New Mars Forums

Any solar storm has two components that cause and effect the atmospheres of all planets a like, three if you count distance from the sun. Directional alignment or intercept point for the planet and finally blast strength in that direction are the first two. There is a fourth piece in that also the blast shape may be another factor in whether or not a solar storm could do damage to a planets atmosphere.

The slow but steady process of carbon nano tubes developement is progressing.

Researchers Spin Carbon Nanotubes Into Usable Fibers
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nanotech-04zzw.html

other nano developement
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nanotech-04zzx.html

MANUFACTURING:NASA contract helps fuel hiring at ME Global's Gary-New Duluth foundry. Contract for casting parts that will help launch the next generation of American astronauts into space. The company has been tapped to fabricate the track shoes for the crawler transporters that NASA uses to carry the space shuttle to its launch pad.

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/dulut … 571344.htm

Now if some one could rease the funds and create a contract with Nasa to develop to build the CEV capsule. How could such an arrangement play out if possible?

Thanks Bwhite for the info in the other CEV post with a SDV business plan.

Quote:
A Thiokol 5 segment RSRM with an LH2/LOX upper stage could throw 35K to 40K (pounds) to LEO far cheaper than any other potential USA booster.

4 segment RSRM cost $30 million (a well established price based on sales for the STS program)

Add a handful of RL-10s or Musk's Merlin or the RL-10 follow on and you are in LEO at $1500 per pound or less.

An awesome light-medium shuttle derived option.

Going with shuttle C & follow on SDV with a BIG cryogenic upper stage gives a wide range of options.

5 segment RSRM plus liquid upper for about $50 to $60 million;

Shuttle C - - 2 RSRM + ET + RS-68 with cargo carrier with total RS-68 depending on payload.

Various sized ETs?

Then inline SDV with 2 5 segment RSRM and a big liquid upper stage for 150 - 200 MT payloads.

= = =

Thiokol RSRMs have a 99.5% success rate and 100% post Challenger success rate. Why start from scratch? 
Back to top

Lets wrap up the figures that we have so far on a normal Shuttle flight.
External tank $40 Million
SRMs 4 segment $30 Million ea
newer 5 Segment in the 40 to 50 million tops
Refurbish repacked with fuel 4 or 5 segments cost I would only hope to be lower otherwise keep buying new.

On the need list which is not all that important for the exact numbers.

orbiter construction
fuel and oxidizer per launch
refurb crew cost
launch crew cost

With these number we can see why a Shuttle fails the cost per flight test even being reusuable. On the expendable side of the equation fuel, refurb and external tank. It is the refurb cost that get the shuttle into the red when it comes to budgets.

So a little research later into the subject I find that it is Helium cooled rather than water as the typical reactor is and that the pebbles are recycled until they are no longer of any value with in the reaction chamber. Also none are in operation but some are in the construction stages. Technology is still on the cutting edge of developement.

Know wonder you missed it before it should have been posted to the Jupitertoday web site instead of the one for saturn or at least to both. Either way the Galileo probe was used to capture first atmospheric data of jupiter though there were other thoughts at the time to try for one of its moons but was scuttled due to contaminations fear. I suspect the rings are the remains from the captured planetoids or minor moons as the are shredred by jupiters emense gravity.

Sealed nuclear reactor sure would give the activist little to worry about when it comers to nuclear energy use. I wonder if it would be adaptable for space use?

Public Release: 2-Sep-2004
US plans take-away nuclear power plants

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ … 090204.php

A small, sealed, transportable nuclear reactor could meet the energy needs of developing countries without the risk of by-products getting in the wrong hands for weapons programmes. The sealed units, being developed by the US Department of Energy, would be delivered to a site, and collected when the fuel runs out after about 30 years. Its tamper-proof cask would be monitored and heavily alarmed.

Contact: Claire Bowles
claire.bowles@rbi.co.uk
44-207-331-2751
New Scientist

From a somewhat different angle with regards to using plants to make a profit.

Money that grows on crops

http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/ … -sten.html

Backlash from last months xprize trial run by the Rubicon rocket that had to be blown up shortly after launch. So how much more or will the amount of regulations increase on the private industry for them to endure while on there way towards developing the ability to get man into space cheaply.

Forks: Rocketeer says launches are environmentally friendly, but marine sanctuary may prosecute over Aug. 8 launch

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5885322/

I personally would settle for some better choices for candidates than what we normally get. Lets rock the boat and do something different.

Not really because it will be at least another 6 before a manned vehicle will actually be more than vapor and pretty drawings.