|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket
In sci.space.history Pat Flannery wrote:
On 10/27/2010 9:05 AM, Rick Jones wrote: Since no terrestrial governments "own" (speaking legally rather than practically) space wouldn't those letters of marque have to come from the UN?-) Privateers would then be permitted to paint their ships that lovely light blue color Oh yeah, the UN space pirates: "Strike your flag or I'm going to issue a strongly-worded letter." :-D Hey, don't belittle it - the reader could get a nasty paper cut from it Since space law is primarily based on the law of the open sea, you could indeed have two nations at war with each other trying to either destroy or seize each other's space assets. The Soviets were concerned we were going to send a Apollo mission to try and board one of their Salyut stations, And I saw at lest one magazine illustration back around 1974-75 of two Soyuz grabbing control of Skylab after our final mission to it. Is that why the ApolloSoyuz docking adaptor came with the Apollo?-) Heck, if the Soviets had made one of their own and then boosted Skylab once or twice they might have actually been doing us a favor Assuming they didn't spill borscht everywhere. They could have left a couple plastic bags of vodka as station-warming gifts for when Shuttle finally got there. It probably didn't help the Soviet's paranoia that minus its solar arrays, a Salyut would fit in the Shuttle's cargo bay. Let me guess - they thought it would launch from a secret site in a volcano on a Japanese island? rick jones -- Process shall set you free from the need for rational thought. these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket
In sci.space.history Pat Flannery wrote:
Explain how SpaceX is getting ready to do their second Falcon 9 launch with a operational standard Dragon capsule on it for a complete orbital mission and recovery, while NASA's efforts in the same direction haven't even yielded a operational version of the first stage of the Ares I booster? One not only needs bucks to get Buck Rogers, but one must also be able to focus those bucks rather than be forced to peanut butter them across congressional districts. Or, if forced to peanut butter them, one needs BUCKS rather than bucks or Bucks. rick jones -- oxymoron n, Hummer H2 with California Save Our Coasts and Oceans plates these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket
On 10/27/2010 9:05 AM, Rick Jones wrote:
Since no terrestrial governments "own" (speaking legally rather than practically) space wouldn't those letters of marque have to come from the UN?-) Privateers would then be permitted to paint their ships that lovely light blue color Oh yeah, the UN space pirates: "Strike your flag or I'm going to issue a strongly-worded letter." :-D Since space law is primarily based on the law of the open sea, you could indeed have two nations at war with each other trying to either destroy or seize each other's space assets. The Soviets were concerned we were going to send a Apollo mission to try and board one of their Salyut stations, And I saw at lest one magazine illustration back around 1974-75 of two Soyuz grabbing control of Skylab after our final mission to it. It probably didn't help the Soviet's paranoia that minus its solar arrays, a Salyut would fit in the Shuttle's cargo bay. Pat |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket
On 10/27/2010 11:35 AM, Ian Parker wrote:
You have a touching faith in private enterprise. Private enterprise can do amazing things, it set Google up. Private enterprise though :- 1) Cannot work miracles. 2) Is out to make a profit. Virgin Galactic is not a particularly good example. It is an expensive sub orbital ride. For the price I would want an orbital flight. Lets face it the guys in NASA or ESA are the smartest around. If they are told to brainstorm they will, in all probability, come up with rather better ideas than the typical member of this group. Explain how SpaceX is getting ready to do their second Falcon 9 launch with a operational standard Dragon capsule on it for a complete orbital mission and recovery, while NASA's efforts in the same direction haven't even yielded a operational version of the first stage of the Ares I booster? Pat |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket
On 27/10/2010 9:58 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
On Oct 26, 11:46 am, Pat wrote: Privateers? Space pirates? Well, I think he just meant "private businessmen". Exactly. I have a feeling Pat knew that, but the opportunity was too good to pass up. :-) |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket
On 28 Oct, 00:00, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 10/27/2010 11:35 AM, Ian Parker wrote: You have a touching faith in private enterprise. Private enterprise can do amazing things, it set Google up. Private enterprise though :- 1) Cannot work miracles. 2) Is out to make a profit. Virgin Galactic is not a particularly good example. It is an expensive sub orbital ride. For the price I would want an orbital flight. Lets face it the guys in NASA or ESA are the smartest around. If they are told to brainstorm they will, in all probability, come up with rather better ideas than the typical member of this group. Explain how SpaceX is getting ready to do their second Falcon 9 launch with a operational standard Dragon capsule on it for a complete orbital mission and recovery, while NASA's efforts in the same direction haven't even yielded a operational version of the first stage of the Ares I booster? Pat The Falcon is interesting. It is however NOT reusable. LEO payload is 4,500Kg in the normal configuration. Cost per launch is about $45M. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9 The "heavy" configuration is still on the drawing board. The "heavy" is broadly comperable with Ariane 5. Ariane at present, like the old Shuttle, has solid fuel boosters. It might be possible in the future to replace solid fuel with the Falcon's LOX/Kerosene. The cost of Ariane 5 is $120M per launch, but Ariane 5 has an 18,000Kg LEO payload. Neither, as I understand it, is human space flight qualified, although there is the possibility that Ariane Energia is 88,000Kg. A real heavyweight. http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/energia.htm http://www.friends-partners.org/part...vs/energia.htm Development cost was something over a billion roubles. Launch cost - vague but probably comparable to Ariane 5. This potted survey shows that if you want the lowest per Kg cost at LEO you buy Russian. It is not as simple as that, there are political questions and the cost may not be a true cost. The real comparison is with Ariane 5. This shows that Falcon, while an innovation is not so radically different from other solutions. The real eye opener is Ariane 5. This I think is because the Europeans, the French in particular had much more consistent objectives than NASA. This analysis rubbishes Capitol Hill but not necessarily NASA that has to live with the objectives set. Certainly the quality of the scientific brains that produced this proposal is not in question. - Ian Parker |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket
On 10/27/2010 3:03 PM, Alan Erskine wrote:
On 27/10/2010 9:58 AM, Quadibloc wrote: On Oct 26, 11:46 am, Pat wrote: Privateers? Space pirates? Well, I think he just meant "private businessmen". Exactly. I have a feeling Pat knew that, but the opportunity was too good to pass up. :-) That was indeed the case. ;-) Pat |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket
On 10/28/2010 2:26 AM, Ian Parker wrote:
The cost of Ariane 5 is $120M per launch, but Ariane 5 has an 18,000Kg LEO payload. Neither, as I understand it, is human space flight qualified, although there is the possibility that Ariane Ariane 5 was design to be man-rated, as originally one of its payloads was to be the Hermes mini-shuttle; but the French decided that if they optimized it to carry the Hermes it would be less economical as a commercial launcher, and that was the main purpose it was developed for: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hermes.htm Energia is 88,000Kg. A real heavyweight. http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/energia.htm http://www.friends-partners.org/part...vs/energia.htm Yeah, but Energia is dead as a doornail despite Russian dreams of somehow restarting the program. For starters, the four strap-on Zenit boosters are made in Ukraine, not Russia, and Russia and Ukraine aren't on very friendly terms...probably a result of Stalin starving between seven and ten million Ukrainian farmers to death while exporting all the wheat they grew to show the triumph of the Soviet collective farm concept. Development cost was something over a billion roubles. Launch cost - vague but probably comparable to Ariane 5. This potted survey shows that if you want the lowest per Kg cost at LEO you buy Russian. It is not as simple as that, there are political questions and the cost may not be a true cost. The real comparison is with Ariane 5. This shows that Falcon, while an innovation is not so radically different from other solutions. The real eye opener is Ariane 5. This I think is because the Europeans, the French in particular had much more consistent objectives than NASA. This analysis rubbishes Capitol Hill but not necessarily NASA that has to live with the objectives set. The French were out to make a buck on commercial space launches; an idea completely alien to NASA. Certainly the quality of the scientific brains that produced this proposal is not in question. Ares I/Orion was supposed to be an easy-to-build system that could be done quickly, and at low cost. Then it began...Orion weighed too much, so the ground landing via airbags or landing rockets and reusable heatshield got replaced by a sea landing and non-reusable ablative heatshield. But that was still too heavy to use a stock four-segment Shuttle SRB for the first stage, so that had to be replaced with a five segment one. Then it was found that the upper stage still wouldn't give sufficient power to get the Orion into orbit unless it fired its service module engine once separating from the second stage, cutting into its propellant supply. Whatever these scientific brains were good at, figuring out the math of what their spacecraft was going to weigh vs. their planned booster's lifting capabilities apparently wasn't one of their gifts. Pat |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket
On 28 Oct, 21:26, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 10/28/2010 2:26 AM, Ian Parker wrote: The cost of Ariane 5 is $120M per launch, but Ariane 5 has an 18,000Kg LEO payload. Neither, as I understand it, is human space flight qualified, although there is the possibility that Ariane Ariane 5 was design to be man-rated, as originally one of its payloads was to be the Hermes mini-shuttle; but the French decided that if they optimized it to carry the Hermes it would be less economical as a commercial launcher, and that was the main purpose it was developed for:http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hermes.htm Energia is 88,000Kg. A real heavyweight. http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/energia.htm http://www.friends-partners.org/part...vs/energia.htm Yeah, but Energia is dead as a doornail despite Russian dreams of somehow restarting the program. For starters, the four strap-on Zenit boosters are made in Ukraine, not Russia, and Russia and Ukraine aren't on very friendly terms...probably a result of Stalin starving between seven and ten million Ukrainian farmers to death while exporting all the wheat they grew to show the triumph of the Soviet collective farm concept. Development cost was something