NASA and the Vision thing

"Who is Elle Marche?"

It means it works in contrast to the Shuttle which has problems
working.

What you've done, like so many other kooks, is heard a few rumors involving
"someday, maybe" underfunded technology and believed the hype. Your argument
is unpersuasive.

Conventional rockets, the Shuttle, Ariane and the Saturn C5 have
cryogenic upper stages. This gives an exhaust velocity of some 4km/sec.
To get to the Moon you need a total return impulse of approx 16km/sec.
Roughly 11km to escape the earth and 2.74*2 km/sec to land and then
escape from the Moon. Now this represents a mass ratio of e^4. Apollo
had the mother ship in a parking orbit. A parking orbit reduces the
total impulse somewhat but not significantly. To go to Mars and return
you will not get away with an impulse much under 20km/s. It does not
matter whether you refuel in orbit or not the total cost of providing
that impulse will be the same. Also to go to Mars you will have massive
amounts of consumables. $80e9 is a fair estimate I would say.

This is what I mean when I talk about a dead end technolgy. If you have
e^2 more rockets you can incease the impulse by 8km/s but it is really
a dead end as I claim.

As far as your claim is concerned, I say we need new technology.
Priority should be given to finding that new technology. If you don't
have it don't go. I cannot see $80e9 being at all justified. It would
be a little less (but not much less) to go again. The whole concept of
a manned space station is fatally flawed. Out knowledge of the Solar
System and the Universe outside has been provided by unmanned probes.
We should be maintaining Hubble NOT woth the shuttle but with Ariane
and a VR robot that does not come back. Robotics and AI is a technology
with a future.

What is the nature of this new technology. Well I am open to
alternative suggestions but as the robotic AI route seems the most
promising for space exploration in the immediate future it would seem
logical to think in terms of a Von Neumann machine. A VN machine would
be a leap of imagination beyond simply servicing Hubble, James Webb
etc. Hubble simply requires VR, James Webb being a distance from Earth
will require a little AI.

There are alternatives. There if the N word. Fission giving specific
impuses or round about 12km/s might be used for trips from LEO. If you
could fuse He3 and Deuteriium (Tritium and Neutrons are no good in
space) you could achieve 40-50km/s no problem.

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:05:11 -0600, wrote
(in article . com):

There are alternatives. There if the N word. Fission giving specific
impuses or round about 12km/s might be used for trips from LEO.

You're seriously confusing exhaust velocity, delta-V and specific
impulse. Go take an astrodynamics class or at least read a book and do
the math.

--
"Fame may be fleeting but obscurity is forever." ~Anonymous
"I believe as little as possible and know as much as I can."
~Todd Stuart Phillips
www.angryherb.net

On 25 Nov 2005 09:05:11 -0800, wrote:

There are alternatives. There if the N word.

....Bombardmentfarce? Is that you?

OM
--
]=======================================[
OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld
Let's face it: Sometimes you *need*
an obnoxious opinion in your day!
]=======================================[

In sci.space.policy wrote:

Conventional rockets, the Shuttle, Ariane and the Saturn C5 have
cryogenic upper stages. This gives an exhaust velocity of some 4km/sec.
To get to the Moon you need a total return impulse of approx 16km/sec.
Roughly 11km to escape the earth and 2.74*2 km/sec to land and then

Yes, so for example in case of Ariane, you want to launch twice to have
comfortable margings - preferably with the drop taks on the first launch.

escape from the Moon. Now this represents a mass ratio of e^4. Apollo
had the mother ship in a parking orbit. A parking orbit reduces the

The mother ship???

There are alternatives. There if the N word. Fission giving specific
impuses or round about 12km/s might be used for trips from LEO. If you
could fuse He3 and Deuteriium (Tritium and Neutrons are no good in
space) you could achieve 40-50km/s no problem.

Sorry, but you have your terminology and numbers seriously mixed up.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:47:07 +0000 (UTC), Sander Vesik
wrote:

Sorry, but you have your terminology and numbers seriously mixed up.

....Yeah. Sorta like bombardmentfarce, huh?

OM
--
]=======================================[
OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld
Let's face it: Sometimes you *need*
an obnoxious opinion in your day!
]=======================================[

And the reaction of the great, unwashed taxpayers who will foot the bill is
"Who is Elle Marche?"

Ariane which works unlike some things. The Shuttle is a complete fraud.
It is more expensive and works less well than the things it replaced.

What you've done, like so many other kooks, is heard a few rumors involving
"someday, maybe" underfunded technology and believed the hype. Your argument
is unpersuasive.

Perhaps but manned space flight withut new technology is a dead end.
The exhaust velocity with cryogenic fuel, the best available is 4km/s.
To achieve any given impulse you need e^I/4km/s of your mass to be
fuel. That is before deadweight and other considerations are brought
in. To get 8km/s more you need to ferry uup the loads of e^2 rockets.
The Moon (return) represents some 16km/sec (can be reduced slighly as
in Apollo by having a mother ship). Basically the Saturn took
astronauts to the Moon. Saturn was the pinnacle of rocket design, it
represented a mature technology. Anything else, including the shuttle
has worked less well. I just don't understand why it was ever built. It
represents a clear step backwards. The ISS and any ideas of space
stations are simply dead end technology. They are simply soaking up
money and doing precious little.

Mars requires about 20km/s + very large consumable loads. $80e9 seems a
fair price. If we are stupid enough to go there nothing will have been
achieved, the price for subsequent visits will be just as great. In
fact a visit to the Moon with the Shuttle/Space Station would cost a
dickins of a lot more than an Apollo flight. NASA has indeed gone into
reverse.

New technology is required. What shape? Unmanned exploration has always
been successful. We should be sending up a repair robot (non
returnable) on Ariane (qui marche!) to serviuce Hubble. To servicew H
we only need Virtual Reality, to service something deeper into space we
need AI. AI and robotics are technologies with a future.

A Von Neumann machine is a logical extension of robotic exploration and
would be my prime candidate for "new technology". There are other
possibilities. A fission based rocets could deliver specific impulses
of 12km/s from LEO. And He3/Deuterium would achieve 50 quite easily ans
might operate from ground level. He/Tritium with its neutrons is
unsuitable for space propulsion.

November 25, 2005

wrote:

Ariane which works unlike some things. The Shuttle is a complete fraud.

Those 112 successful manned flights never happened, eh?

It is more expensive and works less well than the things it replaced.

And what manned launcher would that be? Saturn?

What you've done, like so many other kooks, is heard a few rumors involving
"someday, maybe" underfunded technology and believed the hype. Your argument
is unpersuasive.


Perhaps but manned space flight withut new technology is a dead end.
The exhaust velocity with cryogenic fuel, the best available is 4km/s.

Actually, it's closer to 4.5 km/s.

To achieve any given impulse you need e^I/4km/s of your mass to be
fuel. That is before deadweight and other considerations are brought
in. To get 8km/s more you need to ferry uup the loads of e^2 rockets.
The Moon (return) represents some 16km/sec (can be reduced slighly as
in Apollo by having a mother ship). Basically the Saturn took
astronauts to the Moon. Saturn was the pinnacle of rocket design, it
represented a mature technology.

They're gone. It's over. Get over it.

Anything else, including the shuttle has worked less well.

Right, we can launch microsatellites with Saturn Vs.

I just don't understand why it was ever built.

It was built. We are flying it. Get over it.

It represents a clear step backwards. The ISS and any ideas of space
stations are simply dead end technology. They are simply soaking up
money and doing precious little.

That doesn't seem to gybe with their existance, and our need to do
something about them.

Mars requires about 20km/s + very large consumable loads. $80e9 seems a
fair price. If we are stupid enough to go there nothing will have been
achieved, the price for subsequent visits will be just as great. In
fact a visit to the Moon with the Shuttle/Space Station would cost a
dickins of a lot more than an Apollo flight. NASA has indeed gone into
reverse.

True, there is this great need to recoupe or STS and ISS investments,
by using them to leverage a new, better, less expensive SSTO / RLV.
It definitely won't be a Saturn V, though. Get used to that result.

New technology is required. What shape?

Of the cryogenic SSTO and RLV shape.

Unmanned exploration has always
been successful. We should be sending up a repair robot (non
returnable) on Ariane (qui marche!) to serviuce Hubble.

And what repair robot would that be pray tell.

To servicew H
we only need Virtual Reality, to service something deeper into space we
need AI. AI and robotics are technologies with a future.

Right, and just continue to launch them with expensive expendable.

A Von Neumann machine is a logical extension of robotic exploration and
would be my prime candidate for "new technology". There are other
possibilities. A fission based rocets could deliver specific impulses
of 12km/s from LEO. And He3/Deuterium would achieve 50 quite easily ans
might operate from ground level. He/Tritium with its neutrons is
unsuitable for space propulsion.

Right. Nuke the Earth. Let the nanobots have it. Got it.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://cosmic.lifeform.org
http://www.lifeform.net/talkshop

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 17:45:51 -0600, Thomas Lee Elifritz
wrote:

They're gone. It's over. Get over it.

....Oh great. The Nazi Troll changed his e-mail address again. What
happened, Tommy? Did your ISP punt you again for posting anti-semitic
trollings?

PLONK

OM
--
]=======================================[
OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld
Let's face it: Sometimes you *need*
an obnoxious opinion in your day!
]=======================================[

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Rusty wrote:

In this case there's not much difference between a vision and a
nightmare.




Congress is looking around for places to cut money without offending too
much of the populace with the 2006 elections coming up.


With the deficits we all have to tighten the belt. I hear the military
is having to make do with only a billion a day now.


It could be that
since Bush came up with this they see it as his, not their,
responsibility to kill it.


They'll stall till after the midterms as you say. But with the
repubs steadily imploding, they seem to have a growing
obsession with places far-far-away.


Griffin obviously seriously screwed up his math when he said this could
all be done with only minimal added funds.


He forget to factor in the pork index. The repubs are
padding the ground for the crash landing to come.


s




Pat

wrote in message
ups.com...
"Who is Elle Marche?"

It means it works in contrast to the Shuttle which has problems
working.

I understand that. However, almost nobody else does.


What you've done, like so many other kooks, is heard a few rumors
involving
"someday, maybe" underfunded technology and believed the hype. Your
argument
is unpersuasive.

Conventional rockets, the Shuttle, Ariane and the Saturn C5 have
cryogenic upper stages. This gives an exhaust velocity of some 4km/sec.

And right there you've just put your involuntary venture capitalists to
sleep.

Telling the American taxpayer to stop using homegrown technology and to buy
foreign rockets, particularly French made products, will not only get you
laughed at, but might even get you Sibreled.

If you argue tech, you will not get funded. Logic is not relevant to the
process. If it was, we'd be making active progress to Mars using some of
Zubrin's ideas.