After Moon and Mars, where does VSE lead?

ldyaidan · Dec 27, 2006

""How does canned beer respond to lower pressure environments?" At low enough pressure it becomes a rocket engine.... Hehe. The mental picture of a beer powered rocket gave me a chuckle.... Rae

docm · Dec 27, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />ldyaidan said; Hehe. The mental picture of a beer powered rocket gave me a chuckle....<hr /></blockquote> No more amusing than the salami hybrid <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> Anyhow; http://www.worth1000.com/entries/64500/64646NSur_w.jpg FWIW my sons & I are working on a small paraffin/carbon black/NOX hybrid for launch this spring. Not as exotic as beer or salami though <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mattblack · Dec 27, 2006

Show me the money for the sci-fi stuff!!! We're all having a hard enough time getting to low Earth orbit at the moment, let alone anywhere else. Chemical rockets are going to be with us a long time still, though I agree that for instance, Franklin Chang-Diaz's Vasimir technology needs pursuing hard. http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/support/researching/aspl/reference.html http://www.adastrarocket.com/VASIMR.html Though lest we forget, The Left doesn't want us to have nukes, even in space which is the best place for it. But I digress. Calling the Orion CEV etc archealogic technology is an emotional response, not a technical one. The CEV and LSAM will have the most advanced technology available, only the shapes will be similar to the 'old'. See attached similar shapes of Boeing 707 and Airbus A-330: to the untutored, they are very similar. But 'under the hood' very different in technology and efficiency. Once the designs are frozen, ANY design starts the sometimes slow, sometimes fast path to obsolescence. But so what? Build and use them; better than merely dreaming, not building and doing NOTHING. If anyone doesn't find going to the Moon and Mars exciting, then I suggest they check their pulse. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

docm · Dec 27, 2006

The key thing needed now is a modular system, which Orion could well be. Nice advantage to capsules, if you take advantage of it. Well familiar with VASIMR and the current limitations thereof; mass and complexity. VASIMR not ready? Then build a power module with a small PBM reactor and banks of megawatt class hydrogen/MPD thrusters, of which there are already prototypes at Glenn. One step at a time....and MPD's look like the better short term option. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mattblack · Dec 27, 2006

You could be right: the shorter fuselage gives it away; some longer range models had a shortened fuselage (like the 747SP). And I think I originally got the picture from the Boeing website anyway. The engines in the picture might be JT-3D turbofans, I'm no expert and I don't know what models Lufthansa used. Also, many 720's were conversions. I'll have to do some research!! Still, I believe my original point and it's context stands. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

mikeemmert · Dec 28, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Though lest we forget, The Left doesn't want us to have nukes, even in space which is the best place for it.<hr /></blockquote>Knock off with the Free Space BS <img src="/images/icons/mad.gif" /><blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> But I digress.<hr /></blockquote>Right <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> .

holmec · Dec 28, 2006

I'm afraid they are right mattblack. Having been around them both in USAF, I even get fooled by a picture. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · Dec 28, 2006

Modularity. Absolutely! But from what I've seen most manned space craft are modular (Soyuz capsule [3 sections], shenzou, Apollo [capsule and service module and lander]). Being able to easily reconfigure without much cost is good. Now were learning that you want to lauch the large cargo and the crew separate for safety. And that makes operational sense. I think NASA has been learning over the years that you don't want to put too much in one module, in other words, don't put all your eggs in one basket. Personally I do like the way the Russian approach. They even divided their crew farying spacecraft to have a systems module and a return capsule. So dividing the problem up. Personally I think that a better model for trips to the moon and to mars is going from ground to earth orbit to lunar or martian orbit to lunar or martian surface. As opposed to earth ground to lunar orbit to lunar surface to lunar orbit to directly to earth landing. Taking your return capsule to the moon or mars really doesn't make sense to me. But modularity is the way to go because we have so much to learn and we need to be flexible. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

mattblack · Dec 28, 2006

>>Though lest we forget, The Left doesn't want us to have nukes, even in space which is the best place for it. Knock off with the Free Space BS<< Er... Riiiight.... Yes, I was digressing, actually!! (sheesh). Freespace never crossed my mind: if my remark about the Left, or more accurately, the "whatever technology thats even slightly risky -- I'm against it" mob offends, I'm sorry. You know I rarely haunt that rats nest of Right Wing Nutjobs & Far-Left Wingnuts: I'm somewhat center-right about most things and very centrist about others. If one is only of the Left or Right Wing; all you'll do is fly in circles. With both wings working together, we can all go forward... If you're a "Leftie", Mike -- be proud - at least you stand for something. There's too many in your great country that don't even vote and far too many who've been seduced by extremists from both sides. Aren't there any moderates left anymore?. Don't be defensive, unless you've got something to be sorry about. And remember: many people in Freespace are just yanking your chain, to get a rise out of you -- ignore most of it. But again -- I digress... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

