US Spaceflight for the future [update] by Goshin - TribalWar Forums
Click Here to find great hosting deals from Branzone.com


Go Back   TribalWar Forums > TribalWar Community > General Discussion
Reload this Page US Spaceflight for the future [update]
Page 1 of 79
Thread Tools
Goshin
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
1 - 01-15-2010, 08:53 AM
Reply With Quote
Edit: Hello! If you're looking at the first page...congrats. Lots of good information in this thread.
10 months after creating this thread, my predictions were proven to be correct.
http://www.tribalwar.com/forums/show...2#post15931372 details the success of this first post. The rest of the thread talks less about individual space rockets and such, and more on general space advancement, hardship, whats coming next, etc etc. Give it a read when you have some time.

here are a few articles and then i'll explain them a little bit

if you're interested of course...

Bolden to review HLV study on Friday ***8211; Sidemount in doubt, In-line/SSME boost | NASASpaceFlight.com

Quote:
NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden will review the findings of his ***8220;special team***8221; ***8211; which he set up to evaluate all Heavy Lift alternatives to the current plan ***8211; on Friday. Pre-empting the overview, Exploration Project officials all-but ruled out the Sidemount HLV, whilst noting a couple of In-line heavy lifters ***8211; one of which appears to be a DIRECT Jupiter launch vehicle ***8211; made it through to the Bolden meeting.
here is sidemount, which probably won't be picked

it lifts 100 tons or so to low earth orbit, but carries it's giant fairing the whole way and is a little unsafe in terms of crew ejection if something bad happened on the pad

the jupiter launch vehicle (which began as an idea on the internet and then came to fruition from nasa engineers doing work on it after their day jobs...)

it is pretty cheap, reusing a number of existing technologies. Also able to lift 110 tons to low earth orbit, safe to use as the crew are on top of the rocket and can be 'thrown' off it in case of catastrophe. this is my favorite design for a new rocket since it makes monetary and political sense (the standing army at nasa working on shuttle isn't axed...which Senator Nelson wouldn't allow since it's a big part of his state).

the article states NASA won't destroy their SSME production facility, which is big news, since Jupiter will use this engine, and it also aids a shuttle extension to decrease the gap in us human spaceflight, currently projected to be 5-7 years wide. Using jupiter and extending shuttle to 2012 will reduce this to 3 years i believe.

Jupiter also allows Orion to increase it's mass again, leading to perhaps ground landings again, toilets, and more saftey features for the capsule

best part about Jupiter is that it is highly modular, allowing it to be upgraded throughout the years to take advantage of new technologies and bigger payloads (they have run simulations on fairings of 12meters in diameter).

more info since i cant remember all of it (been following for a year+)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_(rocket_family)

Ares I is dead. Ares V may be dead, or we may get something similar to Jupiter in an Ares V 'classic". Either way it's a win for space.

ESA wants to extend ISS to 2020
BBC News - Space station needs 'extension to 2020'

agree with what they say, except to understaff ISS. finally finished, ISS can start really cranking out research onexperiements and data.

this seems haphazard. ask my questions and i'll see if i can answer them or find the answer to them
 
Goshin is offline
 
Last edited by Goshin; 10-14-2010 at 03:45 PM.
Sponsored Links
Goshin
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
2 - 01-15-2010, 09:29 AM
Reply With Quote
nasa is looking at a flexible path for spaceflight, involving visiting near earth objects (neos like asteroids and such), phobos, maybe venus, the moon, Lagrange point 2 (between moon and earth...believe it's on the 'far' side of the moon) and mars towards the end. Doing science on all along the way. They would be looking into putting a station at L2, or a propellant depot. Propellant depots would really open up space, allowing for refueling of the craft in space, since most of the fuel is spent on getting out of earth's gravity well. Refueling lets us make and utilize bigger payloads and go further quicker.
 
Goshin is offline
 
telos
VeteranXV
Old
3 - 01-15-2010, 09:30 AM
Reply With Quote
did you just respond to yourself?
 
telos is offline
 
Ztir
VeteranX
Old
4 - 01-15-2010, 09:34 AM
Reply With Quote
hes trying to generate interest in an cool, important topic but needs help because tw is full of gigantic retards with no scientific curiosity
 
Ztir is offline
 
Lethal_Ranger
Veteran++
Old
5 - 01-15-2010, 09:35 AM
Reply With Quote
This might be a noobie question, but how would we get the propellant to the "propellant depot" wouldn't it be just as much of a hassle?

Or would we be able to send up massive things of just propellant, like space oil tankers, and save on weight because they wouldn't have all the scientific equipment?
 
Lethal_Ranger is offline
 
Buk Naked
VeteranXV
Old
6 - 01-15-2010, 09:36 AM
Reply With Quote
What's in it for us? National pride?
 
Buk Naked is offline
 
telos
VeteranXV
Old
7 - 01-15-2010, 09:40 AM
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lethal_Ranger View Post
This might be a noobie question, but how would we get the propellant to the "propellant depot" wouldn't it be just as much of a hassle?

Or would we be able to send up massive things of just propellant, like space oil tankers, and save on weight because they wouldn't have all the scientific equipment?
just like a tanker truck burns gas to get gas to the gas station.

Only this gas costs a **** of a lot more to get there. probably in the range of 100:1 spent:stored. and they would probably use unmanned so like you said no science equipment and what not.

And I found it to be a good read just didn't have anything to add until he responded to himself.
 
telos is offline
 
Ztir
VeteranX
Old
8 - 01-15-2010, 09:40 AM
Reply With Quote
the only application of this that you can think of is national pride?
 
Ztir is offline
 
telos
VeteranXV
Old
9 - 01-15-2010, 09:43 AM
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ztir View Post
the only application of this that you can think of is national pride?
I can think of another one.

Sending my ass to Mars.

if they told me I could go in a group of 6-8 people to mars to be left there with no hope of coming back but the supplies to live a relatively long life and daily movies sent from earth I'd do it
 
telos is offline
 
Goshin
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
10 - 01-15-2010, 09:44 AM
Reply With Quote
figuring out compositions of asteroids, how they were created, what's on them, how extremely low gravity affects humans and other things, how and if we can move them for better orbits allowing industry to take advantage of the minerals that asteroids have (which leads to wealth)

thats for neos
lagrange point 2, allows for a 'rest' stop and refueling opportunity before heading to mars so the vehicle doesnt need to be launched in 5 heavy lift vehicles, allows for better comms, research in zero g, study the dark side of the moon, observatories either lunar based of space based that can be repaired or retrofitted easily (this station doesn't need to be manned at all times, maybe a few times a year if that). having a hubble-esque telescope behind the moon would generate so much more data due to blocking the sun.

Propellant depots: there are 5 US launch vehicles in the sub 20MT class. Even smaller rockets could be used to launch essentially 'dummy' payloads to the propellant depot. You could build a dumb rocket where safety isn't that big a deal, because if it explodes, all you lose is really cheap fuel, not payloads, not people. You have it reach orbit, then a tug between it and the depot grabs the fuel payload and guides it to the depot.

this means stupidly cheap fuel costs that then allow one big rocket to do the job of 2 big rockets. And these big rockets cost hundreds of millions to build and launch. So there are some savings. Also allows smaller rocket builders access to low earth orbit and perhaps beyond, since once they get to space, they will be able to refuel and explore further out

so, yes, something like a big dumb oil tanker. Cheap and only used for fuel
 
Goshin is offline
 
Flunky
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
11 - 01-15-2010, 09:45 AM
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ztir View Post
the only application of this that you can think of is national pride?
you wanna become a Na'vi someday, don't you?
 
Flunky is offline
 
Goshin
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
12 - 01-15-2010, 09:47 AM
Reply With Quote
forgot a big thing
iss will be utilized for future human ventures in deep space
we'll need to figure out how to shield ourselves effectively and mass-effectively against radiation, gamma rays, solar flares, and other nasty **** (galactic cosmic rays woo!) otherwise we'll die of radiation before we crashland onto mars and die there instead


this is all important because ultimately, if we don't leave earth, we die as a species.
 
Goshin is offline
 
Goshin
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
13 - 01-15-2010, 10:04 AM
Reply With Quote
on prop depots, a better breakdown maybe:
Quote:
Just a couple of benefits:

1. Costs. You get your fuel up to the depot with a number of smaller launch vehicles. High flight rates (>20 flights per year) reduces cost per launch significantly. On the other hand large rockets do have high fixed costs and only make sense at large flight rates (that you don't get if you have a 120mt vehicle).

2. Flexibility. Your architecture basically involves your flight stack with an empty EDS going up to the depot and be fueled and then you go whereever you want to go. You can have an empty spacecraft (EDS and payload) in the 75mt range and after it's fueled you have a spacecraft with say 200mt ready to propel 60mt to a Mars trajectory.

3. Creating a market for commercial rockets. You get fuel up to your depot constantly. A commercial provider with e.g. a 15mt to LEO rocket may be able to sell 20 launches per year to NASA for the fuel depot. That lowers this providers cost per launch quite significantly. That also means that the DoD and NASA can use these launchers for other payloads for quite a lower price.
 
Goshin is offline
 
groundzero
VeteranXV
Old
14 - 01-15-2010, 10:08 AM
Reply With Quote
y don't we just use the ufos that we have acquired over the years? they are obviously capable of intergalactic travel wtf?
 
groundzero is offline
 
Goshin
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
15 - 01-15-2010, 10:16 AM
Reply With Quote
other benefits, in more technical terms

Quote:
Benefits include:

- Depots at L1/2 make more sense than depots in LEO - you don't have to store all the EDS propellant
- You can go from L1/2 to a variety of destinations and come back to L1/2:
e.g. Moon's surface: 2.5km/s delta-v to nearly everywhere and the same delta-v back to L1/2
to a Mars transfer orbit, you require about 0.8km/s delta-v from that station and another 0.9km/s into a Mars capture orbit - the same thing back
- Rather than having to take a 20mt Orion along on deep-space travel, you just leave Orion at the station (probably even gets used for station crew rotation and you take the next Orion back to Earth after you return) and only take a dedicated hab on your journey
- you could have a dedicated depot for LH2/LOX or only LOX or at the beginning only hypergolics for lunar missions and a dedicated depot for argon for interplanetary missions using VASIMR (or derivatives)
- rather than throwing away your perfectly good VASIMR stage, 1MW solar power generation unit and interplanetary hab module (aka your spaceship which you could give an inspiring name...) after one mission, you use it for several missions
- at some point, if technology improves, even lunar landers could be made reusable (As suggested by many people already)
- a sustainable Mars mission architecture could be construed this way after you have done several Flexible Path missions - rather than putting all your structure on Mars in different launches, you use 2 launches for your Mars surface mission modules (40t each with heatshield) to get them to your L1/2 station, dock with your spaceship which you have already been using for a previous Mars orbital mission, fuel up your VASIMR stage with quite some argon and off you go for a Mars mission with just one spacecraft in the say 300t range (fully fueled) - and rather than throwing all your infrastructure away after each mission you just reuse it on the next mission.
though having a depot in L1 or L2 would be an addition to a depot in LEO, since that is where commericial rockets can reasonably get to. Also easier to park the Orion return capsule there rather than higher up the gravity well.

edit:
last thing on propellant depots, in regards to EELVs (those 20mt rockets), a 75mt rocket not designed, or a 125mt rocket not built yet (which would be the heavy lift rocket)
Quote:
Chemical in-space propulsion: Lunar return

