Interplanetary ship vs Orion/Ares VSE

[edawg]

You could do far more with a interplanetary ship than crappy throw away ships.Multiple missions to Luna asteroids and Mars + construction options! Who thinks this is a better path for the next 50yrs of space development?<br /><br />I saw 2010 and now its 2008.WTF!

 

[tomnackid]

Unfortunately life isn't a science fiction movie. Real spaceships cost considerably more than special effects. And no one dies if a movie spaceship is impractical. For all its mundane appearance the Orion, unlike the "cooler" looking shuttle will be a true interplanetary spacecraft capable of going to the moon, mars and near earth asteroids. As long as the laws of physics stay the same the Orion shape will be one of the best out there for reentering the earth's atmosphere from interplanetary distances. Yes, once we have a robust space infrastructure and more powerful sources of energy specialized "taxis" refueling off earth will take over the mundane ground to orbit runs, but Orion is about exploration. Going out there with what we have now or in the immediate future. lewis and Clark didn't wait around for roads to be built into the Louisiana territory before exploring it.

 

[edawg]

Did Colombus take a bunch of rafts across the ocean to explore diffrent parts of America?Or did he bring three big ships(lost one) across the ocean with lil rafts for costal exploration?Last I checked Von Braun first concept for going to mars still works out very nicely with mass fractions.What kind of exploration could this nation do with a beefed up NTR Mars 94 ship for Science and Exploration?.Luna NEO and mars with one craft .Look what the ARESI-V mess got us into .Not to mention we would have a movable constuction base for projects like SSP!<br /><br />~Imagination is the one weapon in the war against reality.And reality is going downhill

 

[nimbus]

Not going to happen that way so long as space is considered empty and void for all purposes of the public masses. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nibb31]

In Columbus' days, ships already existed. Ship building had already accumulated several centuries of experience and technology.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the technology and economical power to build USS Enterprise does not exist yet. We are still in the days of inefficient space rafts and canoes.<br /><br />Should we wait until we are able to build USS Enterprise before we start leaving LEO or should we use what we have ?

 

[edawg]

But if you apply the current VSE logic we need to build a ship to go to luna.we need to build many smaller rafts for earth science and then we need to build a ship to go to mars.Why not just build a modified Mars 94 design for earth observation and trips to the moon and NEO defense!.It would put all those EELVS to some good use..

 

[bearack]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Not going to happen that way so long as space is considered empty and void for all purposes of the public masses. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Well, that's not really true. We know there are an abundance of energy resources out there that could be life changing, hence the planned mission to the moon and planned moon station. <br /><br />Also, you have to look at all the independant corps i.e. Google getting into the space race. There are good reasons for that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><img id="06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/14/06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Two words...cost barrier!<br /><br />There are quite a few paths that might be better than what we actually have chosen. But the path we chose is the best we can do in a nation populated by folks who for the most part, do not want to finance human space exploration. <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>

 

[eniac]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>We know there are an abundance of energy resources out there that could be life changing, hence the planned mission to the moon and planned moon station.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Not really. There is an abundance of energy resources here on Earth, too, and it is much cheaper.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[edawg]

Nasa is hanging by a thread right now,vision is the key for success.the average joe would be willing to pay taxes if we had a nice shiny interplanetary cruiser in orbit searching for he-3,metals,asteroids and earth monitoring.But then again only a corporation could pull something like this on a reasonable budget

 

[publiusr]

<p>It will take Ares V to build interplanetary spacecraft anyway. And do it <em>right</em>--that is.</p>

 

[nec208]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nasa is hanging by a thread right now,vision is the key for success.the average joe would be willing to pay taxes if we had a nice shiny interplanetary cruiser in orbit searching for he-3,metals,asteroids and earth monitoring.But then again only a corporation could pull something like this on a reasonable budget <br />Posted by Edawg</DIV><br /><br />The people who get nice budget and ships are the army.I would say all the x-programs are now research the army is doing that NASA had to stop research do to budget cuts.But we will never know.</p><p>But the army does have&nbsp;some nice black ops.</p><p>I think the reason going to the moon in a apollo like program is 2 things. One keep cost down and 2 keep it simple.The more complex the more engineering glitches.And people in the US don't like problems it has to&nbsp;be 100 safe.</p><p>But I don't think you will ever see ships like in the sci-fi movies with the&nbsp;propulsion system they have now.With out anti-gravity or some other propulsion that no one knows any thing about.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

