What If we just used the money from Constellation to buy more launches?

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cygnus_2112

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So change it.&nbsp; I think the benefits would justify the change in this case.&nbsp; I am also not talking about giving the money to anyone, they would have to bring something to the table to play. <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>You don't understand the program, that is not on the table.&nbsp; This is an American program that will not be dependent on other countries for critical parts of the VSE.&nbsp; </p><p>You would be giving work away&nbsp;</p>
 
B

BrianSlee

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;You don't understand the program, that is not on the table.&nbsp; This is an American program that will not be dependent on other countries for critical parts of the VSE.&nbsp; You would be giving work away&nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />I believe we could modify our position a little and in this case and I think that would make some sense.&nbsp; If you don't then we have differing opinions, let's just leave it at that. <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>
 
B

BrianSlee

Guest
Does any one believe that NASA would use the systems for heavy launch currently in existance or would they (NASA) preclude their use based on the not invented here ideology, or make an argument that NASA needs its own capability regardless of what is available and how much could be saved? <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>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Does any one believe that NASA would use the systems for heavy launch currently in existance or would they (NASA) preclude their use based on the not invented here ideology, or make an argument that NASA needs its own capability regardless of what is available and how much could be saved? <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>The question is a bit vague.&nbsp; Which specific systems do you have in mind, and what is your definition of heavy launch ?&nbsp; 40,000 lb to LEO ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
B

BrianSlee

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The question is a bit vague.&nbsp; Which specific systems do you have in mind, and what is your definition of heavy launch ?&nbsp; 40,000 lb to LEO ? <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />The Delta system is listed as having a capacity of 25,800 Kilos which would equate to 56,760 lbs per launch to LEO</p><p>Atlas V is rated at 20,050 Kilos&nbsp; which is 44,110 lbs</p><p>Both are classified as heavy lift.</p><p>&nbsp;</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>
 
C

Cygnus_2112

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The Delta system is listed as having a capacity of 25,800 Kilos which would equate to 56,760 lbs per launch to LEOAtlas V is rated at 20,050 Kilos&nbsp; which is 44,110 lbsBoth are classified as heavy lift.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;NASA is looking for 100 tons </p>
 
B

BrianSlee

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;NASA is looking for 100 tons <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />Which would be 4 launches of the Delta IV heavy.&nbsp; I believe Wkpedia puts Ares V at about 130,000 Kilos which would mean you would need 5 Deltas to equal 1 Ares V which would mean the construction of some systems would probably have to be done in space. <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>
 
D

dougbaker

Guest
<p>&nbsp;basically if I had large house with many rooms of furniture to move including a very large oak desk, I would need a large truck to move it, but I could use my friends vw bug and move all the stuff... but I would have to make a 100 trips, cut the desk in half and most likely ruin the suspension of the bug.... </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>although the truck is much more expensive to buy/rent, I get all my stuff in one or two loads and I don't have to cut up big items.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>so although it may be possible to use existing launch systems, it would be far better to build a big truck.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
 
B

BrianSlee

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;basically if I had large house with many rooms of furniture to move including a very large oak desk, I would need a large truck to move it, but I could use my friends vw bug and move all the stuff... but I would have to make a 100 trips, cut the desk in half and most likely ruin the suspension of the bug.... &nbsp;although the truck is much more expensive to buy/rent, I get all my stuff in one or two loads and I don't have to cut up big items.&nbsp;&nbsp;so although it may be possible to use existing launch systems, it would be far better to build a big truck.&nbsp; <br />Posted by dougbaker</DIV><br /><br />I&nbsp;would call that a bad analogy.&nbsp;&nbsp;In&nbsp;your analogy you are talking about stuff that is already built or put together all in one place, &nbsp;we don't have a mars mission in place we have a concept that still requires a lot of concept definition, scientific study, and engineering work before we start turning wrenches on it.&nbsp; A better analogy would be that you are a moving company that has a a bunch of modular furniture&nbsp;in boxes,&nbsp; now are you going to put that&nbsp;furniture together before you move it or after?&nbsp; In the case of the truck analogy, you don't have the option to rent it you have to buy it or forego it, and not only do you have to buy it but you have to start making huge payments on it before it has even seen the factory floor, let alone a showroom where you could actually see one and be sure it was the right kind of truck for you for a long time&nbsp;since companies don't have capital to just throw around like it means nothing.&nbsp;The ratio of trips is also not 100 to 1 or 2, it is 5 to 1 at best and probably a good deal less than that now given the fat that Ares is putting on lately, so if you own a small truck that will do the job in 5 trips, as a businessman are you going to go buy what someone just tells you is going to be a bigger one that can do it in&nbsp;1 or 2 that hadn't even seen an assembly line or get to work making money with the trucks you have? <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>
 
