warpedskydiver 0 #1 October 5, 2009 Here is a nice piece of research into what types of propulsion and vehicle it will take to achieve this goal. I hope you enjoy reading it. http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/1996/tm-107030.pdf Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #2 October 5, 2009 The idea of uranium plasma makes my head go whee!quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #3 October 5, 2009 The big drawbacks for many of those methods is the requirement for orbital production of antimatter, which is somewhat difficult to say the least. Some nearer term solutions: Solid core nuclear thermal rockets (i.e. NERVA) - much easier to produce, very high specific impulse. Also fairly simple - but very radioactive once they have been used for the first time. You'd have to "retire" these someplace safe. VASIMR (Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket) - medium impulse (around 5000 seconds) and low thrust, but has the ability to go to fairly high thrust with a corresponding impulse loss, which is useful for manned missions that require a range of thrusts (such as a Mars mission.) Ion engine - these have very high specific impulse but low maximum thrust. Thus they can get probes to very, very distant locations but are not as suited for manned space travel due to trip times. One such engine, on the Deep Space One probe, fired continuously for almost two years, which is a pretty good demonstration of reliability. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #4 October 5, 2009 Park the production facility in a very high orbit, use a reactor that is robotic run to generate Antimatter f0or a period of 15 years while the Transport and Drop Ships are being built. The transport would require it to be built on the moon or in orbit, but the drop ship would be built on earth and act like a 3rd generation shuttle or space taxi. The DS would then be internally docked within the transports massive structure. Actually two or three of them should be produced so that there is a backup vehicle. Since the tonnage is basically irrelevant if the TS is built in space, the thing can be massive enough to house all systems and support facilities much like an aircraft carrier. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #5 October 5, 2009 Why Speakers Corner?" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #6 October 5, 2009 QuoteSince the tonnage is basically irrelevant if the TS is built in space, the thing can be massive enough to house all systems and support facilities much like an aircraft carrier. Mass still matters. The greater the mass the more thrust it takes to get it moving and to stop it. Further, any "drop ship" that is going to work in earth's atmosphere and use any aerodynamics isn't going to work on Mars or any other planet. You're really talking about a vast array of space systems; an earth shuttle to space, an interplanetary transport, some sort of space or moon construction facility and the landers built for specific destinations. It's all academic anyway. We're not even going back to the moon in our lifetimes.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #7 October 5, 2009 >Park the production facility in a very high orbit . . . Oh, agreed - it could be done. But if we had the (conventional) launch capability to do that, we could use the same capability to get to Mars in far less time. That would require as a minimum HLV's like the Ares V. I guess the real question is - what do you want to do? If you wanted to build a geosync factory, then sure, we could do that. If we want to go to Mars, we can do that, too. But they're not all that related to each other. >Actually two or three of them should be produced so that there is a >backup vehicle. That's part of the Mars Direct plan, which can be accomplished with existing (tested) technology. >Since the tonnage is basically irrelevant if the TS is built in space, the thing can >be massive enough to house all systems and support facilities much like an >aircraft carrier. Tonnage actually determines how fast you can get there. Low weight, high Isp, high thrust = fast trip. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,120 #8 October 5, 2009 Fascinating, but it doesn't address the issue of radiation shielding for manned space flight.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #9 October 5, 2009 QuoteWhy Speakers Corner? why not?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #10 October 5, 2009 You people are all so quaintly behind the curve. Wait til my patent application gets published; we'll see who gets the last laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,560 #11 October 5, 2009 Quote Why Speakers Corner? Duh -- because we're the smartestWendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #12 October 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteSince the tonnage is basically irrelevant if the TS is built in space, the thing can be massive enough to house all systems and support facilities much like an aircraft carrier. Mass still matters. The greater the mass the more thrust it takes to get it moving and to stop it. Further, any "drop ship" that is going to work in earth's atmosphere and use any aerodynamics isn't going to work on Mars or any other planet. You're really talking about a vast array of space systems; an earth shuttle to space, an interplanetary transport, some sort of space or moon construction facility and the landers built for specific destinations. It's all at Mars has very little atmosphere so it will need a craft capable of vertical flight, a ship can easily be made to do so and also capable of flight in earths relatively thick atmosphere where lift can be accomplished using wings. Even if the transport takes 72 hours to come up to speed it is basically nothing as long as it can go fast enough. If it takes a similar time to stop so be it. Think of this as an interplanetary train ride. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #13 October 5, 2009 QuoteMars has very little atmosphere so it will need a craft capable of vertical flight, a ship can easily be made to do so and also capable of flight in earths relatively thick atmosphere where lift can be accomplished using wings. "Can be made" and "makes sense to do" are two different things. The amount of weight required by the wings for earth landing make no sense on a vehicle that doesn't use wings on Mars. The weight of crap needed to land on Mars, including entirely different landing gear and engines to take off again makes no sense on a craft that can have big dumb boosters strapped to it for Earth to take off and a parachute to glide to touchdown. If they're not two completely different craft, they're a huge waste.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,090 #14 October 5, 2009 >Mars has very little atmosphere so it will need a craft capable of vertical >flight, a ship can easily be made to do so and also capable of flight in >earths relatively thick atmosphere where lift can be accomplished using >wings. Right, but the thing doesn't have to fly on Earth, just get the explorers back safely. A capsule with a heat shield works great and is a lot cheaper than a winged vehicle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #15 October 5, 2009 I am not opposed to creating two types of DS. I was merely stating it can be done. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cliffwhite 0 #16 October 6, 2009 Quote Fascinating, but it doesn't address the issue of radiation shielding for manned space flight. Is radiation sheilding a concern , Professor? How did NASA address this problem during the Appollo moon missions? Blues, Clif2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,090 #17 October 6, 2009 >How did NASA address this problem during the Appollo moon missions? Three ways: 1) They used chemical rather than nuclear propulsion 2) They had a fair amount of shielding in the spacecraft 3) They were VERY careful about solar weather, and watched it carefully before launch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cliffwhite 0 #18 October 6, 2009 Quote>How did NASA address this problem during the Appollo moon missions? Three ways: 1) They used chemical rather than nuclear propulsion 2) They had a fair amount of shielding in the spacecraft 3) They were VERY careful about solar weather, and watched it carefully before launch Tell me ,Bill. becauseyou seem to know a lot about this. Now there is talk about going to the moon but it will cost a butt load of money! Even accounting for inflation it will cost us many,many times what it cost in the Appollo era. We did it then,they say, why not just make a big tin can, throw in that cell phone for computer power and do it like we did with Appolo 11? Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,090 #19 October 6, 2009 > why not just make a big tin can, throw in that cell phone for computer > power and do it like we did with Appolo 11? I think you may be underestimating the effort that went into Apollo 11. Their solutions to cislunar navigation were sometimes inelegant, but they spent a lot of time and money getting it right. And it came very, very close to not working; the first LEM landed with only a few seconds of fuel left, and Apollo 13 demonstrated how close to the edge that design was. A more important question is - what do you want to do on the moon? If you just want to go to another world, Mars is a far more interesting place, and it's not a _lot_ harder to get there. If you just want to go into space, we've got a space station already paid for. If there's a reason to go to the moon (build a radiotelescope on the far side, mine He-3 or water, set up a permanent base etc) then design the mission to do that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #20 October 6, 2009 QuoteRockets that would use charged particles to propel super-fast missions to Mars are one step closer, now that a small-scale prototype has been demonstrated at full power. The ion engine may be used to maintain the orbit of the International Space Station within the next five years, and could lay the groundwork for rockets that could one day travel to Mars in about a month. Since 2005, the Ad Astra Rocket Company of Webster, Texas, has been working to perfect a type of engine it calls VASIMR (Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket). It uses radio waves to heat argon gas, turning it into a hot plasma – a state of matter in which electrons are no longer bound to atomic nuclei. Magnetic fields then squirt the superheated plasma out the back of the engine, producing thrust in the opposite direction. It shoots the propellant out at much higher velocity than conventional engines, resulting in far more acceleration per kilogram of fuel consumed. In the near term, the company hopes to use a 200-kilowatt VASIMR engine to provide periodic boosts to the orbit of the International Space Station (ISS), which gradually drops in altitude due to atmospheric drag. Now, the company has run such an engine at full power for the first time. On Wednesday, it ran its VX-200 engine at 201 kilowatts in a vacuum chamber in Houston, passing the 200-kilowatt mark for the first time. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17918-rocket-company-tests-worlds-most-powerful-ion-engine.htmlstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,120 #21 October 6, 2009 QuoteQuote Fascinating, but it doesn't address the issue of radiation shielding for manned space flight. Is radiation sheilding a concern , Professor? How did NASA address this problem during the Appollo moon missions? Blues, Clif Since the Moon is a moon and not a planet, it doesn't count as interplanetary travel. The amount of radiation encountered on a Mars mission is considerable even without a fusion or antimatter drive, and radiation protection is very heavy. This may well be the limiting factor in a manned mission to Mars (or beyond).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites robskydiv 0 #22 October 6, 2009 Someone kindly PM me and instruct me how to use the "IN Reply to X" so I don't have to retype the person's post that I would like to respond to. Thankyou. Anyway, Clearly, Mars has to be the next destination of interest for the US and for the world. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanG 1 #23 October 6, 2009 There was an interesting article in Air & Space last month about new efforts at stealth. Researchers have used special composite materials tuned to specific wavelengths to bend radiation (infrared IIRC) around a body and emit it back out the other side. I wonder if something like this might be the solution to the radiation problem. Instead of trying to absorb or reflect it, just refract it around the ship. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,120 #24 October 6, 2009 QuoteThere was an interesting article in Air & Space last month about new efforts at stealth. Researchers have used special composite materials tuned to specific wavelengths to bend radiation (infrared IIRC) around a body and emit it back out the other side. I wonder if something like this might be the solution to the radiation problem. Instead of trying to absorb or reflect it, just refract it around the ship. Whole different (much higher) range of energies are encountered in space. See www.nsbri.org/Radiation/IonizingRadiation.html for a reasonable summary.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shah269 0 #25 October 6, 2009 The last time I checked, and please don't ask me why I checked this, but it costs $100k+ to lift 1kg up to orbit. So what ever you make it has to get past our atmosphere first and most of these wizbang technologies just don't want to work here on earth. It's like owning an F1 car but having to cross the ocean to be able to race it. Until a viable affordable and preferably reusable mechanism can be developed to get one off the surface and into space it's just all pie in the sky stuff. As for why to go the moon? Simple! H3 a lovely little isotope of hydrogen that has some very fun properties with respect to cold fusion.Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
quade 4 #13 October 5, 2009 QuoteMars has very little atmosphere so it will need a craft capable of vertical flight, a ship can easily be made to do so and also capable of flight in earths relatively thick atmosphere where lift can be accomplished using wings. "Can be made" and "makes sense to do" are two different things. The amount of weight required by the wings for earth landing make no sense on a vehicle that doesn't use wings on Mars. The weight of crap needed to land on Mars, including entirely different landing gear and engines to take off again makes no sense on a craft that can have big dumb boosters strapped to it for Earth to take off and a parachute to glide to touchdown. If they're not two completely different craft, they're a huge waste.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #14 October 5, 2009 >Mars has very little atmosphere so it will need a craft capable of vertical >flight, a ship can easily be made to do so and also capable of flight in >earths relatively thick atmosphere where lift can be accomplished using >wings. Right, but the thing doesn't have to fly on Earth, just get the explorers back safely. A capsule with a heat shield works great and is a lot cheaper than a winged vehicle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #15 October 5, 2009 I am not opposed to creating two types of DS. I was merely stating it can be done. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cliffwhite 0 #16 October 6, 2009 Quote Fascinating, but it doesn't address the issue of radiation shielding for manned space flight. Is radiation sheilding a concern , Professor? How did NASA address this problem during the Appollo moon missions? Blues, Clif2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #17 October 6, 2009 >How did NASA address this problem during the Appollo moon missions? Three ways: 1) They used chemical rather than nuclear propulsion 2) They had a fair amount of shielding in the spacecraft 3) They were VERY careful about solar weather, and watched it carefully before launch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cliffwhite 0 #18 October 6, 2009 Quote>How did NASA address this problem during the Appollo moon missions? Three ways: 1) They used chemical rather than nuclear propulsion 2) They had a fair amount of shielding in the spacecraft 3) They were VERY careful about solar weather, and watched it carefully before launch Tell me ,Bill. becauseyou seem to know a lot about this. Now there is talk about going to the moon but it will cost a butt load of money! Even accounting for inflation it will cost us many,many times what it cost in the Appollo era. We did it then,they say, why not just make a big tin can, throw in that cell phone for computer power and do it like we did with Appolo 11? Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #19 October 6, 2009 > why not just make a big tin can, throw in that cell phone for computer > power and do it like we did with Appolo 11? I think you may be underestimating the effort that went into Apollo 11. Their solutions to cislunar navigation were sometimes inelegant, but they spent a lot of time and money getting it right. And it came very, very close to not working; the first LEM landed with only a few seconds of fuel left, and Apollo 13 demonstrated how close to the edge that design was. A more important question is - what do you want to do on the moon? If you just want to go to another world, Mars is a far more interesting place, and it's not a _lot_ harder to get there. If you just want to go into space, we've got a space station already paid for. If there's a reason to go to the moon (build a radiotelescope on the far side, mine He-3 or water, set up a permanent base etc) then design the mission to do that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #20 October 6, 2009 QuoteRockets that would use charged particles to propel super-fast missions to Mars are one step closer, now that a small-scale prototype has been demonstrated at full power. The ion engine may be used to maintain the orbit of the International Space Station within the next five years, and could lay the groundwork for rockets that could one day travel to Mars in about a month. Since 2005, the Ad Astra Rocket Company of Webster, Texas, has been working to perfect a type of engine it calls VASIMR (Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket). It uses radio waves to heat argon gas, turning it into a hot plasma – a state of matter in which electrons are no longer bound to atomic nuclei. Magnetic fields then squirt the superheated plasma out the back of the engine, producing thrust in the opposite direction. It shoots the propellant out at much higher velocity than conventional engines, resulting in far more acceleration per kilogram of fuel consumed. In the near term, the company hopes to use a 200-kilowatt VASIMR engine to provide periodic boosts to the orbit of the International Space Station (ISS), which gradually drops in altitude due to atmospheric drag. Now, the company has run such an engine at full power for the first time. On Wednesday, it ran its VX-200 engine at 201 kilowatts in a vacuum chamber in Houston, passing the 200-kilowatt mark for the first time. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17918-rocket-company-tests-worlds-most-powerful-ion-engine.htmlstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,120 #21 October 6, 2009 QuoteQuote Fascinating, but it doesn't address the issue of radiation shielding for manned space flight. Is radiation sheilding a concern , Professor? How did NASA address this problem during the Appollo moon missions? Blues, Clif Since the Moon is a moon and not a planet, it doesn't count as interplanetary travel. The amount of radiation encountered on a Mars mission is considerable even without a fusion or antimatter drive, and radiation protection is very heavy. This may well be the limiting factor in a manned mission to Mars (or beyond).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robskydiv 0 #22 October 6, 2009 Someone kindly PM me and instruct me how to use the "IN Reply to X" so I don't have to retype the person's post that I would like to respond to. Thankyou. Anyway, Clearly, Mars has to be the next destination of interest for the US and for the world. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #23 October 6, 2009 There was an interesting article in Air & Space last month about new efforts at stealth. Researchers have used special composite materials tuned to specific wavelengths to bend radiation (infrared IIRC) around a body and emit it back out the other side. I wonder if something like this might be the solution to the radiation problem. Instead of trying to absorb or reflect it, just refract it around the ship. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,120 #24 October 6, 2009 QuoteThere was an interesting article in Air & Space last month about new efforts at stealth. Researchers have used special composite materials tuned to specific wavelengths to bend radiation (infrared IIRC) around a body and emit it back out the other side. I wonder if something like this might be the solution to the radiation problem. Instead of trying to absorb or reflect it, just refract it around the ship. Whole different (much higher) range of energies are encountered in space. See www.nsbri.org/Radiation/IonizingRadiation.html for a reasonable summary.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #25 October 6, 2009 The last time I checked, and please don't ask me why I checked this, but it costs $100k+ to lift 1kg up to orbit. So what ever you make it has to get past our atmosphere first and most of these wizbang technologies just don't want to work here on earth. It's like owning an F1 car but having to cross the ocean to be able to race it. Until a viable affordable and preferably reusable mechanism can be developed to get one off the surface and into space it's just all pie in the sky stuff. As for why to go the moon? Simple! H3 a lovely little isotope of hydrogen that has some very fun properties with respect to cold fusion.Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
