<p> This is offered as a solution to the ever-increasing issues of our world's dwindling resources, and, lack of available viable habitat. Keeping in mind that our world is a finite (and ever over-crowding) habitat in itself, and, that we're all essentially imprisoned within it until we resolve our restrictions on mass extra-solar mobility and habitation, I see a dire need for our species to move ahead by leaps and bounds rather than through the current "baby steps" methodology.</p><p> So I propose the following:</p><p>4 Fundamental changes for evolving our current "space exploration" endeavors:</p><p> 1. Save costs by converting our extra-solar unit designs from unique platform chassis to universal ones, and, introduce unique operational components as aftermarket additions. We've been designing "new" satellites for decades. Even though many of the chassis assemblies & components have experienced vast evolutionary advancements, as far as general applications go, the baser principles of the designs and operations of satellites have remained the same. As such, we should easily be able to find many ways to universalize & mass produce those baser chassis assemblages & adapt upgradable compartmentalization within them for refitting them with newer components in place of older ones as the demand to do so arises. Maybe then we would experience more of a cost-effective measure of longevity in the service lives of those units (as we've long experienced with the auto industry) rather than the constant short-term obsoletism that has been scene in the computing technology industry. This may, in fact, allow the obsoletism of computing technology to continue as it apparently is destined to do without the need to scrap entire satellite chassis. Recycling is, after all, the big fad of the century. </p><p> 2. Start using our "shuttles" as shuttles & the ISS as a(n) construction yard/assembly plant. Use our shuttles to ferry pieces of chassis and components of larger haul assemblages to the ISS for building truely viable space-bound vehicles and habitats. And I mean real vehicles that can sustain long-term long-ranged repeat travel, and, real habitats that can sustain whole cyclical communities (along with bio-diverse nutrient resources & routinely relaying extra-solar traffic) for generations, not just a handful of specialized researchers for short periods. It has been expressed many times over that the costs for luanching even the smallest average payloads into space (as pre-assembled units) are ecceedingly costly. Argueably to costly. Let's start using what we've already built to expand by building more, bigger & better than before. </p><p> 3. Implament municiple constructs, and universal commerce, into space-bound vehicles & habitats. Just as we have utilized localized governance, and corporate sponcorship, to forward the socio-economic potentials and securities of all other Earth-bound human developments, by all means it is long overdue that we allow these sociological & financial mechanisms help us establish & promote the advancement of extra-solar travel & habitation. First off, I'm sure it would be acceptable for everyone if we treated some of the available spaces within extra-solar habitats (currently only includes the ISS) as publically/commercially leasable real-estate just like we do here on Earth. Zoning and all would be included. And, I don't care if there are Microsoft billboards on the walls of public areas of extra-solar habitats, and/or, orbital CocaCola billboards along the routes of extra-solar traffic, if it means we actually have those things to work with. Obviously, it needs to be within reason but, it is far more unreasonable to think we can sustain the developments of such endeavors without including any such mechanisms within them. How else are we to establish sustainable mass extra-solar commerce and habitation? We simply can't without them. Look at the stagnation in the results of the past three decades of a purely scientific set of endeavors of our world's government's in space. Then look at the leaps and bounds made by the commercialization of low Earth orbit by corporate satellites.</p><p> 4. Include hi-profile/profit entertainment attractions into the mix. I (as well as I'm sure many others) would love, and pay well, to see extreme extra-solar athletes duke it out in zero-G arenas if the arenas were outfitted appropriately. A zero-G version of boxing (or wrestling) on pay-per-view for instance would make a mint right from the start. We could start the ball rolling by having those astronauts that keep complaining about bordom and wrestlessness form a set of extra-solar sports leagues with their expected down-times slotted for them to have at it in unused portions of the station. Maybe even start including a couple of well known atheletes (or pseudo atheletes) into the crews of future missions specifically for that purpose. Imagine the revenue generated from a couple of icons of wrestling (like the Undertaker & Stone Cold Steve Austin) going at it in space. Have a couple of the biggest names in illusion/magic team up to perform in space. A Chris Angel-Mind Freak special comes to mind. Also, include golbal-cast performance arts of major acts. MJ & Bono and there crews would probably love to play the ISS in Global-cast or do live shots of them bangin around in the payload bay of the shuttle. Maybe have Jackie Chan and Jet Li have at it zero-G style in a fake no-holds-barred martial arts act. Flashy showmenship, weapons and all. And the world would eat it up and pay through the nose to say they saw it live. The proceeds for any one of these acts alone would pay for the expenses of getting them there and back several times over with loads left over to finance the advancements of more of the same. Just look how much each of the aforementioned make in a single average show of similar coverage without the benefit of recognition of promoting something as pioneering & inspiring as Extra-solar entertainment. Lastly, indoctrinate a global holiday where the world has a day of orbital fireworks shows viewable from anywhere around the world. You can call it a celebration in recognition of our species' first successful venture into space and/or to pay homage to "our choice to do something about the threat of space junk" (relate it to what ever you want). The show would be amazing and inspiring, and thusly, extremely profitable for every business and governmental body promoting it. </p><p>OK, that's all you get for now. I'm tierd and need to sleep.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The only permanently sustainable habitat for life is a mobile one. </div>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> This is offered as a solution to the ever-increasing issues of our world's dwindling resources, and, lack of available viable habitat. Keeping in mind that our world is a finite (and ever over-crowding) habitat in itself, and, that we're all essentially imprisoned within it until we resolve our restrictions on mass extra-solar mobility and habitation, I see a dire need for our species to move ahead by leaps and bounds rather than through the current "baby steps" methodology. So I propose the following:4 Fundamental changes for evolving our current "space exploration" endeavors: 1. Save costs by converting our extra-solar unit designs from unique platform chassis to universal ones, and, introduce unique operational components as aftermarket additions. We've been designing "new" satellites for decades. Even though many of the chassis assemblies & components have experienced vast evolutionary advancements, as far as general applications go, the baser principles of the designs and operations of satellites have remained the same. As such, we should easily be able to find many ways to universalize & mass produce those baser chassis assemblages & adapt upgradable compartmentalization within them for refitting them with newer components in place of older ones as the demand to do so arises. Maybe then we would experience more of a cost-effective measure of longevity in the service lives of those units (as we've long experienced with the auto industry) rather than the constant short-term obsoletism that has been scene in the computing technology industry. This may, in fact, allow the obsoletism of computing technology to continue as it apparently is destined to do without the need to scrap entire satellite chassis. Recycling is, after all, the big fad of the century. 2. Start using our "shuttles" as shuttles & the ISS as a(n) construction yard/assembly plant. Use our shuttles to ferry pieces of chassis and components of larger haul assemblages to the ISS for building truely viable space-bound vehicles and habitats. And I mean real vehicles that can sustain long-term long-ranged repeat travel, and, real habitats that can sustain whole cyclical communities (along with bio-diverse nutrient resources & routinely relaying extra-solar traffic) for generations, not just a handful of specialized researchers for short periods. It has been expressed many times over that the costs for luanching even the smallest average payloads into space (as pre-assembled units) are ecceedingly costly. Argueably to costly. Let's start using what we've already built to expand by building more, bigger & better than before. 3. Implament municiple constructs, and universal commerce, into space-bound vehicles & habitats. Just as we have utilized localized governance, and corporate sponcorship, to forward the socio-economic potentials and securities of all other Earth-bound human developments, by all means it is long overdue that we allow these sociological & financial mechanisms help us establish & promote the advancement of extra-solar travel & habitation. First off, I'm sure it would be acceptable for everyone if we treated some of the available spaces within extra-solar habitats (currently only includes the ISS) as publically/commercially leasable real-estate just like we do here on Earth. Zoning and all would be included. And, I don't care if there are Microsoft billboards on the walls of public areas of extra-solar habitats, and/or, orbital CocaCola billboards along the routes of extra-solar traffic, if it means we actually have those things to work with. Obviously, it needs to be within reason but, it is far more unreasonable to think we can sustain the developments of such endeavors without including any such mechanisms within them. How else are we to establish sustainable mass extra-solar commerce and habitation? We simply can't without them. Look at the stagnation in the results of the past three decades of a purely scientific set of endeavors of our world's government's in space. Then look at the leaps and bounds made by the commercialization of low Earth orbit by corporate satellites. 4. Include hi-profile/profit entertainment attractions into the mix. I (as well as I'm sure many others) would love, and pay well, to see extreme extra-solar athletes duke it out in zero-G arenas if the arenas were outfitted appropriately. A zero-G version of boxing (or wrestling) on pay-per-view for instance would make a mint right from the start. We could start the ball rolling by having those astronauts that keep complaining about bordom and wrestlessness form a set of extra-solar sports leagues with their expected down-times slotted for them to have at it in unused portions of the station. Maybe even start including a couple of well known atheletes (or pseudo atheletes) into the crews of future missions specifically for that purpose. Imagine the revenue generated from a couple of icons of wrestling (like the Undertaker & Stone Cold Steve Austin) going at it in space. Have a couple of the biggest names in illusion/magic team up to perform in space. A Chris Angel-Mind Freak special comes to mind. Also, include golbal-cast performance arts of major acts. MJ & Bono and there crews would probably love to play the ISS in Global-cast or do live shots of them bangin around in the payload bay of the shuttle. Maybe have Jackie Chan and Jet Li have at it zero-G style in a fake no-holds-barred martial arts act. Flashy showmenship, weapons and all. And the world would eat it up and pay through the nose to say they saw it live. The proceeds for any one of these acts alone would pay for the expenses of getting them there and back several times over with loads left over to finance the advancements of more of the same. Just look how much each of the aforementioned make in a single average show of similar coverage without the benefit of recognition of promoting something as pioneering & inspiring as Extra-solar entertainment. Lastly, indoctrinate a global holiday where the world has a day of orbital fireworks shows viewable from anywhere around the world. You can call it a celebration in recognition of our species' first successful venture into space and/or to pay homage to "our choice to do something about the threat of space junk" (relate it to what ever you want). The show would be amazing and inspiring, and thusly, extremely profitable for every business and governmental body promoting it. OK, that's all you get for now. I'm tierd and need to sleep. <br />Posted by night_shadow_1</DIV></p><p>So, if you believe in this idea put up your money, raise some more through outside private investors and go do it.</p><p>But I am on the "do not call list" so don't expect any money from me.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>Leaps and bounds could be extremely risky.. baby steps to the moon would be better.. from there, to mars, and so on.</p><p> </p><p>the moon is closer to home than mars is. If you do get investors, good luck. </p>
<p>"Extra-solar" - what does that mean? Out of solar system?</p><p>And what do you expect to achieve with this post? Everybody to shout HURRAY and start investing [into what]?</p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Thanks for the input DrRocket. I've, in fact, put 27 years of my life work (including personal investments) into developments for extra-solar habitation & commerce. Part of the reason I'm posting this on here (as well as on several other forums) is to attract potential investment interest (along with interests to actually get involved with the efforts of people like myself.) So you can just consider the suggestion already taken friend. I have to say though, if all you have to offer are disparagements like this to cast on ideas that support private sector potentials when on a "SPACE.COM" forum, then maybe you should just keep it to yourself until you can find an anti-extra-solar habitation & commerce group to argue and discourage potentials with. Thanks again. <br />Posted by night_shadow_1</DIV></p><p>And maybe you ought not be telling me what to do. I have at least as much experience in aerospace as do you and my BS meter is fully operational. This smells to me like either a very incomplete and overly risky business idea or a scam. I would be happy to be proven wrong, but you have a long way to go to provide that proof.</p><p>I don't think I am your friend, friend. You can plan on objective evaluation and criticism of your ideas.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><font size="2">You dont have any financial figures. </font></p><p><font size="2">How is an investor going to make a decision if you dont provide some kind of projected return? </font></p><p><font size="2">What is the specific solution you have for the problem? </font></p><p><font size="2">Most people say the problem is lack of cheap access to space. Do your plans address cheap access? Or do your plans take place after the cheap access revolution?</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Most people say the problem is lack of cheap access to space. Do your plans address cheap access? Or do your plans take place after the cheap access revolution? <br /> Posted by danhezee</DIV></p><p>I completely agree that cheap access is the problem. Unfortunately the Vision for Space Exploration does not address it. The cost of lunar missions with 60's technology ELVs will be so high that there will be no money to develop practical launch vehiles. Practcal human spaceflight will be delayed for a generation. </p><p> </p><p> </p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I completely agree that cheap access is the problem. Unfortunately the Vision for Space Exploration does not address it. The cost of lunar missions with 60's technology ELVs will be so high that there will be no money to develop practical launch vehiles. Practcal human spaceflight will be delayed for a generation. <br />Posted by vulture4</DIV></p><p>The problem with cheap access is gravity. We simply do not have any technology that will us to overcome the hurdle of the gravity well of the Earth cheaply. Rockets, launch pads and the associated labor are expensive and they are not all that efficient. But they are all that we have at the moment. </p><p>There have been a lot of studies and some commercial attempts at cheap access to space. Nothing has proven fruitful so far. I think it likely that cheap access to space will take an entirely new propulsion technology, but I don't know what it might be. The proposals that I have seen for radically new approaches are basically wacko.</p><p>There are quite a few promising technologies for propulsion once you are in at least low earth orbit, but getting there requires high thrust and that for some reason does not usually come with high efficiency. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>..1. Save costs by converting our extra-solar unit designs from unique platform chassis to universal ones, and, introduce unique operational components as aftermarket additions. We've been designing "new" satellites for decades. Even though many of the chassis assemblies & components have experienced vast evolutionary advancements, as far as general applications go, the baser principles of the designs and operations of satellites have remained the same. As such, we should easily be able to find many ways to universalize & mass produce those baser chassis assemblages & adapt upgradable compartmentalization within them for refitting them with newer components in place of older ones as the demand to do so arises. ..</DIV></p><p>Standardizing designs like a "module" system only works economically if the product is being mass produced. So, unless we are sending out a lot of "extra-solar" whatsits, turning them into strictly generic packages with modular mission components will not save much cost or give them more capability. If you were talking about some sort of re-useable package system, that might be feasible. But, it's also not very efficient to send something to Mars and have it come back a decade later so you can put outmoded modules on it and send it back out again. By limiting the mission package to specifically what it is you want to investigate, money is saved.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>2. Start using our "shuttles" as shuttles & the ISS as a(n) construction yard/assembly plant. Use our shuttles to ferry pieces of chassis and components of larger haul assemblages to the ISS for building truely viable space-bound vehicles and habitats. And I mean real vehicles that can sustain long-term long-ranged repeat travel, and, real habitats that can sustain whole cyclical communities (along with bio-diverse nutrient resources & routinely relaying extra-solar traffic) for generations, not just a handful of specialized researchers for short periods. It has been expressed many times over that the costs for luanching even the smallest average payloads into space (as pre-assembled units) are ecceedingly costly. Argueably to costly. Let's start using what we've already built to expand by building more, bigger & better than before. </DIV></p><p>That's a tall order. Look at the ISS as an example. It's still not complete. The Shuttle may not be the best vehicle for transporting large construction assemblies into space either. What is needed is a way to reduce the cost per kg of launching something into orbit as you have alluded to. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> 3. Implament municiple constructs, and universal commerce, into space-bound vehicles & habitats...Then look at the leaps and bounds made by the commercialization of low Earth orbit by corporate satellites. </DIV></p><p>I agree with this in principle. Until economically viable reasons for investment exists in Space, nobody is going to invest in it and it will not be exploited. IMO, a prime candidate for such a venture is biotech/pharmacology. I'd love to see biotech companies fund the operations for the ISS for the next 15 years and I think it could be done. Until something like that occurs where people see an economic opportunity, Space will just be a place to throw away money for "for-profit" industries. (Aside from telecoms. That's one area that is being exploited.) It's those industries that have always formed the backbone of manned exploration of anywhere. There's no reason not to assume that the same mechanism can not be used in Space. We just have to find the appropriate carrot-on-a-stick. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>4. Include hi-profile/profit entertainment attractions into the mix. ....Posted by night_shadow_1</DIV></p><p>Unfortunately, that's not going to happen in any frequency that matters. We will see some of the World's ultra-wealthy take advantage of some of the opportunities for visiting Space. Russia has provided this service for years and some independent agencies are trying to get in on the action. However, the key here is always going to be reducing the cost per kg of getting something from the ground to orbit. THAT is the single biggest expense per launch. Until that is brought down, we're not going to see a Disneyland in Space anytime soon, IMO.</p><p>In closing,</p><p>What is needed is new technology and the infrastructure to support the use of that technology in exploiting Space. What you specifically suggest, while admirable, relies entirely on the development of new technology. In some cases, the utilization of current technology, like the Shuttle, is actually counterproductive, IMO. The Shuttle is like a space mini-van. What you describe is going to require a space bus. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Posted by night_shadow_1</DIV><br /><br />What does any of this have to do with extra-solar commerce and habitation? Wouldn't it be better to prove some technology and practical experience within the solar system first?</p><p>What extra solar planet would be your destination?</p><p>So far we have no definative evidence of any that could be a target.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
<p>is complete BS. The maneuver adds very little velocity. No aircraft can use it to deliver hardware to orbit. See the Pegasus launch vehicle. You have no idea about what you are talking about. Show the math. </p><p>Also there is no such thing as "stalling their orbit" and it wasn't used for Apollo. </p><p> </p><p>Just another snake oil saleman with no knowledge of physics or aeronautics </p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>..To understand how these posts relate first you must read ALL of what has already been posted by all involved in the conversation and how I've responded to them (what has already been posted deals directly with getting to the point of development needed for the eventual achievement of the headline subject in several ways.)..Posted by night_shadow_1</DIV></p><p>There seems to be a common theme you're proposing regarding reducing cost per kg - Smaller, more frequent payloads. Such a system would use multiple small modules launched frequently to move components for large systems into orbit.</p><p>But, the infrastructure to support that has to already be in place.</p><p>The concept of using slingshot-tethers has been discussed by many. There are a bunch of issues that have to be solved as such a complex network isn't without its problems. In order to be efficient, those tethers have to be continuously moving. It's not a start/stop type of system, IMO. Otherwise, you're going to have to continuously transport fuel to the slingshot-tethers themselves. It's a sort of constantly moving "pass the hot potatoe" type of juggling configuration. In order for it to work, the timing must be exact and everything must be perfect. How do you get that up there to begin with? What about materials? The stress on the tethers is going to be significant. How are they to be supported? Crewed? How are they supported and what gets those facilities up there to begin with? If it's a start/stop system how is it controlled and timed? Where does the fuel for that come from?</p><p>As far as launching from the upper atmosphere, people have looked at that as well. But, I want to see what you have to say about the efficiency of such a system first. What vehicle is your prime choice for such an endeavor and what percentage of fuel to payload are you looking at for the module itself? We're not talking about ASATs here. These would, by necessity, have to have a decent amount of payload vs fuel for them to be more economical and efficient than ground launched methods. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ You seemed to have missed many of the details...Posted by night_shadow_1</DIV></p><p>In fact I cannot find any details. You seem to be very long on beliefs and very short on specifics, data, calculations and justifications.</p><p>If you think the SR-71, with its specialized fuel is going to be cheap you ought to get some real figures. And if you think it is going to be able to go as fast and high as it has in the past while towing something you need to take a closer look at the physics. It is going to be a pretty good trick just to take off while tethered to a package. And if you think some other jet that cannot convert to a ramjet is going to fly high and fast at those altitudes while towing something you need to take a look at the operating principles. In fact getting as high as you have mentioned with evern the SR-71 may be difficult.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>There are a million web sites filled with positive thinking and not enough details to make a fair judgement. I understand that too many details means your idea may be stolen.</p><p>On re-entry the shuttle tiles heat to about 1000 degree c at an altitude of 80? kilometers, so you need to be about that high before you reach 17,000 miles per hour, which is not fast enough to remain in orbit. Worse, the air resistance and gravity above 80 kilometers altitude will slow your pay load to perhaps 12,000 miles per hour by the time the pay load coasts to an altitude of about 400 kilometers which is about the minimum for long term human colonies. Another 5000 miles per hour of delta v is needed to achieve circular orbit. That means the pay load needs to be mostly fuel to produce that 5000 miles per hour delta v. Worse, only ICBM or equivalent can reach an altitude of 80 kilometers with a ten ton pay load. I'm mostly guessing, so it may not be quite that difficult to build a colony orbiting 400 kilometers above Earth's surface. No present aircraft comes even close. Rotovators = tethers tumbling end over end at an altitude of 80 kilometers also over heat, lose energy quickly and the ash falls back to Earth. My guess is all parts of the rotovator must stay more than 100 kilometers altitude to be practical. I'm unsure why we have not launched a demonstration rotovator (bolo) with a climber attached to make repairs to the tether. This has been discussed in considerable detail at the forum at www.liftport.com scroll down. about one foot. Click on forum. enter rotovator in the search, upper right. The 2nd hit is excellent. Try bolo in the search. Neil</p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Again, the concept is to use conventional high-speed aircrafts that can carry relatively small capsules (that are outfitted with their own staged rocket propulsion systems) to the upper limits of their (the aircraft's) viable flight altitudes. This is where they will then use the "Slingshot" (upword virtical roll) maneuver to essentially throw the capsules upwords with the use of tow tethers. This allows for adequate clearence for the mid-air firing of the first stage rockets. The capsules will first be deployed for this maneuver by having the tethers that they are hooked to the aircraft with (attached to the aircraft by way of wench, and, are temporarily hooked onto the capsules hual during pre-flight) rolled out to a specified distance that will maximize the resulting rate of initial travel of the capsule during that maneuver. After being unhooked from the tethers during this maneuver the capsules will then fire the primary stage rockets to begin carrying their payloads the rest of the way to LEO. An additional series of rocket stages will be used to get the capsules up to the proper speeds and altitudes for docking with the ISS. Posted by night_shadow_1</DIV></p><p> </p><p>Totally non viable and shows a lack of knowledge of physics. The sling shot manever doesn't add any appreciable velocity. The max payload (spacecraft) for a fighter type carrier aircraft is going to be under a few hundred pounds and since it has to go to (rendezvous) the ISS, it is going to need more propellant and systems than just an orbiting satellite. Hence the real payload, cargo to the ISS, is almost nil. </p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Our fleet of capsules that are currently under development are scaled by capacity configurations to allow several different ranges of specific wieght ratios (thus, allowing different supporting aircraft candidates to apply to the program as well) to be employed instead of using NASA's one size fits all approach. <br /> Posted by night_shadow_1</DIV></p><p> NASA does not employ the one size fits all approach. NASA uses Pegasus, Delta II, Atlas V, Delta IV and Taurus for its spacecraft </p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To be more specific about this, to ensure the greatest level of efficiency of the methodology, the aircrafts to use would be determined by the specifics of the payload to be delivered. Also note that the costs for the fuel for any of those crafts are much less than the costs for the fuel for the conventional space shuttle chassis and its booster rockets which, also helps to reduce the over all costs of such luanches. That concept in conjunction with the idea to use smaller capsule chassis to deliver components (that will be assembled once they reach a facility in space such as the ISS),<br /> Posted by night_shadow_1</DIV></p><p> </p><p>1. Fuel costs for launch vehicles is minor. It is the smallest factor in determining cost of launch vehicle.</p><p> 2, onorbit assembly is more expensive than using a larger launch vehicle </p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Enough details are there for you to get a good enough idea of what it is I'm suggesting, and, to see the validity of the concepts behind the proposition if you just apply yourself. After all, with a name like "DrRocket" you should already be able to assume many of those figures well enough that I should not need to explian any further. Remember I'm not trying to give away our proprietary research information before it is legally secured. Next you'll be demanding that I give you all the design spec's for our entire planned fleet of capsules and all supporting equipment, personnel requirements, programming, accounting, etc. "or else I'm a scammer and a crook and anything I ever suggest can NEVER work." Think of how you sound, and to what grade of handouts you're asking for, before you make such demands please. So you believe that the SR-71's fuel is either as expensive or even more expensive than the fuel for the space shuttle? Really? Also note that the SR-71 is only one example I gave as a potential candidate for one of the scaled capsule's ratios where I later stated "some 4.5 gen. military jetcrafts and beyond" to show that we have many other candidates than just that one. As well, as I also previously stated, that project is still in its earlier phases of development and we are looking forward to several aircrafts that are under current development by other organizations that could potentially better fit the bill. I never said it would be easy. I said it would be safer, less costly & more efficient than the current space shuttle methodology. Beyond that, I hope that the rest of the readers of my posts (that are actually willing to concieve of the possibilities rather than look for ways to abuse others ideas for what ever reason) are better able to rationally discern the basic principles that I'm suggesting/am working on for themselves from what information I do provide. That hope is so that I do not have to continuously keep explianing how giving all the proprietary/actionable information for each of my companies endeavors freely to the public (without any compensation or professional recognition for any of us) in order for the public to find any validity in them as grounds to explore any extenuating advancement potentials in the information for themselves is obsurd. I would do all of my staff, and myself, a grave injustice to disclose many of the details you're demanding in relation to this subject for it would serve no other purpose than to undermine all of our previous and current efforts towards establishing our operational foundations and profit potentials in that program. To help you better undrestand what kind of a person you make yourself out to be by making such demands in the ways you've been making them, without any reasonable attempt to respect the writer or to take any reasonable consideration for the underlining circumstances of the relationship I must maintain for my company as a for-profit private sector space exploration & habitation endeavor (not a government program that is in some way answerable to the public due to public funding considerations), I offer the following. NOTE THAT THIS IS MEARELY AN EXAMPLE: Why are you so hard pressed for all of the details of our research? What are your motives? What exactly are you trying to gleen from my life's, and my staff's, work for free? What makes you think you have any right to that information in the first place? Why aren't you offering any of your own self-financed, self-deliniated and irrefutably varifiable findings or projects to support the conversation? In fact, all you seem to be doing is asking asinine question after asinine question and attacking me by trying to somehow prove me to be a charlatan for just sharing in the first place. In fact, since you're demanding that information so ardently without offering any kind of recognition for where what I've offered does show potential to you, I can only assume you're just another criminally minded data miner trying to undercut everything we've worked so hard and so long to achieve for your own like efforts. That you're really only a lazy bumb that sits at home on his comp. looking for ways to rip honest ppl off by stealing their ideas for your own gain. I bet your sitting there with a notepad doc open looking for anything you can take to the patent office and claim as your own right now. Otherwise you just sit there all day attacking other ppl to make yourself feel better about your sad sry meager life... and so on.END OF EXAMPLE. This is the kind of diatribe you've been offering with your commentary. As I'm sure you can see (if you're a reasonable individual) it will get neither of us any closer to a better understanding of how to solve the major problems with establishing viable means for space exploration and habitation for our species at all. So please, as I said before, the diatribe can (and must) be left out of the conversation for it offers no measure of advancement of the point of it. If you wish to have greater details than what I openly offer through the development of these posts because you consider yourself a potential investor, then as I also said before, you can contact me directly for a private review of our operations, plans, prospectus, business guide, etc. once a non-disclosure agreement is secured accordingly. We would be happy to share & demonstrate the many facets of our companies planned evolutions & cross cultural market relationships for the next few generations to all worthy investors. As such, if you are such a potential investor I'm sure you are aware that the investigation of any potential professional relationship between us would be done from our side of the table as well as a matter of standard practice for the type of work we do. Though I highly doubt you are a worthy investor seeing as your approach to discern the details of our research and plans have been exceedingly unprofessional to say the least. I assure you, no successful company has ever given full disclosure of their plans and operations without first securing proprietary control over every aspect of that information. That is because to do so would ensure that any actionable profit generating opportunities that are acknowledged within them would most likely be taken advantage of by their other better established competitors before they could ever secure their own developmental foundations. Indeed many lawsuits (pertaining to corporate/industrial espianage) have resulted from just such failures of small businesses in the arena of the global marketplace. When you leave yourself open to such risks, you can always expect your larger competitors to take every advantage of those "opportunities" as a sign of weakness and niavitae resulting from your company's youth. But, I'm sure you are already aware of this fact. To continue with the broader conversation by assisting you further in better understanding the underlining concepts of the proposed program; obviously, the vehicle would not be towed on the tether from take-off. That would simply be rediculous. We're not trying to use a jet to fly a kite to space here after all. Something to also consider is that the relative ratios of the capsules I've been speaking of are relatively along the same supplamental ratios of those aircrafts periferals when in standard active duty configurations (armorment, defensive equipment, etc.) Obviously part of the retooling I mentioned before would be stripping all of those periferals (and their supporting components where they do not effect the maneuverability of the craft and so on) to allow for a greater carrage/towing capacity and overall fuel efficiency. So if you're assuming your figures from the wieght ratios from a standard active duty configuration on top of the maximum capacity mentioned for the "large" sized capsules we're developing for our fleet, your numbers will be far above that of what will actually result from the program. As well, as I also shared to before, the sizes and dimensions of the fleet of capsules we are developing require different candidates of aircrafts for the differing capsule sizes. <br />Posted by night_shadow_1</DIV></p><p>What are you talking about? I have made no demands whatever. I simply stated the fact that I have not found many useful details in your posts. And yes I can indeed make some reasonable assumptions and calculations. I have. Among other things I have noted that the only aircraft that has ever come close to your thoughts on altitude and speed is the SR-71. The SR-71 doesn't strike me as a very viable tow vehicle. So I think you will probably need to develop a new and rather high-performance aircraft. Good luck.</p><p>But I have no demands whatever of you. If I were to seriously consider an investment then I would indeed want to see detailed plans, specifications and calculations. I think any prudent investor would want that as a minimum. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Again, the concept is to use conventional high-speed aircrafts that can carry relatively small capsules (that are outfitted with their own staged rocket propulsion systems) to the upper limits of their (the aircraft's) viable flight altitudes. This is where they will then use the "Slingshot" (upword virtical roll) maneuver to essentially throw the capsules upwords .......... </DIV></p><p>And how many kilos of payload per launch do you expect to deliver to LEO? </p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Enough details are there for you to get a good enough idea of what it is I'm suggesting, and, to see the validity of the concepts behind the proposition if you just apply yourself. After all, with a name like "DrRocket" you should already be able to assume many of those figures well enough that I should not need to explian any further. Remember I'm not trying to give away our proprietary research information before it is legally secured. ...I must maintain for my company as a for-profit private sector space exploration & habitation endeavor ..Posted by night_shadow_1</DIV></p><p>I this the same company that is pushing the lighter-than-air launcher, or have you formed a new one ? What is the name of this company ?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Really, on average we're shooting for a maximum of only about 800 lbs. (for the small scaled capsules in our fleet) to around 2000 lbs. (for the large scaled ones.) That is per trip as a targeted max payload capacity. Enough for a single person and vital support equipment (for the small ones) to a couple of ppl and vital support equipment (for the large ones,) or, an equall wieght of just equipment/supplies. Again, we only want to send components (rather than complete constructs) that will be used to assemble larger constructs in space at a facility like the ISS. As I also said before, we are working on trying to develop a like system/capsule to carry as much as 10,000 lbs. but, we have a lot of work to do before we can achieve that target if it is even possible with the lvl of tech available to us. We are working under these perameters because we no longer see validity in the costs/risks associated with continuing to send massive pre-assembled constructs up their by way of a system like the space shuttle program. With our methodology and capsule fleet, if their is a catastrophic failure in a flight, the losses are minimalized to only what components (and obviously the capsule itself) were lost in that one flight. Much cheaper replacement components and capsules can be employed to deliver and complete an assembly instead of calling the whole assemblage a complete loss. I understand that it (the space shuttle program) used to be nessesary early on because we had to take everything with us on each trip to do anything worth while in space but, with the ISS their now we do have that ability (as has been demonstrated by the gradual building of the ISS itself) as long as the representing parties are willing to ablidge. So long as they are, it relagates the space shuttle program as an obsolete method for any such future for-profit space-bound construction programs. To pre-empt any assumptions about any potentials for LEO space tourism for this methodology, understand that we're not talking about providing any LEO tourism services with this (like what Virgin Galactic is attempting to achieve.) We're simply talking about establishing a safer cost effective method to deliver ppl, supplies, equipment and the like to an orbiting facility only. Kind of like building a roudamentary future courier/taxi service for getting essentials to and from LEO without any site-seeing options included. <br /> Posted by night_shadow_1</DIV></p><p><font size="2">I might have missed it while reading (I was reading fast cuz i missed a few days of your thread 
), but i didnt see any figures that show protected launch cost for your system. If your system doesnt lower costs why should we use it? Using a sling shot method sounds more complicated than traditional rocket launches. complexity in my opinion raises cost. </font></p><p><font size="2">Also, how much mass are your rockets with the tanks full? How big is the rocket for the 800lbs to orbit?</font></p><p><font size="2">I would also like to know the name of the company? I would like you to tell us about the credentials of you and your team? Do you or anyone on your team have a strong physics background? </font></p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
), but i didnt see any figures that show protected launch cost for your system. If your system doesnt lower costs why should we use it? Using a sling shot method sounds more complicated than traditional rocket launches. complexity in my opinion raises cost. </font></p><p><font size="2">Also, how much mass are your rockets with the tanks full? How big is the rocket for the 800lbs to orbit?</font></p><p><font size="2">I would also like to know the name of the company? I would like you to tell us about the credentials of you and your team? Do you or anyone on your team have a strong physics background? </font></p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I this the same company that is pushing the lighter-than-air launcher, or have you formed a new one ? What is the name of this company ? <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>No relation</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No relation <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>There are certainly a lot of coincidences then. Your last post, prior to this one was on the same day, 8/7/08, that night_shadow -1 made his first post, No posts from you on an idea that I would think might have interested you until this one. A very similar mode of expression. No posts from you in any thread while there was obviously a great deal of time spent in composing the posts made by night_shadow_1. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Their aren't any projected costs yet because the program is still in its early development stages and we still have a lot of work to do to get it to the prototyping & testing phases. Although, we are sure of the fact that the over all costs will be far less than the shuttle program costs, and, the benefits will for outway those of it as well. It is actually much a simpler process, and requiring far less resources and man power, to run each launch as the methodology is currently planned. I can't give you the spec's on the propulsion chassis for several reason's of which, the primary one is maintaining security on the findings of our research until they can be varified and lisenced accordingly. Second, because we're still refining those details ourselves. You have to remember that this program is not the main focus of our developmental objectives. We have been, and still are, primarily focused on long-term extra-solar habitation and commerce developments. Hence the headline title of this string. To be specific about it, the development of this program was a direct result of the general consensus of all of your responces to my posts (that a demand for cheaper access to space should be the priority for now) so I brought it up to my team in our weekly prospecting meeting. We already understood the demand to a degree but, had not focused any research elements on the subject (to find how many other organizations were working on developing such programs, how realistic/practicle those programs were, and, how those programs could be applied to our primary endeavors) until we found that no one else was working under the principle of actually using the ISS as an assembly plant of a sort. Just about everything about the ISS is applicable to that use. So we have reasoned that this has been a long-time forgone eventual application of the ISS to a degree. Especially since it, in itself, is already an example of its ability to serve this function effectively. So we're approaching it from the angle of reducing the scales of the overall payload demands (due to their being no more demand for sending the traditionally more massive pre-built assemblies to the ISS.) That alone greatly elliminates the demand for an equally massive launch vehicle that has such high risks & therefore costs, for delivering assemblies to space as the NASA's space shuttle program does. The rest is us refining the concept into achieving that in a way that we can establish profitable contracting options for the projected resulting service base. Note that I never said we had it all already figured out. After all, it makes no sense to unvail a program that is already ready for commercial application on a community chat forum like this does it? We don't believe so. I also have to say that, on a space.com forum, I did not expect so much effort of everyone to discourage others efforts to advance ideals and concepts like this. Very disappointing to say the least. Much more of it and I think I might just have to give up on using space.com as a means of attracting and encouraging interests. Especially since most of you don't seem interested in helping ppl with such efforts. Mostly, you've only been attempting to discourage us. This from the same ppl that complain about not enough being done to forward the effort. Again, the pot calling the kettle black. I'm going to save my, and my team's, professional biographies for potential investor reviews. Several of us do have engineering & applied physics backgrounds (including myself.) I am the sole owner of the company where I manage the general business, exec. team leadership, and, original concept development program, ends of our operations. My team helps to fill in the details and prove or disprove the potentials of the concepts how they relate to their individual expertise. We are a grass-roots company, not a major aerospace industry leader... yet ;P <br /> Posted by night_shadow_1</DIV></p><p> [QOUTE] You have to remember that this program is not the main focus of our developmental objectives. posted by night_shadow </DIV></p><p> <font size="2">If it isnt your main focus why have you wasted valuable company resources on it. Three things to remember: time, money, and measure of performance. You seem to be all over the place with what you want to do with your company. My advice is narrow your goals to one activity you feel your company can make profitable in 5 - 8 years. To make it clear, I am not telling to forget about your other dreams, never do that. Just narrow your company's mission to one profitable venture and after its success move to another.</font></p><p><font size="2">Since you said you are the sole owner and </font><font size="2">you</font><font size="2"> say have a team, I have concluded a few things about the status of your company.... You are paying them to work (No one worth while is going work for nothing and not have some ownership). That also means you havent received any equity investments or bank loans (banks wont loan money for unproven tech, you definitely wouldnt say you are the sole owner if you had any angel investors, and of course without the need of saying it, banks and equity investors only back very precise, very focused, short ROI business plans ). So you are self-funded with a limited amount of time before you run out of money. You and your guys have spend a lot time throwing around ideas, which is a good thing. But now it is time to get focused and start "bending metal". The best way to get investors is to have a tangible object they can play with and of course a sweet presentation of the test you performed on that tangible object.</font></p><p><font size="2">The best thing you can do to obtain equity investments is pretend you have a million dollars you want to invest and you have 20 startups telling you why they are your best choice. How would you decide which would be the least risky?</font></p><p><font size="2">Anyway for the record</font> <font size="2">I like your ambition. I bet everyone here does. You gonna receive constructive criticism for your ideas, so dont let that bring you down. I know criticism can make people defensive. </font></p><p><font size="2">Goodluck man.</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Really, on average we're shooting for a maximum of only about 800 lbs. (for the small scaled capsules in our fleet) to around 2000 lbs. (for the large scaled ones.) That is per trip as a targeted max payload capacity. Enough for a single person and vital support equipment (for the small ones) to a couple of ppl and vital support equipment (for the large ones,) or, an equall wieght of just equipment/supplies.</DIV></p> <p>Correct me if I'm wrong, but you plan to tow something weighing ~40t to 10+km altitude and then slingshot it towards the space? Using what plane? </p> <p>Falcon 1 is supposed to get ~400kg to 185km orbit. Weight at launch ~46t. OK, you start at altitude of ~10km so let's assume that your launcher weighs a little less - ~40t. But it MUST have some kind of wings, stabilizers etc, because you are TOWING it to that altitude. That adds all the weight back, if not more.</p> <p>So, tell me about the plane which is able to tow 40t to altitude and then perform slingshot maneuver… Cessna maybe?</p>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
China's Tiangong space station damaged by debris strike: report
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
-
NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft finally phones home after 5 months of no contact
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 11
-
-
Hubble telescope celebrates 34th anniversary with an iridescent Dumbbell Nebula (image)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
-
A video made by me about space and the loneliness in the universe- Started by drakotol
- Replies: 54
Latest posts
-
-
-
Scientists may finally know where the biggest, oldest black holes in the universe came from.- Latest: arturo.v.dominguez@gmail.
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram