You are not logged in.
Now i fully understand that this idea unfortunately is impossible or at least difficult
Why?
What about new books?
I've been trying to write - - not argue. Well at least not here.
Is Firefly on DVD yet?
No spoilers for Serenity please. It's on my list of to see movies.
For what its worth, GCNRevenger's confidence in space elevators make me take their technical feasibility far more seriously.
That said, with six day trips, simply paying back the interest might make it hard to close the business case.
$1 billion construction costs @ 12% interest amortized over 7 years means a $17.5 million per month mortgage payment. With 5 trips per month (6 days / 30) thats $2.9 million per trip. At $100/lb each climber needs to carry 29,000 pounds of net payload.
Are the climbers that big?
Remember, this excludes insurance, wages, energy, ground handling, etc. . .
It excludes the costs of the car/climber as well which needs to be spacecraft pressurized construction.
Go to $10 billion for construction and you need to carry 290,000 pounds every 5 days to amortize at $100/lb
= = =
Oh, the technical challenges of tethers do appear more significant.
= = =
Without a colony "out there" to support, is there sufficient demand to launch enough payloads to repay the bank the construction costs?
L1 Gateway Station
- - FGB-2 module 500 million
- - Transhab module 500 million
- - Docking module 300 million
- - Canadarm 150 million
- - Sundries/whatnot 100 million
- - 9 Proton launches 500 million
~ 2 billion to deploy
Brand new re-useable lunar lander
LOX/methane; made in Russia; shuttles between L1 and lunar surface
5-6 billion to design, build & deploy via Proton to L1
Transit to/from L1
Soyuz plus Proton DM upper stage 100 million &
Proton based fuel tankers for methane / LOX tanks
300 - 500 million all up.
= = =
Grand total less than 10 billion be they dollars or euros
The whole suicide mission idea is still quite early in its development.
No suicide necessary.
RobS pegged Proton at $100 million each. Some reports are for a much lower cost. One Proton could deliver a fairly large number of ration bars periodically.
Send Jesuits and the Catholics could have periodic 2nd collections at Mass to pay for the launches.
Toilet paper will be a concern after a while.
Washable silk. Heh!
Send two Jesuit priests. Monks, sort of but scientists like the guys who work at the Vatican observatory.
= = =
The first problem is getting there. So what would be the best rocket for such a mission? What's the biggest rocket capable of sending a, say, 5-10 ton payload to Mars? I'm thinking very small here, a ship whose internals are no bigger than most peoples bathrooms. In volume it would be only a little larger than the rover probe container was.
About a year ago, I did some back of envelope calculations to make MarsDirect one-way-to-stay for two people.
I believe the Mars craft can be built with two launches of da' Stick with 2 astronauts ferried up in Soyuz or the t/space system.
= = =
Ask the Vatican to pay for it.
Dennis Tito paid somewhere between $12 million and $20 million for his single seat. I think Russia is laughing all the way to the bank.
Exactly!
He paid much less than $20 million with the restriction that he NEVER admit how much less than $20 million he actually paid.
The Daily Show rocks . . .
Oh we are SO not going to rely on Russia for Moon/Mars systems, we have learned our lesson there.
Likewise, if t/space or SpaceX or alt-space whoever does fly, absolutely NASA should purchase seats on a fixed price per ticket basis (if equal or cheaper than NASA owned). However, NASA cannot be dependent upon commercial launchers to stay in business.
Well, if you take the ISS and its funding out of the equation, and redirect Shuttle funds to cover the Lunar program, then that would leave NASA with about $60Bn from now until 2018. That might be cutting it a little tight given how long the development cycles would have to be, but its possible that Griffin could pull it off. It would also be the excuse he needs to cull the standing Shuttle army, right Bill?
Whatever Griffin may believe in private, he needs to bolster the morale of his work force. What is said in public, and what Griffin prepares for as a contingency plan need not be the same.
Killing ISS must occur at a level above Griffin's pay grade. He cannot advocate for that (in public) whatever his personal opinion. If Griffin goes on record to kill ISS and President Bush says "finish it" then Griffin's position is tenuous.
I believe part of why Griffin wants CEV to fly as soon as possible is that if the American public gets use to the idea that we no longer have the ability to send people to LEO, some may say "Hey, this aint so bad."
The original four year hiatus between 2010 and 2014 opened up a huge window of opportunity (IMHO) for those who might wish to terminate human spaceflight entirely.
My intuition tells me Griffin is deeply pained that CEV won't carry crew to orbit before 2010.
If OMB kills orbiter now, do we "give" ISS to Russia?
Russia says they are willing to take over ISS.
= = =
In my opinion, Griffin knows perfectly well the shuttle army must be culled. However, morale among those that remain is also mission critical.
= = =
PPS - - Early versions of "Operation Offset" to offset federal hurricane relief expense with other federal budget cuts mentioned cancellation of Moon-Mars, not orbiter.
But if Operation Offset is modified to cancel orbiter but NOT accelerate Moon-Mars, with alleged savings going to NOLA, Griffin may be saying he needs ALL the money to do Moon-Mars and may be is being "political" when he says cancelling orbiter now won't help save money.
May we all join hands and sign "kumbaya"
Can one of you guys lock this and do a reset?
I'd do it but I'm not sure which roman numerial comes after VIII, heh. (VIIII or VIV?)
I know the forum software can handle huge posts, but we could use a reset on the political thread. Also, I must test your allegience to me. :twisted:
As has been commanded, my master. . . :twisted:
Sure, Mars is a better place to live no doubt about it. But at least working on the Moon is without question economically and scientifically worthwhile, at least in the long run.
Agreed.
The Moon:
-Has Platinum, which we will need in a few decades probobly, especially with larger numbers of people buying electronics and fuel cells, which at the moment require Pt.
-Is the only viable site for astronomy much beyond what is done today, the Moon's dark side offers a level of thermal, radio, and optical "quiet" that is not available anywhere else in Cislunar space. Its easier to build and manage big scopes' on the ground too.
-The Moon is the only viable source of Helium-3, which will make fusion power somewhat easier to achieve and will prevent the unwanted and potentially problematic neutron radiation. Only He3 fusion is "completly" clean.
-In the nearer term, the Moon offers large supplies of oxygen with 1/6th the gravity of Earth and no air drag, which if there is much activity in Cislunar space would be very nice to have.
-A space elevator to the Moon would be relativly easy compared to an Earthly one too
-In the further future, building large solar farms on the Moon to collect sunlight more efficiently then on Earth and send it here with a very large phased-array microwave transmitter. Potentially easier then building orbital solar satelites, plus much of the bulk materials (mainly iron, silicon, and aluminum) are on the Moon, so you would not have to haul them from Earth.
-Easier mining, with the gravity offerd by the Moon mining would be far, far, far easier than asteroid mining.
-Its only a three day hop from Earth. One day if you have fuel to spare. Lunar tourists anyone?
Mars is the second best place in the solar system to raise a family. Otherwise, this is a pretty good list.
It was amazing just how much Apollo didn't accomplish scientifically, largely in part because they lacked a heavy drill, couldn't bring many samples back, couldn't stay long on the surface, and only had two crew.
Except for Harrison Schmidt, they also didn't send any scientists.
The departure stage has very little value of its own. All power, control, maneuvering, and docking facilities will be provided by the lander, and hence the thing will be pretty "dumb." A tank of that size should only cost a few tens of millions to produce, and each copy of the RL-10/RL-60 only cost a few million each. The departure stage is not worth trying to save, it cannot soft-land nor be impacted on the Moon with any accuracy, plus would require a deorbit/LOC burn.
I like this way of thinking. Re-use what is sensible to re-use. Dispose of the rest.
Except for my belief that early deployment of a lunar LOX facility would be politically useful (at least symbolically) to communicate an intention to stay I pretty much agree with GCNRevenger's last post.
Stick cargo on that lander and land on Luna and there you go.
= = =
Is the RL-10 / RL-60 officially part of the design for the lander? I hadn't seen that yet.
How many engines?
Well he may the most powerful man on Earth, He is in charge of the most powerful country. He controls the most powerful armed forces.
But he has to ask permission to go to the toilet????
Elsewhere, I saw this:
A man who manages to write two conditionals, "I think" and "I may", as well as wondering whether he could possibly go to the bathroom, in a short note to his Secretary of State - is not in command, he is being commanded.
Levee reconstruction's Big Sister
Coast 2050 is the current plan proposed by the US Army Corps of Engineers for restoring the barrier of coastal wetlands south of New Orleans. A quick survey of the area in question using both the road map and satellite photo functions of Google Maps for comparison (the photos are recent, the map was accurate thirty years ago) suggests there's currently nothing to restore, but the Mississippi can dump enough silt to take care of that. Basically, they want to build up a plot of land the size of New Orleans, then keep going.
Coast 2050 is not exactly turning the Mississippi loose and letting it be a river again, but it's close. I say, go to town. 8)
The silt issue is a big one for me.
I recall reading a book many years ago saying that valuable midwestern top soil is being shot out into the deeper regions of the Gulf of Mexico because the levee system accelerates the water flow like a fire hose.
Use the silt to build wetlands and marshes and in decades or centuries to come, fertile farmland can be "built" by growing the Delta.
Well he may the most powerful man on Earth, He is in charge of the most powerful country. He controls the most powerful armed forces.
But he has to ask permission to go to the toilet????
Grypd, you don't know the whole story do you?
Mars radio audio file.
Its under sci-fi, Radio Mars.
Tomorrow's forecast. Rain likely.
Ooops, just kidding.
and this:
Next up, bunker 17C Cydonia base. Talk to me Cy-baby
How much might an unpressurized lunar descent module (cab) cost? One which could mate with CEV and bring it down to the lunar surface?