"3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-26 16:30:39

Time has nothing to do with the rovers' range.
"time" means... years... dozens years... generations... we can't know/explore all and now!
we need TIME
Wow, this is finally what you are down to? Finally down to the point of throwing away the Moon for generations? Of denying it from us? Fool... no, we should explore the Moon, and explore it NOW. Especially if we need its rare mineral reasources, which are so scarce here on Earth.

15 years to see the first new moon missions already IS "a generation"

when the moon missions will be around 20, we will be in another generation

only our sons will see the first mars landing, and only the sons of our sons will see the first mission beyond mars

unfortunately, the space exploration needs "generations" not "years"

.

RedStreak · 2006-05-26 17:42:24

There are several things to consider when strolling about the moon...

1) Moondust is much like coal-dust: abrassive to machinery, space suits, and the air sacs of the lungs. They are making developments in a kind of anti-static coating to prevent the dust from accumulating but I'd rather not be on the rover whose wheels jam when we're a hundred kilometers from base.

2) Walking, or even roving, on the moon is not strolling through the park. Its more like strolling through Chernobyl, especially during a solar flare. It will be some time before we develop a fully reliable 'space weather watch' system, and it will likely be even more sudden than a tornado watch here on Earth.

3) You have to carry your own air supply wherever you go. On a pressurized rover this will be less of a concern since it will be prepared for the trip, but if it breaks down beyond walking range our lunanaughts are screwed until a rescue vehicle arrives...and with two launches a year to the moon its debatable if there'll even be a second rover to use.

There's no reason not to explore multiple regions of the moon, I never said we couldn't. But we have good reason to be selective: human lives. If a person dies on the moon it will be a sad day but more to the point people here on Earth will probably rally "We don't belong on the moon!" and then we'll be back where Apollo 17 left off and the shuttle began.

Use probes to scout a site first, they're at least good for that much. Opportunity spotted literally craterfuls of water-rich minerals; now we know for certain where to send human geologists. Use both man and machine, but remember that machines are the only one expendible of the two.

SpaceNut · 2006-05-26 20:22:53

...would cost an extra $160M each...
the cost of an expendable-SSME is higher than an RS-68 but it is evaluated around $40M each and you can't grow up this figure with tons of words only to push "your" RS-68.....
then, the total cost of the SSME for "my" Super SLV in the first 12 moon missions will be ( 3 x 12 ) -15 = 21 x $40M = $840 million
the total number is "21" (instead of "36") since NASA already has 15 (already paid!) reusable (once more...) SSMEs: nine on the Shuttles and six as spare parts

gaetanomarano the expendable-SSME at 40 million is never going to be built, so it is 80 million a piece or nothing.

GCNRevenger's estmated cost savings by using the RS68 versus the SSME would be great if these were matching rocket proposals that Nasa was to chose from but I think that the savings will disappear into some other part of the rockets cost being inflated by who ever gets to build it.

you (REALLY!!!!!!!!!!!) want to demonstrate that, build ONE rocket, costs MORE than build TWO rockets!

Well I found that a 4 x SSME versus the 4 x RS68 will be able to lift within a small amount of about 110MT. So the difference of the engined and a new tank will prove costly when going with the SSME.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-27 06:01:42

...more like strolling through Chernobyl, especially during a solar flare... If a person dies on the moon it will be a sad day but more to the point people here on Earth will probably rally "We don't belong on the moon!" and then we'll be back where Apollo 17...

we can solve the problems of rockets, vehicles, rovers, etc. but NOT the radiation and sun flares

this is the main risk of all space missions and I don't think we will see so much exploration, colonies, etc. if we don't solve this problem

about the moon missions end... I don't think they will end when an astronauts will die on the moon... the higher probability is that it will be "killed" (after two-three missions) by a "low TV audience"...

.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-27 06:12:41

the expendable-SSME at 40 million is never going to be built, so it is 80 million a piece or nothing.... found that a 4 x SSME versus the 4 x RS68 will be able to lift within a small amount of about 110MT...

I agree that the RS-68 is simpler than the SSME and may cost less

but, all the people who want/like/support the RS-68 "evaluates" (by himself...) that an SSME will costs 60, 80, 100, 400 million$$$ each while the RS-68 will falls from $20M to 15, 12, 7, 3, 1, the price of a car, the cost of a PC and, in 2046, only $1 each!

this is not the realty but only propaganda

however, no matter if NASA will use the SSME or the RS-68 because the MAIN advantages and money-saving of my proposal comes from build ONE rocket instead of TWO

about the payload you evaluate... we can discuss about the (real) max payoload the Super SLV can lift, but we CAN'T say that, with MORE enginees/boosters, it will be UNDER the Shuttles' weight+payload!

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-27 08:24:45

Lies, I never said any such thing about the RS-68. The quoted price back since its inception has been ~$15M each when bought a few at a time for Delta rockets, so it seems reasonable that if NASA is buying large blocks of them they would be a little less expensive. Anyway, NASA officals have recently quoted the price they expect to pay for all three engine options for CaLV, which are $80M each for an SSME (they were $50M years ago, so this is reasonable), $40M the expendable SSME (aka RS-24e, which may offer inferior performance), and $20M for RS-68 (which will require bigger fuel tanks).

In any case, the amount of money "saved" by skipping CLV development and using SSME on CaLV is immaterial, CaLV with RS-68 saves about as much money as the additional cost required to develop CLV in the first place.

"about the payload you evaluate... we can discuss about the (real) max payoload the Super SLV can lift, but we CAN'T say that, with MORE enginees/boosters, it will be UNDER the Shuttles' weight+payload!"

There you go again, "oh we CAN'T KNOW how bad NASA's rockets are until we build them" etc etc. Just babbling.

RedStreak · 2006-05-27 09:25:35

about the moon missions end... I don't think they will end when an astronauts will die on the moon... the higher probability is that it will be "killed" (after two-three missions) by a "low TV audience"...

Interesting point.

Lately however, myself and others have been watching less TV in general, namely because of the reality-TV-show crap. I'm even starting to think Star Trek The Next Generation's prediction of TV fading out of existance after the mid-twenty-first century may prove to be true.

Regarding how to manage lunar exploration and focus resources to base construction, a compromise should be reached.

Obviously the CEV/CLV launches will be dedicated to human flights whereas the CaCLV will be for cargo. Something like 1/2 of CEV flights should be directed to the base and 2/3rds of of CaCLV launches toward base construction - aka per year 2 CEV/CLV launches - one that sends the crew to man base (possibly for a year or so much like the ISS crew flights) with the second directed toward examining a preselected site. This in turn translates to 3 CaCLV launches - 2 to support the CEV and then a third unmanned purely to deliver lunar cargo. Obviously the CaCLV is the bigger rocket but its the vehicle we really need.

For all the talk on the CEV I think NASA should really be focusing on the CaCLV since that will be the true workhorse. The CEV will be more like a simplified (and non-explosive), long-range shuttle.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2006-05-26 16:30:39

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#52 2006-05-26 17:42:24

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#53 2006-05-26 20:22:53

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#54 2006-05-27 06:01:42

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#55 2006-05-27 06:12:41

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#56 2006-05-27 08:24:45

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#57 2006-05-27 09:25:35

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

Board footer