blue origin, space ship one, china getting ready to go big time, the russians helping china, the esa working with russia, private industry moving toward space fast. and now the russians are building the kliper. 6 men. to iss, the moon, mars...so they say.<br /> it will be like the wild west. so when do we employ the marshall. so to maintain a free market place were business can feel safe to bring there goods to the people? low earth orbit is not enough. we need a true space craft. one made on earth and assembled in space. a platform capable of carring cargo, explorers, habitats, resupply, rescue, always on the ready, and able to change missions as the need arises, and maybe even security.while everyone else is working on there rockets, we better start working on our first ship. besides when china and russia get stuck someone need to be there to help them out.
- Status
give me 100 able engineers and 1 billion dollars and I'll take you from the ground to Mars with a robust safe system that is 100% reusable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
its not so much being able to go to mars and back...but to go to mars, moon, space station soon maybe stations, or where ever in the earth moon system. at a monents notice. to carry what is needed. not piece it together when we get there, the ablity that if something happens (like the ant artic science girl who had to be flown out at the worse possible time) you can call a carrier to rescue people. when nothing else can get there. we need a carrier in space. cargo, exploration, resupply, to me seems to more than enough reason to start this project now. you realise what i am talking about. would be years in the planning and probably at least a decade to assemble......it would not be in operation until 2018-2020. where will russia, china, esa, private industry, and enemy states who might want to do us harm be in the space race. im sure there will at least be a cassino up there, gaurantteed an out of this world game. so by not moving on this now and working on better rockets to low earth orbit or one way trips to the moon, where if something goes wrong, oh well been nice knowing you. we could really have a safe way in space. if we go the it looks now we will be planning for the past.
I said 100% reusable <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />basically a spaceship <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
Do you just have an idea or blueprints? What's an able engineer and how much would they cost? I could go and get lottery tickets, if I found the money you'd have to put my name on it and take me up first though <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
we start from scratch so our minds are not corrupted by any previous designs <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />seriously though, I think it could be done for a billion. all you need is imagination and drive. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
A billion? *eyes pop out* I presume this is a fully fledged space vehicle able to get all the way to GEO, even if it has to refuel at a LEO station and not a sub orbital else I’m less impressed. What kind of flight lifetime and cargo capacity do you think you could get out of it?<br /><br /> According to my quick research and BOTE calculations, assuming a capacity of 9600kg recurring, flight costs of $11,504,425 (about the shuttle costs I got amortization from wikipedia) (hopefully you won’t want a standing army though) and complete over 1000 flights. That would cost about $434 per kg or a cost to the spaceline of $117,848 or per person assuming an average of 78kg. <br /><br />If you say $200,000 (£109,808.31) {Euro 165,132.28} ticket the same as Branson’s estimating for his sub-orbital jaunt. That’s a profit of $82,152 per person. Could even sell a couple to NASA at $6 billion a unit to save them wasting time on the CEV and save the taxpayer a couple of billion. <br /><br />I wouldn’t mind those dividends. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I’d love to hear any more you have about this spacefire. Do you think you could fit oh say 22 passengers on board? <br /><br />
For a true spaceship, loaded up with hypronics, a permanent crew, a dozen nuclear reactors and stays in space for years and can survive micro meteor impacts and all of that, and maybe get from earth to mars in 3 days then i'd want at least half a century out of it!
Rutan made a space program that would achieve suborbital space flight in a completely reusable vehicle with 20 million. One billion is 50 times that. <br />Note that I didn't say "land on Mars". What I want is to have a ship that can take people and /or cargo from LEO to LMO and back and also a shuttle to take them from the ground to LEO and dock with our spaceship.<br />The Mars LAV would be just another payload.<br />If we apply the X Prize/Tier 1 cost ratio to the Bigelow Prize, that leaves you with 100 million spent on developing the Earth-LEO system, and also a few launches to take the crew up to the ship, which means you have 900 million to get your Mars-ship built and send it to Mars. A FALCON V costs 12million/ launch. Let's say it takes 10 launches to get everything to LEO. That means another 120million. SO now you're left with 780million just for desiging your Mars-ship (prolly using Bigelow modules for crew habitat), training, supplies , manpower, and other things. I think 780million should cover that. Biggest hurdle is getting everything up, and with these promising new technologies it wouldn't cost that much. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
spacefire,<br /><br />Just out of curiosity how big will your Mars spacecraft be, in terms of mass in kg? How much of that will be fuel? Of course you have to have enough fuel to leave Earth orbit, slow down enough to enter Mars orbit, leave Mars orbit, and then slow down enough to get back into LEO. Do you plan on carrying those fuel tanks all the way there and back. Which I suppose you would have to if you insist on 100% reusability. What size crew?<br /><br />Keep in mind Falcon V can only boost payloads to LEO of about 5-6000 kg at a time. Assuming your craft is bigger than that, you would have to figure out a way to assemble your craft in LEO. Also per SpaceX, an F-V launch will cost $15.8M each.<br /><br />Also I have to ask how you came up with the $100M cost of developing your Earth to orbit craft. Per t/space (of which Rutan is a partner) development costs would be $100M per YEAR. Total cost would likely be in the neighborhood of $400M not including a $20M per flight fee.