Z

Zipi

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I&nbsp;would call that a bad analogy.&nbsp;&nbsp;In&nbsp;your analogy you are talking about stuff that is already built or put together all in one place, &nbsp;we don't have a mars mission in place we have a concept that still requires a lot of concept definition, scientific study, and engineering work before we start turning wrenches on it.&nbsp; A better analogy would be that you are a moving company that has a a bunch of modular furniture&nbsp;in boxes,&nbsp; now are you going to put that&nbsp;furniture together before you move it or after?&nbsp; In the case of the truck analogy, you don't have the option to rent it you have to buy it or forego it, and not only do you have to buy it but you have to start making huge payments on it before it has even seen the factory floor, let alone a showroom where you could actually see one and be sure it was the right kind of truck for you for a long time&nbsp;since companies don't have capital to just throw around like it means nothing.&nbsp;The ratio of trips is also not 100 to 1 or 2, it is 5 to 1 at best and probably a good deal less than that now given the fat that Ares is putting on lately, so if you own a small truck that will do the job in 5 trips, as a businessman are you going to go buy what someone just tells you is going to be a bigger one that can do it in&nbsp;1 or 2 that hadn't even seen an assembly line or get to work making money with the trucks you have? <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>How much of overhead weight would all these needed extra docking mechanisms add and how much of extra propellant we would need to make all the extra rendezvous operations? I'm asking because I don't know and I'd like to know if this is a feasible solution you are suggesting.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
B

BrianSlee

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How much of overhead weight would all these needed extra docking mechanisms add and how much of extra propellant we would need to make all the extra rendezvous operations? I'm asking because I don't know and I'd like to know if this is a feasible solution you are suggesting. <br />Posted by Zipi</DIV><br /><br />Don't know.&nbsp; I'll start out with none for supplies and material that don't need to breathe.&nbsp; A double hatch with a couple of robotic arms could transfer non live cargo from a logistics supply module to the interior of&nbsp;sections under construction (make it a triple hatch if you are really skitchy) .&nbsp; I would say if you are going to Mars that a spinning&nbsp;toroid is the way to go.&nbsp; Lets say you could carry an inflatable form with a hatch on each side of the form.&nbsp; The form&nbsp;would be made out of layers of light weight film or polymer&nbsp;sandwiched&nbsp;with a matrix of light weight composite fiber.&nbsp; When inflated that form would be a section of&nbsp;toroid spanning a diameter of severall hundred feet.&nbsp; Once inflated a resin/hardner&nbsp;combination could be applied to the matrix material creating a composite structure.&nbsp; Complete stocking and buildout as new material arrives.&nbsp;With a double hatch on each side you have created a system to maintain airtight integrity in case of rupture or leak in a section.&nbsp; As for extra fuel usage per docking I coudn't begin to calculate that one I would need to do some research or rely on someone with specific knowledge of mass flow rates for reaction motors and average firing times&nbsp;per docking. <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>
 
B

BrianSlee

Guest
<p>Not even a bunch of naysayers on this one.&nbsp; hmmm</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>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY