You are not logged in.
most precise automated milling machine (or 3d printer) will ocasionaly produce peices with errors or defects
If you could just turn off the CIA tracking code.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf … e10668.htm
http://www.parascope.com/articles/0197/xerox.htm
Offline
While I agree with your general point, I disagree with your specific example. Even the most precise automated milling machine (or 3d printer) will ocasionaly produce peices with errors or defects. This may be due to incorrect instruction or calibration, or may simply be due to defects in the source material or drill bits. This is especialy true for rocketry where the tolerances are so tight. This is why it is necessary for a technician to come back and re-measure to make-sure the machine got it right. So while advances can drasticly lower the costs, there are still limits.
As technology improves it's hard to say what those limits will be other than the cost of the raw material and machinery. Identifying and then correcting / rejecting bad parts will become as close to 100% as is required, as is the case today with many less complex manufacuturing processes. The low volume of rocket parts is one of the main reasons for their high cost.
[color=darkred]Let's go to Mars and far beyond - triple NASA's budget ![/color] [url=irc://freenode#space] #space channel !! [/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/c1cl0ps] - videos !!![/url]
Offline
If you could just turn off the CIA tracking code.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf … e10668.htm
http://www.parascope.com/articles/0197/xerox.htm
Oh please, what does this have to do with anything, and you do realize that one of the pages you linked has a speech to that paragon of truthfulness Cindy Sheehan right under the article, and from the Post no less.
But anyway, 3D printers and robotic milling machines are a looong way from being able to make turbopumps (the most sensitive components on the whole rocket) and the risk the machine gets it wrong for the combustion chamber or nozzle is never going to be ignorable without fantasticly expensive machines.
Speaking of expensive machines, you are going to trade expensive manned rocket construction for expensive manned building/operating of robots or whatever.
Anyways, the problem still remains ultimatly that rocket technology has no place to go. Its always going to involve vast investments that almost nobody can afford and never going to be alot more reliable then they are today. Squeezing that last percent or two of reliability out of a traditional rocket is impossible to do on the cheap.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
I like the concept of Big Pressure feds. To me, a gradual increase in the size of launch vehicles needs to be given the force of law. First CaLV (no Stick), and later something like Sea Dragon for massive logistic transport.
Offline
I like the concept of Big Pressure feds. To me, a gradual increase in the size of launch vehicles needs to be given the force of law. First CaLV (no Stick), and later something like Sea Dragon for massive logistic transport.
I tend to agree with you. But, you understand that shoot cost reduction in the head and kill it dead and it going to cost a whole lot more to do it that way. However, you do have a tendency to develop more advanced technology fast, but it comes at a price.
Larry,
Offline
A happy medium, big relativly simple turbopump engines and huge dumb solid rocket boosters... viola', NASA's CaLV.
Sea Dragon or other vehicles its scale is too big to handle/fuel/etc efficiently, and puts too many eggs in one basket if it fails.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Solution to getting it done: Any corporation not relocated to the Moon by 2020AD will be taxed at the income rate of 98%
Offline
A happy medium, big relativly simple turbopump engines and huge dumb solid rocket boosters... viola', NASA's CaLV.
Sea Dragon or other vehicles its scale is too big to handle/fuel/etc efficiently, and puts too many eggs in one basket if it fails.
I agree with you on CaLV. It MUST be supported.
Sea Dragon can come later for bulk payloads, and is simple in using shipyard techiniques. Compared to the Troll platform it is a lightweight.
Here is my concept. CaLV with engine out lofts important payloads, or Mars Ships. Large Sea Dragon LVs orbit only propellant into any CaLV launched Mars-ships, with the empty 'Dragon upper-stage /container remaining in orbit as a thick hulled space station module--wet stage style.
This way, with each Mars trip, you get a free station to be donated to business so long as they sign up to maintain its orbit. Unlike shuttle ET', the Sea Dragon upper stage should remain in orbit longer. It has greater mass and resistance to meteors and radiation.
Sea Dragon would be used for low value steel loads and what not. High value articles go atop CaLV. If Sea Dragon fails, you only lose low value articles. The Mars ship launched by CaLV remains empty and there is no boil off.
Sea Dragon II then fills up the Mars ship in one go--with absolutely no boil off. You have plenty left over to vent As soon as you fill up, you are ready to go.
Mars 1.5
EELV launches only weathersats and comsats.
Offline
This week , Microsoft is launching the Robotics Studio that can work with their development platform (Visual Studio ) for programming hardware in the field of robotics. Some of the Robotic device manufacturers are using windows CE embedded or Windows XP Embedded languages in the hardware components.
This means the development of complex robotic systems are coming and the systems will be based on a networked, plug and play platform that will increase the use and variety in applications including the application for space and other planetary uses.
Most CAM /CAD systems for manufacturing reside on Window Platforms and the ability to plug into a robotic platform and control robotic construction systems, vision systems from other application will now be possible at a low cost and the develop of cheaper telepresence systems will also help the development of underwater and outer space regions.
