You are not logged in.
No offense GNC. But having a fully configured LAUNCH
vehicle equivalent to the shuttle's full thrust, moving at 500mph just before ignition is an advantage.
If we had access to a more equatorial, modestly mountainous,
sea facing teritory I suspect we would be launching that way
I read that a large part of the fuel mass Is used to accelerate a rocket from 0 to 400 Mph. In other words the energy required to overcome the inertia of afully fueled rocket standing is a Huge unavoidable Cost.
Only this is an avoidable cost If you Gain Inertia before
your engines fire. Would if not be better to launch a rocket
DOWNWARD for part of it's lauch sequence. This was
what Von Braun had theorized would be the easiest way
launch big payloads. We would call it horizontal sled launching. The ship would be on a ramp sloping downward at first and then at sloping to a 45 degree angle, at lauch.
If you could find a 5 mile wide mini-valley and lay a launch rail
on it you could try Von Braun's Scheme. As a bonus you
could attach SRB's to the Sled to attain more velocity
and thus use Smaller Engines/Fuel tanks for your main engines.
This type of mission would be about crew quality. A crew
that has the equipment and knowhow to repair, service, adjust
any component of your Mission elements will at the very least
keep themselves from becoming mummified remains.
There being so much time in transit, the crew should in addition to their Main Duties be able to perform TWO of the following duties
1) Disassemble/repair Ship engines. (Ship uses 16)
2) Dissasemble/Repair life support equipment
3) Medic duty, plus able to do non-trivial surgery.
4) Pilot any ship/lander
We could assemble a crew like this today, question is would any of them want to spend 15 years in space.
As a general point be careful when someone says
reusable is cost efficient in manned programs. I know we
only have one example, the worst type at that.
Even a simpler proceedure such as Shuttle SRB recyclying
is a logistical headache.
I cannot believe we are going to design another Toy for the
Top Gun set at NASA. Two Crew have to be dedicated to
just Pilots on the Shuttle. That's 28% of your Human Wetware that becomes useless during the Mission itself.
Think about the extra hardware a Shuttle needs so it
can function as a reuseable craft.
Landing Gear Assembly. Actuator Motors for control surfaces. Double occupancy Cockpit. Extra large windows. Large
Surface Area Reentry Thermal tiling.
Unless we are talking about a Scramjet aircraft that severely lowers the cost of LOE I see no reason to make your new spacecraft reuseable. Reusabilty is a gimmick intended to justify "space plane" technology, and simply a jobs program
for the contractors.
How can this be true?
Because taking apart a man rated craft after it has flown and
refurbishing it and recertifying for use is acutally much more
expensive than building expendable throw away Assebly line
spacecraft. The Shuttle is the proof of this.
It is far better to go with an modenized Apollo Command module adapted to hold 6 crew and 1 pilot. If you need a larger Mission Ship. Just have larger module dock with the CM nose to nose. (obviously a small LOE Retro-Maneuver module
would be required also)
Titanium melts at 3,000 Degrees. A probe designed to melt
away layers of Titanium would hopefully last to an interesting
depth.
Probability Assesment:
1) One Sentient-technological Species in our galaxy
co-existing with our w/simliar tech levels. 1%
2) One species is much older and mature and has no
use for humans, meaning they would not interact 19%
3) A sentient Tech species that has a very slow rate of evolution and has a very conservative society. And
a very stable & safe star-planet home. This is the most likely
possibility for contact. These beings would plan in terms of
centuries and ACT at the speed of millenia. 25%
4) probability that we currently alone in the Galaxy 55%
If aliens exist
Would they be hostile? If they thought us a threat, Yes.
Yes, Not at Full tilt Hot Re-entry speed. I think If you want
to get a reading from deep within Jupiter this is one way to
do it. I don't think a single probe going deep into Jupiter
would be able to signal much of anything. Note The that
last jupiter probe only inspected the very topmost layers.
Some of us are curious about just what states of matter
exist down there.
All the chemicals you need to terraform Mars is available
in plentyfull supplies in your common Comet. C.H.O.N. The
smaller Saturnian satellites are composed of this too.
The choice is to move 1,000's of Halley's comet sized
chunks of ice or move ONE 200 mile moon to Mars orbit.
From there you just hurl them into the atmosphere in
sizes that vaporize before impact.
Until we can do this Mars Will remain Dependent on Earth.
and any colonies will be small, a few thousand at most.
Lets say you construct about 25 Probes that are designed to
survive High Temps & Pressure of the Deeper portions of
Jupiters Atmosphere. Assume these probes are able to act
as enviromental probes and as Relay stations.
Could they be sent into Jupiter's atmosphere in a timed
manner so that there is an appoximately linear path from the
deepest Probe that enters the Jupiter atmosphere and the
highest? A separation between probes of 1,000 miles
to help relaying of information being the average.
What's the deepest a probe could get before the signals where
lost or the probe just Melted, because no known material could
survive that much heat.
Just a reminder only 1 person will orbit-decend-land on
Venus and Mercury, I think two people just creates more obstacles than it's worth.
If you design your lander correctly you should be able to
make a short duration landing, which is all i am
looking for. (It is after all a foolish a human Stunt). Essentially I think you have to
design your lander with its fuel tank surrounding practically the entire ship. The Tanks would
have pressure relief valves that are constantly purging and
yes WASTING landing fuel. This would results in very short 2 hr landing and short excursion of 1 hour. And one thing
your forget about the venus enviroment, it can be replicated on Earth, which is all clever engineers need to suceed.
I would be more worried about the Mercury Mission. I am
not sure You can Fall into a mercury orbit, orbit the planet and Break orbit and catch up with a mother ship without
at ship at least 3/4 the mass(inc. Fuel) of your mothership.
You are right a Ten Year Mission is Unrealistic. Fifteen sounds
better. Incidentally I used to have Space Shuttle Simulator,
and one of the Fun things you could do with it is Go To Mars.
I know, Life support and all of that, but with four Full power mock ups. (ie the power of the Launch configurations).
it was possible to get to Mars and Back in 2.5 years. Now Albeit I would Refresh the Vehicle en Route (computer Trick) meaning I did not have go carry those extra 3 ET's and 6 Srb's
with me(I know the Srb's are not for space, change them to liquids). If you plan out your Fuel Logistics correctly you do not have to carry all the Fuel with you. You can
rendezvous with them fuel tankers en route.
I don't believe it's impossible logistically given the right
plantetary alignments
I do believe the biggest dangers are HUMAN FACTORS.
I admit that Going to Venus and Mercury would be the toughest part of the Mission. The cold of the icey worlds
would not be so scary. Not as scary as being stuck with the same
people for 10 years.
I am not advocating Nuclear Propulsion.
I am advocating a nuclear Power source.
Without the ISS, could the USA with partners (esa,Japan)
have built and sent a complete solar system plantetary expedition by now?
Here are the mission specs:
Duration of mission: 10 years
Primary Propulsion: Lox
Primary Power: nuclear
Vehicle: something like the 2010 film (soviet vehicle)
(its a normal ship with rotating crew habitation modules)
Crew Size: 12
Mission Operations: Main vehicle does not enter orbit of
target planets, Smaller vehicles go ahead of main ship
to explore and later rejoins main ship.
Targets: Planets,(or indicated moons)
Venus: crazy, but a short duration landing should be possible.
Mercury: crazier, because of fuel constraints. Would probably
have to pre-launch this landing module separately and rendezvous with it due to Fuel tank mass.
Again a very short duration mission. Main ship would not come closer to sun than a Venus orbit
Why go to the above Hell holes. Because humans like to do stupid showy things, and being first.
Mars : Three weeks
Jovian system Three Weeks. (G,C,E,)
Saturn System Three Weeks. (T,En,Ia)
Uranian system Three Weeks (M,U,T.)
Neptuninan system Three Weeks (T,N)
Pluto-Charon 4 Weeks
Return: maximum power for quickest Return to Earth Use
separate module for Aerobraking return of crew.
And whoever is left after these adventures will be as much a
hero as a certain Greek who sailed for the Golden Fleece
Note: dehydrated footstuffs, for 12 crew for 10 years takes
up 20x20x20 Sq Feet of space. I know High-Energy particles would among the Biggest hazzards of this type mission. But
let me see your design a Space suit for landing on Venus.