That fits in nicely. What I mean is the shuttle from surface to LEO (I'd want a lot more performance out of anything not entering an atmosphere <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> ), since the Russians have done on-orbit propellant transfer; the extra boost needed for GEO shouldn’t be too much of a problem if your craft is reusable and easy to refuel on Earth. <br /><br />Are you proposing three ships or do I misunderstand? <br /><br />I think you are proposing, using a shuttle for Earth surface to LEO; A larger spaceship for LEO to LMO and reverse transit; then another shuttle for LMO to Martian surface. Wouldn’t taking the shuttle with you be easier? Anything that could get Earth to LEO could surely manage the thinner atmosphere and lower gravity of Mars<br /><br />It makes some sense since though I think a GEO-GMO transfer makes more sense, as there are then fewer restraints on your spaceship.<br /><br />Is your estimate of $1 billion for the entire Architecture or just a component thereof?<br />If so which component?<br />What is your estimate for the earth to LEO shuttle alone?<br /><br />I found one billion overtly optimistic for that if you’re now suggesting that for an entire architecture for that figure I can’t understand.<br /><br />How did you reach your figure of one billion?<br />Please clarify<br /><br />$100m a year thanks for that datum, formulaterp. <br />
6 people.<br />I think it would be sensible, since we are discussing a fully reusable ship, to send the MLAV first, park it in LMO and come back and fetch the astronauts. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
Please clarify meaning of MLAV, not an acronym I’ve encountered. Mars Landing and Ascent Vehicle perhaps? <br /><br />I think it would make more sense to take the Earth to LEO vehicle with you or one from the same production line if it's going to be reusable. That way you have commonality of hardware and the main spaceship can be much larger and carry all the amenities for month long trip that one of a few hours doesn’t need. Again a moon journey could use the same hardware and just be a shorter journey.<br /><br />Can you explain, do you have reasoning behind your development cost of a billion dollars or is this just a wild guess?<br />
I say it can be done for a billion dollars. As long as we don't get bogged down in bureaucratic swamps 
<br />The Mars Landing-Ascent Vehicle cannot be the same as the vehicle that takes you to LEO because, among other things, you don't have a launchpad on Mars and I doubt our cheapo LEO shuttle will be a single stage design. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
<br />The Mars Landing-Ascent Vehicle cannot be the same as the vehicle that takes you to LEO because, among other things, you don't have a launchpad on Mars and I doubt our cheapo LEO shuttle will be a single stage design. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>WOULD THE SHIP NEED 2 TYPES OF ENGINES IN CASE ONE FAILED. WHAT WOULD BE THE 2 TYPES BE???? HOW MANY MEN WOULD IT TAKE TO MAINTAIN THEM????<br />
WHY DO YOU HAVE CAPS LOCK ON???<br /><br /><br />my ship will use a warp drive, 40 year old proven technology as seen in the documentary Star Trek, which, if you doubt it's true, I met Captain Kirk and Spock and they signed their photos for me so they are real for sure!!!! <br /><br /><br /><br />ok, joking aside, I think a crew of 6 is the minimoum for a mission to Mars, even when a landing is not attempted. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
i just read that a review of weapons in space is being done.<br />we need a platform that can defend itself(manned). if the space shuttle had its external fuel attached and refueled in space. could it reach exscape velocity??? and if not is still not easier to leave earth from orbit than straight from the suface.<br />with less friction would you only need to reach a speed and coast? what is the fastest speed we could reach and still slow down to go to the moon. and could you not construct a large cargo container in space and then just haul it to the moon???<br /><br />
Well I'm not an expert, so I could be wrong but I'll explain my understanding.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>If the space shuttle had its external fuel attached and refueled in space. could it reach exscape velocity???<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br /><br />Ermm the space shuttle already has escape velocity of the Earth and can get into to GEO minus Extrenal Tank and boosters. If you mean to gain the Delta V to leave Earth orbit, I would say the Orbiter could if refuled. The Russians already know how to do this a technology transfer might be needed. <br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> is still not easier to leave earth from orbit than straight from the suface. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Yea much easier. I'd say (assuming indegionus propelants) liftoff from Earth is hardest, Mars Lift off is easier, Moon lift off even easier, Asteoid Lift off easier still, Low to Staionary Planetary orbit easier still and travel between stationary orbits the easiet. <br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>with less friction would you only need to reach a speed and coast?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /> Since their is no friction and no atmospheric drag (apart from at Low Planetary Orbits and surfaces if you want to quibble ), once accelerated to the desired speed you could cut the engines and would continue indefinatley until something wether it's propelleant or a crash stops you. In fact you don't even need an engine, as long as you can give the craft a big enough push. O'Neil proposed a commutersphere catapulted to Concorde speeds by mag-lev tracks. (or magneplanes as they called it back then) works as long as you can stop the other end<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>what is the fastest speed we could reach and still slow down to go to the moon.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />That depends on your craft and how much propellent and how advanced your technolgy is. I have no idea what the
"Ermm the space shuttle already has escape velocity of the Earth"<br /><br />Generally, when we speak of escape velocity, we are referring to the velocity required to entirely leave Earth, not to orbit it. <br /><br />An interesting side note. The Apollo lunar missions did not achieve escape velocity. The trajectory acheived was in fact that required for an orbit which reached the moon at its far point.<br /><br />The S-IVB on the other hand was fired for an extended persiod of time after the CM-LEM had separated, in most cases, the S-IVB impacted with the moon. In one case, it did not, and went into heliocentric orbit, and now it actually slips in and out of a very large radius Earth orbit.<br /><br />One final note. The shuttle has a very finite lifetime in terms of power, you probably will have to do something to keep those fuel cells fueled.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
One more note. The Shuttle main engines and the tank were not designed with restart in 0 g in mind. You will certainly have to play some games to achieve ullage, and might have to play some plumbing games to get the engines started again.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>give me 100 able engineers and 1 billion dollars<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />The question is, how fast am i gonna make this 1 gigabuck back and how exactly, and what risks are involved ?<br /><br />If you can answer this question satisfactorily, you can get your billion grom several sources.
Oh right. What is the term I'm looking for, the velocity needed to escape from a planet's surface into orbit?<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>probably will have to do something to keep those fuel cells fueled.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> How about space dervied Hydrogen and Oxygen? As a side note how long would you say the space shuttle coul last in orbit assuming refuling and no need or desire to reenter the atmosphere?
It would be a pretty risky venture. <br />I'd like to rely on 'existing' technology whenever it makes sense to do so, but also look for new, radical ways to circumvent cost and safety hurdles.<br />For instance: use Bigelow modules for the ship's habitat and Falcon V rockets to get them there. Maybe even invest part of the billion dollars into those two companies to insure the success of these technologies and also get a return from their future profits.<br />New technologies I wouldn't mind trying: a series of 'spiderweb' grids, tens of miles in radius, around the ship, with electric currents running in it, creating a magnetic field that would propel particles from space backwards, thus generating thrust.<br />The ship would be rotating and the centrifugal force would keep the spiderwebs extended, thus they wouldn't need to be a solid structure. Power to electrify the grids would come from solar panels, or most likely from a nuclear reactor, which could also power the ship's systems or heat gas to generate rocket thrust for radical manuevering. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
You didnt answer any relevant part of the question <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> How excatly, with what revenue stream are you going to pay back the investment ?
"How about space dervied Hydrogen and Oxygen?"<br /><br />The amounts of hydrogen and oxygen in space are negligible.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 154
-
-
-
The great silence: Just 4 in 10,000 galaxies may host intelligent aliens
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 113
-
We have the satellite data to show climate change is real. Now what?
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 42
-
-
Cosmic rays have surprising amounts of antimatter. Is dark matter responsible?
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 27
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram