A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Apollo Era Gas Core Nuclear Rocket Powered Moonship



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 20th 07, 05:00 PM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Apollo Era Gas Core Nuclear Rocket Powered Moonship

More information on this hypthetical moonship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_core_reactor_rocket

A gas core nuclear rocket sustainer with chemical rocket boosters for
take off and landing built out of Apollo era hardware, to build and
sustain a moonbase.

600,000 lbs lift-off weight
360,000 lbs propellant
180,000 lbs lox
180,000 lbs lh
30,000 lbs booster
150,000 lbs sustainer


150,000 lbs payload weight
90,000 lbs structural weight
45,000 lbs of this is the gas core nuclear fission engine
900,000 lbs thrust at lift off
(2x 400,000 lbs - lox/lh liquid fuele booster - J2)
(1x 300,000 lbs - lh fueled gas core fission rocket)
(8x 15,000 lbs - lox/lh liquid fueled maneuvering rockets - RL10)

Chemical booster 450 sec Isp
Gas core nuclear susteainer 4,000 sec Isp


Top speed;
Booster: Vf = 450*9.82*LN(600,000/(600000-210000))
=1,910 m/sec (4,256 mph)


Sustainer Vf = 4000*9.82*LN(390,000/(390,000-150,000))
= 19,070 m/sec (45,642 mph)

Combined: 20,980 m/sec (49,898 mph)

The volume of hydrogen is 1,168 cubic meters (41,277 cf)
The volume of oxygen is 68 cubic meter (2,386 cf)


total propellant volume is 1,236 cubic meters (43,663 cf)


This is about the same volume as the S-II second stage.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-II


So, one can imagine a reduced oxygen tank size for the SII, and
increasing the hydrogen tank by moving the bulkhead between the two -
which achieves the 405,000 lb mass with the appropriate mass ratios.
Remove the centrally located J2 and add the 45,000 lb weight and
300,000 lb thrust gas core nuclear sustainer in its place. Drop 2 of
the 4 remaining J2 engines, keep 2 J2s at boosters at lift off from
Earth. Add 4 RL10S clusters (8 total) at 2 of the of old J2
locations
for take off landing and meneuvering around the moon.


The SIVB is configured for a moonbase module similar to skylab for for
operations at 1/6 gee instead of zero gee..

To deploy the SIVB modules on the lunar surface equip the SII with a
simple
loading crane to erect on the lunar surface and then to lift the SIVB
out of its position atop the SII and put it in place near the landing
point. Apollo 14 landing next to the Surveyor spacecraft on the moon
shows that even in Apollo days you could land pretty accurately on
the
moon. With a radio transponder the SII-GC version could land at the
same point precisely each time. So, the crane could be erected after
each landing to remove an additional payload bay. After a half dozen
flights a base would be established and the personnel carrier version
of the SIVB large enough to carry a crew of 30 - or 10 plus supplies
- for crew rotations - would maintain the base after it was
completed.


http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/winturnv.htm
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/for...d=8947&start=1


The Model 979 flyback booster for the Saturn SIC - the first stage,of
the Saturn V - could easily be adapted for the smaller SII second
stage. A
large nose cone with cargo doors would carry the SIVB inside



Ads
  #2  
Old October 21st 07, 03:16 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Damon Hill[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 566
Default Apollo Era Gas Core Nuclear Rocket Powered Moonship

wrote in news:1192896019.769240.164780
@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

More information on this hypthetical moonship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_core_reactor_rocket

Right. Now all you have to do is actually build a gas
core engine.

Therein lies a substantial challenge.

--Damon
  #3  
Old October 21st 07, 03:50 AM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Apollo Era Gas Core Nuclear Rocket Powered Moonship

On Oct 20, 10:16 pm, Damon Hill wrote:
wrote in news:1192896019.769240.164780
@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

More information on this hypthetical moonship.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_core_reactor_rocket


Right. Now all you have to do is actually build a gas
core engine.

Therein lies a substantial challenge.

--Damon


Correct. that's the rrub and the assumption.

However, consider that a counterflow toroidal system that treats the
flowing plasmas as a current loop with their own magnetic fields could
use combined magnetic and inertial forces to produce a rather light
weight containment with a beta ! - which has been achieved for
fusion, but when done for fissile materials result in 100 atm or more
pressure as opposed to 1/100th atm - and power densities are similarly
high.


  #4  
Old October 21st 07, 07:09 AM posted to sci.space.policy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Apollo Era Gas Core Nuclear Rocket Powered Moonship

On Oct 20, 7:50 pm, wrote:
On Oct 20, 10:16 pm, Damon Hill wrote:

wrote in news:1192896019.769240.164780
@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com:


More information on this hypthetical moonship.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_core_reactor_rocket


Right. Now all you have to do is actually build a gas
core engine.


Therein lies a substantial challenge.


--Damon


Correct. that's the rrub and the assumption.

However, consider that a counterflow toroidal system that treats the
flowing plasmas as a current loop with their own magnetic fields could
use combined magnetic and inertial forces to produce a rather light
weight containment with a beta ! - which has been achieved for
fusion, but when done for fissile materials result in 100 atm or more
pressure as opposed to 1/100th atm - and power densities are similarly
high.


Why not run this "Apollo Era Gas Core Nuclear Rocket Powered Moonship"
entirely through a public owned and otherwise fully tax supported
along with each of its nerd staff, on behalf of such computer wizards
utilizing any one of dozens of our spendy supercomputers, that are
fully capable of accomplishing exactly those sorts of virtual R&D as
well as delivering those absolutely spiffy Google/NOVA sorts of fully
interactive 3D animations in real time?

We used to have our national supercomputer borg like collective or
cache of "The Machine Room"(s) for accommodating just this sort of
complex task. Since we clearly own it (in many cases having paid for
several times over), why not use it?
- Brad Guth -

  #5  
Old October 21st 07, 10:49 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Monte Davis Monte Davis is offline
Senior Member
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Sep 2005
Posts: 466
Default Apollo Era Gas Core Nuclear Rocket Powered Moonship

Damon Hill wrote:

Right. Now all you have to do is actually build a gas
core engine.

Therein lies a substantial challenge.


Why should it be? With all the expertise we've acquired in decades of
running fusion reactors and scramjets -- the total mastery of
turbulence in high-energy, high-gradient flows -- it should be a snap.
  #6  
Old October 21st 07, 11:24 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Damon Hill[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default Apollo Era Gas Core Nuclear Rocket Powered Moonship

Monte Davis wrote in
:

Damon Hill wrote:

Right. Now all you have to do is actually build a gas
core engine.

Therein lies a substantial challenge.


Why should it be? With all the expertise we've acquired in decades of
running fusion reactors and scramjets -- the total mastery of
turbulence in high-energy, high-gradient flows -- it should be a snap.


Add gamma radiation and neutrons, and many thousands of degrees of
temperature beyond our materials science, heat transfer. Only the
uninformed think it's going to be 'easy'. Notice they haven't gotten
fusion working very well yet?

It might not even be the right answer; seems like there are multiple
choices.

--Damon
  #7  
Old October 21st 07, 03:08 PM posted to sci.space.policy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Apollo Era Gas Core Nuclear Rocket Powered Moonship

On Oct 21, 2:49 am, Monte Davis wrote:
Damon Hill wrote:
Right. Now all you have to do is actually build a gas
core engine.


Therein lies a substantial challenge.


Why should it be? With all the expertise we've acquired in decades of
running fusion reactors and scramjets -- the total mastery of
turbulence in high-energy, high-gradient flows -- it should be a snap.


I agree, as then we should use any one of our supercomputers to nail
it down. Isn't that exactly what such public owned supercomputers
that run those nifty 3D interactive physics simulators do best?
- Brad Guth -

  #8  
Old October 21st 07, 03:26 PM posted to sci.space.policy
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default Apollo Era Gas Core Nuclear Rocket Powered Moonship

Monte Davis wrote:
Damon Hill wrote:

Right. Now all you have to do is actually build a gas
core engine.

Therein lies a substantial challenge.


Why should it be? With all the expertise we've acquired in decades of
running fusion reactors and scramjets -- the total mastery of
turbulence in high-energy, high-gradient flows -- it should be a snap.


Astonishing ignorance from yet another American.
  #9  
Old October 21st 07, 03:46 PM posted to sci.space.policy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Apollo Era Gas Core Nuclear Rocket Powered Moonship

On Oct 21, 7:26 am, kT wrote:
Monte Davis wrote:
Damon Hill wrote:


Right. Now all you have to do is actually build a gas
core engine.


Therein lies a substantial challenge.


Why should it be? With all the expertise we've acquired in decades of
running fusion reactors and scramjets -- the total mastery of
turbulence in high-energy, high-gradient flows -- it should be a snap.


Astonishing ignorance from yet another American.


And the actual reason(s) you don't like Monte Davis is ??????

What do you know about our public owned supercomputers?
- Brad Guth -

  #10  
Old October 21st 07, 10:19 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default Apollo Era Gas Core Nuclear Rocket Powered Moonship

Damon Hill wrote:

Monte Davis wrote in
:

Damon Hill wrote:

Right. Now all you have to do is actually build a gas
core engine.

Therein lies a substantial challenge.


Why should it be? With all the expertise we've acquired in decades of
running fusion reactors and scramjets -- the total mastery of
turbulence in high-energy, high-gradient flows -- it should be a snap.


Add gamma radiation and neutrons, and many thousands of degrees of
temperature beyond our materials science, heat transfer. Only the
uninformed think it's going to be 'easy'. Notice they haven't gotten
fusion working very well yet?


I think you missed the sarcasm tag.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
 




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
Nuclear powered airliners Robert Lynn Policy 54 October 18th 05 12:21 AM
Private Rocket SpaceShipOne Makes Third Rocket-Powered Flight Rusty B Space Shuttle 10 May 16th 04 02:39 AM
Private Rocket SpaceShipOne Makes Third Rocket-Powered Flight Rusty B Policy 10 May 16th 04 02:39 AM
Private Rocket SpaceShipOne Makes Third Rocket-Powered Flight Rusty B Space Shuttle 1 May 14th 04 08:46 AM
Private Rocket SpaceShipOne Makes Third Rocket-Powered Flight Rusty B Policy 1 May 14th 04 08:46 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.