ions from Radon.

If my reverse engineering is worth yet another bad example:

Xenon ION thrust at 165e-3/4.5e3 = 36.666e-6 N per J

Radon ION thrust 36.666e-6 * 5e6 * 1.69 = 309.8 N per J

Thus a MJ applied for creating a Radon ION thrust might be good for
309.8e6 N

The thrust per MJ in terms of Kgf becomes 309.8e6 * 0.101972 =
31.59375e6 Kgf

Obviously 36.6e6 Kgf of ION thrust per MJ seems a bit much. Therefore
perhaps the actual improvement in Ra222 ion exit velocity isn't going
to become worth the 5000:1 over Xenon ions, that is unless it somehow
turns into a laser cannon form of ion thruster, in which case the ion
velocity improvement could reach 10,000:1.

This radon/ion notion still represents having a rather sizable cash of
having to haul Radium(Ra226) about, perhaps several tonnes worth unless
there's some viable method of expediting the rate of decay into
becoming Rn222. Possibly forcing the decay of Ra226 within a reactor
might suggest upon one method of generating the onboard auxiliary
energy at the same time as per expediting the production of Rn222.

Otherwise having a continuously usable ISP of 3500 * 1600 years = 5.6e6
seems rather interesting. Not that the basis of any kg worth of Xenon
under continuous usage is going to be good for more than an hour,
therefore the actual Radium(Ra226)--Radon(Rn222) ISP half-life gets
way further past the mark of 5.6e6 * 8.736e3 = 48.9e9

Of course, as per the added mass of the external basalt composite
shield which need not come and go from earth, as equally for the cash
of Radium(Ra226) tonnage need not be onboard for the launch or reentry
phase. Having robotically pre-launched the Radium and whatever reactor
and/or Radon(Rn222) extractor into orbit is the same logic as to having
the basalt composite shielding pre-established in orbit, thus why the
spaceplane need not physically carry the added mass upon launch or
reentry. However, since there's no apparent shortage of Radon(Rn222) to
being had upon Earth, this is why a good amount of that element as a
frozen gas (possibly as a liquid or solid) could be utilized as a
portion of their launch thrusting energy via ion thrusters, although
I'd expect that in addition to whatever terrestrial heavy lift
aerodynamic transporter as was utilized in the SS1 case, a few SBRs
would remain the norm if the large spaceplane launch mass is
essentially representing several hundred tonnes in need of exiting
Earth's gravity at 8 km/s.

If the LSE-CM/ISS were established, as then parking the spaceplane
along side this 50e6 tonne CM(counter mass) as having the 1e6 m3 ISS
within is just the best ever spaceplane depot/pitstop you can imagine,
providing a good 50t/m2 worth of physical and radiation shielding that
should take whatever the sun has to offer without measurably impacting
the spaceplane crew and passenges that would simply vacate their
moderately shielded ride and wait it out within that relative safety of
the CM/ISS.
-

As per the usual, each and every day (as soon as my I get my PC
reconnected to this Usenet that sucks and blows, as such it's been
getting worse off than ever, as I seem to have attracted more than my
fair share of the almighty GOOGLE/NOVA V-Chip of automated seek and
destroy via spermware/malware as a gauntlet that's having been
specifically associated with my MI6/NSA Usenet interactions, thus
nearly always I'm having to frequently reboot because of their ongoing
efforts as to damage and/or eliminate my existence as far as my having
any public Usenet access or even so much as a working PC. This is still
the absolute ongoing truth and nothing but the truth that's easily 100%
provable, which seems only to further demonstrate that I'm essentially
right about most everything, thus apparently I'm worth targeting on
behalf of mainstream damage-control. The typical excuses that it's all
my fault, in that GOOGLE/NOVA and their partners of MI6/NSA in crimes
against humanity can't possibly avoid nor otherwise track a given
source of such spermware/malware, much less block it, is yet another
LLPOF proof-positive that I'm right about something that's apparently
not supposed to be public knowledge.
~

Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; WAR is WAR, thus "in war there are
no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of having to deal
with the likes of others that haven't been playing by whatever rules,
such as GW Bush.
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

  #739  
Old October 18th 05, 08:53 AM
Brad Guth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture

tomcat,
Some math corrections that only seems to have turned out a bit more
fantastic than before, with each applied MJ worth of Radon ions
suggesting KE = 158e6 Kgf is getting into a level of nuclear thrust if
enough Radon(Rn222) gas can be supplied into the arrays of thrusters
without everything melting down upon the launch pad. Although this is
still purely mad-science speculation as based upon an theoretical ion
velocity of 150e3 km/s, though doing the math on just 150 km/s isn't
entirely without merit at delivering 158 Kgf/MJ.

