New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#751 Re: Human missions » Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments? » 2005-06-05 21:39:04
I see a basic principle here.
Earth to LEO is expensive. Therefore, we bring back down to Earth as little as can be managed from what we take up.
And, we re-use as much as possible whatever we take up there, until we need to throw it away or bring it down for another reason.
Therefore, design the CEV for YEARS of active duty in space and avoid atmospheric re-entry of CEV except in dire emergency.
If your re-entry capsules are as lightweight as feasible and you carry them with you both conditions are satisfied.
#752 Re: Human missions » Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments? » 2005-06-05 21:31:47
Why would you do that Bill? The extra crew cabin space would be wasted, this isn't a luxury cruise, or is that what you meant?
Competition would be nice, but its more important that VSE contractors are competant first and foremost. At the moment, the American companies that are competant at the majority of the design, fabrication, and execution of mission vehicles is basically limited to the big name companies.
Actively trying to destroy big aerospace companies isn't a good idea either... if anything, try to give the AltSpace'ers a push into the big leauges, but nothing more.
Why would I do that? Attach small t/Space or Soyuz DM sized capsules to a permanently on orbit CEV? Then go explorin'
It lets us keep tons of useful mass (a really big CEV) in LEO so it can be re-used without being re-launched AND its avoid your scenario where an emergency abort requires an orbital rendezvouz.
It avoids the need for an LEO station for crew transfer. Small taxi up to CEV and then go exploring. No ISS-like transfer station.
The monetary cost of pushing the extra mass attached to CEV is offset by avoiding numerous launches of big heavy replacement CEVs and by avoiding the need to maintain a permanent LEO station.
With the t/Space air launch idea, a CVX could handle variable launch windows with ease, in order to meet up with that really big CEV wherever it was parked in LEO.
= = =
Big aerospace? Well t/Space ain't nothing but a Soyuz DM and a clever gimmick for lanching. If Boeing put its mind to it, I betcha they could send 4 crew to LEO on a Delta II for $25 million.
There's just more profit if NASA can be persuaded that is a bad idea. :;):
All t/Space has done is apply the "form follows function" principle to attaining LEO and stripped away all the frills and extras that get salesmen the big commissions.
#753 Re: Human missions » Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments? » 2005-06-05 16:23:28
Re-useable can also mean keeping the CEV in LEO after a mission is over. Even if you need to lift all your new propellant, the mass of the CEV need be lifted only once.
= = =
No manned transfer vehicle of any kind between Earth and Lunar orbit is nessarry as the capsule is big enough, plus it is the only practical option for immediate anytime emergency abort to Earth.
If small crew ferry capsules were used, you could dock with the CEV and bring them along docked to the CEV.
Edited By BWhite on 1118011716
#754 Re: Human missions » Shuttle derived revival - Space.com » 2005-06-04 14:38:18
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/ … .html]NASA Watch update.
Early July announcement?
#755 Re: Not So Free Chat » Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous » 2005-06-04 14:27:00
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050604/ap_ … iring]John Bolton dis-respected a man who is now Brazil's ambassador in London.
Is he really best we can do?
#756 Re: Human missions » Shuttle derived revival - Space.com » 2005-06-03 19:12:21
http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Ca … ]Space.com message board link however numerous news articles are referenced in the thread, including one from today when Griffin told workers at Michoud not to worry about losing their jobs making big tanks.
Memories of the Spring 2004 Shuttle C wars right here at New Mars are coming back to me. :;):
Fly crew in the new t/Space CVX and send up a really big CEV that does NOT re-enter the atmosphere. Then go exploring. . .
#757 Re: Human missions » Rutan: NASA is Dull » 2005-06-03 18:25:19
http://www.transformspace.com/media_gal … pg]t/Space video - - warning, perhaps slow download.
#758 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Mars=Freedom, but time running OUT - History Approaches Zero » 2005-06-03 11:17:25
The question is what will happen when medical technology catches up, and education does not.
Lots of ignorant people that won't die? ???
Could be a problem. Or not, depending on our temperment.
Hume's Heaven?
#759 Re: Human missions » Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments? » 2005-06-03 11:14:49
As I have posted elsewhere, nickel vapor deposition is a marvelous early method of space manufacturing.
Find an asteroid with metallic nickel (not oxides) and you can fabricate almost anything at moderate temperatures. Here on Earth, nickel vapor deposition is tricky because Ni(CO)4 is highly toxic, yet working in space will be hazardous enough to begin with.
#760 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Falcon 1 & Falcon 9 » 2005-06-03 07:32:36
More on SpaceX and plans for NASA collaboration:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.htm … ?pid=17000
NASA and California-based Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) have signed a two-year agreement to research strategies for future human spaceflight systems for exploration missions and commercial space access.
The Space Act Agreement is part of NASA's collaboration with private industry to seek innovations in space flight that may one day lead the way in expanding the frontiers of exploration. The results may benefit both NASA's exploration activities and assist in developing new capabilities for commercial access to space.
Through this partnership, NASA and SpaceX also may identify other technical areas of collaboration that could leverage research and development resources.
It seems to me a lot of people who know a lot about rockets think SpaceX is doing something right, even before Falcon has flown...
Two years covers the expected delivery date of the Falcon V.
As far as I can tell, Elon Musk has undertaken to do the hairy-knuckled engineering that will lower costs (and profit margins!) for building rocket engines. Not paradigm shattering breakthroughs, just aggressive cost containment during the execution.
For Musk, making money is a "been there; done that" experience - - can you say "paypal" - - therefore I personally doubt SpaceX is about selling snake oil to NASA or the Air Force.
Musk surely knows how to sell snake oil, only there is much more money to be made elsewhere IF that were his real objective.
Slaying the snake oil salesmen (or rope sellers to use Zubrin's metaphor) at Boeing and Lockmart may be his real goal. You should have seen the Big Aerospace guys squirm at that ISDC lunch when Musk described how he was running his business.
= = =
Edit to add:
Musk NEEDS a destination! As does Gump and t/Space.
Edited By BWhite on 1117805615
#761 Re: Not So Free Chat » Odd vote counts - NOT Bush & Kerry » 2005-06-02 14:21:48
http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/3487.article]This story concerns the legalization of slot machines in Florida. After a razor thin essentially 50-50 vote state wide, it turns out that 74,000 of 78,000 absentee ballots voted "Yes"
Its an older story, but all I can say is
Heh!
Edited By BWhite on 1117743796
#762 Re: Not So Free Chat » More on Global Warming - This is interesting... » 2005-06-02 11:33:38
If CO2 from human activities is not causing our current climate change, we have a bigger problem since we then need to learn how to terra-form Earth and preserve a reasonably benign climate.
And I believe I've said as much in the past. :;): We're better off learning to mitigate and adapt to climate change rather than trying to stop the activity that we believe, without foundation, is the reason for that change.
I'd actually prefer if it were so simple as human CO2 emissions. Stop driving, problem solved. Send Hummers to Mars, boom, new Earth. Cool. Only it's not that simple in either case.
. . . the potential human die-offs will be substantial, and since India and China have nukes, that die-off will not be peaceful.
Indeed, and while it is prudent to find out what's really happening, what's really behind it and what if anything we can do about it; it also behooves us to prepare for all contingencies.
Yet to accomplish global climate management (regardless of casuation) we need something reasonably close to global consensus since a few billion tons of Chinese coal will dump more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of our SUVs.
#763 Re: Not So Free Chat » Watergate: DT revealed » 2005-06-02 10:35:25
What if leader(s) create a war to insulate themselves from being undermined?
#764 Re: Not So Free Chat » More on Global Warming - This is interesting... » 2005-06-02 10:22:23
If you believe God planted the fossil record as a "test of faith" no new satellite is going to convince you not to drive an SUV.
Nor should it.
So another satellite supports the assertion that the climate is changing, so what? As far as I'm concerned that isn't really in dispute, the climate is always changing and always has been. But if even the most ardent skeptic is made to accept the premise it still in no way shows a causal relationship between human activity and the recorded change. The problem is that way too many people fail or refuse to draw a distinction between climate change and the religion of man-caused climate change. Recording a one or two degree average increase in temperature over a few decades doesn't prove man burning fuel is making the planet turn into Venus any more than the existence of a rabbit proves that God made it.
Two alternatives:
(a) If human caused CO2 release is driving climate change, humanity needs to adjust its activities.
(b) If CO2 from human activities is not causing our current climate change, we have a bigger problem since we then need to learn how to terra-form Earth and preserve a reasonably benign climate.
Our global economy is premised on a benign climate. If the relatively benign climate (which has existed for the last 10,000 years and which corresponds to the rise of human civilization) returns to the more typical chaotic patterns existing over geologic time, the potential human die-offs will be substantial, and since India and China have nukes, that die-off will not be peaceful.
#765 Re: Not So Free Chat » More on Global Warming - This is interesting... » 2005-06-02 09:56:23
Well as indicated in the article http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns? … 25023.600] New probe may silence climate sceptics the Traceable Radiometry Underpinning Terrestrial and Helio Studies or TRUTHS would put the sensitivity and non calibration question to rest.
If you believe God planted the fossil record as a "test of faith" no new satellite is going to convince you not to drive an SUV. :;):
#766 Re: Not So Free Chat » Watergate: DT revealed » 2005-06-02 09:49:02
Bill Clinton: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/02/clinton/]Felt did the right thing.
Cultural civil war.
Either we OBEY and SUPPORT our leaders or they OBEY and SUPPORT us.
#767 Re: Not So Free Chat » Watergate: DT revealed » 2005-06-02 09:19:50
http://mediamatters.org/items/200506020001]Felt is WHY we lost in Vietnam.
#768 Re: Not So Free Chat » Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous » 2005-06-01 11:29:31
Nah, we love you, man. Besides, I figured you are too old. <snark>
Just a little too old.
Not me, I am waaay too old. ???
#769 Re: Not So Free Chat » Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous » 2005-06-01 11:14:44
Best comment I saw on this asked, "why aren't these eager young Republicans enlisting the military?"
That's a valid point there. I'm mildly surprised no one here has tried directly nailing me with that yet.
:;):While I can't speak for all the younger pro-war types, in my case a minor injury disqualifies me under the current regs. Willing and able, but undeployable. :hm:
I can still fight commies and pinkos here though.
Nah, we love you, man. Besides, I figured you are too old. <snark> :;):
#770 Re: Planetary transportation » Land propulsion - Tracks, or tires? » 2005-06-01 10:16:16
Legs. Six of them. The lowly roach isn't a bad basic design for an all-terrain vehicle.
*You mean http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic … ]something along these lines?
Dang, it took me quite a Search to find this old thread (old?? I didn't recall it being from just this year...). Fortunately I recalled that John Deere manufactured it (after then scrolling through many pages of the Science & Technology folder); Searching with JD brought it up.
I also scrolled through this thread to see if the article had been posted previously here; it hasn't.
--Cindy
Two click from Cindy's link is this. http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001434.html]MP3 players for your AK-47 - - just what every insurgent needs for Christmas, oops, whatever holiday insurgents celebrate.
#771 Re: Not So Free Chat » Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous » 2005-06-01 10:05:07
Wrong link at first. Its fixed now. The other link was to an article saying that the withheld Bolton documents will reveal companies that were trading with China, illegally.
Sorry for the error.
#772 Re: Not So Free Chat » Political Potpourri V - Continued from previous » 2005-06-01 10:01:53
Hey Cobra, http://www.metrobeat.net/gbase/Expedite … A3291]this made me think about you especially the banner that read:
"Peace through superior firepower"
Best comment I saw on this asked, "why aren't these eager young Republicans enlisting the military?"
Edited By BWhite on 1117641816
#773 Re: Intelligent Alien Life » Dr Steven Greer & The Disclosure Project - The UFO Phenomenon » 2005-06-01 09:29:49
Another way of looking at the available data:
We have enough data on exactly one planetary system to make any meaningful analysis. In it we have One planet with large, complex life. So far, one for one. Pretty good odds. Additionally, Mars may or may not have life now or in the past. If we find so much as a microbe or a fossil, that's 2 for 1. If we're real optimistic and throw Europa and Titan in, 4 to 1.
So even being rigidly conservative, based on our one data point it seems that one life-bearing planet per system is commonplace, at least based on what we know. Surely this is just as valid an argument as all those "life needs a large moon, life needs such and such a weather pattern, life needs a G-type star to shine happily upon it"?
A little off-topic, but worth a thought. Of course complex life doesn't imply intelligence, Earth was very much alive with no species we'd call intelligent for the vast bulk of its history. My preference would be for that to be the norm, it just makes things easier. And while I can't prove it, my gut and the spirits of the cosmos tell me that such is the case.
So was it written, so shall it be done.
As we wish it to be, so shall it be.
#774 Re: Human missions » Mars Colonization Program - Mission 1: Your Comments? » 2005-06-01 09:28:21
Spaceplane... Capsules are financially inefficient.
Not if they're reusable, wings are not a must to be cost efficient.
A small capsule used for Earth to LEO, then attached to a cycler ship, then dropped on Mars, one way, might very well be cheaper than building a dedicated Mars spaceplane IF the number of incoming settlers is not high enough to justify frequent flights.
An idle spaceplane bleeds money.
#775 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Falcon 1 & Falcon 9 » 2005-06-01 07:49:11
Kwajelien.
Musk spoke at lunch at ISDC and said that if the Air Force delays making Vandenberg available he will launch from Kwajelien.