Lunarpedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Why Moderate Sized Rockets Are Better

2009-05-19T08:21:14Z

T.Neo:

I have referred to my concept of Lunar development as "reasonable" in the article, and as "rational" in other places. This means little without the basis for deciding what is reasonable. I take profitability as my basis for deciding. By investment standards profit from Luna is so risky and removed into the future as to make money spent on development no investment at all. The same standards can be used to evaluate development decisions regardless. One merely imagines a very low rate of return for an investment that does not mature for a very long time and is very risky, and then does the best possible within those limitations. One plans for various contingencies. Every thing I know about lunar development indicates to me that if people follow through persistently the environvent of lunar investments will change in the distant (perhaps fifty years) future. There will be a high rate of return and secure knowledge of performance. Making decissions based on profitability leaves some chance of failure; but the Apollo on steroids strategy leaves little chance for success unless your goal is leaving a few footprints on Mars and proving once and for all time that space exploration is just too expensive to have any practical benefits.--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 17:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
*Why did I call investment on Luna "risky" if everything I know points to future high returns on investment? Does not long time to maturity cover the entire set of adverse conditions? It is not what I know that indicates risk in lunar investments. It is my ignorance. The total of human knowledge about Luna is much greater than my own, but the total of human ignorance about Luna, as a fraction of my own ignorance, approaches unity. So there is a vast area out of which the risk of failure arises. Also, there is no guarantee that the individual person, corporation or nation that invests in lunar development will reap the profit. There is no guarantee that others will follow through with investments made today to the point that a profit is ever achieved.
*Those who care for nothing but the amount left in their retirement accounts at death, those who feel faint at the thought of risk and those who think humanity utterly incapable of sustained efforts of more than twenty years should have nothing to do with lunar investment. Those who think that the spark that caused man to irrigate the Babylonian empire and build cathedrals is still operating and still admirable should consider the effort of lunar development worthy of itself whether they can live to taste the fruit or not.--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 15:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I had a feeling an article like this would be created at one point.
I won't comment on the "launcher size argument", but I have a problem with asking for the cancellation of the Ares V.
The Ares program has it's own problems, most not attributable to launcher size.
Ares I has become a big problem, not Ares V.
Constellation might just cancel itself- it certainly does not need a bunch of space advocates to worry about it.
Also, one must not regard NASA as our only path back to the Moon...

[[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 18:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
*Who should invest in lunar development? Individuals, organizations, corporations, and governments who have resources that they can afford to loose and who want to help create a prosperous and secure future for humanity. It is not yet time to get shares in development corporations that might in the future be worth enormous sums to your heirs. Governments will get around to laying the international legal groundwork for such corporations eventually. Perhaps without any delay to development work caused by waiting for such legal groundwork. More knowledge is needed about just how lunar development might proceed so negotiators know something about what they are negotiating. Governments will also want to assure the ability to inspect lunar developments to insure that they are militarily harmless.
*Why should we invest in lunar development? It has been mentioned elsewhere that lunar materials could be used for space based [[Solar Power Satellites|solar power]] and orbiting space ports. Besides this a space based civilization could possibly avoid disaster by climate change of the run away greenhouse or run away ice age types that have been suggested by various sources. (Which of these catastrophes Earth's chaotic climate will throw at us is still in doubt, and may depend upon what we do on Earth.) Just as industrial capabilities of some nations on Earth have doubled and doubled again within the last couple of millennia, capabilities of a space based civilization would be expected to double repeatedly, with a much higher upper limit to the possible capabilities to be attained. Shading Earth from the sun as it starts to enter its red giant phase and even moving Earth farther from the sun are well within the capabilities that could be attained. Man will never attain any of the grand capabilities without taking the first step of industrializing either Luna or Mars. The second step will get us the pair.
*Unfortunately avoiding the possibility of military self destruction will not be available for quite some time (not until people build colony ships to send to other stars). As people gain more space based capabilities, we will realize new and more powerful ways to kill ourselves. We will simply need to continue to talk to each other and convince ourselves not to kill each other.--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 16:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
*What sort of efforts should be made to develop the resources of Luna, Mars and Ceres? Here are several points to consider.
*First we must recognize that the chief economic advantage of these places is the potential for cheap transportation of either raw materials or processed products into orbit.
*From Luna only about 0.4 kilowatt-hours of energy must be transferred to a kilogram payload to put it into orbit. If the over-all power efficiency of an [[Mass Drivers|electric launching system]] is 40% then it would use one kilowatt-hour per kilogram of cargo launched into orbit. At current earthly rates for electrical power that would be less than a nickel a pound. What the cost of a kilowatt-hour on Luna will be is subject to change, but the potential for low cost shipment of cargo to orbit is there if a large scale market is developed. Allowances for interest on the capital investment and maintenance also are less per pound if there is a large scale market for launch services. The situation is considerably different from that on Earth where the savings from increasing the size of the market are limited from the inefficiencies of scale that hinder the launch market on Earth, such as the increasing cost of liquid oxygen and land area for launching pads as these items become more expensive when demand goes beyond a certain amount.
*Mars also has large unused resources which could be pressed into service to launch cargo to orbit. Luna could benefit from receiving hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, and argon from Mars and pay for it with money from the sale of raw and processed materials to orbiting factories. A [[Luna-Mars Trade|single stage to orbit fully reusable space craft]] is much easier to design for Mars than for earth.
*From Ceres about a fortieth of a kilowatt-hour is sufficient to launch a kilogram of cargo to orbit. Launch system efficiencies should be high because a simple merry-go-round could accept cargo near the center without stopping and drop it into orbit at the rim. Two cargoes launched tangentially to the surface at escape velocity in opposite directions to balance the launcher would end up going in almost the same direction. They could rendezvous with each other with a reasonable amount of maneuvering fuel. If it is preferred to have a station in synchronous orbit about Ceres as a depot, cargo could go up and down a 426 kilometer long cable between the depot and Ceres. The cable could continue to 663 kilometers above the equator of Ceres where it is possible to simply drop cargo into an escape from Ceres trajectory. This would be a possible place to anchor the tensile load of the cable with the lower end anchored on Ceres. The depot at 426 kilometers would remain attached to the cable but have very nearly zero net force transferred between the depot and the cable. Cargo containers could be gathered at the depot and loaded on an interplanetary tug which could dock weightlessly at the depot. Such a tug might use partially ionized oxygen gas as reaction mass of a [[VASIMR]] rocket.
*Second, any human presence will require a massive industrial establishment to support it from local materials. Having many people to operate such a system would be counter productive, because then it would be necessary to have more machinery to support these workers. Automatically functioning redundant machinery for life support is therefore necessary for economic use of these places. The priority in developing a space based economy is not having people in orbit supported by Earth based supply but developing automatic machinery that can operate by remote control.
*Third, Luna is the closest source of materials that could potentially be launched into orbit at a cost of less than a dollar a pound, when the development work is done. It has a round trip communications delay of less than three seconds, which is suitable for some sorts of remote control that are not practical for Mars.
*Fourth, there are many special conditions at Luna, at Mars, and at Ceres that provide a special advantage or require special efforts to accommodate. For example, the low light intensity a Ceres could be countered by ultra light weight mirrors bent into a parabolic trough shape in the weightless area of synchronous orbit to concentrate light either on solar cells or on the hot end of a heat engine.
*From all of these considerations it seems that the most important thing to be done now for developing a space faring civilization is learning all the details which determine how much it costs to start taking advantage of the opportunities offered by places like Luna, Mars and Ceres. Various plans for using these resources in complimenting each other should be considered and evaluated in light of the details of the physical condition of these resources. When the best plans that will actually turn a profit are discovered, the legal framework for investing in earnest should be available.
*Of all the robot spacecraft, rovers and automatic experiment packages that could be launched to learn what we need to know to develop a space based economy, none needs to be launched on a Saturn V class launcher. Since it is necessary to develop remote controlled industry including remote controlled manipulators to get a space based economy started, any large platform needed in space should be assembled from pieces that can be launched on moderate sized launchers, which launch cargo for less per pound than the Saturn V class launchers. Assembling large platforms from smaller pieces is practice for the automated and remote controlled work that will be necessary for economic development of extraterrestrial resources.
*A fully completed International Space Station (ISS) may not be the most economical resource possible for doing experiments in space, but we are committed to supporting it for a while. Research done at the ISS to support automated space manufacturing could be helpful. When the time for which we are committed to supporting the ISS is expired, there should be a hiatus in the manned space flight program. This should continue until the unmanned efforts have developed resources to the point that people can be supported cheaply enough on local resources and there are sufficient resources in space for people to do things that make economic sense.
*The hundreds of times reductions in the cost of lifting stuff to orbit that NASA has sought will not happen before there is development of infrastructure in space, because all schemes for reducing the cost of lifting stuff to orbit by such a factor are dependent upon a high volume of traffic that can not be sustained without the development of the infrastructure necessary to make it profitable. Do the exploration and development work with light weight long endurance robots first and high volume reductions in the cost of getting to orbit will follow. The long reign of NASA's wishful thinking based launch system development plans should be at an end.--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 03:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
*I heard a NASA employee, Pete Worden, knock space based solar power on www.thespaceshow.com. He claimed one can not make a business case for space based solar power, and his argument assumed the cost for putting a space based solar power facility into orbit from Earth with currently available launch technology. I had to agree with every thing he said. He does a good job. He even pointed out that the ability to launch the necessary stuff from Luna would not be available for decades, also true. I would certainly discourage anyone from investing in trying to launch a space based solar power plant from Earth. Anyone offering such an investment likely just wants to take people's money, without risking jail time. The ability to launch the necessary stuff to orbit from Luna will never be available without the necessary effort of prospecting on Luna and developing an industry there. There is nothing that would force NASA to have that kind of program, but at least it looks toward a future benefit for mankind. It could make honest legislators out of those who said that their support for NASA funding was support for the future of mankind. Can anyone make a business case for an Apollo on steroids program? Perhaps Google will offer a prize for the most billions poured down a rat hole.--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 02:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look closely, you'll see NASA has been operating a large launch vehicle in the form of the shuttle, for more then 20 years. This shows that such a launcher is not impossible to operate. The shuttle launch configuration has only failed on launch once. While the useful cargo to orbit capability of the shuttle is in the same range as numerous "moderate sized rockets", the hardware is on the same scale as a larger launch vehicle. We will not get far with either small rockets, or the current technological conservativism exhibited by NASA. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 19:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
*The comparison of large launchers to the Space Shuttle is well made. It adequately shows the lack of economy.--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 01:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Economy? Do you mean a space-based economy? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 06:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
*How can anyone misunderstand me? I mean the Space Shuttle and Saturn V class launchers both consume money like water under high pressure gushes out of a two foot diameter pipe.--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 21:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

''How can anyone misunderstand me? I mean the Space Shuttle and Saturn V class launchers both consume money like water under high pressure gushes out of a two foot diameter pipe''

The shuttle has an orbiter vehicle that has to be refurbished after every mission, something that, for example, a shuttle-derived heavy lift vehicle would not need. I was merely making a comparison between the scale of the hardware.

I'd like to make some points:

*''The big effect of the Ares V would be eating up the lion’s share of the budget to first construct the construction facilities, then build the rockets, then maintain the outsized facilities for construction and launch of rockets that get used every other year''

The hardware for building and launching the Ares rockets already exists. It only needs to be modified, not constructed from scratch. Not to mention that such "outsized facilities" have been in use for the last 20 years.

*''Sending up three rockets, two of them Ares Vs would have three chances to fail and ruin the mission while sending up eight smaller rockets would have eight chances to fail and ruin the mission. If on the other hand sending a human mission to Mars is worth doing a dozen times, there will be spares of things that need to be launched for any one mission. If one of the smaller eight rockets needed to launch a Mars mission fails, its payload will tragically be lost, but the corresponding components from an upcoming mission will be moved up in line and the mission will go on.''

What prevents hardware from the next mission being used as backup hardware in case an Ares V launch fails? Why is this restricted to smaller rockets? Any hardware destined to be thrown away for each mission should be mass produced and easy to replace- NASA even constructed a backup Skylab.

[[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 13:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
*Thanks to T.Neo for pointing out that I failed to make a few points clear.
*The fact that the Ares V would use the same launch facilities as the Space Shuttle is one reason for the excessive cost of both. The Ares V does not share every defect that makes the Space Shuttle outrageously expensive, but our goal should not be to make a launch system that is marginally less outrageous in its excess cost. Our goal should be to use the most economic launch system that fits our purpose. I realize that the money gushing out of the federal coffers to pay for the prodigality of the Space Shuttle program is not only a shameful waste. Some see it as the money that puts food on the table and pays for the children's college education. It is not my intention that people should be bereft of employment because of scrapping of Space Shuttle facilities. NASA has an obligation to help its displaced people find other positions. Some should actually be employed in helping the others adjust. It is part of the cost of shifting some programs to a theoretical long term profitability approach to management decisions. I expect people to face up to the problems of shifting employment as superior to getting NASA to continue employing them in a manner that causes actual detriment to the cause of humanity's future in space.
*To whatever extent facilities must be constructed, modified, and/or renovated for the construction of the Ares V, the expense is a waste. Maintaining such facilities is a waste. Manufacturing the Ares V would be a waste and maintaining launch facilities for it would be a waste. We already have facilities for moderate sized launchers. They are cheaper to use and are cheaper yet per pound of cargo if facilities are used more fully. The type of facilities expense that makes sense is opening another launch pad for moderate sized vehicles and increasing the production capacity for the vehicles. The more commonality within the launch vehicle fleet, the cheaper it is to produce and maintain them.
*My point about the mission to Mars cargo of a smaller rocket than the Ares V having a spare in line as a replacement in a well run program was merely to show that Scott Horowitz' argument that a smaller rocket would cause a higher risk of loss of mission was in error. Of course a mission that would use an Ares V would have spare hardware that could replace a cargo lost to launch failure, if it were actually intended to launch a dozen missions to Mars. There would be a smaller chance per mission of a launch failure, and a bigger cost per failure. My suspicion has been that some in the space activist community care nothing for economic development of Mars, Luna, or any other place off Earth. They just want to see the first footprints on Mars made by a U.S. citizen, and anything happening on Mars after that is not their concern. If they want to prove their concern for a Mars colony, they should support the kind of program that would be necessary for it.
*Wernher von Braun wanted smaller rockets than the Saturn V used for sending men to the moon. His idea would have required a space station for construction of the moon vehicle in orbit. We are lucky that he bowed to time pressure and used the Saturn V rocket, because the technical ability to build a functional space station did not exist at the time of the Apollo program. If he had had the time he would have tried to build a manned space station as an orbiting wheel, and it would have been an impossible task without first making several technical advances. As it was the Apollo program succeeded in scientific progress even though it had only political goals. Things have changed. We can not simply repeat the space missions of the past over and over and expect fame for anything but foolishness.
*The time has come when economic development of Luna is possible. It would be a long and difficult process, but it would open up the economic colonization of the whole solar system.--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 19:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

While some of the points you make are intriguing, and I find your different ideology fascinating, I still disagree.
I'd say building and operating a fleet of ~30 components, each with automatic docking systems, thrusters and avionics, is a waste of money. I also think we shouldn't base our methods of exploration on those proposed by a manin the 1960s. And trying to change NASA's direction, is pointless. Others have tried and failed. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 08:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Why Moderate Sized Rockets Are Better

2009-05-16T13:59:26Z

T.Neo:

Talk:Why Moderate Sized Rockets Are Better

2009-05-14T06:50:07Z

T.Neo:

Talk:Why Moderate Sized Rockets Are Better

2009-05-13T19:31:26Z

T.Neo:

Talk:Why Moderate Sized Rockets Are Better

2009-03-30T18:33:48Z

T.Neo:

User talk:Jarogers2001

2008-12-30T20:45:02Z

T.Neo: New section: oops...

Welcome to my mess. Occasionally I clean it up.

Leave me a message by editing this page. (click "Edit" right next to "Discussion" at the top of this page)

Please sign with <nowiki>'~~~~'</nowiki> or leave your contact information if not logged in. You may also contact me at the [http://moonsocietyforum.com/ Moon Society Forum].

:lol: I thought I left a redirect on your personal page after I page-jacked it. I did the whole thing because a) there was a link to the person page in question from a template (which I actually found after moving the thing) and b) the personal page in questions kept showing up in the lists of pages needing fixing (the real reason) and c) it was a handy thing that people other than you might need. [[User:Miros1|Rose/Miros]] 21:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to clean up this mess, not make it worse! Why would I jack a page and not leave things working correctly? :lol: [[User:Miros1|Rose/Miros]] 01:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, one of my attempts to fix some dead links and such ballooned out of control. So yep, we've got a bunch of new templates borrowed from Wikipedia. [[User:Miros1|Rose/Miros]] 11:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I'm in the process of removing the ballooned templates and pages. Recheck to see if your desired template is still there. If it disappears, reimport or ask me to do so. [[User:Miros1|Rose/Miros]] 12:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

== oops... ==

Sorry, I accidentally uploaded the wrong image to Marspedia. Could you please delete it? Thanks. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 20:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Luna-Mars Trade

2008-11-06T08:57:10Z

T.Neo:

All of the processes necessary for Luna-Mars trade are not sketched in any great detail, but it seems worth considering. If a mass accelerator can boost the supersonic landing Mars to low Mars orbit vehicle mentioned up to 1025 meters per second, then 49% of the take-off weight gets to orbit.--'''FARTHERRED'''11:28pm Central Standard Time 31 October 2008

Does the original creator realize that by inserting a slash in the article name, he has created a sub-article of [[Luna]]? - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 07:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

:Problems like that can be avoided if we disable subpages for mainspace articles. I believe Wikipedia has done this. However, it might be a better idea for Lunarpedia if we keep subpages for mainspace articles. In that case, I suggest moving the content to "Luna-Mars trade". [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

::Moving it was my thought as well. I rather like subpages. Any objections to a move? - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 16:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
*Aw shucks. It says right here on my Wiki Reference Card not to use slash, plus sign, number sign, or any of a number of kinds of brackets in a title. I did not have the reference card with me at a distant location but probably would not have consulted it anyway. This is one way to learn. I hope it is not too much trouble to move the article.--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 16:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
:It can be moved just like any other article. There is no additional procedure. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 03:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

:::If we disable it, we should also disable it for the seldom used GFDL namespace and the never used CC_Luna namespace, as they have teh same function as the main namespace, just not public domain. -- [[User:Strangelv|Strangelv]] 18:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
::::I see no reason to disable it at this time. I intend to use sub-articles in the future. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 03:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
*Why should a Mars to low Mars orbit vehicle have wings and land supersonic? The wings should allow the vehicle to kill its orbital velocity through aerodynamic drag when returning to Mars and lift from the wings should allow the vehicle to set down gently on a runway. The orbital speed being considered is only about 40% faster than the SR-71 flew, and the Mars to low Mars orbit vehicle would only move through the atmosphere at that speed for a short time while reentering from orbit. If the SR-71 could tolerate 2450 meters per second for thousands of miles of flight, a Mars to low Mars orbit vehicle should be able to tolerate flying at 3440 meters per second through Mars' upper atmosphere for a few minutes. The vehicle would not move at orbital velocity when touching down on a runway, but it would still need to be supersonic to generate enough lift for a gentle landing.--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 02:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

A lifting reentry for martian cargo is an interesting idea. I have always contemplated capsule type landings. However, I am a bit skeptical about a supersonic landing. If I am correct, supersonic on Mars is faster then on Earth due to thinner air. And, even in the thinner air, any landing gear being deployed would have to resist this force. Add to that what the gear would encounter on contect with the ground, and I don't see a happy landing. To lower the landing speed, one would have to increase the lifting force. Maybe swing wings would work, they will incease compexity.

How is the shuttle launched from the Martian surface? Is it a vertical or horizontal launch? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

*In the case of the speed of sound T.Neo's memory serves falsely. The speed of sound is dependent directly on the temperature and inversely on molecular weight, but it is nearly independent of pressure. The suggested shuttle would take off vertically for the version that puts 36% of take-off weight into orbit. It would be thrown into the atmosphere near the peak of mount Olympus at 1025 meters per second in the version to be boosted by electric acceleration which is suggested to achieve 49% of take-off weight to orbit. SSTO is a less demanding challenge for Mars than for Earth. --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 14:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
::Woa. I thought that the speed at which sound propagates is dependent upon the density of the medium, not the temperature. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 19:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