<p><font color="#800080">I think the reason going to the moon in a apollo like program is 2 things. One keep cost down and 2 keep it simple.The more complex the more engineering glitches.And people in the US don't like problems it has to&nbsp;be 100 safe.</font></p><p>Bingo.</p><p><font color="#800080">But I don't think you will ever see ships like in the sci-fi movies with the&nbsp;propulsion system they have now.With out anti-gravity or some other propulsion that no one knows any thing about. Posted by nec208</font></p>The only way that will probably happen is if private industry is successful in taking human spaceflight and do with it what the government couldn't. This might one day lead to private industry developing the sci fi stuff we need to really become a spacefaring species. <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>

 

[nimbus]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In reply to:Not going to happen that way so long as space is considered empty and void for all purposes of the public masses. Well, that's not really true. We know there are an abundance of energy resources out there that could be life changing, hence the planned mission to the moon and planned moon station. Also, you have to look at all the independant corps i.e. Google getting into the space race. There are good reasons for that. <br /> Posted by bearack</DIV><br />What I mean is that so long as space is just an empty void to the masses, there will be no financial support big enough to do much more in space than we are doing now. &nbsp;That the resources out there for us to exploit are orders of magnitude more valuable than the gold rush was is beyond the scope of average people who expect not to see these resources exploited in their lifetime, and have no idea if their kids would. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nec208]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What I mean is that so long as space is just an empty void to the masses, there will be no financial support big enough to do much more in space than we are doing now. &nbsp;That the resources out there for us to exploit are orders of magnitude more valuable than the gold rush was is beyond the scope of average people who expect not to see these resources exploited in their lifetime, and have no idea if their kids would. <br />Posted by nimbus</DIV><br /><br />The problem is the US and Russia are the only 2 that could do that.China or India first must learn how to get in space and back (doing it many times with no problem).And the same for the private sector.</p><p>The UK the same thing .So for now the US and Russia will rule space.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[KosmicHero]

<p>Nobody rules space. Even Russia and the US have a difficult time getting there and back.&nbsp; There are so many reasons that battlestar-type concepts are bad.&nbsp; I will list a few:&nbsp;</p><p>(1) The initial cost and schedule is too much to swallow.&nbsp; The public (or the shareholders in the corporation-run scenario) will never pay for this.</p><p>(2) Since the build time for this goliath ship will take so long, the technology will be obsolete by the time its finished, and it would not be 'responsive' to whatever needs there are (He3, NEOs, etc.) [Note: there is no reason to mine He3 until fusion works and see my above reason (1) to see why that will never work].</p><p>(3) By the time you finish building it, it will be broken (see the ISS for a great reference on this phenomena).</p><p>(4) Columbus may have sailed in ships ... space is NOT the ocean or the sky or any other analog that people like to use.&nbsp; Space is unique and unforgiving. </p><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> kosmichero.wordpress.com </div>

 

[Edawg420]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nobody rules space. Even Russia and the US have a difficult time getting there and back.&nbsp; There are so many reasons that battlestar-type concepts are bad.&nbsp; I will list a few:&nbsp;(1) The initial cost and schedule is too much to swallow.&nbsp; The public (or the shareholders in the corporation-run scenario) will never pay for this.(2) Since the build time for this goliath ship will take so long, the technology will be obsolete by the time its finished, and it would not be 'responsive' to whatever needs there are (He3, NEOs, etc.) [Note: there is no reason to mine He3 until fusion works and see my above reason (1) to see why that will never work].(3) By the time you finish building it, it will be broken (see the ISS for a great reference on this phenomena).(4) Columbus may have sailed in ships ... space is NOT the ocean or the sky or any other analog that people like to use.&nbsp; Space is unique and unforgiving. <br /> Posted by KosmicHero</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>At the end of the day all space utilization means is the movement of cargo.Either for planetary defefense,science or ISRU.If you can launch 150 tons each shot for orbital construction you half the time for a orbital project as opposed to launching 20 tons a shot.Someone will explore the solar system in one ship.It will either take 30 ,100 or a thousand years to do .It all depends on how we kick off</p>

