You are not logged in.
srmeaney and
Martian Republic:
I can see the point of MR about the infrastructure required to maintain a mars outpost serviced from earth space. We need to send (tourist) class missions first while we build a large outpost taskforce of ships to bring in one load or two loads the requirements for 1 or 2 outposts that will enventually turned into the cities of Mars Colonization.
The first stage of making the space a viable industrial environment requires a viable industrial sector between earth - orbit - and moon be productive, through space personnel movement into orbit increasing size of space stations and platforms in orbit and bases on the moon, new products from space, and large contracts like satellite manufacturing and recycling. The we can move with some certainity onwards to mars and beyond because we have the required human infrastructure in earth space.
Mars Explorer (Tourist) Missions could be up to 5 in different parts of the Planet surveying the best drop points for cargo and outpost personnel. Then the Outpost Transporters would turn up and drop cargo from orbit to the surface locations including multiple habitats, industrial modules, argo modules and general supplies for each outpost. The personnel would arrive via RLVs ( reusable landing vehicles ) in groups s of 4-6 humans with 4 to 5 RLVs per outpost and making sure that human transporters have up to 8-10 personnel max. per vessel to share and limit the risk to the overall mission.
MarsDog,
You smoking something more then cigerattes !!!!!!!!!
The US Government or Economy are not declining, and if that was the case the rest of the world would be as well. 1/3 of all investment globally are US Dominant Coporations, So if US have problems the rest of the world will have major problems. and US can protect itself very well.
The issue I was trying to say its time to build a capital based environment outside earth and the nations on earth. I think its time to create a new institution or re-focus the world bank from post WW2 to Human Settlement into Space. Refocus for the future growth of humanity.
John,
I see your concerns that the funding at current levels can not sustain the development of the planned human spaceflight programs., unmanned spaceflight programs and also create new technologies to expand the programs for the future.
The logical answer is increase the funding !!!!. But we can't do this via the normal methods - increasing taxes, or a debt on the country but we need to create a method to recover the costs from mineral, scientific and industrial sectors for the planet over a long term using the world bank or some institution modelled off the world bank for the creation of space based business infrastructure and resource infrastructure.
This funding mechanism could increase the resources being applied to the space development and also could power another industriial revolution into new processes and technologies and new metals and resources not found on earth. We spent $10 Billion on risky ventures per year why can't we space additional $10 billion on space technologies and ventures with trademark and patent protection per year. Space has provided hundreds of spin-off technologies for earth, I see that we can continue with new spin-offs that could be owned, licensed by these venture firms as payoffs for the backing of these ventures into space.
Start building Business Plans and Business Cases for space technologies, infrastructure and resources and start talking to venture capital firms.
GCNRevenger,
Again, more information relating to NTR Engine systems. Again you are against the implementation of NTR Engines in LEO to Moon operations, and marginally better support for Mars missions. Its time to consider the current chemical drive systems are dead for highly frequent and long haul space voyages. We need to develop a new long term drive system for continuous use for years not in frequent burns and low duration systems.
I also agree with the thoughts on the various lobby groups including the anti-technology, anti-nuclear and environmental groups having too much say into development of space. The " what if " scenerios have been work overdrive until you can find a reason not to do something, We could say the same for every piece of technology and we could say many reasons why we should, we need to balance fair risk with fair reward.
Micheal Griffin,
I would like to see an allocation of about $20 B per year to the U.S. civil space program. This would enable us to begin crucially needed programs to develop reusable space transportation systems, heavy lift launch, crew transfer vehicles, life support technology, and space power and propulsion systems that are needed to establish bases on the moon and Mars.
The best yet, to talk about a reusable human transportation system !!!! We are not the only one seeing the benefits and needs.
Grypd,
Not all people are covered under that treaty only countries that sign the treaty and only the member states that have signed. !!!!!!!!!!
grypd,
I mean market forces, and whoever gets there can claim it. No treaty !!!!!
Because all governments are two faced and they only keep their word until they want to take control. So, If America (itself) or a group lead by America should claim their part and hold it or the others can do the same and private enterprise can do the same.