SSTO is definatly much easier on Mars then on Earth.
What is the speed of sound on Mars? What would the landing speed for the shuttle be? WHat kind of forces would the landing gear endure? What would the heat sheild of such a craft be made of? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 16:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
*I will return to the speed of sound on Mars later. For now I was thinking of a titanium steel Aerodynamic shell with heat soak on reentry and an insulated internal compartment for electronics with evaporative cooling using dry ice. Landing gear would be skids with an expendable layer.--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 16:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
*The speed of sound on mars at about 0 C is about 240 m/sec making the low orbit velocity about mach 14.2 and and the contemplated electricly accelerated boost about mach 4.2 --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 19:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
*I can see how Jarogers2001 might think that the speed of sound is dependent on density since sound travles faster in steel and in water than in air at room temperature. However, we are talking about just the atmosphere of Mars here, so the speed of sound is the square root of the quantity of the specific heat ratio times the gas constant times the temperature devided by the molecular weight quantity closed. That can be rewritten as a function of density, but that would seem an unneeded complication.--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 20:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Titanium-steel thermal soak confuses me. Thermal soak is when an insulating substance keeps heat away from the airframe. Titanium-steel seems more like a radiative heatshield, where excess heat is radiated away, like the shuttle RCC. However, the problem with the shuttle RCC (And, presumably Titanium-steel) is that they are as good at conducting heat as they are radiating it. This means that the Titanium-steel will conduct heat to the rest of the ship. Not only does the computer need to be cooled, but systems to deploy the landing gear, the RCS, the MEs, etc. Add to that, whatever payload you are carrying might not like being heated up too much. Since the methane (and LOX) tanks take up a lot of space, it might be better to make the upper hull out of thinner material, possibly aluminium.

Considering where this craft would be working, and the stresses it endures on the way down, it would have to be pretty robust. It needs a minimal use of electronics, and must be maintainable with substances found on Mars. Nothing like the current space shuttle. Think of an aircraft operating out of the Siberian tundra. It must be very robust, like many russian aircraft. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 20:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
*Sorry about “titanium steel.” That shows that I am not very familiar with titanium alloys. Try Grade 6 titanium alloy, containing 5% Aluminum and 2.5% Tin. Perhaps Grade 5 or Grade 9 would be better. I do not feel capable of making a final determination of alloy, but it isn’t going to be simple aluminum. It seems that I have heard of some heat resistant aluminum based alloys, but I can not name a good candidate at the moment.
*As far as cargo heating is concerned, this thing takes cargo up for shipping exports. It comes down empty. That is when the heat threat is a worry. The landing skids are constantly deployed. They are part of the airframe, like ventral fins. The flaps are operated by heat resistant cables. The control motors are in the same insulated box as the electronics. A section of the air frame with the cross section reducing from fore to aft will not have such serious heat threat problems. The reaction control nozzles can stick out there. Any unused reaction control fuel can be dumped once the flaps bite. What are “MEs?”
*I am not familiar with what you mean by heat soak, but the vehicle I describe would just soak up the heat and get hot. The idea is that the exposure to maximum heat threat will be short enough that it will not melt.
*Minimizing the use of electronics would not make the craft more rugged. Electronic components can keep going for decades. Electronics are light enough that spare boards can be shipped with the craft without significant extra expense. Anything that fails can be swapped out. That is Siberia level maintenance. The electronics are necessary for this thing to work.
*Since I am not an aeronautical engineer, I put only limited faith in my own suggestion, but nothing written here so far seems like a serious objection. --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 22:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
*I can only roughly guess what speed would be necessary for landing. I guess 1000 miles per hour. That is about mach1.9 on Mars. There is reason for thinking the thermal threat will not be too great. Besides there being only 20% of the energy per pound of reentering spacecraft as there is on Earth, the carbon dioxide atmosphere heats up to a lower temperature for any given amount of heat it absorbs because carbon dioxide is triatomic. Also since carbon dioxide is half again as heavy as the average air molecule, for any given temperature the average carbon dioxide molecule is moving only about 82% as fast as an average air molecule at that temperature. This means that carbon dioxide does not transfer heat as effectively to the skin of a supersonic aircraft as air does. The point of my greatest uncertainty is whether or not the craft can maintain orientational control while supersonic in ground effect. This is an almost completely untested area.