 

[nec208]

<p><br />No the US navy voiced concerns about satellites being destroyed and missiles on the moon by the USSR or satellites firing weapons.It was never about dog fights in space or batter-ships in space , &nbsp;has the technology is too crude.If the SSTO was not a problem than you may see dog fights in space or batter ships.</p><p>But the technology they have now and engineering problem will not allow it , so do not look for any thing in the next 50 or 100 years from now like that.They have a extremely long way to go in space .</p><p>They are only getting their feet wet.</p><p>You may what to look at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEEDA153BF934A15752C1A96E948260</p><p><strong>The exotic weapons being developed by the Pentagon to shoot down enemy missiles are now being promoted for a new role that is less taxing and more controversial: the destruction of enemy satellites in space. </strong></p><p><strong>---------------------------------------<br />Nobody rules space. Even Russia and the US have a difficult time getting there and back. </strong></p><p>That see.The US and USSR 50 years going in space , Can prove they can go in space and back many times, can build space stations,know how to live in space, can do space walks,can dock.</p><p>That me know when China can do that .And on top learn how to shooot moving missiles.To than I'm not concern about China.After all their military is 25 to 30 years old.</p><p>===========================================================<br />Since the build time for this goliath ship will take so long, the technology will be obsolete by the time its finished, and it would not be 'responsive' to whatever needs there are (He3, NEOs, etc.) [Note: there is no reason to mine He3 until fusion works and see my above reason (1) to see why that will never work]</p><p>===========================================================</p><p><br />No space ship in the sci-fi tv shows will never work , just no power for take off.All rockets must be 2 or 3 stage.The size is a problem.The bigger the rocket the more engineering problems.</p><p>All the sci-fi tv shows like star trek,star wars,star gate or battlestar glactica are all SSTO and just too big.</p><p>To the SSTO problem is fixed and size/ weight problem is fixed you will never see those space-ships.</p><p>One of the big problem NASA has to deal with is weight and size.The more weight and size the more it coast and more engineering problems.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nec208]

<p>Someone will explore the solar system in one ship.It will either take 30 ,100 or a thousand years to do .It all depends on how we kick off</p><p>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p><font size="2">It will take a very&nbsp;long time .What they have now is more like the crude Glider than a SR-71</font></p><p><font size="2">&nbsp;But the thing about cars,planes,trains the coast was cheap and allowed them to build better and more conplex vehicles.The space rockets cannot do that , do to coast and the coast killed the x-progeam and back to the space capsule 2 or 3 stage rockets .</font></p><p><font size="2">If the engineers would have found a way with the x-33,DC-X, Roton and other x-programs that would be a step up from where they are now , but do to coast and engineering problems it is back to the capsule .</font></p><p><font size="2">The coast is what is stopping them from building better and more conplex vehicles.</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

<p><font color="#800080">If the engineers would have found a way with the x-33,DC-X, Roton and other x-programs that would be a step up from where they are now , but do to coast and engineering problems it is back to the capsule .The coast is what is stopping them from building better and more conplex vehicles. Posted by nec208</font></p><p>This has certainly proven true for engineers managed by NASA. The jury is still out IMO on engineers managed in private corporations. If they cannot pull it off, then its too difficult to do with the present and near term projected technical capabilities available to us.&nbsp;</p> <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>

 

[nec208]

<p>If they cannot pull it off, then its too difficult to do with the present and near term projected technical capabilities available to us.&nbsp;</p><p>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p><font size="2">Can you elaborate some what here.And what do you mean by capabilities available to us?</font></p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[holmec]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You could do far more with a interplanetary ship than crappy throw away ships.Multiple missions to Luna asteroids and Mars + construction options! Who thinks this is a better path for the next 50yrs of space development? I saw 2010 and now its 2008.WTF! <br /> Posted by Edawg</DIV></p><p>Beside the 'cost barrier' there is a real logistical barrier....FUEL!</p><p>I've speculated on making a reusable tug that dubbs as a permanent manned space ship, and the one thing I keep coming back to is the supply of fuel. &nbsp;</p><p>For such a ship to be feasable fuel has to be produced in space, not Earth.&nbsp; Why? The delivery cost, that's why!</p><p>The question is do we or don't we have the means to develope fuel in space?&nbsp; I'll let engineers answer that one.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Alternatevely</strong> There is a proposed propulsion system that does not need fuel, and that is solar sails.&nbsp; If you find a way to create a manned solar sail craft (extremely large sail needed) and how to navigate out of Earth orbit to Mars and back, then you might have hit a gold mine.</p><p>A solar sail craft not only reduces the cost of fuel (still need some to maneuveur) but it has the potential to cut the 6 month trip to Mars down to a more managable time frame.</p><p>But the problem with solar sails is size.&nbsp; To create an extremely large and extremely light sail for a craft the size of Orion is a <em>really big job</em>.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Cheers&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[nec208]

<p>Beside the 'cost barrier' there is a real logistical barrier....FUEL!</p><p>I've speculated on making a reusable tug that dubbs as a permanent manned space ship, and the one thing I keep coming back to is the supply of fuel.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>The fuel is problem for take off .What they could of done is built a space station&nbsp;and take off to the space station&nbsp;using the space shuttle or orion.When at &nbsp;mars use the orion to&nbsp;take off from the space station&nbsp;and to land.</p><p>Why are they building space station to learn how to live in space ,how space effects the human body,understand microgravity and space radiation, science and biology so on.Why have space station up in earth going around and around for months doing it? Use the space station to go to the moon or mars and use a space capsule to get down to the moon or mars and back up to the space station .</p><p>&nbsp;Why be up in space for 6 months or 8 months going around and around going no where!!!&nbsp; go to the moon or mars.Just build a smaller ISS with 4 or 8&nbsp; people in the space station.Do the research along the way to the moon or mars and coming back.Use a space capsule&nbsp; to land or go up to the space station.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nec208]

<p><font size="2">Other problem building a big space stations or space ships is the space track record you don't want more than 5 people if 1 in 50 missions are a disaster.No way you getting me up to you can prove a disaster 1 out of 100 missions .There is much improve technology before to get a better track record .To than you it all test flights&nbsp; and small is the key.</font></p><p><font size="2">When you have a batter track record than build bigger space stations and space ships.</font></p><p><font size="2">Whas this not the solar sails capsule?</font></p><p>http://www.americanantigravity.com/graphics/vanguard/X-Prize-Eagle_320x240.jpg</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Edawg420]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Beside the 'cost barrier' there is a real logistical barrier....FUEL!I've speculated on making a reusable tug that dubbs as a permanent manned space ship, and the one thing I keep coming back to is the supply of fuel.&nbsp;&nbsp;----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The fuel is problem for take off .What they could of done is built a space station&nbsp;and take off to the space station&nbsp;using the space shuttle or orion.When at &nbsp;mars use the orion to&nbsp;take off from the space station&nbsp;and to land.Why are they building space station to learn how to live in space ,how space effects the human body,understand microgravity and space radiation, science and biology so on.Why have space station up in earth going around and around for months doing it? Use the space station to go to the moon or mars and use a space capsule to get down to the moon or mars and back up to the space station .&nbsp;Why be up in space for 6 months or 8 months going around and around going no where!!!&nbsp; go to the moon or mars.Just build a smaller ISS with 4 or 8&nbsp; people in the space station.Do the research along the way to the moon or mars and coming back.Use a space capsule&nbsp; to land or go up to the space station.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by nec208</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>ISRU is the only way that makes economic sense.Otherwise you have a garbage can of half baked ideas<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-cool.gif" border="0" alt="Cool" title="Cool" /> </p>