in the future

[jtkirk1701]

I believe I understand why it is impractical to build in orbit and then launch to the moon. Do you for see a time when a permantly in space and permantly manned ship capable of going to the moon or maybe even mars and back. Would be a logical step, and if so when?

 

[baktothemoon]

I once proposed that in one of my threads, it's not as infesible as people believe. My concept was a couple of Nautilus modules with a service module using nuclear power and several NTR engines. All you need to make it complete is a heavy lift booster, a crew transport vehicle, and a space station.

 

[pathfinder_01]

I can see a future where that happens. Don’t know how long it will take 15, 20, or 100 years, but I can see why it would happen. <br /><br />At some point a spacecraft is going to be too large to launch in one piece like the ISS. A craft that goes to mars is certainly going to be large and likely too large to launch in one piece. <br /><br />I can also see some use value to reusing such a craft. It could perhaps dock to a space station, get refurbished. <br /><br />The real problem is getting back into LEO. It takes energy both to get out of LEO and to get back. At the moment caring enough propellant to get back into earth orbit is the killer. <br /><br />It is just easier to aim the crew return vehicle directly back to earth and junk the rest. <br /><br /><br />There are several ideas around the problem. <br /><br />You could refuel the craft at its destination so that it doesn’t need to carry the fuel to get back into earth orbit in addition to the fuel needed to get out of earth orbit and brake into orbit around its designation (moon, mars). There still might be some mass issuses (i.e. the bigger the craft the more fuel it is going to take to get in/out of orbit) but it might be more solvable. <br /><br /><br />You could use a cycler that travels between the orbits of two planets. It still might not be a good idea to have it manned at all times. Plus getting to and docking with a cycler in solar orbit is another issue, but that is possible. <br /><br />Another idea might be to use a more fuel efficient method of propulsion like ion or plasma engines. You would need to carry less fuel. The only trouble is that high isp (fuel efficiency) tends to go hand in hand with low thrust (low acceleration). It could take months or years for such a craft to slow down enough. It again might be smarter to abandon ship and let the craft automatically get itself home.<br /><br />You could use a propellant less method of travel. At the moment this is more Sci-Fi than reality, but it might be possi

 

[scottb50]

I believe I understand why it is impractical to build in orbit and then launch to the moon....<br /><br />I believe you are mistaken. The only way to do it is to build in orbit and then launch to the moon. The biggest problem right now is launching from Earth to orbit. <br /><br />If you want to send two people to the moon that's been done, the logical step is more than two and the facilities to sustain them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

baktothemoon:<br />I once proposed that in one of my threads, it's not as infesible as people believe. My concept was a couple of Nautilus modules with a service module using nuclear power and several NTR engines. All you need to make it complete is a heavy lift booster, a crew transport vehicle, and a space station.<br /><br />Me:<br />Von Braun probably said something similar along the lines of what was needed back in 1969. Von Braun proposed nuclear shuttles, lunar bases, mars missions, the whole infrastructure. The Nixon Administration provided only the surface to LEO leg of that vision and we have been trying to fill the gaps every since.<br /><br />Your technical rationale and concept appears sound. But the one factor that is rarely addressed in yours and most other SDC proposals is cost. What are taxpayers willing to pay? Obviously not enough to provide for visions such as yours and many others here. This is where private enterprise will have to step in provided it can develop and operate such plans at well below normal NASA/contractor tax funded arrangements. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[pathfinder_01]

“This is where private enterprise will have to step in provided it can develop and operate such plans at well below normal NASA/contractor tax funded arrangements.”<br /><br /> Better hope they can. I sort of question it. Lots of privately funded things have burned through lots of money without being profitable. The government directly or indirectly supports private enterprise. Wither it being the police force making sure warehouse don’t get looted or by purchasing the aerospace equipment from major cooperations. I think the government will fund a moon or a mars mission long before private enterprise does. <br />

 

