What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

srmeaney · 2005-12-08 22:42:20

Yeah, "because it's there" trumps all.
Forget how much it will cost and how many lives we will lose. After all, that's the price you pay.
I'm sure you believe that it's worth it that 185 people have lost their lives attempting to climb mount everest, not to mention the many living amputees who lost limbs because of frostbite. After all, look at all of the great technology it's given us and look at how we have developed the once desolate mountain.
Personally, I don't care that people risk their lives on a mountain. That's their business. But risking my money, my time, my equipment, and my astronauts on stupid endeavors that provide little to no benefit to humanity like: asteroid mining, colonies in space, the moon, even mars is just plain stupid.
Choose not to be stupid.

Yes colonies of Existing Nations in Space are both Dangerous and unrealistic. Only a new and independent nation who must contract out to earth for its infrastructure, recruit from earth its citizens, make scientific discoveries the right and property of those citizens, and fence in Earth for its own territorial securtity.

You know damn well that colonizing Mars costs 20 billion per colonist per year until terraform. That money will go to employing people on earth in Space industry jobs. It supports the economy of space. It is the only economy of Space.

Stupid is a christian president going off to china and suggesting they allow christianity because he and other christians dont want godless commies in space.

You are right dook, we have an obligation not to be stupid. Choice doesnt come into it. Tourism is contrary to the long term interests of colonization. Anyone going to space must go to stay.

BWhite · 2005-12-08 22:51:40

Collecting asteroids from the lunar surface will be far easier and there is 1/6 gravity to assist processing.

No argument here.

However, carbonyl digestion & deposition needs heat, not electricity and sunlight is plenty good for that. Pumps? I agree, those will need power. I like heat engines for that - - lightweight reflectors concentrate sunlight to create fluid flow via convention to spin turbines. Moderately low tech solar powered Sterling cycle (for example) engines might be fabricated from the low value metals extracted from the asteroid itself using vapor deposition.

Supercritical CO2 is being developed now for cutting edge nuclear power on Earth. Beats pressurized helium and even supercritical water. Find volatiles on the asteroid and that becomes the working fluid for your turbines. The asteroid itself is transformed into the tools used to disassemble it.

For example, asteroidal nickel and iron does have NO value exported to Luna or Earth. But you can build a robust cage/scaffold around the asteroid you first enclosed with a flimsy scaffold.

Then once the target asteroid is fully digested, move this fully assembled cage/scaffold to another close asteroid and you have a read-to-go work platform. Open one end up and manuver it to surround your next target.

= = =

For the many valid reasons GCNRevenger describes, however, this is far, far, far beyond current technology.

Therefore, trips to the Moon to hunt large intact fragments seems far more practical and will offer many of the benefits of asteroid mining with a tiny fraction of the headaches.

Carbonyl digestion and deposition will also allow some pretty cool nickel fabrication even if PGM bearing Ni-Fe fragments prove rare on the lunar surface.

srmeaney · 2005-12-08 22:57:53

I'm holding out for zero G Factories devoted to the Manufacture of giant crystals for Laser Propulsion Drives and realy big Space Cruise Ships.

Just think, A reactor charging a capacitor Bank, powering a laser (using the laser enrichment method for uranium) to excite and fission the leading edge of a mile long fuel rod half a mile back from the Asteroid being used to Ram. The blast is directed out and back providing continuous propulsion.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-08 23:37:53

Other stuff:
"The Earth & Mars have atmosphere, which creates drag and lateral forces on the Space Elevator...

"Or dig a deep hole, place the moon end of the elevator cable down in it and fill it up with some kind of lunar cement?"

The solution to making a space elevator anchor is to start with a light-weight elevator and lift counterweights up the cable from the ground. Obviously.

Your reply in this regards is very simplistic, and lacks any detail."

Oui, you don't have a clue about space elevator physics. The thing to get through your heads is that the counterweight on the end is in a stable geostationary orbit. There is no drag or lateral forces from normal rotation because there isn't any lateral motion! It just hangs there, and spins around its parent body at exactly the same rate that it rotates.

There is also no reason that you can't lift weights up the cable to increase the mass of the counterweight. It doesn't disturb the orbital velocity as long as the center of gravity remains at geostationary altitude, which is not very hard to do simply by adjusting the cable length. Thats the whole beauty of a space elevator, that it gives you a fairly stable "anchor" at a particular altitude over a particular spot that doesn't move around, where you can use the parent bodies' centrifugal force to keep your anchor steady.
___________________________________________

Shoot Lunar materials into Lunar orbit? Problem: low Lunar orbit and most of the Lagrange points are only metastable. Since the Moon's gravity is weak compared to Earth's, and since the Moon is kinda close to the Earth, Earth's gravity preturbs the orbit of things around the Moon. While such effects might not make ingots or plates or I-beams immediatly fall from the sky, it will cause them to be scatterd into different trajectories and different velocities... and be lost if not captured rapidly. If you have to burn rocket fuel to chase them down, then that is a horrible strike against the efficiency of the whole idea.

And you do know that it takes quite a bit of rocket fuel to get from low Lunar orbit to a Lagrange point, right? Whoops, there goes some more efficiency.

You can't smelt very large amounts of metal with a nuclear reactor, they just don't make enough power without becoming unreasonably large to ship/build on the Moon. You can't use solar energy very well either, since solar thermal won't get hot enough to melt iron without excessive focusing (while increasing temperature, decreases how MUCH ore you can melt), photovoltaics would have to be immense, annnd they only work two weeks out of the month. Being that a railgun has to be on the equator, you thusly can't put your solar power plant on the poles to get month-round power unless you want to ship your metal literally half way across the Moon. Whoops, theres another HUGE cost right there.

"However, factor in the launch costs and problems of putting the Earth Based materials in Orbit"

Which will be solved with a true "no really!" RLV or a space elevator. Speaking of which...
___________________________________________

There is no way, no way at all, that anyone could ever build a large, industrially signifigant factory anywhere in space until we have a radical decrease in launch costs from Earth.

Now, if we have easy, cheap, reliable launch from Earth... what do we need space/asteroid/Lunar factories for? We have plenty of materials here on Earth, and we can build stuff here where its easy, and then send it up on our spaceplane or elevator or whatever.

This isn't exactly rocket science

Now, that isn't to say that space reasources are completly worthless to the mother world, but their bennefit is going to be limited to stuff that isn't readily available here. For example PGMs: we don't need a large mass of PGMs, but we do need a little, and our supply has around 50-100yrs left depending on estimates of deposits and consumption. This would be ideal, since the small amounts needed makes a small mining operation commercially viable on the Moon. While we are there, we ought to grab anything else thats easy to carry, like Helium-3 for scientific research or "high-test" fusion fuel, maybe some tourists... But ultimatly, NOTHING on the Moon in bulk, which would nessesitate a large presence there, except LOX to ferry payloads for the small-scale operations. Nothing.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-08 23:46:16

Still being too optimistic Bill...

-The supply of coolant for a power plant is the least of your mass budget worries

-A flimsy scaffold is an oxymoron

-CVD is too slow to build anything large in any reasonable time frame without massive (literally, I mean really heavy) parallelism

-Getting to the rock and back: how?

-Most space rocks spin. Spin bad. Can't stop them either.

If its not on the Moon, then its not worth the effort.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-09 00:09:31

Other stuff:
"The Earth & Mars have atmosphere, which creates drag and lateral forces on the Space Elevator...

"Or dig a deep hole, place the moon end of the elevator cable down in it and fill it up with some kind of lunar cement?"

The solution to making a space elevator anchor is to start with a light-weight elevator and lift counterweights up the cable from the ground. Obviously.

Your reply in this regards is very simplistic, and lacks any detail."

Oui, you don't have a clue about space elevator physics. The thing to get through your heads is that the counterweight on the end is in a stable geostationary orbit. There is no drag or lateral forces from normal rotation because there isn't any lateral motion! It just hangs there, and spins around its parent body at exactly the same rate that it rotates.

There is also no reason that you can't lift weights up the cable to increase the mass of the counterweight. It doesn't disturb the orbital velocity as long as the center of gravity remains at geostationary altitude, which is not very hard to do simply by adjusting the cable length. Thats the whole beauty of a space elevator, that it gives you a fairly stable "anchor" at a particular altitude over a particular spot that doesn't move around, where you can use the parent bodies' centrifugal force to keep your anchor steady.
___________________________________________

Shoot Lunar materials into Lunar orbit? Problem: low Lunar orbit and most of the Lagrange points are only metastable. Since the Moon's gravity is weak compared to Earth's, and since the Moon is kinda close to the Earth, Earth's gravity preturbs the orbit of things around the Moon. While such effects might not make ingots or plates or I-beams immediatly fall from the sky, it will cause them to be scatterd into different trajectories and different velocities... and be lost if not captured rapidly. If you have to burn any rocket fuel to chase them down, then that is a horrible strike against the efficiency of the whole idea, because the fuel (if not the oxidizer) has to be imported from Earth so that you can chase down Lunar parts sooooo that you can... avoid launching them from Earth?

And you do know that it takes quite a bit of rocket fuel to get from low Lunar orbit to a Lagrange point, right? Whoops, there goes some more efficiency.

You can't smelt very large amounts of metal with a nuclear reactor, they just don't make enough power without becoming unreasonably large to ship/build on the Moon. You can't use solar energy very well either, since solar thermal won't get hot enough to melt iron without excessive focusing (while increasing temperature, decreases how MUCH ore you can melt), photovoltaics would have to be immense, annnd they only work two weeks out of the month. Being that a railgun has to be on the equator, you thusly can't put your solar power plant on the poles to get month-round power unless you want to ship your metal literally half way across the Moon. Whoops, theres another HUGE cost right there.

"However, factor in the launch costs and problems of putting the Earth Based materials in Orbit"

Which will be solved with a true "no really!" RLV or a space elevator. Speaking of which...
___________________________________________

There is no way, no way at all, that anyone could ever build a large, industrially signifigant factory anywhere in space until we have a radical decrease in launch costs from Earth.

Now, if we have easy, cheap, reliable launch from Earth... what do we need space/asteroid/Lunar factories for? We have plenty of materials here on Earth, and we can build stuff here where its easy, and then send it up on our spaceplane or elevator or whatever.

This isn't exactly rocket science

Now, that isn't to say that space reasources are completly worthless to the mother world, but their bennefit is going to be limited to stuff that isn't readily available here. For example PGMs: we don't need a large mass of PGMs, but we do need a little, and our supply has around 50-100yrs left depending on estimates of deposits and consumption. This would be ideal, since the small amounts needed makes a small mining operation commercially viable on the Moon. While we are there, we ought to grab anything else thats easy to carry, like Helium-3 for scientific research or "high-test" fusion fuel, maybe some tourists... But ultimatly, NOTHING on the Moon in bulk, which would nessesitate a large presence there, except LOX to ferry payloads for the small-scale operations. Nothing.
___________________________________________________________________

More on Moon mining:

Capturing materials launched from the Moon by railgun with a big net? Umm... you do know that would knock your processing station out of orbit, right? Conservation of momentum and all that... not most of the Lagrange points (which are the Lunar geostationary orbits) are stable anyway... And then you have to convert ingots into useful shapes without the bennefit of gravity. Gee I wonder how expensive that would be compared to launching from Earth?

And if you do have a station at Lagrange that doesn't get knocked out easily by importing lots of rocket fuel, then aiming becomes vitally important and very, very hard. Hitting a basket/net/thing only a kilometer or two across from several thousand kilometers away with no more than centimeters per second of velocity from an angle and in the presence of not one, but two signifigant gravity sources (Moon and Earth). This will without any question limit you to a very tight firing window, which will radically limit the throughput and reliability of the system any which way. You don't have to get your position and vector right with three degrees of freedom, but four, since the timing is vital to be absolutely perfect. With each additional degree of freedom, the difficulty increases exponentially.

Oh, and it might not be too good for your factory workers' health if their space station got hit by an errant aluminum ingot traveling any speed. Don't forget the difference between accuracy and precision.

More to come

BWhite · 2005-12-09 00:13:51

If its not on the Moon, then its not worth the effort.

Whether we agree or not is rather beside the point as I do agree that mining asteroids found on the lunar surface is as much as I can expect to see in my lifetime, and I plan on living a long time.

So, I guess I am willing to say "uncle" on this point.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-09 00:31:33

Another word on economics and scale...

Again, I want to re-emphasize how the introduction of a radically cheaper means of launch changes everything, and all your preceptions about what humans will, should, and could do in space based in today's world will summerly become obsolete and irrelivent. And the rules do have to change... If we can't get launch costs down, then we aren't going to do anything - anything - other than explore. Ever... And once we can do that, then there is no reason to go anywhere else in the solar system for materials & parts for large spacecraft other than rocket fuel.

Not Lunar strip mines, not mining asteroids, not even mining Mars. There is no reason not to import everything but water and rocket fuel to places we aren't colonizing either. Nothing on a small scale will possibly justify insitu reasource utilization except for the most basic needs (unless its "free" like nickel carbonyl or Martian basic polymers).

There is also no reason to import anything made of any element to Earth that we don't have here. Its just so much easier to dig it up, refine it (and we have all the chemicals we want here), and build stuff with them right here. It would be easier to build mines on the bottom of the ocean then in space. The only justification for importing stuff to Earth is for elements we don't have (like PGMs).

One more time, there is no reason to have a large anything on the Moon. There is no need for a large research installation. There is no reason to build a rocket factory. There is no need for a large tourist hotel (the Moon is too far and too dangerous without Star Trek tech). And, there is no need for large mining operations. Hence, there is no reason to bother with mining base metals on the Moon at all.

"you underestimate what even small teams of what we would call on earth craftsmen working in small workshops can create. Basic smelters capable of churning out pure iron, aluminum, titianium, and other materials can be used for everything from structural beams... And everything that can be produced there is one less thing that needs to be launched from earth.

This is not a justification for a large factory, this is a justification for a workshop. Cast Iron is useless for anything without precious Carbon to make steel, Aluminum is extremely difficult to refine because of its high energy barrier, and Titanium is either the same as Aluminum or requires even more precious Chlorine to refine it. Maybe make replacement parts out of Nickel to fix imported rovers, but thats about it.

Mining equipment, HAB modules, etc will all be easier to import then to build. Lunar materials might make small LOX tanks, small solar farms, or furniture frames but thats about the extent of home-grown Lunar industry will ever be.
___________________________________________

About your babbling about rail-assist spaceplane launch, "sdc4,"

I was comparing a rail-launch spaceplane to a conventional runway-launch spaceplane or vertical-launch RLV (ala DC-X), not to expendable rockets. You did not refute any of my concerns about rail launch either, that the rail assist does not provide much bennefit versus conventional takeoff, the economics are poor with high startup costs and low flight rates compared to multiple airport/spaceports, and that only a single takeoff failure would instantly wipe out millions (billions?) of dollars of investment... Not to mention take humanity largely out of the spaceflight business and cost hundreds of millions of dollars in lost opportunities in the mean time while its rebuilt.

The simple fact of the matter is, that a conventional spaceplane can afford to fail, but a rail-launch can't. What investor would want to touch that?

sdc4 · 2005-12-09 02:40:25

Other stuff:
"The Earth & Mars have atmosphere, which creates drag and lateral forces on the Space Elevator...

* Ref: http://hurricanes.noaa.gov
* Ref: http://www.noaa.gov/tornadoes.html
* Ref: http://www.chaseday.com/wind.htm

* This is caused by wind forces from storms and air currents, not from the movement of the Space Elevator Cable!

"Or dig a deep hole, place the moon end of the elevator cable down in it and fill it up with some kind of lunar cement?"

Ref: http://www.affordablespaceflight.com/spaceelevator.html

* Only one of many ways to construct a base support structure

The solution to making a space elevator anchor is to start with a light-weight elevator and lift counterweights up the cable from the ground. Obviously.

* Wrong!

Your reply in this regards is very simplistic, and lacks any detail."

* Yep!

Oui, you don't have a clue about space elevator physics. The thing to get through your heads is that the counterweight on the end is in a stable geostationary orbit. There is no drag or lateral forces from normal rotation because there isn't any lateral motion! It just hangs there, and spins around its parent body at exactly the same rate that it rotates.

* Ref: http://www.elevator2010.org/site/index.html
* When the above picture was taken, I was there, and participated in the demo!
* Ref: http://www.spaceelevator.com
* Ref: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast07sep_1.htm
* Ref: http://www.affordablespaceflight.com/spaceelevator.html

* Counterweight is Stable! Yes it is, and yes it is in a geostationary orbit!

* No drag or laterial forces! Wrong! On Earth & Mars there would indeed be such forces! Not from the action of the cable moving as it is indeed stationary as you say, but these forces would act on the cable from wind, storms, and rain.

There is also no reason that you can't lift weights up the cable to increase the mass of the counterweight. It doesn't disturb the orbital velocity as long as the center of gravity remains at geostationary altitude, which is not very hard to do simply by adjusting the cable length. Thats the whole beauty of a space elevator, that it gives you a fairly stable "anchor" at a particular altitude over a particular spot that doesn't move around, where you can use the parent bodies' centrifugal force to keep your anchor steady.

* You would need thrusters on the geostationary counterweight to counter lifting and deceleration forces of the elevators decent and ascent, as well to dampen vibrations in the cable.
___________________________________________

Shoot Lunar materials into Lunar orbit? Problem: low Lunar orbit and most of the Lagrange points are only metastable. Since the Moon's gravity is weak compared to Earth's, and since the Moon is kinda close to the Earth, Earth's gravity preturbs the orbit of things around the Moon. While such effects might not make ingots or plates or I-beams immediatly fall from the sky, it will cause them to be scatterd into different trajectories and different velocities... and be lost if not captured rapidly. If you have to burn any rocket fuel to chase them down, then that is a horrible strike against the efficiency of the whole idea, because the fuel (if not the oxidizer) has to be imported from Earth so that you can chase down Lunar parts sooooo that you can... avoid launching them from Earth?

* The space craft in orbit would not chase the payload, the payload would overtake and merge with the orbitial space craft. Just like you merge into traffic on a highway.

And you do know that it takes quite a bit of rocket fuel to get from low Lunar orbit to a Lagrange point, right? Whoops, there goes some more efficiency.

* Ion thrusters can be powered by beamed power from lunar surface or space based power stations. Also, non-orbitial manuvers and course changes use very little thrust to achieve.

You can't smelt very large amounts of metal with a nuclear reactor, they just don't make enough power without becoming unreasonably large to ship/build on the Moon. You can't use solar energy very well either, since solar thermal won't get hot enough to melt iron without excessive focusing (while increasing temperature, decreases how MUCH ore you can melt), photovoltaics would have to be immense, annnd they only work two weeks out of the month. Being that a railgun has to be on the equator, you thusly can't put your solar power plant on the poles to get month-round power unless you want to ship your metal literally half way across the Moon. Whoops, theres another HUGE cost right there.

Wrong!
* Ref: http://www.wsmr.army.mil/pao/FactSheets/solar.htm
* Ref: http://www.tourinfos.com/gb/r0011/d0066 … 001796.htm
* Ref: http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/solar_time_1900.html
* Ref: http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/ener … 114_en.htm

"However, factor in the launch costs and problems of putting the Earth Based materials in Orbit"

* True!

Which will be solved with a true "no really!" RLV or a space elevator. Speaking of which...

* One way that could work!
___________________________________________

There is no way, no way at all, that anyone could ever build a large, industrially signifigant factory anywhere in space until we have a radical decrease in launch costs from Earth.

* Maybe, but it must be done!

Now, if we have easy, cheap, reliable launch from Earth... what do we need space/asteroid/Lunar factories for? We have plenty of materials here on Earth, and we can build stuff here where its easy, and then send it up on our spaceplane or elevator or whatever.

* Not True! Space Based resources will very important!

This isn't exactly rocket science

* :-) Yes it is!

Now, that isn't to say that space reasources are completly worthless to the mother world, but their bennefit is going to be limited to stuff that isn't readily available here. For example PGMs: we don't need a large mass of PGMs, but we do need a little, and our supply has around 50-100yrs left depending on estimates of deposits and consumption. This would be ideal, since the small amounts needed makes a small mining operation commercially viable on the Moon. While we are there, we ought to grab anything else thats easy to carry, like Helium-3 for scientific research or "high-test" fusion fuel, maybe some tourists... But ultimatly, NOTHING on the Moon in bulk, which would nessesitate a large presence there, except LOX to ferry payloads for the small-scale operations. Nothing.

* More options, more capability!
___________________________________________________________________

More on Moon mining:

* Ref: http://www.asi.org/adb/02/02
* Ref: http://members.nova.org/~sol/station/moonmine.htm
* Ref: http://www.permanent.com/l-mining.htm
* Ref: http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/Research/he3.html

Capturing materials launched from the Moon by railgun with a big net? Umm... you do know that would knock your processing station out of orbit, right? Conservation of momentum and all that... not most of the Lagrange points (which are the Lunar geostationary orbits) are stable anyway... And then you have to convert ingots into useful shapes without the bennefit of gravity. Gee I wonder how expensive that would be compared to launching from Earth?

Merge! :-)
* Ref: http://www.mpi.mb.ca/english/dr_tips/WF … rging.html

And if you do have a station at Lagrange that doesn't get knocked out easily by importing lots of rocket fuel, then aiming becomes vitally important and very, very hard. Hitting a basket/net/thing only a kilometer or two across from several thousand kilometers away with no more than centimeters per second of velocity from an angle and in the presence of not one, but two signifigant gravity sources (Moon and Earth). This will without any question limit you to a very tight firing window, which will radically limit the throughput and reliability of the system any which way. You don't have to get your position and vector right with three degrees of freedom, but four, since the timing is vital to be absolutely perfect. With each additional degree of freedom, the difficulty increases

exponentially.

* :-) babble babble babble!

Oh, and it might not be too good for your factory workers' health if their space station got hit by an errant aluminum ingot traveling any speed. Don't forget the difference between accuracy and precision.

Merge! :-)
* Ref: http://www.mpi.mb.ca/english/dr_tips/WF … rging.html

More to come

Hmm!?

sdc4 · 2005-12-09 02:52:38

About your babbling about rail-assist spaceplane launch, "sdc4,"
I was comparing a rail-launch spaceplane to a conventional runway-launch spaceplane or vertical-launch RLV (ala DC-X), not to expendable rockets. You did not refute any of my concerns about rail launch either, that the rail assist does not provide much bennefit versus conventional takeoff, the economics are poor with high startup costs and low flight rates compared to multiple airport/spaceports, and that only a single takeoff failure would instantly wipe out millions (billions?) of dollars of investment... Not to mention take humanity largely out of the spaceflight business and cost hundreds of millions of dollars in lost opportunities in the mean time while its rebuilt.

http://www.international-spaceplane-program.org

The International Space Agency (ISA) proposes that an Advanced International Ground Based Assisted Space Launch (ASL) System and Fully Reusable International Space Plane (ISP) Vehicle, be Designed, Developed, Constructed, and Operated in an "Airbus Industries Like Management Model and Approach".

This Proposal would consist of two Key Elements.

1) (ASL) - The International Ground Based Assisted Launch System. This would use Magnetic Repulsor Forces & Technology "ONLY" to Propel a Launch Sled and Space Vehicle up a Metal Rail Track on the side of a Mountain near the Earths Equator at a constant 45 degree angle, and using an Over/Under Metal Wheel Configuration to hard lock the Launch Sled and Space Vehicle to the Launch Ramp and Rails. This system is "NOT" to be confused with a MAGLEV system, which also uses Magnetic Forces, but "Levitates" the Sled & Vehicle in the Magnetic Field as well as Propelling it with Magnetic Repulsive Forces. We have specifically picked Magnetic Repulsor Forces as the Main Propulsive Force to move the Launch Sled & Space Vehicle up the Launch Ramp and to Maximum Launch/Release Speeds, for these reasons:

A) Solid Rocket Motor Assisted Propulsion would require Added Mass & Weight to the Launch Sled or Launch Vehicle! The Fuel & Added Structure would have to be carried on and with the Launch Sled and Space Vehicle as it is Accelerated/Launched up and off the Launch Ramp Facility.

B) Chemical Rocket Motor Assisted Propulsion would require Added Mass & Weight to the Launch Sled or Launch Vehicle! The Fuel & Added Structure would have to be carried on and with the Launch Sled and Space Vehicle as it is Accelerated/Launched up and off the Launch Ramp Facility.

C) Aerorobic Or Jet Motor Assisted Propulsion would require Added Mass & Weight to the Launch Sled or Launch Vehicle! The Fuel & Added Structure would have to be carried on and with the Launch Sled and Space Vehicle as it is Accelerated/Launched up and off the Launch Ramp Facility.

D) Electromagnetic Repulsor Motor Assisted Propulsion would "">NOT<"" require Added Mass & Weight to the Launch Sled or Launch Vehicle! "">NO<"" Fuel or Added Structure would have to be carried on or with the Launch Sled and Space Vehicle as it is Accelerated/Launched up and off the Launch Ramp Facility. Acceleration Forces and Total Launch Energy is only restricted by Available Power Source and Total Repulsor Area on the Launch Sled. (ie: More Repulsor Surface Area, the More Thrust Is Able To Be Generated!)(Example: A dragster has wide rubber tires, as the more rubber surface that connects with the pavement surface, allows more horsepower from the engine and drive train to propel the dragster forward!) The More Surface Area, and the More Thrust or Acceleration Forces can be Generated in a given Distance or Time form a given Energy Source! ie: Electric Power Translated into Electromagnetic Repulsor Forces/Thrust!

2) (RLV/SSTO) - The Fully Reusable Space "Vehicles" and "Space Planes" which will be designed to take advantage of the #1 above. We hope already existing Space Plane (RLV & SSTO) Programs in the United States, Russia, Europe, Japan, India, and Elsewhere Globally can be drawn upon to seek out a few good candidates for this effort. This, as it is the goal of the ISA organization, ISP & ALS Programs, to take full advantage of already proposed or developed (RLV & SSTO) systems, to cut cost, and speed up the ability for an Operational System to be Developed, Constructed, and in Operation with in 5 to 7 years! We do not want to duplicate or reinvent the wheel, but to build on and take advantage of many good ideas and efforts Globally.

These two elements would be undertaken and pursued in an International Consortium of Government and Private Interests and Parties. This would be done in an "Airbus Industries Like Management Model and Approach". These Programs and Systems once in operation, would be "Pay As You Go" and "Launch For Hire".

About The simple fact of the matter is, that a conventional spaceplane can afford to fail, but a rail-launch can't. What investor would want to touch that?

Nothing can ever afford to fail! Failure is not an option! :-)

Martin_Tristar · 2005-12-09 07:53:19

GCNRevenger,

You need your head examined , becuase you have nothing between it , when you are talking about building large scale vehicles for example to build a vehicle just bigger then the ISS for short voyages like to moon and mars it could nearly 100 launches to bring all the components and resources for that vessel including changes to the existing space station. That's just one vesse when you talk about colonization you need a fleet of cargo and human centric vessels ( 10+ ) That is why you need a large automated space construction drydock to build from scratch then you can resupply from a space station after construction.

Our current technology can design smaller vehicles that we could use to deploy a moonbase with telerobotic systems to control robotic work teams that could construct the drydock, automated fabrication, and ship assembly, limiting the use of human workers in space suits. We could supply the lunar surface with all its requires from earth until the base is self-sustainable for basic needs of the human and robotic personnel. It doesn't mean we can't construct the vessels from components created on earth but that will limit the design, size and mission perimeters for the space vessel.

We all want to get to Mars and explore the surface but they are just tourist missions that do limited research and exploration we need a larger presence with 20 up to 100 from the initial exploration for detailed research, outpost settlements and build a presence on another planet within our solar system.

I think you have your mind closed to the uses of the Moon for infrastructure construction , space vessel construction and a platform for large scale telescope ( radio and optical ) on the darker side away from earth and sun light / radiation.

SpaceNut · 2005-12-09 08:01:24

The International Ground Based Assisted Launch System. This would use Magnetic Repulsor Forces & Technology "ONLY" to Propel a Launch Sled and Space Vehicle up a Metal Rail Track on the side of a Mountain near the Earths Equator at a constant 45 degree angle, and using an Over/Under Metal Wheel Configuration to hard lock the Launch Sled and Space Vehicle to the Launch Ramp and Rails.

The trouble with this system is one of load factors on the structure and friction by weight on the load barring wheels.
You would be better of Levitating the vehicle and using the upper wheel as a guide to keep it from rolling while launching.

Solid Rocket Motor or Chemical rocket motor Assisted Propulsion would require Added Mass & Weight to the Launch Sled or Launch Vehicle!

If you are going to go this route you might as well forget the ramp and just strap them onto the vehicle for a verticle launch.

Aerorobic Or Jet Motor Assisted Propulsion

Is unable to generate enough speed to make worth while.

Electromagnetic Repulsor Motor Assisted Propulsion

Field distance and strength would only work if field locations moved with respect to the launch vehicle.

(RLV/SSTO) - The Fully Reusable Space "Vehicles" and "Space Planes

But see this is where we get into the problems of the shuttle in regards to a standing army of people needed to rebuild the plane after every use.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-09 09:28:15

Apparently you have some trouble listening to or remembering anything I say, Tristar...

There isn't ever going to BE any big massive spacecraft. This is not ever going to happen, and its not because of any special engineering limitation that makes big ships inherintly impractical (although their high complexity makes them more difficult to build). The reason is, that you can build a number of smaller, simpler ships with similar capacity on Earth, and launch them in bolt-together kit pieces on an RLV or light HLV, so much cheaper then from-scratch orbital manufacturing that nobody will ever bother doing it any other way. Don't build a monster ship 300ft long from sheet metal up, build several ships 150ft long from kit pieces launched from Earth!

Let me say that again, that orbital construction is hard, VERY hard, your babbling about "automation" and "telerobots" underscores just how far away from reality you are. Have you any clue how impractical it is to even weld together two pieces of sheet metal in space? Or to connect wires with a robot hand? Or assemble componets for a cockpit from the inside? No, your idea is nonsense. Nobody will ever bother with extensive orbital rocket factories, because they don't have to, competition from Earth will kill your monster rocket factory dead.

You are also ignorant about the potential for RLVs to make all the difference: because the only thing being expended is fuel, launch price per-kilo with an RLV drops dramatically with increasing flight rate. So, to build, fuel, and crew a ship might take twenty or even more flights? This is not a problem, because 20 flights aren't going to cost much more than 10 thanks to the reuseability of the vehicle.

And for your big giant rocket factory, where are you going to get the materials? Where? Come on, I want to know. Your monster rocket isn't going to weigh much less per-kilo/seat of capacity, so you will need to gather alot of material any which way. Where will you get it from? Launch it from Earth? ...If that is the case, you might as well just launch smaller ships in prefabricated kits and bolt them together.

I'm not being closed-minded about Lunar manufacturing, I'm being realistic. There is no good reason to build large mines on the Moon, not for anything. The simple reason is, that operating the factory and getting metal or rocket parts from it will be so expensive, that its just not worth it. A Lunar base will never be anything resembling "self sufficent" since it lacks Hydrogen, Carbon, or Nitrogen (Mars has at least some of all three). So you'll need an RLV to build a Moon base anyway to at least import fuel, probobly food/water, and all the things you can't make on the Moon (computer chips, space suits, electronics, etc), but if you have cheap launch from Earth, there is no reason at all not to simply build the ships here with our materials.

Its really hard to get Lunar materials to Lagrange or Earth orbit too. It takes so much trouble (very careful aiming of equitoral railgun or large quantity of rocket fuel, much of which must be imported), that it just can't be done. Yes, you heard me, it can't be done. The economics will be so terrible that you'll be laughed right out of the boardroom. It is too hard to get metals for rockets (Aluminum) from the Lunar oxide dust and to your rocket factory.

And no, we really don't need a big base to support a large Lunar interferometer and infact there is no reason to have more than about a dozen or two people on the Moon for science at all. Don't you know that an interferometer will be a series of small, automated stations and not a big giant observatory? Lunar science is worthwhile, but with very large crews you get very bad diminishing returns.

Edit: Earth materials are better too, we can make carbon fiber rocket fuel tanks, polymer-based insulation and radiation shields, rare-earth metal rocket parts, superhard/superhigh temperature doped ceramics, copper wiring, fiber optic cables, rubber gaskets, superhigh efficiency solar cells, fluropolymer lubricants, and so on and so on... Which you CAN'T on the Moon, because it lacks the elements you need.

You just can't compete with Earth, and so there is no reason to even think about trying.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-09 11:12:14

sdc4/Rick:

Look out behind you, Space Nazis!

Air drag from bad weather rough on a space elevator? Then build a tall tower that sits above it, or attach it to an ocean platform that can dodge storms. Duh... And Martian winds? Since the air there is 100X thinner, the winds are 100X weaker, and even their strongest would only be a gentle breeze on Earth. Duh again. Is your only basis for me being incorrect is linking to a bunch of sites that only introduce the technology?

In any event, you still don't understand how the elevator works. You don't need a super-strong attachment ground side, because the cable is literally hanging from the counterweight in GEO. If it breaks, just drop a few extra kilometers from orbit and catch it with a helecopter.

And you can lift an unlimited amount of mass up the cable without expending a single drop of rocket fuel to boost or move any part of the system. All you have to do is raise the height of your counterweight beyond geostationary orbit by letting out some more cable, the centrifugal force or the parent bodies' rotation will pull the extra cable taught and deliver "free" force to maintain the altitude of the elevator station. Its really a very elegant physics solution. And if the cable breaks? Cut the counterweight loose. Problem solved.
___________________________________________

Launching Lunar materials into LLO and have an ion-powerd tug pick up the ingots? Well theres' a dumb idea.

First off, ion drive fuel is not available in bulk anywhere in the inner solar system, not even on Earth. In fact, a single Mars ship would probobly consume the entire world supply of Xenon. This isn't an option for every-day mining. Beamed power over several thousand kilometers would be horribly inefficent from spreading too.

Since you can't put your orbital factory in LLO, since the orbit there isn't very stable for more than some months, you've got to move the metal to Lagrange. Since Lagrange is far away from LLO, it takes a signifigant amount of "orbital maneuvering" rocket fuel as you put it. For each and every load, to and from. And where are you going to get this fuel from? Without Hydrogen on the Moon, at least some of it must be imported from Earth... importing fuel from Earth so that you can avoid importing metal from Earth? You can't shoot metal directly to Lagrange either except for a very narrow window every month or two, which badly limits throughput, and then there is the trouble of stopping the stuff when it gets there.

And thats assuming you can just "merge" with the ingot in orbit... which you can't. The highway analogy is improper because there is no highway, and it is a very, very big sky. Timing the rendezvous so exactly and at exactly the right speed in exactly the right place is harder then the ballistic missile defense system here on Earth. In short, the next best thing to impossible.

And how much metal can you actually move that way? If you don't rendezvous with the ingot in short order, its orbit will slowly become erratic and you will have to "chase" it down. This means operating a fleet of small tugs similar in number to the ingots launched or a small number of huge tugs, which will be very expensive. Your railgun can't possible launch more than a few tonnes at a time.

And say you can launch a two-tonne ingot in a single shot? Swell, you'd only need ten of them to build a single small sized TMI rocket stage. A single RLV launched from Earth could lift the same amount of mass in a single flight. Top that? I don't think so, especially not with the need for a big factory that can melt, mill, and weld together the bits and pieces into useful shapes in space.

And thats just for the structure. What about the rest of the stuff that you need to build a rocket ship? The fuel tank insulation? Radiation shielding? LSS/power equipment? Avionics? Rocket engines? Space suits? And most of all, the fuel? From Earth of course! Courtesy of its new low-cost launch systems...

So if you are launching most of the vehicle mass from Earth anyway, you might as well launch the aluminum structure stuff too, or even better replace it with carbon fiber composites.

There are things that we ought to do in space... build a rocket factory is not one of them.

sdc4 · 2005-12-09 13:27:21

The International Ground Based Assisted Launch System. This would use Magnetic Repulsor Forces & Technology "ONLY" to Propel a Launch Sled and Space Vehicle up a Metal Rail Track on the side of a Mountain near the Earths Equator at a constant 45 degree angle, and using an Over/Under Metal Wheel Configuration to hard lock the Launch Sled and Space Vehicle to the Launch Ramp and Rails.

The trouble with this system is one of load factors on the structure and friction by weight on the load barring wheels.
You would be better of Levitating the vehicle and using the upper wheel as a guide to keep it from rolling while launching.

* Levitating the vehicle is very complex, takes greater power, and is very hard to control (vibrations are caused by flutuations in the lifting magnetic feild at high speeds). Rail launch hardware and systems have been tested up to Mach 5 successfully. The International Space Plane Program only needs Mach 2, and is doable with present technology.

Solid Rocket Motor or Chemical rocket motor Assisted Propulsion would require Added Mass & Weight to the Launch Sled or Launch Vehicle!

If you are going to go this route you might as well forget the ramp and just strap them onto the vehicle for a verticle launch.

spacenut, you need to read better before shooting at the hip! If you read fully this section, you will se that we DO NOT SUPPORT THE USE OF "Solid Rocket Motor or Chemical rocket motor Assisted Propulsion" AS IT WOULD "require Added Mass & Weight to the Launch Sled or Launch Vehicle!"

Aerorobic Or Jet Motor Assisted Propulsion

Is unable to generate enough speed to make worth while.

spacenut, again, you need to read better before shooting at the hip! If you read fully this section, you will se that we DO NOT SUPPORT THE USE OF "Aerorobic Or Jet Motor Assisted Propulsion" AS IT WOULD "require Added Mass & Weight to the Launch Sled or Launch Vehicle!"

Electromagnetic Repulsor Motor Assisted Propulsion

Field distance and strength would only work if field locations moved with respect to the launch vehicle.

spacenut, that made no sense at all??!! What in the world did that mean??

(RLV/SSTO) - The Fully Reusable Space "Vehicles" and "Space Planes

But see this is where we get into the problems of the shuttle in regards to a standing army of people needed to rebuild the plane after every use.

spacenut,

Firstly, the Space Shuttle is not a fully reusable space plane!
It is a space plane strapped to the side of an expendable launch vehicle.
Furthermore, the shuttle has no SSTO, independant launch, or free powered flight in landing mode once it seperates from the expendable launch vehicle it is basically a dead stick glider, not a true Space Plane with independant flight capibilities, which would doom the Space Shuttle in the case of a major course deviation or missed landing event.

The International Space Plane Program is designed to feild a true fully reusable space plane that is a totally independant and self contained vehicle and launch & landing system, that is able to operate under powered flight in all phases of operation, from launch, in orbit, and in landing & return which would include powered flight if needed for course corrections or missed landing events.

Secondly, the Space Shuttle is one specific vehicle, with set flight capibilities and limitations.

The International Space Plane Program would not be just one Space Plane, but a wide range of Space Planes of different sizes, capibilities, and mission uses ( Cargo, Passenger, Special Purpose Use). All of these Space Planes would be designed to use the International Assisted Launch Facility.

This International Space Plane Program and International Assisted Launch Facility would operate in the same way that an Aircraftcarrier System would work, just on a larger scale and scope. The system would provided a robust launch and recovery platform and a number of specialized vehicles which would be designed to use this and recovery platform. Also, an on orbit refueling and support infrastructure would be a very important part of the International Space Plane Program as this would allow the Space Planes to be launched with just enough fuel to get to a refueling or tug stagging point. This would reduce Space Plane launch mass due to less onboard fuel and needed vehicle structure, and would create more launch payload ability and smaller vehicle to cargo scale. ie: smaller space plane size "mass" in relation to a larger payload "mass" capibility.

sdc4 · 2005-12-09 14:00:49

GCNRevenger,
You need your head examined , becuase you have nothing between it , when you are talking about building large scale vehicles for example to build a vehicle just bigger then the ISS for short voyages like to moon and mars it could nearly 100 launches to bring all the components and resources for that vessel including changes to the existing space station. That's just one vessel when you talk about colonization you need a fleet of cargo and human centric vessels ( 10+ ) That is why you need a large automated space construction drydock to build from scratch then you can resupply from a space station after construction.
Our current technology can design smaller vehicles that we could use to deploy a moonbase with telerobotic systems to control robotic work teams that could construct the drydock, automated fabrication, and ship assembly, limiting the use of human workers in space suits. We could supply the lunar surface with all its requires from earth until the base is self-sustainable for basic needs of the human and robotic personnel. It doesn't mean we can't construct the vessels from components created on earth but that will limit the design, size and mission perimeters for the space vessel.
We all want to get to Mars and explore the surface but they are just tourist missions that do limited research and exploration we need a larger presence with 20 up to 100 from the initial exploration for detailed research, outpost settlements and build a presence on another planet within our solar system.
I think you have your mind closed to the uses of the Moon for infrastructure construction , space vessel construction and a platform for large scale telescope ( radio and optical ) on the darker side away from earth and sun light / radiation.

Martin_Tristar We agree with you on all these points!
Even your keen observations of GCNRevenger.

We like to see people who can stand up to those like GCNRevenger, as GCNRevenger and his type, will undermine and attack to present their agenda. Debate and compromise is not something the GCNRevengers of the world will ever understand or even respect.

These message boards are full of the GCNRevengers of the world, and sadly this chases away most who would stumble into these slander mills, not having any experience or resolve to stand up to the GCNRevengers of the world. Most of my professional freinds say they see message boards as a waste of time and below their character to participate in. I tell them they should not do this, as message boards are a very powerful tool and resource to reach the masses. I tell them if they get turned off by the GCNRevengers of the world, and go away, they leave them with total control of these powerful resources and tools in modern society to shape and manipulate group think and public opinon totally unchallenged and left to pervert free speech and free enterprise.

GCNRevengers of the world enjoy and employ slander, lies, and propaganda with no remorse or reservation, and sadly totally unchecked and unchallenged. Sadly, they control mass media mostly, so they can subvert and censor to their little hearts content. They can attack and slander you, but stand up to them, or expose them, and you and all your ideas just vanish from public view. This is how they work, and how their type have always controled the masses and media.

Martin_Tristar Keep up the good work! Hard as it may be!
Everyone benefits from people like you, who think, question, act, wonder, dream, and hope for a better future for humanity.
If they try to silence you, or demoralize you, do not ever give up!
It is what they want you to do!
What these people fear most, is informed citizens with resolve and dedication!

Ad-Astra! To The Stars!
In Peace For All Humanity!
So Say We All!

SpaceNut · 2005-12-09 14:04:37

Sorry sdc4 but you were equally unclear as to what the space plane would not use.

The Burran falls under the powered return process but it to uses a fully expendable while the shuttle is only throwing away the External tank.

As for only mach 2 that is a fare cry from the mach 20 plus need to obtain a stable orbit.

The mach 5 sled was also only pushing a very small weight nothing close to the 50 Mtons that a ship weighs.

sdc4 · 2005-12-09 14:40:34

Sorry sdc4 but you were equally unclear as to what the space plane would not use.

No need to be sorry! Just wanted to set the record straight, thats all.

The Burran falls under the powered return process but it to uses a fully expendable while the shuttle is only throwing away the External tank.

Partly correct, but the SRB's are very limited in reuse. Totally reusable system is what we need, even if getting it done takes a little extra effort. Because once you are there, things change real fast towards routine space flight, and not before. Furthermore, talking about Big Orbitial Space Stations, Luna Bases, Mars Bases & Missions is a waste of time until humanity achieves true totally reusable space launch capibility. We must put the work horse before the cart, or we will never move forward.

We, humanity, are now stuck in the thinking mode of building small wooden bridges and after we send one car across we burn it and blow it up! :shock:

We, humanity, need to focus our efforts on establishing a secure beach head into space, we need to focus our collective efforts and build a golden gate bridge which will send thousands of flights into space.

As for only mach 2 that is a fare cry from the mach 20 plus need to obtain a stable orbit.

True, but the Assisted Launch System is "NOT" to heave the Space Plane into orbit!
It is only designed to act as a stage one boost, and to replace expendable fuel tanks, and allow the design of Space Planes that have smaller onboard fuel requirements and less required structure, which means less mass to push from a stand still then into orbit.

The mach 5 sled was also only pushing a very small weight nothing close to the 50 Mtons that a ship weighs.

True, but Mach 2 Assisted Launch off a mountian is more than doable, now!
With what we have already developed, with no need for new stuff.

Please read this, which is posted here on New Mars:
http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4085

ISP Diplomatic Letter From 2004:
http://www.international-space-agency.net/igbsls.html

If you are willing to take the time to read this Copy of an Official Proposal by the International Space Agency to NASA, Russian Space Agency, ESA, ISRO, and CNSA which was delivered in Washington, D.C. in May of this year, 2005.

Most of your questions and concerns will be addressed there, and more.

The International Space Plane (ISP) Program website is:
http://www.international-spaceplane-program.org

Thanks, and Good Reading!

SpaceNut · 2005-12-09 15:09:47

For comparison the shuttle SRB engines run for approximately 2 minutes and at that point we have only achieved 62 miles for it being a first stage assist along with the 3 main shuttle engines running as well. This is about mach 3, I am not sure how long the 3 main shuttle engines run but it must still be for quite a long time still the same.

So depending on how large the plane is with fuel and oxidizer on board it could get quite large since we want fuel remaining for a controlled descent to be available.

We do have a thread that we have discussed a lot of differing engine combinations for such a vehicle but I will need to search for it next week when I have more time.

Edit found a few spare moments:
New Space Shuttle

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-09 16:05:27

WooHoo, now I've been promoted to a steriotypical label and a "them!"

Now Rick, you've been here before trying to pedal you toy rocket plane, and why its not going to perform like you think it can.

First up, you can't push your vehicle up to Mach-2 with such a short track. Given the very steep angle of acent and the mass of the vehicle, there is just no way you can get it going that fast without too high a G-force or power (not energy) demand. A much, much longer track would be needed. Do I have to dig up physics equations to show you?

Second, such a steep angle of acent is not happening. With a very long track running up the side of a small mountain, a sudden change in angle would cause too much down-pressure on the track and cause catastrophic damage. However, without a steep angle of acent, you can't reach a very high altitude at all with rail launch.

Third, you can't use a rail with physical contacts. The friction and vibration inherint with supersonic speeds combined with the high weight of your vehicle (compared to other sled tests you've seen NASA do) would be unmanageable. Magnetic levitation is a nessesity with its "smooth" ride.

Fourth, the thing will cost so much to build that it couldn't possibly be worth it, it would be much easier to make a conventional runway takeoff vehicle bigger.

Fifth, again, if there is a derailing - and there will be - the whole rail is going to be destroyed. There is a good chance of this happening, and if it happens even once, then the whole thing is totaled.

Sixth, now that I thought about it, I don't see how you can generate that much power (not energy) without some pretty exotic surge storage system given the tracks' small size.

Seventh, that whenever you have bad weather, you are out of business. With a conventional runway takeoff system, the spaceplane can acend above bad weather before beginning its sprint to orbit.

Eighth, without a very steep angle of acent, your seperation/launch altitude will be too low, and all your velocity imparted from the rail will rapidly dissapate as drag. You need altitudes of 100,000ft, not 10,000ft, before you can efficently light your rocket engines and head to orbit. However, if its too steep, you will only gain altitude and not much ground speed... have to make that track even longer.

Ninth, the biggie is though, Mach-2 is under 10% of the velocity needed to reach orbit, and only a few percent of the energy needed. Comparisons with the Space Shuttle make little sense, because that big tank you want to omit provides ~80% of the delta-V. The little tanks on your pretty drawing wouldn't even get you across the Atlantic.

And whats this babbling about "just enough fuel to reach orbit?" All spaceplanes already do this, only carrying a tonne or two of fuel for orbital maneuvers and deorbiting.

Really, the rail launch doesn't help you much. Thanks to the low seperation altitude and airspeed, you can't reach orbit with a reasonably small spacecraft. Its fuel tanks would be even bigger then the large red Shuttle external tank! You have to get higher and faster then that to really cut into the fuel bill needed to reach orbit.

There are two ways of accomplishing this...
-1: Abandon SSTO and go to two-stage launch, which I think NASA should do as soon as they set up camp on Mars. Here, a large hypersonic transport plane powerd by conventional turbine engines, perhaps supplimented with rockets, carries a spaceplane on its back to ~Mach-6 and 80-100,000ft. Since the rail launch doesn't get anywhere close to this, it would have to either burn vast amounts of rocket fuel or use turbine engines if you are trying to salvage the concept. And if you are using turbine engines, you might as well launch from a runway and not a railgun.

-2: Use a Scramjet engine. While exotic, such an engine could operate up to Mach-20 and reach suborbital altitudes where a small onboard rocket fuel supply would go the rest of the way. This is down the road, but ultimatly possible and desireable barring the invention of a space elevator. Since the rail would have a hard time even reaching Mach-2, it can't reach a high enough speed to ignite a Scramjet engine, which means you will again need turbine engines for the initial phase of the sprint. If you have turbine engines, you don't need to bother with rail launch here either.

There is also the wild card, if someone came up with a new rocket fuel (a catalyst that cyclizes ozone would do the trick) then a DC-X style rocket would be practical.

Edit: Oh, and what about the shockwave the spaceplane will form at these speeds? Wouldn't it damage the track and cause a derailing?

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-09 17:46:41

I also forgot to mention something about using focused sunlight in a Lunar/space mine/smelter you can reach temperatures high enough to refine metal. However, while you gain in temperature this isn't a way to magically multiply the amount of energy from the sun. You still need the same number of watts of energy to heat the metal ore as with other methods, so to heat tonne quantities of ore your mirror array is going to be HUGE.

Grypd · 2005-12-09 18:01:13

The one advantage and also the problem for the Moon is that though sunlight arrives unfiltered and would provide a lot of power it also only operates for two weeks at a time.

Basic yeah I know but ere is a solution in the long term.

Though sunlight lasts two weeks in one area it carries on around the Moon. The only way we get to actually have permanent bases is to create what is in effect a circumfrential power grid where power from solar panels can provide to what is a superconductor grid and the power will be able to be drawn wherever it is needed.

It is a long term project but if we have a Moon elevator we will also have enough engineering capacity to build such a system. Actually it would be built first as its creation can be automated a lot and controlled by Telerobots from the Earth.

Superconductors would find that buried in the regolith they would remain cold enough to work and so a lunar power grid would have no drop off due to distance of the power created.

Solar panels would be automatically produced by the various plans for solar cell factories.

sdc4 · 2005-12-09 18:09:35

WooHoo, now I've been promoted to a steriotypical label and a "them!".

Who said anything about a promotion??

Now Rick, you've been here before trying to pedal you toy rocket plane, and why its not going to perform like you think it can.

Rick? Toy Rocket Plane? Not!!
Please, do not pat your self on the back to hard, as you may hurt yourself or something!

First up, you can't push your vehicle up to Mach-2 with such a short track. Given the very steep angle of acent and the mass of the vehicle, there is just no way you can get it going that fast without too high a G-force or power (not energy) demand. A much, much longer track would be needed. Do I have to dig up physics equations to show you?.

You GCNRevenger are a skilled disinformation professional!
Want to throw around big mathmatical formulas that most people cannot understand in the first place, and make them afraid to respond!
BRAVO!

Here is an example that most can understand, and unlike your egg head rants, is something even the simple at heart can understand.

Example: Dragster on a 1/4 mile track at 2G Acceleration with end speed around ~300 mph. Done all the time in the real world, without egg head fancy mathmatics. Simple to see and understand.

Ref: http://www.gordon-glasgow.org/thrustssc.html
Ref: http://www.pall.com/Aerospace_2858.asp
Ref: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb … ouspe.html
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound
Ref: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/mach.html

ISA proposes a 3 to 5 mile acceleration ramp, lets just take 3 miles for fun.
ISA proposes Mach 2 or better or 1520 mph or better
1) 3 miles broken into 1/4 mile chunks, is 3 x 4 or 12 chunks.
2) Each 1/4 mile chunk equals ~300 mph.
3) So 12 chunks of ~300 mph acceleration is a total of ~3600 mph end acceleration.
4) This acceleration is at a constant 2G's of force, which is very doable for a Space Plane stress requirements.

GCNRevenger, just using just laymen math and concepts, and one hand tied behind my back, I can counter your best disinformation efforts anyday.

Second, such a steep angle of acent is not happening. With a very long track running up the side of a small mountain, a sudden change in angle would cause too much down-pressure on the track and cause catastrophic damage. However, without a steep angle of acent, you can't reach a very high altitude at all with rail launch.

There is no sudden change in angle, it is a constant 45 degree angle?
I know you cannot under stand big words like, constant, but the big word means that there is no change in angle. Or perfectly straight for your mind to try yo get around that concept. There is no down pressure, and there is no catastrophic damage! Again, nice try at disinformation! ;-)

Third, you can't use a rail with physical contacts. The friction and vibration inherint with supersonic speeds combined with the high weight of your vehicle (compared to other sled tests you've seen NASA do) would be unmanageable. Magnetic levitation is a nessesity with its "smooth" ride.

Again, not true! Please list links of reference with your disinformation.
But we know you will not do that, as Trolls do not waste time on such things, as it distracts them from slander and disinformation.

Fourth, the thing will cost so much to build that it couldn't possibly be worth it, it would be much easier to make a conventional runway takeoff vehicle bigger.

Humans cannot and never will ever hope they can fly!
Ref: http://www.mos.org/sln/Leonardo/three/three.html

Humans cannot and will never fly!
Ref: http://www.nasm.si.edu/wrightbrothers

Humans cannot and will never go faster than sound!
Ref: http://www.wilk4.com/misc/soundbreak.htm

Humans cannot and will never go into space!
http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/Sta … garin.html

Humans cannot and will never walk on the moon!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11

Humans cannot and will never walk or live on Mars!
Ref: http://www.international-space-agency.org

Fifth, again, if there is a derailing - and there will be - the whole rail is going to be destroyed. There is a good chance of this happening, and if it happens even once, then the whole thing is totaled.

Fifth, again, if there is a Space Shuttle that blows up and is destroyed on Launch!
Fifth, again, if there is a Space Shuttle that blows up and is destroyed on Reentry!
and if it happens even once, then the whole Space Shuttle program is totaled!

GCNRevenger, please get a life! Your disinformation is getting old!

Sixth, now that I thought about it, I don't see how you can generate that much power (not energy) without some pretty exotic surge storage system given the tracks' small size.

Ref: http://www.powerlabs.org/railgun.htm
GCNRevenger, our trolly troll, please! Give us real thinkers a break, and save the games for the children who fall for your disinformation!

Seventh, that whenever you have bad weather, you are out of business. With a conventional runway takeoff system, the spaceplane can acend above bad weather before beginning its sprint to orbit.

Oh, I see, Really Now!??
Ref: http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/st … 11204.html
Ref: http://www.greengrants.org/grantstories.php?news_id=46

Eighth, without a very steep angle of acent, your seperation/launch altitude will be too low, and all your velocity imparted from the rail will rapidly dissapate as drag. You need altitudes of 100,000ft, not 10,000ft, before you can efficently light your rocket engines and head to orbit. However, if its too steep, you will only gain altitude and not much ground speed... have to make that track even longer.

45 degress is equal alititude (Vertical Speed) and orbital velosity (Ground Speed) and the onboard propulsion will ajust this, as required. First seeking to gain Altitude, then to gain Orbital Velosity.

biggertexttraj%20(2).jpg

Ninth, the biggie is though, Mach-2 isn't anywhere near enough. Thats only 10% of the energy needed to reach orbit, and only a few percent of the energy needed. Comparisons with the Space Shuttle make little sense, because that big tank you want to omit provides ~80% of the delta-V. The little tanks on your pretty drawing wouldn't even get you across the Atlantic.

The drawings on the ISP Program website, are not the real vehicle, think we are that dumb troll?! Keep fishing though if it makes the troll happy.

They are just concept renderings, a ISP Program mascott, no more, no less!

And whats this babbling about "just enough fuel to reach orbit?" All spaceplanes already do this, only carrying a tonne or two of fuel for orbital maneuvers and deorbiting.

Exactly, carrying a tonne or two of fuel for orbital maneuvers and deorbiting!

This would not be the case with the International Space Plane Program carrying a tonne or two of fuel for orbital maneuvers and deorbiting, as that fuel would be loaded only on orbit, not at launch! Also, the shuttle carries much more fuel, as its fuel must get it all the way to final orbit, and this is about 28% there abouts of its launched fuel mass to achieve this. The International Space Plane Program would only launch the vehicle with onboard fuel to reach a semi-stable lower orbit, and would then be refueled or towed by a space tug to a higher orbit. With this approach, the International Space Plane Program would need nearly 40% to 50% less launched fuel mass to fully achieve operational orbit objectives. This is a dramatic break with present launch thinking, approach, and technology.

Really, the rail launch doesn't help you much. Thanks to the low seperation altitude and airspeed, you can't reach orbit with a reasonably small spacecraft. Its fuel tanks would be even bigger then the large red Shuttle external tank! You have to get higher and faster then that to really cut into the fuel bill needed to reach orbit.

Dear Mr. Troll, GCNRevenger, WRONG AGAIN! ;-)
Keep trying, as I find your attempts to disinform, funny.
I just wish others would not fall for your disinformation, as that is sad!

There are two ways of accomplishing this...
-1: Abandon SSTO and go to two-stage launch, which I think NASA should do as soon as they set up camp on Mars. Here, a large hypersonic transport plane powerd by conventional turbine engines, perhaps supplimented with rockets, carries a spaceplane on its back to ~Mach-6 and 80-100,000ft. Since the rail launch doesn't get anywhere close to this, it would have to either burn vast amounts of rocket fuel or use turbine engines if you are trying to salvage the concept. And if you are using turbine engines, you might as well launch from a runway and not a railgun.

With out SSTO or Fully Reusable Launch Capibility, we are not going to Mars, at least to stay!

A runway imparts no energy to the Launch Vehicle, and Assisted Ramp Launch does!

-2: Use a Scramjet engine. While exotic, such an engine could operate up to Mach-20 and reach suborbital altitudes where a small onboard rocket fuel supply would go the rest of the way. This is down the road, but ultimatly possible and desireable barring the invention of a space elevator. Since the rail would have a hard time even reaching Mach-2, it can't reach a high enough speed to ignite a Scramjet engine, which means you will again need turbine engines for the initial phase of the sprint. If you have turbine engines, you don't need to bother with rail launch here either.

Thanks for the comments, but that is already in our plans, and has been since 1990's. As are a number of other potential propulsion options.

There is also the wild card, if someone came up with a new rocket fuel (a catalyst that cyclizes ozone would do the trick) then a DC-X style rocket would be practical.

Ref: http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1957/ … humbnail11

This has been research done in this area, but is not practicle to use, for many reasons which are beyond the limits of which I am willing to spend on a troll!

Good head hunting Mr. Troll, GCNRevenger!

Sadly, So!

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-09 18:10:55

Sooo you want to make enough solar cells to go around the entire Moon?

Thats like what... 11,000km of solar arrays? Thats just not happening. Also, superconducting wire is expensive, and 12,000km+ of the stuff would be absolutely astronomical. It would certainly cost more than building a large nuclear plant with a breeder facility. You also need a signifigant supply of rare minerals (like Yittrium) to make SC wire, more then there is on the Earth and much of the inner solar system most likly.

Grypd · 2005-12-09 18:33:44

Sooo you want to make enough solar cells to go around the entire Moon?
Thats like what... 11,000km of solar arrays? Thats just not happening. Also, superconducting wire is expensive, and 12,000km+ of the stuff would be absolutely astronomical. It would certainly cost more than building a large nuclear plant with a breeder facility. You also need a signifigant supply of rare minerals (like Yittrium) to make SC wire, more then there is on the Earth and much of the inner solar system most likly.

No just large collections of them in Farms every 10km or so. It makes for easier construction and of course maintenance. And the one great advantage for superconductors is they can be light and thin since little or no heating that is why they are superconductors. Expensive yes but the potential for there use is incredible especially when it may be only the Moon could easily immediately use current designed superconductors.

But again it is a set up for a mature base or more likely collection of bases.

It would also likely be created when we consider a light rail link so that we can easily transport materials and supplies around the Moon. And since it would also be done in stages whaere we connect one base to another we simply put a power grid between the two. And extend it over time.

Fundamentally also the grid would likely start either at the south or north poles. For a start we have evidence of unique resources there and also the so called peaks of constant light. And with the shorter distances needed to go around it would make a circumfrential grid quicker to make. Spurs going south or north to more equatorial bases would follow. And yes the use of nuclear reactors would also be a necessity if only to cover for the infrequent eclipses by Earth and winter months.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2005-12-08 22:42:20

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#102 2005-12-08 22:51:40

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#103 2005-12-08 22:57:53

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#104 2005-12-08 23:37:53

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#105 2005-12-08 23:46:16

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#106 2005-12-09 00:09:31

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#107 2005-12-09 00:13:51

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#108 2005-12-09 00:31:33

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#109 2005-12-09 02:40:25

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#110 2005-12-09 02:52:38

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#111 2005-12-09 07:53:19

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#112 2005-12-09 08:01:24

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#113 2005-12-09 09:28:15

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#114 2005-12-09 11:12:14

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#115 2005-12-09 13:27:21

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#116 2005-12-09 14:00:49

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#117 2005-12-09 14:04:37

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#118 2005-12-09 14:40:34

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#119 2005-12-09 15:09:47

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#120 2005-12-09 16:05:27

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#121 2005-12-09 17:46:41

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#122 2005-12-09 18:01:13

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#123 2005-12-09 18:09:35

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#124 2005-12-09 18:10:55

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#125 2005-12-09 18:33:44

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

Board footer