gman42":1svv8jmu said:
An orbital vehicle could be launched just like SS1 or 2, in fact it is, the Pegasus. The problem is it needs a carrier a whole lot bigger then SS-2 and can only orbit about 1,000 pounds.
- Status
An orbital vehicle could be launched just like SS1 or 2, in fact it is, the Pegasus. The problem is it needs a carrier a whole lot bigger then SS-2 and can only orbit about 1,000 pounds.
since it takes so much money to get to low orbit space agencies should just be building alot of spaceplanes like virgin galactic is working on, theyre carbon fiber planes that carry jet planes and they launch from the upper atmosphere using cheap and clean fuel, so if nasa or someone scaled these kind of planes up and used a large fleet of them they would have cheap access to space using less fuel.
There's one reason that Virgin Galactics business model for a first stage for a sub-orbital flight is reasonable, it's for a sub-orbital flight. Spaceshiptwo is estimated to weight a maximum of 30 klbs, there is simply no way that a space ship of over 100 klbs(minimum) will ride piggyback or underwing to an altitude of 50,000 feet on any reasonable aircraft. That aircraft would need to be the size of a 747, in fact, the 747 that transports the shuttle cannot even reach it's full altitude or airspeed.(Devising an orbital air launch system from the Shuttle would just be ridiculously and unnecessarily expensive, as well as impossible anyway.) Pegasus is another story, this is an unmanned rocket and it's worthwhile to have a pilot in the release plane. When we shoot off a multistage rocket we don't equip each separate stage with an individual pilot. The risk to multiple lives is simply not worth it. The only thing assisting a space ship to orbit should be airbreathing engines which will be tossed overboard. Nasa and other space programs have perfected the use and transition between multiple stages, no reason we need to throw that technology and experience away. Also, the highest speed gain possible is optimal while still under airbreathing power. I can't imagine the complexity of releasing a ship from underwing at Mach 3+. Simply releasing the engines is a different matter. Why rely on Skylon creating complicated pre-cooled turbojets(as awesome as they will be) in 15 years when we have the capabilities to create cheap accessibility to space now?
Ok like has been said
1) Develope a light work horse lifting body that transports small items (6 to 8 person bus, consumables, micro sats etc) to leo where it can either dock at a station for ofload or refuling.....think orbital gas/truckstop. Then either carry on to high orbit stations or missions or return to earth for reuse.
2) Heavy lifting transport either sothing like yall have mentioned or something like a 2 stage saturn 5 for raw materials to orbit.
Prefferably 1st stage is reuseable 2nd can be recycled on station in orbit.
3) Orbit construction and maintanence yard. At first this is a prefab construction just big enough to assemble a ship to retreive a asteroid near earth orbit.
4) This asteroid could then be pulled into a close earth orbit to where it can act as a ship yard after being hollowed out. The inside can be turned into a magor station using the asteroid material to build more space habs and ships for retrieval of more asteroids as well as to build robotic or manned space craft to collect junk in orbit and to repair and upgrade satelites.
5) this carries on for awhile with the asteroids being used for raw materials ( some of which are sent to earth or used in a now large manufacturing buisness in orbit) and for habitats.
Note: Most of if not all of steps 4-5 can be accomplished with private industry. Mining companies have been investigating mining in space for awhile. Basicaly the use built spacecraft retrieves the asteroids then sells them to countries or private buisnesses. In this way they can bring back some of the money used to build the craft. Then after the first asteroid sell they can sell it or to get another for a military base to monitor local space (would you realy want a amadinajad type with a 800 nickel iron rock in space? or a 911 space cowboy style?).
and so it goes on and on larger ships are constructed to transport orbital habs or mining equipment to the asteroid belt or farther to mars etc.
The moon is going to be a problem as much as a help.............dust...microscopic dust in everything.
BTW mining in space could be done cheap i mean its weightless vacum and has a gigantic energy source.
google it
anyways my 2 cents
1) Develope a light work horse lifting body that transports small items (6 to 8 person bus, consumables, micro sats etc) to leo where it can either dock at a station for ofload or refuling.....think orbital gas/truckstop. Then either carry on to high orbit stations or missions or return to earth for reuse.
2) Heavy lifting transport either sothing like yall have mentioned or something like a 2 stage saturn 5 for raw materials to orbit.
Prefferably 1st stage is reuseable 2nd can be recycled on station in orbit.
3) Orbit construction and maintanence yard. At first this is a prefab construction just big enough to assemble a ship to retreive a asteroid near earth orbit.
4) This asteroid could then be pulled into a close earth orbit to where it can act as a ship yard after being hollowed out. The inside can be turned into a magor station using the asteroid material to build more space habs and ships for retrieval of more asteroids as well as to build robotic or manned space craft to collect junk in orbit and to repair and upgrade satelites.
5) this carries on for awhile with the asteroids being used for raw materials ( some of which are sent to earth or used in a now large manufacturing buisness in orbit) and for habitats.
Note: Most of if not all of steps 4-5 can be accomplished with private industry. Mining companies have been investigating mining in space for awhile. Basicaly the use built spacecraft retrieves the asteroids then sells them to countries or private buisnesses. In this way they can bring back some of the money used to build the craft. Then after the first asteroid sell they can sell it or to get another for a military base to monitor local space (would you realy want a amadinajad type with a 800 nickel iron rock in space? or a 911 space cowboy style?).
and so it goes on and on larger ships are constructed to transport orbital habs or mining equipment to the asteroid belt or farther to mars etc.
The moon is going to be a problem as much as a help.............dust...microscopic dust in everything.
BTW mining in space could be done cheap i mean its weightless vacum and has a gigantic energy source.
google it
anyways my 2 cents
The only thing assisting a space ship to orbit should be airbreathing engines which will be tossed overboard. Nasa and other space programs have perfected the use and transition between multiple stages, no reason we need to throw that technology and experience away. Also, the highest speed gain possible is optimal while still under airbreathing power. I can't imagine the complexity of releasing a ship from underwing at Mach 3+. Simply releasing the engines is a different matter. Why rely on Skylon creating complicated pre-cooled turbojets(as awesome as they will be) in 15 years when we have the capabilities to create cheap accessibility to space now?[/quote]
What you forget is the maximum weight of the assembly is the first thing that needs to be lifted and sped up. As pointed out an air breathing first stage contributes next to nothing to getting to orbit. The only rational alternative is what Shuttle, Delta or Atlas use, big rockets, brute force. Next it only makes sense to have this part of the launch system re-usable, as it is the most expensive part.
Shuttle would be much safer and economical if it used the technology the Russians used with Buran, a launcher and separate orbiter, the next step is make the launcher flyback capable. It may reduce the capabilities of the orbiter, but re-use economics would make up for it, more cheaper flights then fewer more expensive ones.
What you forget is the maximum weight of the assembly is the first thing that needs to be lifted and sped up. As pointed out an air breathing first stage contributes next to nothing to getting to orbit. The only rational alternative is what Shuttle, Delta or Atlas use, big rockets, brute force. Next it only makes sense to have this part of the launch system re-usable, as it is the most expensive part.
Shuttle would be much safer and economical if it used the technology the Russians used with Buran, a launcher and separate orbiter, the next step is make the launcher flyback capable. It may reduce the capabilities of the orbiter, but re-use economics would make up for it, more cheaper flights then fewer more expensive ones.
I like the idea of building upon Shuttle era technology with the Ares V. The SRB's pack a big bang for the buck in propulsion without the expensive and disposable liquid fuel engines. The only problem I see with Ares V is that if possible, they should have found a way to stick with one engine for the liquid fuel first stage. Doing so reduces costs, complexity and weight. I single Apollo era F5 engine would do the trick, eliminating the need for hydrogen as the fuel, again, reducing costs and complexity.
For the human rated launcher, I like the Delta IV and Delta IV Heavy. However, to save costs, designing a spacecraft that could be launched on the less expensive Delta IV is something I would have liked to see. They have already scaled Orion down to 4 seats, so that seems doable.
The Space Shuttle is a wonderful machine, but unfortunately, it is dangerous, having killed 14 of our astronauts. It is also extremely complex and expensive. For comparison, the Russians can launch a Soyuz with 3 crew members for less than $60 million. A Space Shuttle launch can launch 7 crew members and about 30,000 pounds of cargo for a cost of around $1 billion. Big difference. Do we really need that much complexity? To launch 30,000 pounds of cargo on a EELV like the Delta IV or Atlas V costs about $200 million. SpaceX says they can do it for about $60 million - we will see. If they can, wow.
If the decision had been given to me, I would have chosen a Delta IV for Aries I and designed Ares V with a single engine instead of the 5 it has now.
The overall path NASA is on is correct, in my view. The reason is that if you want to go to the Moon and Mars, and beyond, you cannot do it with a winged, reusable spacecraft. The smaller low mass vehicles they are designing are ideal for escape velocity missions because the fuel requirement is doable with the lower mass vehicles.
In contrast, to accelerate the space shuttle to escape velocity would require approximately 500 tons of fuel. The entire cargo capacity of the Shuttle is only about 15 to 20 tons, depending upon orbital inclination.
For the human rated launcher, I like the Delta IV and Delta IV Heavy. However, to save costs, designing a spacecraft that could be launched on the less expensive Delta IV is something I would have liked to see. They have already scaled Orion down to 4 seats, so that seems doable.
The Space Shuttle is a wonderful machine, but unfortunately, it is dangerous, having killed 14 of our astronauts. It is also extremely complex and expensive. For comparison, the Russians can launch a Soyuz with 3 crew members for less than $60 million. A Space Shuttle launch can launch 7 crew members and about 30,000 pounds of cargo for a cost of around $1 billion. Big difference. Do we really need that much complexity? To launch 30,000 pounds of cargo on a EELV like the Delta IV or Atlas V costs about $200 million. SpaceX says they can do it for about $60 million - we will see. If they can, wow.
If the decision had been given to me, I would have chosen a Delta IV for Aries I and designed Ares V with a single engine instead of the 5 it has now.
The overall path NASA is on is correct, in my view. The reason is that if you want to go to the Moon and Mars, and beyond, you cannot do it with a winged, reusable spacecraft. The smaller low mass vehicles they are designing are ideal for escape velocity missions because the fuel requirement is doable with the lower mass vehicles.
In contrast, to accelerate the space shuttle to escape velocity would require approximately 500 tons of fuel. The entire cargo capacity of the Shuttle is only about 15 to 20 tons, depending upon orbital inclination.
gman42":3tr09k62 said:
I was mainly meaning re-usable, and not have differnet stages that fall to earth and can never be reused.
Sure the Virgin space craft doest go fa,r, but it is a space craft - A space craft being somthing which flies in space, how can you argue with that logic, i mean, they go higher up that the FAI/FIA's(?) official deffinition of where space starts after the atmosphere, and the people who go on them are technically astronaughts
In my view, we are close to having what we need.
A few orders of business:
Man-rate the Delta IV and Atlas V to carry the Dragon and or Orion.
Even though it is a private space venture, do not under any circumstances let SpaceX fail.
If necessary, ensure the development of Falcon 9 and Dragon.
Ditto for Bigelow Aerospace, and their BA-330.
The Aries V is a great design, but it is too costly, and politically unpopular to be built at this time.
The Direct 232 is also a great design, but although less costly, and not carrying the “Bush” political baggage of Aries V, it may prove too costly, given present economic realities, in the United States.
So what about an International Heavy Lifter?
Take the Direct 232 design, and portion out production and operations among an international consortium.
The IHL Direct 232 super heavy lifter operating from three launch complexes in Kourou, funded by an ISS like consortium, would for the first time make super heavy lift affordable to a wide range of nations.
A similar international effort to fund, produce, and fly, a VASIMIR propulsion module, would, in combination with that above, truly open the new frontier.
A few orders of business:
Man-rate the Delta IV and Atlas V to carry the Dragon and or Orion.
Even though it is a private space venture, do not under any circumstances let SpaceX fail.
If necessary, ensure the development of Falcon 9 and Dragon.
Ditto for Bigelow Aerospace, and their BA-330.
The Aries V is a great design, but it is too costly, and politically unpopular to be built at this time.
The Direct 232 is also a great design, but although less costly, and not carrying the “Bush” political baggage of Aries V, it may prove too costly, given present economic realities, in the United States.
So what about an International Heavy Lifter?
Take the Direct 232 design, and portion out production and operations among an international consortium.
The IHL Direct 232 super heavy lifter operating from three launch complexes in Kourou, funded by an ISS like consortium, would for the first time make super heavy lift affordable to a wide range of nations.
A similar international effort to fund, produce, and fly, a VASIMIR propulsion module, would, in combination with that above, truly open the new frontier.
We should never have retired the Saturn V. The plans for it should have been redone using modern materials (ie.. lighter stronger, new computer systems etc..) It's payload capacity would exceed Orions planned lifting capacity of 7.5 million pounds. If we had done this say 15 years ago, the Hubble would have a mirror system at least twice the diameter it currently is now. The Saturn V was a proven lifting vehicle 40 years ago with 1960's technology. thanks to Werhner Von Braun.
We could have had an ISS that is much larger, cheaper, and completed with less money (remember SkyLAb?!?). Picture multiple modules interlocked like the ISS. It would be huge with dozens of Astronauts. Artifical gravity could easily be simulated through centripital rotation.
The issue of going to the moon would not be one, because would have already returned there 15 years ago.
We would be NOW mounting a mission to have humans explore Mars instead of 20 years from know.
The shuttle serves it's purpose for LEO operations for Military and non-military use. It should be kept.
Otherwise we need a small emergency escape vehicle for the ISS. Something like the shuttle but smaller. The Soyuz is fine but not American and high tech.
We could have had an ISS that is much larger, cheaper, and completed with less money (remember SkyLAb?!?). Picture multiple modules interlocked like the ISS. It would be huge with dozens of Astronauts. Artifical gravity could easily be simulated through centripital rotation.
The issue of going to the moon would not be one, because would have already returned there 15 years ago.
We would be NOW mounting a mission to have humans explore Mars instead of 20 years from know.
The shuttle serves it's purpose for LEO operations for Military and non-military use. It should be kept.
Otherwise we need a small emergency escape vehicle for the ISS. Something like the shuttle but smaller. The Soyuz is fine but not American and high tech.
First off, welcome to all the new posters! I am glad to see people putting something out for discussion, rather than just lurking around in the background.
Certainly some fascinating ideas about launch technology! But something that must be kept in mind when designing catapult systems is max Q. When launching from the surface of Earth, you are under a speed limit, until you reach high altitude. This speed limit is not a hard and fast number, but is a function of speed and altitude, with the lower the altitude, the lower the value of max Q. This is why the space shuttle throttles the main engines back to about 60 percent right after launch. Any system which accelerates at several gravities from launch is going to run into this problem, and there are no mountains high enough to get around it.
Currently, the largest payload an aircraft can take off with is about 800,000 pounds. But these are aircraft that are designed to carry the cargo inside a fuselage, and to haul that cargo long distances at high speed. So the airframe has a lot of weight that would be of no use for airborne launching. This is why the White Knight variants look so strange, because the are the first aircraft DESIGNED to carry a payload to altitude, and nothing else. As someone constantly is pointing out, the Pegasus launch vehicle has to be launched from a big airplane, an L-1011. Now, the Pegasus weighs in about 40,000 pounds before launch. The proposed Space Ship Two will weigh about 30,000 pounds. The White Knight 2, which is to carry SS2, uses only two fairly small turbofan engines to carry that 30,000 pounds to 50,000 feet. Why does Pegasus need an L-1011? Because no one has designed an airframe specifically for carrying 40,000 pounds or more to 50,000 feet.
So, if we double the current maximum payload to 1,600,000 pounds, we could carry a vehicle which weighs about as much as the space shuttle with a half-to-three quarters full external tank to 50,000 feet. If we are only going to send a payload of 12,000 pounds to Low Earth Orbit, that should be more than enough allowance for the orbiter and all the propellant. What is so magical about 50,000 feet? That is about the highest that a turbofan engine will work efficiently. Conversely, that is about the lowest altitude that you can accelerate as fast as you want without having your vehicle destroyed by max-Q, as long as the acceleration is not completely horizontal.
People keep bringing up scramjets as a means of helping the space ship reach orbit, but scramjets have two major limitations. One, they have to be traveling at supersonic speed to start up, and two, they can only operate to about 80,000 - 100,000 feet. In this application, that doesn't really help things any. Only if the space ship is accelerated to supersonic velocities at low altitude would scramjets be of much use.
Irregardless of how much an object weighs, it will be subject to extreme heating during re-entry. The only difference between a heavy object and a light one is the amount of time that it will take to slow down. However, it is likely that a lighter weight space ship would not need as robust a Thermal Protection System as a heavier one would, because the period of time moving at hypersonic velocities would be shorter.
If I am not mistaken, it only takes about 60 people to launch a Delta Heavy or an Atlas IV, versus about 400 for the space shuttle. Man rating either would erase most of that difference, I believe, because so many systems have to be monitored with a human being capable of aborting the launch. This is one of the major drawbacks of launching vertically, because everything has to work perfectly.
The current weight of the Orion capsule to just too much for either the Delta Heavy or the Atlas IV to be able to insert into a stable orbit. If there were a space ship that could meet the capsule, and carry it to a stable orbit, then it might be worthwhile to consider man rating one or both of these expendable launch vehicles, but no such animal is in the works, as far as I know. And that still leaves the problem of water recovery when returning to Earth, unless we can land somewhere outside the U.S.
Certainly some fascinating ideas about launch technology! But something that must be kept in mind when designing catapult systems is max Q. When launching from the surface of Earth, you are under a speed limit, until you reach high altitude. This speed limit is not a hard and fast number, but is a function of speed and altitude, with the lower the altitude, the lower the value of max Q. This is why the space shuttle throttles the main engines back to about 60 percent right after launch. Any system which accelerates at several gravities from launch is going to run into this problem, and there are no mountains high enough to get around it.
Currently, the largest payload an aircraft can take off with is about 800,000 pounds. But these are aircraft that are designed to carry the cargo inside a fuselage, and to haul that cargo long distances at high speed. So the airframe has a lot of weight that would be of no use for airborne launching. This is why the White Knight variants look so strange, because the are the first aircraft DESIGNED to carry a payload to altitude, and nothing else. As someone constantly is pointing out, the Pegasus launch vehicle has to be launched from a big airplane, an L-1011. Now, the Pegasus weighs in about 40,000 pounds before launch. The proposed Space Ship Two will weigh about 30,000 pounds. The White Knight 2, which is to carry SS2, uses only two fairly small turbofan engines to carry that 30,000 pounds to 50,000 feet. Why does Pegasus need an L-1011? Because no one has designed an airframe specifically for carrying 40,000 pounds or more to 50,000 feet.
So, if we double the current maximum payload to 1,600,000 pounds, we could carry a vehicle which weighs about as much as the space shuttle with a half-to-three quarters full external tank to 50,000 feet. If we are only going to send a payload of 12,000 pounds to Low Earth Orbit, that should be more than enough allowance for the orbiter and all the propellant. What is so magical about 50,000 feet? That is about the highest that a turbofan engine will work efficiently. Conversely, that is about the lowest altitude that you can accelerate as fast as you want without having your vehicle destroyed by max-Q, as long as the acceleration is not completely horizontal.
People keep bringing up scramjets as a means of helping the space ship reach orbit, but scramjets have two major limitations. One, they have to be traveling at supersonic speed to start up, and two, they can only operate to about 80,000 - 100,000 feet. In this application, that doesn't really help things any. Only if the space ship is accelerated to supersonic velocities at low altitude would scramjets be of much use.
Irregardless of how much an object weighs, it will be subject to extreme heating during re-entry. The only difference between a heavy object and a light one is the amount of time that it will take to slow down. However, it is likely that a lighter weight space ship would not need as robust a Thermal Protection System as a heavier one would, because the period of time moving at hypersonic velocities would be shorter.
If I am not mistaken, it only takes about 60 people to launch a Delta Heavy or an Atlas IV, versus about 400 for the space shuttle. Man rating either would erase most of that difference, I believe, because so many systems have to be monitored with a human being capable of aborting the launch. This is one of the major drawbacks of launching vertically, because everything has to work perfectly.
The current weight of the Orion capsule to just too much for either the Delta Heavy or the Atlas IV to be able to insert into a stable orbit. If there were a space ship that could meet the capsule, and carry it to a stable orbit, then it might be worthwhile to consider man rating one or both of these expendable launch vehicles, but no such animal is in the works, as far as I know. And that still leaves the problem of water recovery when returning to Earth, unless we can land somewhere outside the U.S.
First there is no one spacecraft for all needs just like there is no one car for all needs.
One of the first vehicles that comes to mind would be a second gen RLV to form a transportation back bone a vehicle like reaction engines Skylon would be ideal.
http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/skylon_overview.html
Next you need a vehicle that can act as a rescue vehicle and for early lunar exploration this is well served by a small vehicle like Dragon,the Silver Dart and Dream Chaser.
Next a robotic vehicle like Cygnus,and the SSL tug,or ATV etc.
We also need a reusable lunar shuttle and lander like the LANTR shuttle and LUNOX landers.
http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/LANTR.html
http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/LUNOX.html
One of the first vehicles that comes to mind would be a second gen RLV to form a transportation back bone a vehicle like reaction engines Skylon would be ideal.
http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/skylon_overview.html
Next you need a vehicle that can act as a rescue vehicle and for early lunar exploration this is well served by a small vehicle like Dragon,the Silver Dart and Dream Chaser.
Next a robotic vehicle like Cygnus,and the SSL tug,or ATV etc.
We also need a reusable lunar shuttle and lander like the LANTR shuttle and LUNOX landers.
http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/LANTR.html
http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/LUNOX.html
There have been many excellent suggestions so far on this thread. Hope that it continues.
I'd like to cherry-pick some of the best.
You'd need at least four distinct vehicles:
First, Ground to transfer-to-LEO: an oversized helium airship has enormous lifting capability and relatively low cost, getting passengers, crew and cargo into the stratosphere, eliminating most of the Delta-V requirement. Allow for the next stage to land on and take off from it.
Second: LEO: Taking off from the first stage, transferring to orbital transfer vehicle. Space-X is almost there.
Third: Transfer from orbit to orbit with docking at either end. Following a figure 8 path from Earth to the moon or Earth to Mars (or wherever), using the VASIMR engine. No atmospheric entry or exit requirements, but perhaps spin for centrifugal ("gravity") effect. Definitely well shielded. Crew can swap out at each end.
Fourth: Transfer from moon (no atmospheric restrictions) to orbit or Mars to orbit, docking with the third stage.
A complete system that is relatively simple, yet robust.
My 2 cents.
I'd like to cherry-pick some of the best.
You'd need at least four distinct vehicles:
First, Ground to transfer-to-LEO: an oversized helium airship has enormous lifting capability and relatively low cost, getting passengers, crew and cargo into the stratosphere, eliminating most of the Delta-V requirement. Allow for the next stage to land on and take off from it.
Second: LEO: Taking off from the first stage, transferring to orbital transfer vehicle. Space-X is almost there.
Third: Transfer from orbit to orbit with docking at either end. Following a figure 8 path from Earth to the moon or Earth to Mars (or wherever), using the VASIMR engine. No atmospheric entry or exit requirements, but perhaps spin for centrifugal ("gravity") effect. Definitely well shielded. Crew can swap out at each end.
Fourth: Transfer from moon (no atmospheric restrictions) to orbit or Mars to orbit, docking with the third stage.
A complete system that is relatively simple, yet robust.
My 2 cents.
Surely it depends on how far we think ahead or how far we want to go. Ultimately we must have craft that can colonize other planets because our planet is doomed by the Sun. And we need light-speed or faster craft. In the meantime we need maturity here.
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/06/ecocosmology.html
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/06/ecocosmology.html
CharlesBronson":3hf930eb said:coitis2002":3hf930eb said:I just want to be able to travel in space.. LIke going on a road trip. Will this be possible in my lifetime? To be able to go to the moon and rent a land rover.. on the moon? and will it ever be made affordable to the average person? These are the things I think should be made available within the next 20 years.. It's not fair only the astronauts get to enjoy space!!
I hope you can, but i feel that 20 years isnt too much....maybe 500 yrs
Five centuries ago you could not buy a round the world ticket. Two hundred years ago you could not do this. Now it is common place. Five hundred years ago you couldn't fly no matter how much money you had. Already you can buy a ticket into space.
Jon
If you extrapolate the trend that we are on now, just save time and stop all design and research so that we will be able to afford a Chinese space vehicle.
What ever happened to the idea of using lasers to power the vehicle to orbit you know kinda like in Exile and glory?
http://www.webscription.net/p-771-exile-and-glory.aspx
As far as a engine for long range missions i think either VASIMIR, a ion drive. or a nuke ship. Either way a LOT of power will be needed for magnetic screens against radiation.
Also sence one of the big problems in space is getting ride of heat what about that?
http://www.webscription.net/p-771-exile-and-glory.aspx
As far as a engine for long range missions i think either VASIMIR, a ion drive. or a nuke ship. Either way a LOT of power will be needed for magnetic screens against radiation.
Also sence one of the big problems in space is getting ride of heat what about that?
There are many new cutting edge discover's out there. But, we are locked into a mind set of profit and control. At present we are all just waiting for a period in time called "Mass extinction" which we all die. Many life forms an earth have failed to survive the test of time. But, humans are the only life form that has lift the planet on their own creativity. Human survival is not based on the earth climate changes which caused events of mass extinction in the past. Space travel is within our grasp but the engine to produce light speed as well as the effects of light speed on humans, need to be developed before time, money, and resource's run out. An humans are back in the ice age trying to create fire with two sticks all over again.
Hi halman,
Great post, and this is a terrific thread.
Re: whether D-IV Heavy can boost Orion, halman said:
According to this article from Aviation Week & Space Technology, the Delta IV Heavy can loft the Orion to LEO quite nicely.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...ds Human-rated Delta IV Cheaper&channel=space
I'm not real big on Orion anyway.
I'll bet SpaceX could whip up a bi-conic RV to replace it in short order, and for less money.
Really great ideas across the board on this thread, keep 'em coming!
I've limited myself to what I consider near term, and hopefully affordable systems, given current political realities, especially regarding super heavy lift.
However, I would really love to see a proof of concept engineering study funded on Semi-Buoyant Airships, as a potential super heavy lift platform.
On paper, Semi-Buoyant Airships (SBA's) can loft millions of pounds of payload.
If you build one big enough, shape it like a blended wing body aircraft, or maybe a lifting body, it seems like it would make a great platform to launch orbital space craft from.
I just don't know,...could such a helium filled, turbo-fan powered craft reach 50,000 feet with a usable payload?
I hope so, but it would be nice to see some hard data.
Great post, and this is a terrific thread.
Re: whether D-IV Heavy can boost Orion, halman said:
According to this article from Aviation Week & Space Technology, the Delta IV Heavy can loft the Orion to LEO quite nicely.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...ds Human-rated Delta IV Cheaper&channel=space
I'm not real big on Orion anyway.
I'll bet SpaceX could whip up a bi-conic RV to replace it in short order, and for less money.
Really great ideas across the board on this thread, keep 'em coming!
I've limited myself to what I consider near term, and hopefully affordable systems, given current political realities, especially regarding super heavy lift.
However, I would really love to see a proof of concept engineering study funded on Semi-Buoyant Airships, as a potential super heavy lift platform.
On paper, Semi-Buoyant Airships (SBA's) can loft millions of pounds of payload.
If you build one big enough, shape it like a blended wing body aircraft, or maybe a lifting body, it seems like it would make a great platform to launch orbital space craft from.
I just don't know,...could such a helium filled, turbo-fan powered craft reach 50,000 feet with a usable payload?
I hope so, but it would be nice to see some hard data.
Valcan":34l9psrh said:
Well, I see the only alternative - VASIMIR (if they are successful, yet it has been in development since 1979). The ion drive is too much low thrust system. Nevertheless, both types of engines requires a massive amount of (electric) energy, so the nuclear reactor is the only way (until the fusion, matter anihilation, whatever... you know).
halman":2lg46bs6 said:
Why these two need to be different?
You do realize that every new launch vehicle development needs about 3 billion $ even if it a "simple" extension of an existing rocket, and 10+ billion if it is completely new?
Add a few 10s of billions if your managers are idiots with oversized ego.... Example: Constellation's today's estimated cost is approaching 40 billion!
halman":19xwbkdh said:
What data do you have to confirm that exactly this vehicle configuration is the most economic one?
We have such vehicles. They are called Delta IV and Atlas V. More are coming online.
Or maybe engineers realize that this would be a multi billion R&D project with questionable results.
Tankage per se (e.g. Shuttle's external tank) is rather cheap. It has no substantial machinery. It's a big thin metal tank.
Orbital launches their Pegasus by dropping it from the bottom of the carrier aircraft. I want to assure you they do it not because they are stupid. Launching a rocket "from the back" of an airplane is a much, much, much more dangerous operation. Even nominal launch exposes the carrier to supersonic exhaust gases, vortex formation and such, and any slight problem may destroy BOTH craft. Not good.
Building a 1000 ton+ behemoth carrier aircraft + all-new reusable second stage craft isn't cheap, and may not be as reliable as good old ELVs we already have.
Danzi":1gtflgx1 said:
I would have to respectfully disagree, SS2 has very few qualities like a spacecraft as we know them. It's duration in space is roughly 15 minutes, it's not really flying in space, just following a ballistic course. It does not have a heat shield that spacecraft as we know them need. It has no way to maneuver in space , ie. thrusters, maneuvering jets. Again it's speed is roughly 4000 mph, not very close to orbital speeds.
All in all it isn't anything that we would need for a true spacecraft. Is it a first stepping stone? definitely. To actually fly into space and operate the vessel would take a larger vessel, for the fuel , then add weight for the heat shield and then add weight for the life support. The thing would be way to heavy to be launched from a plane.
vz, I totally agree that too much money is thrown at these projects, with NASA seemingly having no responsibility for the ridiculous budgets they are imposing on their projects. Why are we spending billions of dollars to reinvent the wheel when we could be concentrating on using existing technology better and researching new technologies with the spare change?
I would say that the definition of a vehicle that is reusable with no upkeep is cheaper, what left for expense? fuel and cost to build. Unless of course NASA were to cancel, restart, rebudget and overspend on it...
Delta IV and Atlas V requiring only a skeleton crew. I haven't been able to find numbers for how many it takes to launch it, but unless it's under 25, we can do better and should be doing better.
I agree that a plane designed to take 2 million pounds to 50,000 feet is ridiculous, I don't see this being designed reasonably. I don't see any reason we need a spaceplane of total weight of 2 million pounds to transport people.
Again, agreed, keep using the parts that are cheap.
Yes, there is a reason they launch from underwing... if you eliminate most of the plane(i.e. leave the wing and that alone) you reduce most of the risk. I don't think the drop in Energy for the 10 seconds before ignition will have an appreciable impact.
Yes, we need a reliable transport. We will need to simultaneously focus on transportation once in space. I think the VASIMR engine sounds fantastic for this, much greater thrust than other electric propulsion, solar and battery technology improvements will also be needed. I know I don't want to take 3 months to get to the moon as it would take with other propulsion systems. Let alone other electric propulsion might only barely overcompensate for altitude loss in LEO.
I would say that the definition of a vehicle that is reusable with no upkeep is cheaper, what left for expense? fuel and cost to build. Unless of course NASA were to cancel, restart, rebudget and overspend on it...
Delta IV and Atlas V requiring only a skeleton crew. I haven't been able to find numbers for how many it takes to launch it, but unless it's under 25, we can do better and should be doing better.
I agree that a plane designed to take 2 million pounds to 50,000 feet is ridiculous, I don't see this being designed reasonably. I don't see any reason we need a spaceplane of total weight of 2 million pounds to transport people.
Again, agreed, keep using the parts that are cheap.
Yes, there is a reason they launch from underwing... if you eliminate most of the plane(i.e. leave the wing and that alone) you reduce most of the risk. I don't think the drop in Energy for the 10 seconds before ignition will have an appreciable impact.
Yes, we need a reliable transport. We will need to simultaneously focus on transportation once in space. I think the VASIMR engine sounds fantastic for this, much greater thrust than other electric propulsion, solar and battery technology improvements will also be needed. I know I don't want to take 3 months to get to the moon as it would take with other propulsion systems. Let alone other electric propulsion might only barely overcompensate for altitude loss in LEO.
One thing seems to be forgotten - the shuttle was never supposed to be flying today. It was supposed to be replaced a long time ago with a more advanced craft that incorporated the lessons learned from building and flying the shuttle.
That said, there are many technologies that have been developed and not yet used (or at least effectively used) including the vasimr and the linear aerospike engine. The important breakthroughs will come when the private sector begins to mature and breaks free from the overlordship of NASA. When they are not dependent on NASA they will be in a position to take advantage of the newest and best technologies, etc. NASA is stuck in the past and is quickly becoming a government make-work program, soon to be supplanted in most of its functions by the private sector or foreign nations (keep an eye on China, etc.) NASA could still be effective if they were to remodel themselves to the high-risk deep space scientific endeavors.
That said, there are many technologies that have been developed and not yet used (or at least effectively used) including the vasimr and the linear aerospike engine. The important breakthroughs will come when the private sector begins to mature and breaks free from the overlordship of NASA. When they are not dependent on NASA they will be in a position to take advantage of the newest and best technologies, etc. NASA is stuck in the past and is quickly becoming a government make-work program, soon to be supplanted in most of its functions by the private sector or foreign nations (keep an eye on China, etc.) NASA could still be effective if they were to remodel themselves to the high-risk deep space scientific endeavors.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason
- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 190
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
How 2024 brought us deeper into the world of particles
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram