New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#26 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Falcon 1 & Falcon 9 » 2006-03-08 22:21:03
Or they may wind up placing those NK-33/43 engines on a 727--with a lox tank in the fuselage and burning kero out the wings...
NF-727
I sort of like that idea, same thing they are doing with the Lear....only big, lol, sub orbital tourism with 30 people at a time.
#27 Re: Human missions » Can China go to Mars ? Dr. Zubrin will talk in August 06 » 2006-03-08 10:19:39
I think that if china doesn't follow the methodology of Moon then Mars approach and go direct to Mars and use the Direct Plan by Zubrin as a model then the Chinese could have a base in operation a few years ahead then the American, Russians and Europeans.
That would increase the Chinese position in the World, Economically, Socially and put the world on notice of the Chinese powerhouse is here and to stay.
Which is why it can not be allowed to happen. The chinese have a long way to go between here and Mars, although not so long if we keep happily handing over tech to the ChiComs. I hope if they get near (assuming there isn't a sino-american war between now and 2030, a state of affairs that I find unlikley) we get our act together and beat them to the party on the red planet. Mars is red enough without the PRC on it.
Worse comes to worse I'm liking the idea of deploying ASAT missiles more and more... :twisted:
#28 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Falcon 1 & Falcon 9 » 2006-03-07 11:58:47
Okay, I know I'm getting way ahead of the game here but:
Space X is developing a manned crew and cargo taxi
Space X is developing a 100 ton class to orbit booster
Add those things together and I'm begining to see Musk making good on his initial goal for Mars...
Between SpaceX and Rocketplane LTD buying Kistler with the intentions of building the K-1 for Space Station service is it at all possible that by the time 2010 rolls around and the space shuttle happily goes the way of the dinosaurs we won't even need the CEV for station servicing?
#29 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Bimodal Nuclear Thermal Rocket, VASIMR, MPD, & MTF Propulsio » 2006-03-05 21:11:00
Well a bi-modal nuclear thermal rocket is the closest in terms of technical readiness. We've built and flown NTRs before, and basically the bimodal rocket is an ntr with a secondary working fluid loop that spins a turbo-alternato to provide electrical power.
VASIMR has some physics problems with it, as well as having some scaling issues. Lets not forget the enormous power requirement.
MPD: No idea, not flight test
MTF: lets see what happens after we have the national ignition facility up and running for a few years.
#30 Re: Interplanetary transportation » NASA retires Atlantis in 2008 » 2006-03-04 14:39:54
It appears that the SSME overhaul after each flight cost somewhere around 145,600 at least...
I've been looking for this metric for a while. If correct, it means that SSME are a solid bargin. ~150k to reuse and 20 odd launches each? That's a steal compared to disposable engines.
I'm sorry but I am going to have to call shenanigans on that one...
If each engines overhaul cost was only $150,00, your talking on only spending $450,000 on refurbishing a complete set of engines. If turn around on SSMEs we should be keeping the shuttle and just trying to retrofit it with a less man hour intensive TPS.
Quoted rate for a shuttle launch if $500million, although a billion is a more honest cost. $15million a copy for SRBs, not sure what it is for recylced ones that have been fished out of the ocean, $50million for an external tank, and $450k for engine refurbs. That's $80,450,000 a shuttle launch. You can't tell me that there is $900million wrapped up in pad/fueling opperatiosn and TPS refurbishment.
#31 Re: Human missions » The first Mars crew » 2006-03-04 14:18:01
Lets send John Young.
Hes not dead yet is he?
How about Hillary Clinton? Asumming it's a one way trip with insufficent life support and a nuclear thermal upper stage which is actually a mislabled thermonuclear device. (in the 20mt range)
#32 Re: Not So Free Chat » Why do we attract crazy people? » 2006-02-20 08:08:02
When I think about the ISA guy the phrase delusions of grandeur pops into my head.
The unfortunately truth of the matter is that people who are inclined to believe Art Bell at the like aren't willing to draw a line between real space and "Area 51"...
</que x-files music>
#33 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance » 2006-02-20 07:53:26
My question is what is the ULA going to do hardware wise? Are they going to build a hybrid Atlas V/Delta IV? Keep things as is?...
#34 Re: Interplanetary transportation » NASA retires Atlantis in 2008 » 2006-02-18 20:44:40
Before SpaceNut points out he already made a post about this, I think it merits its own topic.
This is the beginning of an end to an era. Will it end up at Smithsonian, after being gutted for spare parts?
Will it be gutted for parts unlikely as the reason the Atlantis is going first is that it is due a renovation in 2008 and to save what will be a major expense it is easier to make it the first to be "retired". So in short I suspect it will be cleaned up and delivered to a museum whole. The parts inside will be worn and the only reasonably feasible part wanted for the CEV and the heavy lifter is the engines. And a very good case can be put forward that a shuttle without engines would look a bit silly. (A bit like the whole shuttle concept
)
NASA will pull the engines and the Museum will have to foot the bill on some reletivley inexpensive mock up engine bells, museums do things like that all the time, NASA can have their engines and the Smithsonian can have their proper looking orbiter.
Actually, the smithsonian already has the Enterprise, so I'd like to see the Atlantis go to the Air Force museum at Dayton, OH
#35 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Falcon 1 & Falcon 9 » 2006-02-18 20:38:56
I am pretty confident that the next attempt will be succesfull. Musk & co did complete a full countdown on the last attempt and fired the Merlin engine briefly, this concludes their first long time effort to go to T - zero and surely improves their chances of a flawless launch.
I hope your right! I'm pulling for Space X, especially now that this BLoMart launch merger is going through.
#36 Re: Human missions » Private Space Tourism » 2006-02-17 14:04:34
Capitalism works.
I was just thinking the same thing, if you just leave it alone the free market will do amazing things.
Now if we could just get some private investment in fusion research...
#37 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Thermal Protection » 2006-02-15 20:49:54
I disagree, the mass fraction is very much still problem #1.
The Tiokovski rocket equation demands that your rocket's total mass empty not exceed 9-11% of the mass full, using the ideal fuel of liquid hydrogen.
That 9-11% has to include everything, the engines, the fuel tanks, and the payload. Since Hydrogen is so bulky, its tanks have to weigh quite a bit. Overall, you are left with a vehicle that isn't more then a percent or two payload tops, which will of course be a huge vehicle.
And thats without extra fuel for landing.
I agree, we don't have the mass fraction problem solved yet, but for the first time I feel like 10% dry mass might be doable. With composite/aerogel fuel tanks and prehaps a CNT/Buckball thermal protection system, both materials that should be within the state of the art within a decade or two might be able to solve the problem, or at least get close enought that as you put it a true 'no kidding' tsto should be a very workable technology. Of course if you can pull of Scram jets on the first stage you can throw the rocket equation out the window to a certain degree.
#38 Re: Human missions » Jeff Bell hearts Mike Griffin » 2006-02-15 10:10:36
Hubble itself however is worn out and might not last long with or without servicing, and a repair job with Shuttle will be fantastically expensive (>$1.5Bn easy) not to mention take up a precious and risky Shuttle shot if NASA is forced to trudge on with The Golden Goose. The solution is just to build a brand new telescope, perhaps using the spare Hubble main mirror and new cameras, and stick it on top of a Atlas or Delta. It would last longer then a patched-up Hubble, and could be tailored to do the things that adaptive optics scopes' can't, thus being a much more useful instrument. Japan has even offerd to donate the superwide field camera for free. The Hubble option is purely political and PR driven.
You're right, putting up an entirely new telescope would be a beter, and in all likleyhood a cheaper option then servicing the hubble. My question is do we really want to spend ~billion dollars on astronomy? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for pure science, but for the time being I'd rather see any astronomy money in NASAs budget go to VSE or even aeronautics, there are alot of aeronautics programs that would have significant comercial use if they got funded. Even if your sold on in space astronomy as a priority for NASA, shouldn't the first priority be to get the James Webb up as planned?
#39 Re: Human missions » Jeff Bell hearts Mike Griffin » 2006-02-15 08:39:19
I seriously hope they find something, anything wrong with the shuttle and ground it permanently after the launch this year. (I don't care if anything really went wrong or not, find a reason) That would solve all the VSE funding problems and then some, we could accelerate the lunar program and put more money into true commercial ventures too get them off the ground. Maybe then we can get to mars before the 60th anniversary of the first lunar landing... 
I know the ISS is an international political football, but if we gift the thing to the Russians would they really be complaining? Hell, if we're lucky and in the next few years T/Space or SpaceDev or Space-X actually lowers the cost of reaching orbit I could see either AMD or Intel setting up orbital shops for chip production, that has a decent economic outlook even with the high launch costs because your talking about a high value product with very low mass/volume.
Please, please, someone kill the Shuttle/Space Station.
Oh, and if you hear someone arguing about saving the Hubble, point out to them that the new generation of ground based telescopes with adaptive optics have taken the title of 'astronomies big gun' from the Hubble.
#40 Re: Human missions » The first Mars crew » 2006-02-14 08:51:24
We need to end the educator astronaut program now! It is idiotic, it was s neat PR trick when we thought that the space shuttle was going to be the 737 of space, but now that we are actually doing real exploration missions again, fire the teachers, send them back to school, and free up space for people who are actually qualified.
#41 Re: Human missions » NASA 2007 Budget » 2006-02-06 10:56:00
Don't ask me how I know, but it's about 80% certain that once the budget has gone through confrence to patch up the differences between the senate and house versions anothing $850m-$1.1b will find it's way into NASAs budget.
Things are looking up, they are just looking up through some very back channel ways.
#42 Re: Interplanetary transportation » J-2S vs RLX vs RS-68r+ » 2006-02-03 17:11:14
RS-68 and J-2 are two great engines that would go well together. With the ablatives, you don't even need channel-wall--thought that shouldn't be too hard to copy if need be.
If (hopfully) when NASA goes with the RS-68 I would expect an eventual evolution to a regenerative nozel, the only thing Boeing needs is a firm order to develop them.
#43 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Falcon 1 & Falcon 9 » 2006-02-02 09:40:18
In a recent interveiw Musk said that the Merlin II would be the most powerful engine in production today, that makes me wonder what the next launcher after the Falcon 9 is, HLV class maybe? Or maybe they will just down load the engines on the Falcon 9 to one, an engine cluster of 9 makes me really nervous.
The development of Merlin 2 begs the question: what is SpaceX planning that requires such a powerful engine? In past talks Musk has hinted at the development of something called the “BFR” (where B stands for “big” and R for “rocket”), a heavy-lift vehicle far larger than the Falcon family of vehicles. At SpaceVision2005 Musk disclosed that the BFR, in its current iteration, would use “multiple” Merlin 2 engines. The BFR would be able to place 100 tons in low Earth orbit, putting it in competition with NASA’s planned shuttle-derived heavy-lift launcher. The BFR is so big, Musk said, that it’s too large for the BFTS at their Texas test site: even if they beefed up the stand, he said, the overpressure from the engine tests would break windows in a nearby town.
Now wouldn't that be a headtrip if NASA had the option of buying and HLV on a true commercial basis! I wonder if you could use Falcon 5s as strap on boosters and up the payload on that thing to comperable with the currently planned NASA built HLV?
#44 Re: Interplanetary transportation » J-2S vs RLX vs RS-68r+ » 2006-02-02 09:24:54
Also, I have serious doubts about the Russians ability to ramp up production with anything like the quality control and reliability of a US supplier.
Now that I have to take exception with. That's just bullshit. You can make all sorts of political complaints about the government of the former Soviet Union, but Russian aerospace has always been a strong rival to the US.
Canada is part of NORAD and my city is on direct line of flight from Russia to ICBM silos in North Dakota. In the 1970s one Canadian soldier told me that if Russian ICBMs were confirmed incoming, we would have 15 minutes to evacuate the city; and she expected 3 Russian warheads tagetting Winnipeg: airport/air force base, main railway yard, downtown. There's no way we could evacuate a city of ~650,000 people in 15 minutes. Personally, I'm very glad the cold war is over.
Russian fighter planes have always been leading edge and a rival for the best American planes. The R-7 rocket was the first ICBM, and the Soyuz launch vehicle is an evolved R-7. When America chose to stop developing liquid fuel rocket engines in favour of solids, Russia continued development of liquid fuel rockets. What's the success ratio of Shuttle compared to Soyuz?
We've already seen the decision to abandon LOX/methane in favour of old fashioned hypergolics. What else will be abandoned? This is NASA's pattern since Shuttle: start developing something new, complain it's too hard, abandon it and return to pre-Shuttle technology. The new architecture is "Apollo on steroids", but every tiny piece that isn't pre-existing technology is at risk of cancellation. Modifying SSME isn't hard, but if there's already complaints that it's too hard and excuses to return to J-2 (not even J-2S but the old J-2), then we have a serious problem. All of VSE is in danger. There's no need to develop a simplified SSME at all, RD-0120M is COTS. It's time to cut off excuses and just do it.
I'm not doubting the prowess of the Russian aerospace industry, quite the opposite infact they impress me with what they manage to pull off, especially with what is essentially no computer modeling. Also it is a fact, that Russians prefeer to engineer to looser tollerances, good, bad, or ugly, it's just the way it is. My reliaibility comment was not meant about the reliability of the engine, I'm sure it would likely work fine, but I just don't think we trust them as a supplier, there are political unrest issues, there are workforce issues, oh, and by the way the Russians are a long time supporter of Iran so if they do anything off the reservation guess where there might be trade sanctions against just like there were recently against Austria? Also, we are arguing about an engine that isn't even in production. Maybe I'm just a jigonist, but I'll take American vaporware over Russian vaporware any day of the week.
As far as Canada being apart of NORAD (Now called NorthCom actually)and maybe RVs falling on Canadian soil if the greatest show on Earth would have kicked off. Yes, Canada has always been a great friend. I actually used to live in Canada, (Kingston, Ontario to be specific) and my family still has a summer home up there in the Thousand Islands. I'm not sure how the point is salient though...
#45 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » hypersonic » 2006-02-02 09:16:09
It's as detectable as an ICBM or any other orbital launch, IE the Chinese or Russians would see it coming. If you want to catch one of the major powers of guard, a cruise missle or B2 strike has a better chance. Now the Iranians wouldn't see it coming, but they wouldn't see a B2 or Cruise Missle strike either, at least not untill it was to late.
Actually I'd have to disagree with you their. Maybe the inital CAV launcher, which would basically be a cheap mass produced ICBM first stage anyways would be detectable by IR satilites, but since it's a hypersonic gliding target rather then a ballistic target it really isn't in the same ballpark as a MIRV. Especially if incorperate some basic low level stealthing features.
Now once we have the reusable hypersonic launcher, which would presumably be at least partially air breathing, then all bets are off as far as thermal bloom detection.
#46 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Falcon 1 & Falcon 9 » 2006-02-02 09:10:18
It better launch, for it being such a simplified vehicle and how long its been "almost ready."
I am not quite so anti-United-Launch, since frankly both Boeing and LockMart are in a pinch... they both designed rockets, factories, and launch pads for a market that doesn't exsist, so they have to do something.
By "HLV" Falcon-IX would be in the same ballpark as the Atlas-V 55X series. A large engine used one or two at a time would be ideal.
It is unfortunate the bind the Boeing and Lockmart are in, but maybe they should try to lower the costs of the launchers to the point where they can actually attract the few comercial launches that there are.
Baring that I don't understand why the Atlas V is being chosen as ULAs launcher of choice, the Delta IV is built at a very modern and automated plant which, at least in theory, can be opperated much more inexpensivley then the Lockheed Plant. The Atlas does use a cheaper Russian engine, but because they had to foot the bill to have Rocketdyne spool up to produce it at a moments notice if the Russians faltered, it doesn't really offer the cost savings it seems to.
#47 Re: Not So Free Chat » Alternative Space ventures - are we on the road to cheaper access » 2006-02-02 08:54:23
"I'm afraid two comapnies competing for it might not be a good thing."
Sort of the same game, but with the current sharks of Boeing and Lockheed at the top of the food chain...
Okay, I phrased that poorly, I just don't want to end up with no Alt.space manned launcher...the LockMart/Boeing duopoly needs to be challenged.
#48 Re: Interplanetary transportation » J-2S vs RLX vs RS-68r+ » 2006-02-02 08:42:56
I think it should be pointed out that list cost in Russia and the cost they are willing to sell on the market at, especially to the US governemtn are two completely unrelated things? Has anyone seen the actually cost accounting on what a Soyuz launch runs? Here's a hint, the alleged $20million that the tourist have paid would have paid for the entire launch plus a healthy profit.
Also, I have serious doubts about the Russians ability to ramp up production with anything like the quality control and reliability of a US supplier.
Also we can't forget, this isn't the ISS, we aren't going international (thank god). There would be serious political backlash if we outsourced engine development. Not to mention the fact that the US aerospace industry is suffering from such a shortage of aerospace engineers that the INS recently approved a fast track program for Boeing to hire and import out of work Russian engineers.
#49 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Falcon 1 & Falcon 9 » 2006-02-02 08:21:31
I seriously hope that the Falcon take off without a hitch this time, I want nothing more then to see Space-X actually compete in the comercial launch industry and force Boeing and Lockheed to actually act like companies in a market place. The United Launch Alliance is bad for the country and bad for the industry.
In a recent interveiw Musk said that the Merlin II would be the most powerful engine in production today, that makes me wonder what the next launcher after the Falcon 9 is, HLV class maybe? Or maybe they will just down load the engines on the Falcon 9 to one, an engine cluster of 9 makes me really nervous.
#50 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » hypersonic » 2006-02-01 10:55:47
One more thing I'd like to point out, is while for most missions FALCON will be carrying KE weapons, which are tons of fun, just wait till the have pure fusion warheads in the quiver (if they aren't there now) :twisted:
Fallout free (and uncontroled by treaty) is the way to be !