Because No-one will agree about the treaties and guarantee that entreprenuers won't be asked to sign treaties, So the best method is what runs on earth , America top of the pile, they will need to be the top of the pile in space or someone else will !!!!!!!!!!!!!.
Grypd,
I think it would the best way to push the issue to ahead is to let competing forces get access to the resources in space and it will make them form alliances and eventually work together, and those who don't will perish from the universe , " its a destructive place and a place of beauty. "
That means spaceplanes and different engine designs, and even Mars plans could compete against each other for development and resource allocation.
Remember,
The greatest way to get to the people's heart is a national pride in their country. I can tell you that if the Japanese projected that this will save face for the country the people will do it. This might fix some of the issues within the financial sector by encouraging the people to rally behind their businesses and gamble with greatest once more. The country has come back from many things in the past and this might be the catalyst for the next turn around.
Martian Republic,
The main issue that people have in developing new spaceplanes or any other developments that require large resource allocations is that the creation of cash reserves to do it. We need to look at the valuation of space-based resources and then loan against those resources for construction of large infrastructure.
You are right that a single country on earth properly won't have the resources to use exclusively for the development of space eg. US$100 Billion per year for 50 years = US$5 trillion dollars in infrastructure and operational costs. That might be enough to get up to critical mass outside earth and thus the exploration and settlement could fund its on expansion without needing the earth's resources.
But then it comes down to alot of legal factors that have been discussed before. The most important requirements are the creation of a lunar office within the united nations and a mars office within the united nations and two separate councils be created to oversee the development of both locations out of the control of the any one government. But that won't happen and the development of spaceplanes, larger spacecrafts then will need a different answer , and might require a consortium of private interests and a long term vision and supporting the infrastructure through exisitng business interests globally.
Martian Republic,
Then I agree with your assessment of the issue it is dead to most you, that we can not find a proper transportation system for large scale movement of personnel and cargo into orbit. If we use the current modes of transport to orbit then we are just WE ARE TOURISTS AND HAVE NO RIGHT TO DICTATE SOLAR SYSTEM POLICIES.
Our organization hasn't got the huge resources yet, to bring us into the space transportation sector yet, but at least we are working towards goals that have better success for long term space research, training, and infrastructure for the future in private enterprise large scale space activities.
Infrastructure means - space vessel construction, communications, navigation, life sciences, colonizations techniques, social interactions, and more.
GCNRevenger,
I can outline the use of a serious transportation system for earth space but I don't need to, because you know we need one, or should I explain in detail, hmmmm.
Where we got the approx. 300 personnel per year - Orbiting Space Station (30 personnel and 30 for crew rotation ) - Orbiting Space Factories ( 30 personnel and 30 for crew rotation ) - Orbiting Space Construction ( 10 personnel and 10 for crew rotation - specialist work) - Lunar Base : main processing base ( 30 personnel and 30 for crew rotation ) - Lunar Mining Station ( 10 personnel and 10 for crew rotation - 3 station personnel + 7 mining personnel that control robotic/ droid mining teams of 7/1 ratio ) per station - Lunar Transit (10 personnel and 10 for crew rotation ) - Mars Station and Transit ( 50 personnel and 50 for crew rotation in every 2-3 year blocks split in progressive journeys ) per station and other space based specialists ( 10 personnel and 10 for crew rotation )
I am looking at the spaceplane as part of a large transportation system integrating earth - to orbit - lunar transit - lunar landing - to mars transit - to mars landing and how we can deliver a large volume of personnel for all locations without huge costs involved. I have the total transportation system concept drawn out but the fine detail needs research and testing to bring the right mix of engines and movement of components for the benefits of the space transportation structure.
On the subject of profitability about the spaceplanes - as the Nuclear type engine assemblies are charged as cargo and thus are charged based on their weight been taking into orbit ( ex fuel ) against other projects plus the costs of pasengers and other cargo onboard both ways the spaceplanes are quite profitable.
GCNRevenger, Have you experimented with the Nuclear Type Engine designs to create new drive systems ? Have you looked into spacecraft designs and have model data ( virtually or physically) for G-Force Stress on different designs of single stage HTOL Spaceplanes ? If you have then sent me the website that the information has been published on and I will retrieve and study it, If not, then I would suggest detailed statements that you have been making have not basis in fact without any data, that is what research is for !!!!!!!!!.
GCNRevenger,
Regarding your comments
Firstly, the spaceplane is a single stage development with a strapon booster that only comes off after orbit is achieved. The first few years we will only require a minimum number of flights per year ( approximately one per month ) to slowly increase the personnel in space and rotate them until we move to second scale developments on the lunar surface and mars planning.
Heavy lift payloads are sent via other single use vehicles into orbit and disassembled in orbit and recycled. Again reducing the overall cost to frieghting components into space, we are currently designing space vehicles with cargo volumes that exceed the space shuttle cargo haul.
We don't believe in a one ship does all and everything going into space needs to fit that vessel shell. We work on the method that what do we need ( component ) to get into orbit and design a system around it from a modular designed space vehicle system that would conform to those requirements.
However we need a permanent human centric reusable space vehicle that can accommodate a larger volume of personnel then current space vehicles and also accommodate their personal effects and cargo that can be packed into space designed cargo containers similar to airline containers for the aircraft hauls.
About the Nuclear Engines and our Drive Principles
We don't know of any privately owned and operated spacecraft design and evaluation center for nuclear drive systems, Well not yet !!!!. So, we are working on old data from tests on nuclear research from the 1950-60's. That is why we need to design and test for a new nuclear type engine system.
Some of the new features that we are looking for in the engine design are :
1. Reusable engine from earth launch on the spaceplane to use in space for extended mission vessels from earth to moon, mars and beyond.
2. Appropriate safeguards for earth environment and personnel in the use of this engine system both on earth and in space including any personnel close to the system while on the spaceplane.
3. The Thrust ratio to engine weight is better than chemical engines of the same size and weight.
4. Designed to be Recycled for space based vessels for future missions and can be maintained and upgraded easily for future developments.
We have looked at the data from the 1950-60's and didn't hold to these principles above, that is why we need to do more research in the materials used, methods of propellant used, methods of propulsions, control mechanisms, and radiation issues , just to name a few issues that we have with these drive systems and we are confident to overcome these issues in the timeframe we have set.
But before we design an engine system to meet the above principles for the future in HTOL Spaceplane development. It always comes down to infrastructure - the design, and conceptual development of the new engine assembly could be down from anywhere but the testing will require a location for nuclear testing and that is harder to find within the country or anywhere else across the world.
At the beginning of this discussion I said that we need to test, test, and research new nuclear type drive systems for future spaceplane development. I haven't stopped saying that and I don't see coming out , opposed to the development from a fear background when we don't have the data to know either way, but we need better nuclear drive systems for the future of space based missions to mars and beyond and the movement of large scale population to other space locations ( moon, mars and beyond)
GCNRevenger,
Yes i do , understand the size, the spaceplane is an aircraft upto 40,000+ ft and then space drive takes over and launches the spacplane into orbit. The booster is an attachment to the spaceplane design, once the booster is detached the spaceplane will re-enter earth atomsphere the same way the current space shuttle does and returns to spaceport.
The difference with this spaceplane and previous spaceplanes / space shuttles is that this vehicle is designed primarily for passengers and airline cargo containers for personal effects and small cargo supplies, not an all purpose bulk haul spaceplane like the American Space Shuttle. The passenger spaceplane could be as large physical as the current space shuttle but redesigned for HTOL with not large vacant cargo area.
Other types of horizontial take off vehicles will supply large cargo components that don't fit nicely into a small diameter rocket into earth orbit thus developing a total / systematic transportation system for earth space.
Utlimately we need to start looking at the different methods to launch a large scale population of humans into space and rotate and supply them continously from earth for the near future until we have growth in our permanent human space based population. That is why these spaceplanes are going to be useful in the long term exploration, colonization of space from earth.
GCNRevenger,
Crash Course in Space Economies
The strap-on booster would be cargo for the space vessel development projects every time it is carried onboard with the spaceplane thus can be charged as cargo by weight of assembly without fuel. The fuel would be an expense on each launch and the spaceplane would be an asset to be maintained and depreciated against for the life of the plane similar to an airline. The return large cargo and personnel would be a paying flight similar to airlines ( cargo from space based factories, and passengers from staff of other businesses, and our own personnel in orbit. again profitable)
GCNRevenger, you enjoy the rocket concept and I don't have any issues with your opinion on one use delivery methods except when over a period of time it is extremely expensive particular when talking about movement of 300 personnel per year in earth space rotations, lunar surface rotations and eventually going to mars missions and crew rotation for it as well.
Earth Space Objective
Our Earth - to - orbit goal is to create a viable RLV that can be used for large cargo and volume personnel to meet the view of 1000+ personnel in crew rotations from orbit, moon, mars and human exploration missions. We have the aerodynamic design for the spaceplane, but the engines and other control and management systems are still on the concept stage. After conceptual development over then prototype the concept in separate stages before full mockup vessel for testing.
For now we can still use re-entry capsules or one way spacecrafts for earth space until we can complete our objective, after that point a RLV would be the only way we should go into space and I would be looking to marketing that spaceline service to all countries for a lower fee then launching their own spacecrafts.
GCNRevenger,
I am not throwing it away, The NTR Engine would move from the spaceplane onto a space-based vessel. We can then clip and install the drive component directly on the space frame without any modifications.
Example
Spaceplane once per month launches into space carrying 25+ personnel and cargo for a space station / factory platform, once in orbit the NTR is shutdown, removed from spaceplane by robotic arm, either stored in orbit storage depot or attached to a new space vessel frame under construction for a lunar or mars mission. These engine assemblies are designed on earth with all the appropriate safeguards, monitoring systems and control systems pre-built before space vessel assembly in orbit.
12 spaceplanes per year : 2 engine assemblies per space frame = 6 space vessels for space exploration, cargo transports, lunar missions, or mars missions. Provides a reduced lead time to development of large space vessels in orbit.
But before this can happen we need a world class test, and development center for nuclear research and development as well the nuclear rated engineers and other qualified personnel for earth based facilities and space based facilities and vessels. Thus these engines that use nuclear energy as propellant or as power must be tested first. I don't believe the saying - it won't work. I need to see the data relating to the design, aerodynamic data and the nuclear research data before i can say it does't work and then we find another way or new technology and make it work.
The only time, NTR engine may an issue with public safety is crashing not re-entry because it stays in orbit and used for other space vessels from earth to moon or mars expeditions.
Get your facts correct !!!!!!!!!
GCNRevenger,
Asian people look at long terms, and western people for the short term buck. Many of the Japanese Corporations have voices plans for moon base facilities and orbital facilities. It is logical to need a reusable spaceplane for movement of personnel.
I could see JAXA getting the $57 Billion per year for exploration of space and also remember Japan having an energy crisis, may look at the fusion possibilities of He3 on the moon as a potential solution and wants there take on it.
We have all went through times of hardship, survived and got stronger from the experience. I have designed a piece of software and currently getting developed for a billion dollar global market. I don't think I will get multiple millions out of it, but it will provide a launch platform for other ideas that will lead me to create Space infrastructure in the long term for humanity into space.
We need alot of infrastructure for humanity into space, I am not talking about the global tourists ( Americans, Russians, and chinese astronauts ) This is the use of multiple millions or even billions of dollars made from companies owned by me not my bank account. My one goal is creating a viable colony on Moon and Mars privately held ( even die trying )and provide the infrastructure to expand a space enterprise industrial sector for the next generation of space colonists to expand forth.
I see (correcting from everyone) most people talking about tourist trips to Moon and Mars, but not a human settlement and transport network across our solar system.
Spacenut, and ecrasez_l_infame,
What socialist crap, we are in a market / capitalist economy and If you don't like the idea that people come up with ideas and make them happen then just go to your pity corner and cry. I have hope and respect in the goodness of humanity and the nations of the world will place safeguards on space but ultimately the courts will decide.
If we use you statements then this world wouldn't go anywhere. The world has and because of capitalist / market economy that exists in the western economies. Now we are working through other global issues and fixing them including nation debt, global health issues, and eventually we will get to space and that will be resolved as well.
ecrasez_l_infame,
Most of the Innovation came from people with ideas ( millionaires ) that were "normal" men and women in society that had the right time and place to create millions of dollars from selling their idea/s to their marketplace. What you might not like is that they had choices and chances in their life and went with them, and through hard work and lucky achieved some things in their lives.
If they want to use their money to expand their lives into space onto Mars or Moon or Asteroids or anywhere else, then its their life to do so.
What is a hero ? - Is a person that excels in a field of knowledge, courage or sacrifice for humanity and that knowledge, courage or sacrifice has made humanity better race for the future.
GCNRevenger,
You have made assumptions for Large NTR Reactors and Engine Assemblies. We don't know what size and configuration for the particular spaceplane design. We haven't even looked into the drive designs to see if any changes in design could provide an advantage to lessen radiation, weight, increase fuel consumption or combination of factors.
I find your statements, illogical because we haven't experimented with NTRs from the 1950's-early 1960's. We need to test, examine existing designs and create in new technologies and if necessary develop newer technologies to improve the engine design and performance.
GCNRevenger,
If you are so supportive of nuclear drive, then you should be supportive of renewed development and testing of NTR and hybrid drive systems and new integrated control management systems for space crafts.
In the future we will not, just develop space vessels to launch from earth in a chemical rocket mode and then go nuclear in space. Ion Drive, Plasma Drive and other nuclear type drive systems that use reactors within the engine or provide power are all have the same risks, and we are going that road. We need testing, testing, testing, and development of new casings, reactors, and power sources for the next 50 yrs and we need to start now !!!!!!!!!!!
GCNRevenger,
Firstly, you didn't read my statements correctly, I said " that we would build a strap on booster for the NTR Engine " thus allow it to stay in orbit and be used in larger spacecrafts for moon and mars.
I can guarantee that Mars Research Stations on earth are here to trial different technologies, social interaction and other systems both human and mechanical that will be used on Mars and the social factors that could make or break the human spirit on Mars, Also the Moon Society is trying to access them as well for lunar testing.
Secondly, we have increased our technology in the field of nuclear energy and have developed new materials , ceramics and metals. we haven't looked at different methods to expell the hydrogen, also control mechanisms that could keep the reactor functioning above 1950-60's norms.
There are many different reactor designs across the world, and no-one has looked into the reactor design for the NTR or the fuel control systems or secondary coolant systems or radiation shield options including using magentic fields and other methods outlined in different scientific journals worldwide. We need testing, testing, and more testing before we use it in a spaceplane , I am not saying that the drive systems are completely safe ( but human safe ) but if we want long term space colonization we will need drive systems like NTRs and nuclear-thermo-plasma propulsion systems.
I think we need to revisit the development, design, testing and delivery systems to build the best spaceplane transportation system for the future for colonization of space. ( not the tourist space visits that we have right now ) We need newer technologies and systems that can help humanity to get off the earth and expand rapidly into space with large scale human movement into space stations and eventually to the Moon and Mars.
GCNRevenger,
When we design future spaceplanes, or larger spacecrafts, all will be powered by nuclear type drive and power systems. Yes the risks are their for radiation and other issues regarding the use of nuclear reactors. But the benefits outway the specific risks, if the risks can be managed.
We need a space vessels to be able to take 20-35 personnel, their belongings and cargo into orbit and back. A large spaceplane would be the answer, but the design, weight, thrust, and fuel consumption all need to be worked out. NTR Engines are part of the mix because they provide increased thrust to weight ratio compared to the same chemical engines.
I can see how frightening change can be for you, GCN but we need to move down this road for space development in engine design and testing, we haven't since the 1950-60's and we nned to see if our new material technologies and computer technologies could improve the design, fabrication, and control of the engine system .
VASMIR Drive system could provide greater thrust then NTRs but it relays on the power requirements and only will occur when we have fusion reactors ( again for large scale space vessels only ).
Inclusion
I am suggesting a course of action that will provide the ability to move large scale personnel, and cargo into space and return complete space products to earth safely would a large scale cost, increasing the use of space and the expansion of humanity permanently into space locally and interplanetary.