halman · Dec 28, 2006

breif, For off planet activities to be around in the long term, they will have to be driven by economic forces, not government programs. Hopefully, by the time that the NASA missions to Mars have become routine, the Moon will be supplying orbital factories with raw materials, and private enterprise will be firmly established off planet. If that is the case, the impetus after Mars will split our exploration efforts into two areas; finding new resources, especially for heavy metals and hydrocarbons; and purely scientific ventures to the outer planets. Mercury looks to be our best bet for heavy metals, even though the energy costs of getting there are enormous. The asteroid belt may provide us with hydrocarbons, although we will have to wait for a thorough survey to know for sure. Eventually, we probably are going to end up mining the atmosphere of Titan for hydrocarbons, although we may develop propulsion systems which would allow us to retrieve comets for their hydrocarbons. Energy, metals, and hydrocarbons will almost certainly continue to be fundamental resources for the human race, and finding them off planet is essential for protecting the Earth's environment. That quest is most likely to direct our efforts after we have established a base on Mars. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

radarredux · Dec 28, 2006

> The ability of a machine, largely a result of newness, lies under the skin./i> The US military is a good example. They are regularly putting new engines, new radar, and new weapons systems on old airframes.

mikeemmert · Dec 28, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />... before the VSE there was no VSE first of all... only incoherent polcies regarding space exploration... <hr /></blockquote>No, we did have a coherent space policy, which was embodied in the NASP and X-33 projects. The policy was to patiently work towards replacing the Shuttle with something better. Dropping the X-33 I think betrayed a lack of confidence in the patience of the people. They should have at least flown it, then we would have had a clearer sense of where to go next. Instead all that was abandoned, and advances that could have come from Space Ship One, in favor of something that we have done before. It's now time for other nations to do these things. The U.S. lead the way to the Moon, it's now time for the U.S. to lead us beyond chemical rockets.

shadowsound · Dec 28, 2006

I know that the Mars people will look on this with horror and disdain, but I'll tell you how I would do it. I would place an infrastructure between Earth and the Moon; Communication's, Navigational , and Transportation. We need H3, base and heavy metals, a launch point with the absorption capability of a very high mass and very low gravity, as well as zero friction from atmosphere. This gives a manufacture and launch point. Going directly to the surface of Mars with a manned mission is a non-starter. Preposition of infrastructure, habitat and supply depot on either Demos or Phobos. (They have the advantage of high mass and low gravity for a preposition of habitat and supply depot. Drop a refinery and habitat on the Mars surface where they want too study, and manufacture the fuel for the return of the manned mission. When everything is ready drop the landing party so they have the fuel ready to get back out of its gravity well. Ceres is believed to be primarily water. If, so we need to mine it. This will give us the water oxygen and fuel for what we want to do in the solar system. If there is life we will then be able to find it at our leisure.

mattblack · Dec 28, 2006

>>Dropping the X-33 I think betrayed a lack of confidence in the patience of the people.<< You're certainly right on that point, Mike. It's merely one of many lacks of confidence and guts. But NASP & X-33: SSTO fantasies courtesy of BOTH ends of the political spectrum!! SSTO could not (technically) be made to work with the funding levels available in the lean 1980s and 1990s, let alone now. And in those days, Privatespace wasn't big enough to self-fund such efforts. But with the correct commitment and funding, somebody like Scaled Composites, alone or in cahoots with, say, T-Space could develop a plausible Twin Stage To Orbit (TSTO) system. As long as nobody was in a hurry, that is. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

mikeemmert · Dec 29, 2006

I think two stages would work better than one, it's a matter of making operations smoother. Airlaunch helps because you can aim the second stage at the recovery site rather than have it land way out in the ocean and have to clean the saltwater out of it. But then, why should I be advocating specific technologies (which should be in Technology, anyway)? How should I know? Since the research and testing didn't get done, noboby knows. I don't think we need VSE as much as we need better booster technology, and we don't need VSE to be "first". We already are first! From a global perspective it would be better to let other nations catch up in things like lunar exploration. Frankly the rest of the world is too far behind, and this discourages them. That's bad for space exploration in general.

mithridates · Dec 30, 2006

I think the US needs to insist that Canada do more. As far as I know the CSA only has the same $300 million budget it had when it was started back in the late 80s or early 90s, and hasn't changed since then. With over a tenth of the population of the US we should have a space program of at least a billion. Not to mention that Canada has been keeping budget surpluses since the early 90s. Getting Canada to pitch in more than it does now seems to be a no-brainer to me. (I'm Canadian by the way, from Calgary) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----- http://mithridates.blogspot.com </div>

Boris_Badenov · Dec 30, 2006

How's the wheather in Calgary, eh?<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div> </div>

mithridates · Dec 30, 2006

Couldn't say. (I've lived in Korea for the past three years, and in Japan for two before that) Here in Seoul it's pretty warm though, and getting even better. Plus 11 the day after tomorrow. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----- http://mithridates.blogspot.com </div>

After Moon and Mars, where does VSE lead?

ldyaidan

Guest

docm

Guest

mattblack

Guest

docm

Guest

mattblack

Guest

mikeemmert

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

mattblack

Guest

halman

Guest

radarredux

Guest

mikeemmert

Guest

shadowsound

Guest

mattblack

Guest

mikeemmert

Guest

mithridates

Guest

Boris_Badenov

Guest

mithridates

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page