However, I'll still have to totally agree that bigger is better.
Because you're absolutely right about what's new and always getting
improved about rocket engines and of the fuel they burn, and even SBRs
are getting into delivering more reliable bang for their tonnage. Per
usable volume of interior, the CNT spaceplanes of the future should
outperform the existing usable volume as provided by our NASA shuttle,
I'm thinking by at least 2:1 if not 4:1 seems doable.

Here's an improvement upon what a Radon ion thruster might suggest. I
must say that it's actually getting a little embarrassingly super
terrific as compared to Xenon, but that may be entirely related to my
math running amuck as suggesting far more ion velocity capability than
what's actually obtainable. But even if I'm only 0.1% right, it's still
going to offer an impressive number. First look at the proven Xenon/ion
method;

Xenon - Atomic Mass: 131.29 Amu
Xenon ION thrust exit velocity @30 km/s
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/X/XIPS.html
"These investigations showed that xenon offered the highest thrust of
any non-reactive gas; Ions ejected by XIPS travel in a stream at a
speed of 30 km/s (62,900 mph), nearly 10 times that of a conventional
chemical thruster."

Unlike the non-reactive(dead) aspects of Xenon, obviously Radon(Rn222)
might otherwise be considered as a highly reactive form of gas, as such
it seems entirely possible that Radon ions should become nearly photon
ejected at half 'c', thus conceivably 150e3 km/s could be suggesting a
5000:1 exit velocity improvement, of which V2 should therefore
represent a rather impressive 25e6:1 improvement in the KE worth of
thrust potential and, Radon having the Amu of 222 is certainly much
denser than any Xenon Amu of 131.3, so as to start off with being worth
another 1.69:1

No matters what, besides the factor of Xe having to be just as
artificially obtained, sub-frozen and then highly insulated as a
sequestered sub-frozen mass of Xe, and of whatever mass of this Xe is
eventually going to run out, whereas accommodating a sufficient cash of
Radium(Ra226) that's creating Radon(Rn222) on the fly is good for a
half life of 1600 years.

Boeing 702: 25 centimeters in diameter = 165 mN of thrust
"Boeing Electron Dynamic Devices (702 Thruster), XIPS is 10 times more
efficient than conventional liquid fuel systems." The 702 offers an
individual range of power consumption up to 4.5 kW that obtains 3500
seconds/kg worth of Xenon ISP for creating 165 mN of thrust.

I'm certainly not the Radon(Rn222) ion thruster wizard but, I'm
thinking the amount of required energy as to ionize Rn222 that's
already somewhat on the go isn't going to be nearly as great as per the
none-reactive and thus passive Xenon. Therefore, the auxiliary power
source of electrons as being derived via PV cells, tether dipole or
that of an onboard reactor might be relatively slight on behalf of
energising ions from Radon.

See if my reverse engineering and not so great math is worth yet
another bad example:

Xenon ION thrust at 165e-3/4.5e3 = 36.666e-6 N per J

Based upon a 5000:1 increase in velocity represents a KE mutiplier
factor of 25e6

At good vacuum, Radon ION thrust 36.666e-6 * 25e6 * 1.69 = 1549 N per J

Thus a MJ applied for creating a Radon ION thrust might be good for
1549e6 N

The thrust per MJ in terms of Kgf becomes 1549e6 * 0.101972 = 157.95e6
Kgf

Obviously 158e6 Kgf of ION thrust per MJ of auxiliary applied energy
seems a bit much. Therefore perhaps the actual improvement in Ra222 ion
exit velocity isn't going to become worth the 5000:1 over the velocity
of Xenon ions, that is unless it somehow turns into a laser cannon form
of ion thruster, in which case the ion velocity improvement could reach
10,000:1. Otherwise if achieving just 150 km/s of ion thrust would cut
the results down to 158 Kgf/MJ, which still isn't all that bad.

This radon/ion notion still represents having a rather sizable cash of
which the spaceplane is having to haul Radium(Ra226) about, perhaps
several tonnes worth unless there's some viable method of expediting
the rate of decay into becoming Rn222. Possibly forcing the decay of
Ra226 within a reactor might suggest upon one method of generating the
onboard auxiliary energy at the same time as per expediting the
production of Rn222.

Otherwise having a continuously usable ISP of 3500 * 1600 years = 5.6e6
seems rather interesting. Not that using the basis of any kg worth of
Xenon under continuous usage is going to be good for more than an
hour/kg, therefore the actual Radium(Ra226)--Radon(Rn222) ISP
half-life gets this way further past the mark of 5.6e6 * 8.736e3 =
48.9e9

Of course, as per the added mass of the external basalt composite
shield which need not come and go from earth, as equally for the cash
of Radium(Ra226) tonnage need not be onboard for the launch or reentry
phase. Having robotically pre-launched the Radium and whatever reactor
and/or Radon(Rn222) extractor into orbit is the same logic as to having
the basalt composite shielding pre-established in orbit, thus why the
spaceplane need not physically carry the added mass upon launch or
reentry. However, since there's no apparent shortage of Radon(Rn222) to
being had upon Earth, this is why a good amount of that element as a
frozen gas (possibly as a liquid or solid) could be utilized as a
portion of their launch thrusting energy via ion thrusters, although
I'd expect that in addition to whatever terrestrial heavy lift
aerodynamic transporter as was utilized in the SS1 case, a few SBRs
would remain the norm if the large spaceplane launch mass is
essentially representing several hundred tonnes in need of exiting
Earth's gravity at 8 km/s.

If the LSE-CM/ISS were established, as then parking the spaceplane
along side this 50e6 tonne CM(counter mass) as having the 1e6 m3 ISS
within is just the best ever spaceplane depot/pitstop you can imagine,
providing a good 50t/m2 worth of physical and radiation shielding that
should take whatever the sun has to offer without measurably impacting
the spaceplane crew and passengers that would simply vacate their
moderately shielded ride and wait it out within that relative safety of
the CM/ISS.

In closing, I may not have fully considered the ramifications of
actually using Radon within our terrestrial environment, as I'm
re-thinking this Radon(Rn222) ion thruster might somehow represent a
situation that's somewhat like pumping out a whole lot better density
than lead at 150,000 km/s, whereas the down-wind of thruster exhaust
might become a wee bit lethal until the final decay of whatever volume
of Rn222 becomes actual lead, as for then whomever's still alive gets
to prematurely die from lead poising.
-

As per the usual, each and every day (as soon as my I get my PC
reconnected to this Usenet that sucks and blows, as such it's been
getting worse off than ever, as I seem to have attracted more than my
fair share of the almighty GOOGLE/NOVA V-Chip of automated seek and
destroy via spermware/malware as a gauntlet that's having been
specifically associated with my MI6/NSA Usenet interactions, thus
nearly always I'm having to frequently reboot because of their ongoing
efforts as to damage and/or eliminate my existence as far as my having
any public Usenet access or even so much as a working PC. This is still
the absolute ongoing truth and nothing but the truth that's easily 100%
provable, which seems only to further demonstrate that I'm essentially
right about most everything, thus apparently I'm worth targeting on
behalf of mainstream damage-control. The typical excuses that it's all
my fault, in that GOOGLE/NOVA and their partners of MI6/NSA in crimes
against humanity can't possibly avoid nor otherwise track a given
source of such spermware/malware, much less block it, is yet another
LLPOF proof-positive that I'm right about something that's apparently
not supposed to be public knowledge.
~

Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; WAR is WAR, thus "in war there are
no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of having to deal
with the likes of others that haven't been playing by whatever rules,
such as GW Bush.
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

 




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
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 July 4th 05 07:50 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 August 5th 04 01:36 AM
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) Nathan Jones Misc 6 July 29th 04 06:14 AM
The Apollo FAQ (moon landings were faked) Nathan Jones Astronomy Misc 8 February 4th 04 07:48 PM
The Apollo FAQ (moon landings were faked) Nathan Jones Misc 8 February 4th 04 07:48 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:50 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.