[qso1]

pathfinder01:<br />I think the government will fund a moon or a mars mission long before private enterprise does...<br /><br />Me:<br />On just lunar and mars I agree as NASA has pretty much given up on getting inexpensive access to low orbit. Lunar/Mars hasn't happened after at least two to three decades of numerous studies, dead end proposals due to lack of will and funding. At this point, I'm dubious at best as to whether an incoming Administration will continue the Bush effort and even that effort only specifies Mars as a goal. Private Enterprise will have the challenging task of reducing expense to LEO which would have a net positive effect on NASA lunar mars if they take advantage. But like you, I'm still of the opinion that the jury is still out on whether private enterprise will actually get to LEO and reduce the expense of doing so...lots of waiting I suppose. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[baktothemoon]

"But the one factor that is rarely addressed in yours and most other SDC proposals is cost. What are taxpayers willing to pay? Obviously not enough to provide for visions such as yours and many others here. This is where private enterprise will have to step in provided it can develop and operate such plans at well below normal NASA/contractor tax funded arrangements."<br /><br />My plan was to have private enterprize build the space station and the crew transport vehicle since they need both to prosper. NASA would buy rides from them and focus on using the heavy lift boosters to build the vehicle. That way everyone gets what they need and the cost is divided fairly. I outlined my full plan in the first couple posts of the thread "Permanant Plans to Colonize Space"

 

[qso1]

baktothemoon:<br />My plan was to have private enterprize build the space station and the crew transport...<br /><br />Me:<br />There ya go, and probably on of the few feasible ways to do it in the foreseeable future. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

jtkirk1701:<br />I believe I understand why it is impractical to build in orbit and then launch to the moon....<br /><br />Me:<br />IMO, that time will come if public will allows increases in NASA funding beyond the miniscule levels of today. Or if something really dramatic is discovered by unmanned probes, particularly life on mars, or evidence of life on mars. Or if private enterprise solves the main problem, getting to low orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

IF private for profit interests can reduce the cost of a pound of material to LEO then the incentive for doing so would be to steadily reduce the cost of placing human tourists into space. This is currently the only area where pure private for profit manned space efforts could pay off to such a degree that such efforts are financially worthwhile. <br /><br />I would also hope that NASA would provide at least some boost in this direction by opening up the provision and staffing of the ISS to such private efforts. I have hope that this would be the first practical such efforts as I am certain that NASA would wish to keep such maintenance of ISS as inexpensive in cost as possible, after the shuttle finishes the current station.<br /><br />On about the same time frame I see where at the very least Burt Rutan (who has what I believe to be the most advanced pure private manned space efforts around) will start the Virgin Galactic sub orbital efforts by 2008. Initially such efforts are going to be somewhat pricey for such trips at $200,000 per trip, but I also hope that with reliability and safety (an absolute MUST for such efforts) that eventually the price can come down.<br /><br />I have said this before on these types of threads, but I do believe it to be true. Any effort to place ordinary (but at least in the beginning, wealthy) people into even sub orbital space, and even more into LEO is going to have to involve the use of at least lifting body craft! Why not cheaper capsules? Because tourists are going to be far too fussy about two items that NASA up till now has been able to relatively ignore. That is comfort and view, are going to be up there right next to reliability and safety! Wealthy ordinary people are not going to want to experience the same kinds of G forces that astronauts do. Oh, they wouldn't mind at least some acceleration forces, but some three G's for several minutes isn't going to be popular at all. And just as importantly a good view is going

 

[qso1]

A long but definitely good post.<br /><br />I agree on Rutan being the most advanced private effort, especially considering that three countries and a private citizen have put people into space...The U.S. Russians, China, and Rutan.<br /><br />If one thinks about it...at $200,000 dollars per trip, assuming thats what the price will be when Virgin Galactic starts flying tourists. The price will have come down considerably from the Tito Shuttleworth prices of $20 million.<br /><br />Officially, I know of no AF hypersonic aircraft programs or research efforts beyond maybe lab or wind tunnel model work. Unofficially, its possible however unlikely the AF may be working on just that type of craft which would be for military use as you pointed out but could eventually filter down to commercial use.<br /><br />I would like to live to see humanity finally get where I thought it would be by now spacewise. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

In actuallity the Tito price of some $20 million works out to far less than $200,000 for a sub orbital flight. If you consider such a flight to be some 5 minutes in sub orbital flight it comes out to be some $2,400,000 per hour, and as there are 164 hours in a week.....<br /><br />Well, I think you get the picture here as the Tito type flights go to the ISS for at least a week! This also means that such people have to be supplied with the necessittes of life for that time period also, and then there is the training....<br /><br />However, the advantage to the $200,000 price tag is there are a whole lot more people that can afford $200,000 than the number of people that can afford $20 million! <br /><br />

 

[baktothemoon]

I agree with you on many points. The sub orbital and orbital infastructure that you mentioned is certainly coming and will be critical in pushing out to futher space. We will have a good orbital presence in space by 2025 at latest and then we will have all the architechture in space for pushing out farther. The only wildcard is NASA and the government. If NASA doesn't go for nuclear propulsion then it is unlikely that we will get past the moon.

 

[revolutionary]

I fail to see why "public corporations" like the USA, etc... don't qualify as "private" efforts. A corporation with government powers is still a private entity.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I fail to see why "public corporations" like the USA, etc... don't qualify as "private" efforts. A corporation with government powers is still a private entity.</font>/i><br /><br />I don't think the line is clear cut, but I see two primary measures for a "private" effort:<br /><br />First: Someone other than the government takes the lead (or a big chunk of the lead) in development risks. Regarding USA, the government paid for much/most of the development. Contrast this with Boeing's (a member of USA) 787 effort where they are taking major development risks themselves with the hope that they will sell enough down the road to make a profit. As Griffin says, the companies need to have "skin in the game".<br /><br />Second: There has to be competition or at least opportunity for competition to enter the market. Most probably don't share this position, but I think for a "private" company to continue to drive down costs and invest for the future, they need to be prodded by a competitor. For example, AT&T through much of the 20th century was a technically a "private" company, but because it controlled <i>everything</i> down to and including your handset to the phone (it used to be illegal to even add an attachment to your phone (e.g., cup around the microphone) without AT&T's blessing), I don't consider it a free market private enterprise during that time.<br /><br />To summarize: I believe (1) investors should take on much of the risks for development, and (2) the market is relatively open to competitors.</i>

 

[strandedonearth]

A very good post indeed, but IIRC (a layman's fuzzy recollections here) lifting bodies have lousy low-speed stability and therefore high landing speeds. The best compromise I could see for that would be lightweight, deployable wings for low-speed operation. Inflatable wings maybe?

 

[revolutionary]

RR, I fail to see your point. I see the US government as its own self-interested private entity in which we citizens are the invested shareholders. I don't want to see more private companies, I don't care for it. I want to see more US government space agencies competing against each other for funding and I want to see more government and I want to see more people in the public funding and participating.

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">In actuallity the Tito price of some $20 million works out to far less than $200,000 for a sub orbital flight. </font><br /><br />Only if you're using Worldcom math or making cost estimates for NASA.

 

[qso1]

frodo1008:<br />In actuallity the Tito price of some $20 million works out to far less than $200,000...<br /><br />Me:<br />Good point, but are they actually calculating the prices in this way? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

I am certain that you are trying to make somekind of an anti NASA point here, but I am just too dense to get it. I thought that using the total time in orbit (or sub orbit) and calculating on the lesser item then multiplying by the time factor was clear. I am NOT saying that is how they really calculate such, but neither can it be said that the $200,000 for sub orbital time (some five minutes) is equal to the $20 millon dollar time (at least one week). Even trying to do this is comparing apples and oranges, but by doing what I did you can at least see where a $20 million dollar one week long trip to the ISS both costs and at the same time is worth more than a $200,000 five minute hop into sub orbital flight. In actuallity, I don't even need numbers, it is just logical!<br /><br />So is what I said about there being a whole lot more people that can afford the $200,000 than can afford the $20 million. Is their something hard about that also? <br /><br /> By the way NASA's calculations were good enough to get us into space, and take men to the moon and back. There was nothing in my post that was in any way negative on Rutan's efforts! It is just that neither am I negative on NASA. Does that somehow bother you?<br /><br />I really dislike the anti NASA attitudes that sometimes go on here. Why not try to be positive on both NASA and the private efforts! If the pure for profit efforts do actually turn out to be at least as safe and reliable, while at the same time far cheaper than anythig that NASA has done, or is doing, or is planneing to do, then I will be the first to recommend that NASA make use of such services! No Problemo at all!<br /><br />As I said, as a start I do hope that NASA will make use of private efforts to maintain the ISS after it is completed. <br /><br />So I would appreciate it if you would stop with the negativity! If that wasn't your sarcastic point, then I appologize, but it sure seemed that way to me when I read your post!<br /><br />I really, re

 

[frodo1008]

No, I thought to greatly simplify the situation. It is absolutely an apples and orages type of thing (please see my other newer longer post also). <br /><br />Heck, it is actually almost impossible to even attempt to see how the Russians are pricing the $20 million to the ISS. Even their exchange rate of the ruble to the dollar is somewhat extreme. So it is really a very complicated effort in accounting! <br /><br />What I was doing was just making a general over all effort to show that making a broad statement that Rutan's efforts (as much as I like them) is not really some kind of radical improvement over the existing efforts of Russia. This type of comparison can NOT even be attempted in the case of NASA, as they are forbidden by government charter from engaging in direct commercial enterprises! While sometimes I consider that to be a pity, I can see where I would actually prefer such efforts as Rutan's to be truly a private effort!<br /><br />However, this does not stop NASA from hiring the services of private industry as it already does for most of its hardware, and even some launch services such as Space Alliance! Despite some inefficiencies, this is why I consider NASA to be one of the more efficient government agencies!

 

[frodo1008]

Either that or perhaps something like the para glider concept ot the ACRV (X38 or X37, I sometimes get confused between the two). However, the problem is relatively small compared to getting through the thermal problems of the hypersonic region!

 

[vulture2]

Some proposed versions of the X-38 (crew return vehicle) were designed for runway landing, however the final version utilized a parasail. But in the one drop test I am aware of the airfoil did not deploy quite as intended and the vehicle hit the ground rather hard. If landing is to be with a parachute, there is little reason to use anything other than a simple capsule as the vehicle since it minimizes weight, and not much reason to use anything other than a simple round parachute and airbag (as in the first Mercury capsule), at least until the parasails are a little more reliable.<br /><br />On the other hand, there are many ways to land on a runway. <br /><br />There were several successful lifting body landings at Edwards in the 50s, but this is more practical for vehicles that are small and light. And Rutan and others have shown that a variable geometry vehicle is practical, perhaps with wings that extend at low speed like those on the air-launched cruise missile, avoiding the need for heat shielding on the wings. Finally, the stub wing configuration (X-15 and X-34) and of course the delta wing (shuttle) are also practical.<br /><br />But for any of these configurations, the landing is dead-stick and high-speed and must be very precise. I, personally, would feel safer doing the touchdown on autopilot.<br /><br />As to the hypersonic regieme, the Shuttle and Apollo heat shields were designed decades ago and there has been little or no opportunity to actually flight-test alternatives. There is no physical reason a heat shield cannot be durable, reusable, and inexpensive to maintain, if we were just willing to invest a little time and effort to advance the technology.

 

[webtaz99]

In the near term I am hoping to see successful use of a ballute and parachute for landings, which would hopefully lessen the temperatures that the CEV would need to withstand. Long term I hope to see Lunar-based propellants used to reduce orbital speed before reentry. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>