New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
Pages: 1
#1 Re: Interplanetary transportation » ATV as a tug » 2007-05-21 04:25:17
This is an awful idea
First of all, only about 40% of the ATV is comprised of the pressurized cargo module. The other 60% is jam-packed with fluid cylinders, fuel tanks, and guidance electronics. There is no good place to put the second tunnel without radical reconfiguration of the whole vehicle. You can't have a dozen of them studded all over the ISS either, since there just aren't that many docking ports.
ATV as tug? No thanks!
The ESA seems to disagree with you: ATV with two docking ports and tunnel.
And there's this quote:
There is also the possibility of constructing a mini ‘space station’ by equipping ATV with two docking mechanisms – one in front and one in the back – and in the future evolving it into a transfer vehicle carrying tonnes of supplies – including space telescopes and planetary spacecraft – to lunar and Martian orbits.
#2 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Falcon 1 & Falcon 9 » 2007-03-25 14:14:36
David M. Palmer @ sci.space.policy says ...
It was a fuel leak around the top of the main engine, which burned
through some helium pneumatic lines. The rocket was running straight
and true until t+29 when the helium tank pressure dropped enough that
the safety system terminated the flight.
You should check the date on that post. It will say 2006 not 2007. He's talking abour the first launch failure. The first stage completed it burn this time.
#3 Re: Human missions » SERV1: Chrysler Aerospace's reusable heavy lift SSTO » 2006-12-09 10:04:52
Actually my default position is that it wouldn't work, despite my very palpable hopes to the contrary.
But is there anything you can put your finger on that would make it impossible? I can't find a copy of the study, but found a quote in "Encyclopadea Astronautica" to the effect that this was THE most exhaustive study ever done for a shuttle alternative. I know that doesn't mean the design was closed, but surely some math was done, right?
I agree composites would make the beast prohibitively expensive.
Project SERV final review (PDF, 7MB)
#4 Re: Human missions » Rutan: NASA is Dull » 2005-05-25 16:37:23
BWhite,
Did t/Space say how much there CXV would approximately weigh? And do they keep the possibility open to launch there CXV on an existing vehicle or the Falcon V? And can NASA choose to just let them build the capsule and somebody else a rocket to launch the CXV or do they expect NASA to fund the whole plan?
#5 Re: Human missions » Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous » 2005-05-03 15:18:55
What? What is this? What in the world are you thinking Lockheed? What in the world is the back half of that spaceplane for? Why is the docking module a seperate piece? How would you get to the ISS or deorbit if you didn't have it? The astronauts don't need an ISS HAB module to ride to the Moon in three days! Your whole vehicle is double the mass it should be!
Arrrgh! Boeing had better CRUSH this stupid piece of junk!
I think it will be able to dock without the mission module. I think they need this module to get to the required cubic meters per astronaut without making the actual ship to large. I'm almost certain the Northrop-Grumman design will have a similar mission module.
Notably absent from the Lockmart drawing is any kind of lunar module. Sigh... It's not even clear where the lunar lander is supposed to dock.
The contract is for the CEV. There probably will be a seperate contract for the LASM. And if you look at http://media.popularmechanics.com/image … g.jpg]this picture you clearly can see a docking port on top of the mission module.
Someone posted, elsewhere, that Lockmart's version weighs in at 40 MT. 40MT? GCNRevenger, we will need that fully tricked out Delta IV. GEM solids, Li tankage, slushy H2 - - all the bells and whistles.
If you read the Popular Mechanics article you will see that they plan to launch the lifting body seperatly from the mission module and propulsion stage. And together they weigh 40 MT. So two Delta-4 heavy's or two Atlas 5 Medium are enough.
#6 Re: Human missions » Is Kistler Dead? » 2005-04-03 16:05:12
From http://www.hobbyspace.com/Links/RLVNews.html]Hobbyspace RLV news.
2:50pm: More on Kistler in the latest Aviation Week. As reported earlier, Kistler Aerospace will emerge from bankruptcy proceedings. The company has a number of goals and challenges ahead of it according to AvWeeK:
-Currently the company has $15M in cash but needs to to raise $450M-$500M to finish and fly the fully reusable two-stage K-1. (The K-1 is reported to be about 75% completed.)
-If Kistler finds the money soon enough, the K-1 will fly by the the first quarter of 2007.
-Demo launches will take place from Kistler's Woomera facilities but the company is also looking at Cape Canaveral and a couple of sites in Nevada as alternatives.
-The K-1 needs a one mile (1.6Km) diameter area for its recovery operations.
-The K-1 can deliver 7000lbs (3180Kg) to the ISS and return 2000lbs (910Kg) to the ground.
-The company will have to compete with other companies for the ISS business since a previous sole-source award from NASA was successfully challenged by SpaceX.
-The company expects ISS transport to provide around 25% of its business. Other markets include small comsat launches to GEO (using the Active Dispenser expendable module), military, science, and CEV payloads.
-They expect to achieve 9 day turnaround and to be a capable of launching with 3 days warning.
#7 Re: Human missions » ESA - Aurora Program » 2005-03-23 16:14:00
I don't know if this has been posted here before, but take a look at this link:ftp://ftp.estec.esa.nl/pub/aurora]Aurora documents (ftp server). Make sure you take a look at the reports in the map ftp://ftp.estec.esa.nl/pub/aurora/Human … Mars]Human Missions to Mars. Its an extensive ESA study of a human mission to mars. There's loads of data in this report. Their spacecraft is huge: it gets assembled in earth orbit, would require a total launch mass of 1511.5 tonnes which would be launched by 21 Energia's, 3 Ariane 5's, 1 Proton, 2 Space Shuttle's and 2 Soyuz.
#8 Re: Human missions » Richard Branson / Rutan Team Up For Orbital Flight - Five year plan to put tourists in space? » 2005-03-19 18:25:36
I just listened to a presentation from a Scaled Compostes employee; he says that while Burt Rutan is dreaming about orbital spaceflight, he has no solution to the problem, and he is not in the running for the Bigelow prize.
Thanks for the info. What was the presentation about? Did he say how far along they where with their ships for Virgin Galactic?
#9 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Potentially Hazardous Asteroids - (...does this make you feel any better?) » 2004-12-25 13:35:37
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=14887]Here comes your 19th nervous breakdown!
*This one is going to be close. Will occur on 13 April 2029 (well, we've still got a bit of time!). Impact odds are 1:300, and this thing -- named 2004 MN4 -- is getting special monitoring from astronomers. The odds of impact will change based on day-to-day observations.
Includes illustration and animation.
Highest score to date on the hazard scale.
--Cindy
Get ready for your 20th nervous breakdown. The impact odds have gone up from 1.6% to 2.4%.
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/2004mn4.html]2004 MN4 impact risk
#10 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » America's Space Prize! $50mil... - Funded by Bigelow. » 2004-09-28 04:29:59
so even w/o the cargo module, it's around 10.000kg...
![http://media.popularmechanics.com/image … g.jpg]this](http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/CEV-Lunar-Train2-lg.jpg]this){kind=link}
In an article about SpaceX they said they had plans to build a Falcon V with an LOX/LH second stage with an RL-10 rocket engine. This version would be capable of delivering 10 000 kg into LEO. So this solves your problem, and this Falcon VX only costs 20 million.
#11 Re: Human missions » Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here. » 2004-09-03 15:27:18
Good old Burt Rutan keeps his word: his going to design his own spaceship for going to the moon:
The t/Space team includes Burt Rutan’s Scaled Composites Inc., which made history recently by rocketing the first commercial pilot into suborbital space aboard SpaceShipOne. Another key player is AirLaunch LLC, which is under contract with the Defense Dept. to develop a low-cost responsive launch vehicle. These two companies will collaborate on the design of a Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) to carry NASA astronauts to the Moon in the next decade, and eventually to Mars.
And i presume he is also going to design his own mode of transport to get it in space. Looking at the company he is teaming up with, he's going for an airlaunch approach like SS1.
Read the full press release from t/Space here:
http://www.transformspace.com/pages/5/index.htm]t/Space Wins NASA Lunar Exploration Contract
#12 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Soyuz: Fly Me to the Moon » 2004-08-02 08:34:23
The space review has a nice discription of this plan:http://www.thespacereview.com/article/199/1]Soyuz to the moon?.
With http://www.thespacereview.com/gallery/7]illustrations.
#13 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Soyuz: Fly Me to the Moon » 2004-07-27 15:30:33
I would guess the russians may be able to pull it off for less than 100 mil (circumlunar). They have a basis to work from and they know it works: Zond. You buy yourself a proton rocket for 50 mil and buy a modified Soyuz for 10mil. And you use 40 mil to modify the soyuz and the proton. You make a smaller version of the orbital module and you reduce the crew to two: a pilot and the tourist. I also would drop the ISS part of the mission. Remember that the russians pulled this off before: http://www.astronautix.com/project/lunarl1.htm]Lunar L1
#14 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » ESA: Move an Asteroid - ...Sancho & Hidalgo/"Don Quijote" » 2004-07-19 13:30:26
Hey, if the ESA wants to launch a mission that uses an impactor/penitrator to blow a hole in the asteroid so you can look at what its made of... then they ought to.. you know.. just kinda.. say so.. and not hail this as a means to push the rock and save the Earth. Its dishonest.
Again, where do they say this in the press release?
Harris says, “When we do actually find a hazardous asteroid, you could imagine a Don Quijote-type mission as a precursor to a mitigation mission. It will tell us how the target responds to an impact and will help us to develop a much more effective mitigation mission.”
Again, so quick to defend the Europeans... where is the defense of Nasa?
Probably because i'm a European, and when you start attacking NASA i'll probably defend them too.
#15 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » ESA: Move an Asteroid - ...Sancho & Hidalgo/"Don Quijote" » 2004-07-19 11:15:16
Actually if you read the press release it mentions explosives..................
I don't seem to be able to find the word explosives in the press release. Could you point it out for me?
So, it is still touting the impactor technique as a means to move threat asteroids, which is not practical.
Where do they mention this in the press release? The media may claim this, but you know how the media are, they have to make the mission more spectacular. And maybe also the company who proposed the mission, but they have to sell something. I think ESA is well aware that throwing nukes at an asteroid isn't going to move the thing a bit. They just want to know what the asteroid is made off. And with this knowledge you can look for methods to move an asteroid. Do you know a better method to know iff the asteroid is made out of loose rock or something else?
#16 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Calling our rocket scientists! - Another dumb question » 2004-06-29 15:23:59
Wasn't the Falcon-I supposed to deliver like 2,000lbs to LEO?
Now he's shooting for 1,400-1,500lbs, and still haven't flown once.
You claim this in several topics but i want to see some proof for this claim. And i recently read he's going for september 2004 (10 months late, i doubt if atlas 5 and delta 4 were launched on time).
Evidence for the opposite:
HS: By the way, someone pointed out to me that the latest figures released for the Falcon indicate 1400lbs to LEO. That's 400 more than the number that was mentioned in previous articles. Did something turn out to provide higher performance or weigh less than expected?
Musk: Our original target was at least 1000lbs to nominal reference orbit (200km, 28.5, circular), but we had a very big sandbag in there. As the actually engine and mass numbers are coming in, we are gradually reducing the sandbag. Some publications are still reporting old numbers for Falcon
http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/archiv … ]interview with Elon Musk
Article from 2002:
Slated to begin flying in 2004, the Falcon is being designed by SpaceX to launch satellites and research payloads weighing up to 1,000 pounds for less than one-third of the cost of existing launch vehicles.
http://orlando.bizjournals.com/orlando/ … tml]SpaceX to launch new rocket from Florida
#17 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked » 2004-06-24 12:36:31
The problem there is, a reasonable cost estimate is so bad considering the very large development bill, that -no- tiny RLV like the TRC or what the AltSpace folks can make is profitable. The least ambitious one attempted, Kistler Aerospace's KH-1 is less then half finished and their company is bankrupt with heavy debt.
I don't think the development costs of the first stage are a problem. His X-prize vehicle could be seen as prototype for this first stage. With this prototype he can calculate how much a bigger vehicle would cost. If it is cheap enough, he can build a larger vehicle and use this as a first stage. But the development of the second stage may be more expensive. But i think he could use this bigger first stage as some sort of suborbital rocket. You simply replace the second stage with a large capsule and you have a big suborbital vehicle, which can take a lot of people on a suborbital ride. With the money he makes out of this, he can start developing a second stage. He also will be able to determine if a TRC-style vehicle is economical viable. If it's not, no problem, he can still use his first stage for suborbital hops.
Oh, and on a side note, the X-33's aerospike engines are beautiful because they operate just as well at high altitudes as low altitudes, plus have engine-out capacity built into each module. They really are great, albeit expensive, if you don't mind a little extra complexity.
Apparently Carmack agrees:
Aerospike engines:
We consider this often, because our low temperature rockets make it a far easier task than for conventional propellants. Its not in our current plans, but we may well give it a try at some point. The primary benefit would be allowing it to operate at very low chamber pressures without flow separation.
#18 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked » 2004-06-22 12:25:18
I agree that the cost estimates in rocket company may be a little to optimistic. But I think there are some advantages to the concept. At the moment a true RLV seems not possible. I think this may be a good step between current rockets and an RLV. I think you should look at it as X-33 on top of a DC-X (or DC-Y). The advantages are that you can drop the expensive Linear aerospikes of the X-33 and optimise the engines for vacuum. And you're past the atmosphere when you launch the "X-33". So you don't have drag. You can build a very simple first stage and you only have to worry about the second stage being very effective. There's the argument that you can do the same whit a balloon or a big plane. But i think the problems with designing such a balloon or airplane are gigantic. You have to have a huge balloon or airplane and they can't go as high as the first stage. You also need to have enormous amounts of helium. And i think the plane and balloon will be as expensive to maintain and build as a rocket as first stage.
If you put a X-33 (Or Venturi Star) on top of a DC-Y you probably will have a rather big vehicle. But i think Carmack will be happy if he can get three people in to orbit. So you don't have to make them enormous.
If he then can keep improving his second stage it may be possible to drop the first stage. And he will have a true RLV.
#19 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Low-cost-reusable vehicle design-FICTION *2* - last topic got borked » 2004-06-22 08:15:32
On the X-prize forum John Carmack(http://www.armadilloaerospace.com]Armadillo aerospace) wrote:
orbital:
My pet plan for orbital has been "boosted SSTO" for quite some time. This is basically the plan described in "The Rocket Company" serial on Hobby Space -- a straight up / straight down booster, and a very high performance upper stage. I think there are strong engineering and operational reasons for this, even though it looks like an inefficient staging point at first glance.
Pages: 1