Again reduce the overall costs in space development and reduces the need to place humans in dangerous positions until the appropriate facilities are assembly and powered. The technology development studio will allow the management of space systems can be management via robotic droids, assembly arms and other robotic tools from a secure human centric environment within the a station or vehicle or planetary base.
This is a great leap forward in robotic system development see the following micosoft address :
Offline
Meanwhile, Warren Buffet blows all his money on Gates Foundation. It'll all be eaten up as handouts. Gates made his money from computers--and they stem in part from the advances from Apollo. As far as I'm concerned--I'd hit Gates and Buffet (retroactively) with a 90% tax and cede it to NASA.
If they want to give money away--give it to the best and brightest HERE--not in some hole--the charitable equiv.of the Iraq War.
Offline
Apollo's computers don't really have much in the way of a place in the lineage of modern computers. Not until IBM's lithography-produced integrated circut could you really claim that modern computers were "born," and Apollo flight computers used transistors. Bill got immensely rich by being the first uniform OS and advanced word processor for the early practical mass-market computers and dug into his position by flaunting anti-trust law.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
It just kills me how he could really help spaceflight--but doesn't.
Offline
We need to develop newer methods and processes for space development on a commerical basis. We need to bring entrepreneurs into the space sector to expand the world above the atomsphere.
If we don't then, space will not be explored by humans or settled by humans or our understanding about humanity in the context of the universe will not be realised. We need to the development of private training, education centers bringing space into mainstream business environment just like computers, internet and other business environments including globalism.
We also need to get guts !!!!!! in developing with nuclear energy for space propulsion and power systems and disregard the knockers of the world and move forward. Yes, we need to take reasonable safety measures but not stop in the expansion of space.
Offline
Yes yes wave your arms and wish it was so... so far the quintesential example of private development to build something new, something that hasn't been done before, is Kistler Aerospace with their KH-1 RLV... Which is an abysmal failure thus far, consuming over half a billion dollars for a half-finished vehicle that probably isn't reliable enough to be an RLV in the first place.
Until private companies start real work on not only a manned launch vehicle, but a destination for it, then there is no reason to have any sort of private astronaut training center.
Nuclear power in space is not so much a matter of guts, that isn't the problem, the issues are cost (they're expensive), availability (how will businesses be allowed to handle weapons-grade uranium?), and politics (environmentalists have power).
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Most of the nuclear reactors that generate power are run by corporations not governments they are under government oversight the same can be developed for nuclear energy in space. Secondly, disregard the enviromentalists you can prove them wrong with good risk management.
However, I do agree that , IF business wants a bigger slice then they must take charge of the future timeline and goals in the space sector. That means they need to develop there own agenda, timeline, vehicles, and other requirements for space and work with a consortium of corporations to make this possible including the undertakings for numbers of vehicles and other infrastructure uses, and not rely on goverment infrastructure.
Offline
There are two big differences between commercial nuclear reactors and space power reactors:
-Space reactors use atomic bomb grade Uranium
-Commercial reactors are behind solid steel and concrete vessels, not on top of overgrown missiles
I also think you underestimate the power of environmentalists; they do not care one bit about risk mitigation because that is rational, scientific, and directly contradicts their worldview about absoluteism and the moral evil of nuclear energy. An ecological/safety impact statement will not appease them so easily.
Interesting, that the Kistler people relied on government-developed rocket engines, the venerable Russian NK-33. They wouldn't even be in business if they had to develop their own engine.
I personally don't think that private space interests will ever get anywhere beyond tourism for the super-rich and small-time satellite launch without government help of some sort.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
As long as they find an alternative to the worst case scenario cost of colonizing and terraforming Mars. I can tell you now that 20 billion per person per year in continuous resupply for a colony of ten million will suck Earth dry of resources, and cost the full value of the twenty billion-billion dollars that such a oneway endeavour will involve. Certainly it will take more than a hundred years which will kill it for most thinking they can go now, and then there is the whole Population quota thing to ensure Earth representation...The thing that Pisses off those of the "God's chosen few" space colonization philosophy the most.
Mars transfer vehicle/lander/hab/resuppy module method:$20,000,000,000.00/year/colonist
Twenty billion per person, per year? Um. I'm not quite that...... pessimistic
Heres what happens:
1: VSE suceeds with a varient of DRM-III starting sometime around 2025, with plans to start setting up a base after the first round of expeditions. A site is selected with a supply of water, subsequent mission or unmanned payload tests water extraction hardware.2: VSE-based hardware is used to construct a minimal base for perminant habitation, with periodic resupply from Earth for ~6. Heavy ISRU plant, long-term nuclear reactor, and inflatable "hanger" constructed, maybe a greenhouse too.
3: Reuseable Mars light lander built, fueled entirely from native propellants, serviced in the hanger as needed. Primarily for crews, permitting the DRM Earth return vehicle to be reused as a interplanetary "taxi," reducing the number of launches per crew from six to two.
So, this gets us basic access to Mars on a regular basis relativly cheaply; the entire base could likly be sustained with only three no-EDS CaLV launches anually, or five for every departure window. Two for crew, say three for supplies/science/engineering, and one for a replacement ERV every few cycles. Toss in one CEV for crew launch maybe.
...So then NASA can save the money from reusing the ERV and lander and switches to phase two, now that NASA has "conqured Mars" and established man there perminantly, sights can then be set a little higher: With continuing support for the Mars base and perhaps Lunar science (if NASA hasn't contracted that to a private firm yet), NASA could then truthfully state that going beyond a little base on Mars is too inefficient for plain old rockets.
Phase two will be a tripple-pronged enterprise, centerd around the development of an honest-to-goodness "we're not kidding this time" reuseable launch vehicle. Most likly a TSTO with LOX-boosted jet powerd carrier and a rocket upper burning slushed hydrogen.
The upper will come in two flavors, crew (14 crew and luggage or a tonne or two of supplies + airlock) and cargo (minimum of 20MT, Shuttle sized bay, no crew). This vehicle should be capable of launch every other week for ~$10M a shot and fly at least ~250 missions over its lifespan (double STS).
NASA should then set its sights on manned missions to the gas giants, powerd by a high-energy nuclear engine (GCNR, VASIMR, etc). With this engine and the super-cheap spaceplane, add in a fully reuseable Mars lander (14 crew or 20MT cargo), and then the cost to get to Mars will be low enough to be really acessable to a private entity.
I don't think NASA will be around that long, they can't even get the Shuttle foam problem fixed. Groups like JPL, RKK-Energia, ESA, Chinese, Russians are now staring to get a hold in areas that NASA once dominated,
perhaps by 2030 China will have already painted the Moon red.
'first steps are not for cheap, think about it...
did China build a great Wall in a day ?' ( Y L R newmars forum member )
Offline
Why not? Such a plan will take about 40 years, but NASA has been in the manned flight business for the last 40 years with little to show for it, why will they not last at least as long when they are making progress?
You overestimate China's technology, their rockets are still way back there in the Titan-II era, very far away from rockets efficient enough to do anything on the Moon like ours.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Why not? Such a plan will take about 40 years, but NASA has been in the manned flight business for the last 40 years with little to show for it, why will they not last at least as long when they are making progress?
You overestimate China's technology, their rockets are still way back there in the Titan-II era, very far away from rockets efficient enough to do anything on the Moon like ours.
As long as they dont beg, borrow or just plain steal the technology. And if there is political will and China is the perfect example of a society by order, then they could do it.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
Don't underestimate the development power of corporations / business entrepreneurs, they might start with small amounts of capital but can efficiently create the required infrastructure for a small logistic companies then move off from there.
Corporations developed alot of the technology around the world we use and thing it has always been there, Airplanes, Cars, Cell / Mobile phones, Internet / WWW and global broadcasts systems just to name a few. Coming developments include e-paper , wireless integrated systems, Internet Version 2, Interplanetary Networks( under testing) traffic flow monitoring and anti-accident systems, increases in computering power for vehicles and more in the next 10 years.
We are moving forward with technologies coming across the world , we could use some technologies developed from one industry across to another like space industry. We need to overcome the barriers to the public image of space and its the future of humanity. Space industry will be the only industry that doesn't have a limit in growth because space is so vast we could keep expanding the human race into space for the next 100,000 years and still not even touch 5% of our galaxy.
( The Space Industry growth - not the sky is the limit but the stars are our limit)
Offline
But corporations have a reason to develop these items they see a payback in the future and space at the moment does not appear to be a good payer. Strategically important not fiscally though.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
Grypd,
Yes Strategic Importance - now but Fiscal Importance later when critical mass issues are addressed. When that happens the people / corporations / governments that have the strategic assets will control the outcomes. Remember corporations that we currently know just build assets in a single closed global environment in the future these corporations will stretch across many different global environments and in space as well.
By using the resources of the corporation on earth they could develop a long term strategy including succession planning for the future resources and strategic importance for the corporation. ( Its the way you look at things - short term view or long term view - similar to a clan or family business)
Offline
Sadly, corporations think extremely short-term. In fiscal quarter-timeframes, because of the investors/shareholders.
Current climate all but forbids long-term strategic thinking, because said greedy shareholders want ROI NOW...
It's very hard to find venture capital when your profit-forecasts are more than five years away, look at the nanotech boom and fizzle... Some years ago, everybody was investing in startups etc. But when they realised tangible results were decades away, 90% of investors were out of there in a blink of the eye...
Offline
Interesting, that the Kistler people relied on government-developed rocket engines, the venerable Russian NK-33. They wouldn't even be in business if they had to develop their own engine.
Very well said. Those engines have been sitting around an awfully long time, too.
Offline