over a billion roubles. Launch cost - vague but probably comparable to Ariane 5. This potted survey shows that if you want the lowest per Kg cost at LEO you buy Russian. It is not as simple as that, there are political questions and the cost may not be a true cost. The real comparison is with Ariane 5. This shows that Falcon, while an innovation is not so radically different from other solutions. The real eye opener is Ariane 5. This I think is because the Europeans, the French in particular had much more consistent objectives than NASA. This analysis rubbishes Capitol Hill but not necessarily NASA that has to live with the objectives set. The French were out to make a buck on commercial space launches; an idea completely alien to NASA. Certainly the quality of the scientific brains that produced this proposal is not in question. Ares I/Orion was supposed to be an easy-to-build system that could be done quickly, and at low cost. Then it began...Orion weighed too much, so the ground landing via airbags or landing rockets and reusable heatshield got replaced by a sea landing and non-reusable ablative heatshield. But that was still too heavy to use a stock four-segment Shuttle SRB for the first stage, so that had to be replaced with a five segment one. Then it was found that the upper stage still wouldn't give sufficient power to get the Orion into orbit unless it fired its service module engine once separating from the second stage, cutting into its propellant supply. Whatever these scientific brains were good at, figuring out the math of what their spacecraft was going to weigh vs. their planned booster's lifting capabilities apparently wasn't one of their gifts. Pat Ares is a pup. there is little doubt about that. Linguistics - Ares was the Greek god of war. Ares and Mars are therefore synonymous. Ares was conceived of as taking humans there. There are a number of problems, weight is only one of them, oscillation is another. This should indeed have been dealt with with good basic engineering. It would in fact have been better to have pulled Saturn 5 out of retirement and fitted it with modern electronics. However the overriding fact is that Humans on "Ares" are completely under resourced. This is the root cause of the problem. Don't do at all what you can't finish. - Ian Parker |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket
On Oct 26, 2:07*pm, William Mook wrote:
Gradual improvements on core capabilities are what's needed. Consider the Michoud Assembly Facility run by Marshall Space Flight Center In the 1950s and 60s they worked on Saturnshttp://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/HIGH/6870792.jpg In the 1970s they switched to External Tankshttp://mm04.nasaimages.org/MediaManager/srvr?mediafile=/Size4/nasaNAS... These External Tanks using a design I cam up with become a building block for a very large launcher as I describe here; http://www.scribd.com/doc/30943696/ETDHLRLV To support the development of solar power satellites that beam infrared laser energy to 8,000 ground stations at the same time - making enough money to support continued operation of the system by generating a total of 10,000 MW and earning $4.38 billion per year per satellite. http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/S...-Satellite-GEO This power satellite can operate at GEO to produce *10,000 MW as mentioned. More advanced systems can be orbited nearer the Sun to produce 220,000 MW - upping revenue to $30 billion per year per satellite even while reducing costs from $0.05 per kWh to $0.015 per kWh. A 220,000 MW laser beam energizing a laser propelled rocket that produces an exhaust speed of 22.44 km/sec produces 1,000 metric tons force (the same produced in the ET derived rocket) - but reduces the propellant fraction required to get to orbit (9.2 km/sec) to 0.337 or 263 metric tons of hydrogen alone. *Allowing the 50 metric ton empty vehicle carry 467 metric tons to orbit as a single stage vehicle!! The same vehicle - when powered by laser rockets with 22.44 km/sec exhaust speed can carry 315 metric tons to the moon and back or even Mars and back using 415 metric tons of hydrogen in the same 50 metric ton vehicle. *This is the capability of laser rocket. But we need to do things well regardless of the technology core. Your conventional LH2/LOx stuff is good enough as is, along with powerful ion thrusters should more than do the trick, but not if you're never in charge of anything that matters. Since you refuse to blame anyone except yourself, and insist that the past isn't ever supposed to affect or influence the present or future, then why don't you fix whatever's wrong with yourself, and then show the rest of us exactly how it's all done faster, better and cheaper. Try to remember that I'm one of the few that's actually on your side. Go to your rich and powerful friends and get their unlimited financial support, and start doing exactly as you say. According to your own advise, in no time at all you'll become another trillionaire that pays little if any income or business tax, just like most of your best friends that are already trillionaires or at least multi-billionaires keeping most of their loot and other forms of hoarded wealth offshore or in some other perfectly legal tax-avoidance investments that remain untouchable to anyone except yourself. ~ BG |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Super Gravity & Super Spin Equivalent | G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] | Misc | 0 | April 1st 07 12:22 PM |
super agency merge RSA,ESA JSA , NASA, et al | Lynndel K. Humphreys | Space Shuttle | 16 | November 18th 05 02:15 PM |
Russian Super Rocket | Rod Stevenson | Technology | 21 | February 5th 04 05:22 AM |
Russian Super Rocket | Rod Stevenson | History | 34 | February 5th 04 05:22 AM |
Russian super rocket? | Rod Stevenson | Technology | 6 | November 10th 03 10:37 AM |