* Revolves around some kind of Earth Departure Stage
** Considered three classes, which map to the three classes of launch vehicles (25mT, 75mT, 125mT)
* 25mT vehicles require propellant transfer and a depot for human Lunar exploration
** Still an open question whether mass/volume is sufficient for payloads
** Number of launches requires time to place propellant, vehicles, and mass on orbit; managing boil-off, orbit maintenance, keep-alive power drives need for a depot for missions beyond the first few
* 75mT vehicles can support some exploration missions with ***8220;top off***8221; of one EDS by another, but can do significant exploration before depot is ready
** Cannot match Ares V capability without top-off transfer
* 125+ mT vehicles do not require propellant transfer for Lunar missions but would be greatly enhanced by them for Mars
* Point of departure EDSs for these classes provided to NASA for additional architecture analysis now underway
from
http://www.nasa.gov/ppt/375965main_0...p%20slides.ppt
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/meet..._meeting.html#
 
Goshin is offline
 
Last edited by Goshin; 01-15-2010 at 11:08 AM.
PotatoBoatCaptain
Veteran++
Old
16 - 01-15-2010, 10:25 AM
Reply With Quote
Cool stuff. I still think we need wormholes though.
 
PotatoBoatCaptain is offline
 
max
VeteranXV
Old
17 - 01-15-2010, 10:36 AM
Reply With Quote
Cool stuff indeed. What are the chances of space elevators being built?
 
max is offline
 
Ztir
VeteranX
Old
18 - 01-15-2010, 10:51 AM
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by max View Post
Cool stuff indeed. What are the chances of space elevators being built?
until we can find a material strong enough to handle a space elevator(carbon nanotubes lolol), none
 
Ztir is offline
 
Goshin
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
19 - 01-15-2010, 11:02 AM
Reply With Quote
japanese are in the process of R&D for technology on the space elevator initiative
Japanese Scientists Plan to Build Space Elevator - Nanotechnology - Gizmodo
Quote:
Carbon nanotube technology has advanced so rapidly that a material capable of withstanding the amazing forces in the space elevator cable is almost within reach: according to the chairman of the Japan Space Elevator Association it'd only need to be four times stronger than the current strongest nanotube rope.
Space Elevator competition in Tokyo | Japanana.com
Japan hopes to turn sci-fi into reality with elevator to the stars - Times Online
Quote:
Unlike the warp drives in Star Trek, or H.G. Wells's The Time Machine, the idea of the space elevator does not mess with the laws of science; it just presents a series of very, very complex engineering problems.
interesting aside, the warp drives in star trek, or something similar, are being developed right now.

anyway, a big big problem with space elevators is the van allen belt.
Van Allen radiation belt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
the elevator would move too slowly through it, essentially cooking any organisms with radiation. Making the elevator rad hardened would give it a big mass hit. However, as a cargo carrier, it is pretty awesome.

My preferred method, rather than have a big giant tether that can be targeted by turrists, birds, and impact satilites, is the space fountain
Space fountain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
just need a pair of 1km diamater magnets. One buried in the ground, the other in the air. Then start throwing **** at them. Tada! (and a fusion power plant..see polywell fusion for 6gws of power for 'cheap') Fusion power? YOU BET! by Goshin - TribalWar Forums
 
Goshin is offline
 
Ianboo
Veteran4
Old
20 - 01-15-2010, 11:09 AM
Reply With Quote
The picture on the article is laughably horrible but the theory is sound: Space activity suit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's about time we update spacesuits to something a little less 1950's.
 
Ianboo is offline
 
Page 1 of 79
Reply


Go Back   TribalWar Forums > TribalWar Community > General Discussion
Reload this Page US Spaceflight for the future [update]

Social Website Bullshit

Tags
alex dare levert , alex knapik-levert , ass mode , goshin , goshin fucks men , goshin is unhappy irl , infinity&beyond , nasa , shirtless fatty , very ugly goshin

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

AGENT: CCBot/2.0 (http://commoncrawl.org/faq/) / Y
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:00 AM.