Pity it only takes cargo on the way up. If I wanted to export anything from the martian system it would probably be mined from Deimos or Phobos.
Landing large cargo on Mars is very tricky. Plans like Mars direct and Mars for less neglect landing.
The Mars Science Laboratory will land with A "skycrane" system. However, this may not hold up well to
sustainability. Is there any way this could be reconfigured for payload delivery to the Martian surface?
Modularity is a good idea. Anything that cannot be made on Mars should be brought from Earth. For example, the MEs (Main Engines, sorry.) will be quite complex. If one breaks, a new one could be delivered from Earth, and just "dropped in". Same with electronics.

What would the maintainance effort? And what about turnaround time? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 08:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Luna-Mars Trade

2008-11-05T20:43:29Z

T.Neo:

Talk:Luna-Mars Trade

2008-11-05T16:07:11Z

T.Neo:

Talk:Luna-Mars Trade

2008-11-04T07:53:07Z

T.Neo:

Talk:Luna-Mars Trade

2008-11-01T07:41:15Z

T.Neo:

All of the processes necessary for Luna/Mars trade are not sketched in any great detail, but it seems worth considering. If a mass accelerator can boost the supersonic landing Mars to low Mars orbit vehicle mentioned up to 1025 meters per second, then 49% of the take-off weight gets to orbit.--'''FARTHERRED'''11:28pm Central Standard Time

Does the original creator realize that by inserting a slash in the article name, he has created a sub-article of [[Luna]]? - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 07:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

:*Problems like that can be avoided if we disable subpages for mainspace articles. I believe Wikipedia
has done this. However, it might be a better idea for Lunarpedia if we keep subpages for mainspace articles. In that case, I suggest moving the content to "Luna-Mars trade". [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Terraforming

2008-10-29T20:26:23Z

T.Neo:

Ahem, the people back on Earth might not appreciate that moldy green look... [[User:Miros1|Rose/Miros]] 04:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Many people, including me, would enjoy a blue-green Moon, marbled with white clouds and a cyan atmosphere fading into space. It would be so bright, at full moon one might be able to see full color!
[[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion from the MOO:
MikeD-1 says, "I wouldn't be in favor of terraforming the surface of Luna" 
dcarson says, "some of Schlock Mercanary is set on a terraformed Luna" 
MikeD-1 says, "my obections are several, some are actually scientific" 
MikeD-1 says, "and at least one has to do with maintaining a certain aesthetic" 
You say, "Yeah, the people back on earth won't like that moldy green look" 
MikeD-1 says, "now I don't mind if they can find a way to terraform the far side without effecting the nearside" 
You say, "or strip mine it" 
You say, "giving the man in the moon a black eye would be very bad press" 
MikeD-1 says, "stripmining would not alter the appearance appreciably, certainly not to the naked eye" 
dcarson says, "I have seen one proposal to basically build big glass hexagons so you terrarome a few square miles at a time" 
You say, "how about 100 years of strip mining?" 
You say, "the man in the moon would at least get a giant zit scar" 
MikeD-1 says, "heh, nah, 1000 years _might_ be visible to the naked eye" 
You say, "what about binoculars?" 
MikeD-1 says, "even with binoculars or a decent telescope you can't see features less than about a mile accross" 
You say, "didn't mr. carson just say something about a few square miles?" 
You say, "oh, that was terraforming" 
MikeD-1 says, "yes, and they could be built farside" 
MikeD-1 says, "terraforming the whole of Luna would change the appearance and most importantly would be very high maintenance due to atmospheric leakage" 
MikeD-1 says, "a couple of square miles would be hard to see from earth without optical aids" 
dcarson says, "I've seen estimates of 50-100K years for the atmosphere to be OK" 
You say, "we'll have mucked up the earth's atmosphere by THEN" 
MikeD-1 says, "yes, I've seen some interesting estimates for that too Dana, I seem to recall Greg estimating it would be safe for 10k years due to it's atmosphere being in the same orbit around earth, I believe he did suggest topping it up periordically to keep it consistent though" 
dcarson says, "http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20001203.html" 
MikeD-1 says, "Barring our downfall, it will eventually be terraformed, there's no doubt about that. But I wouldn't support doing it at this point in time, that's a project for several generations down the line." 
dcarson says, "http://www.amazon.ca/Terraforming-Creating-Habitable-Martin-Beech/dp/0387097953" 
You say, "stick it on the terraforming page as an external reference" 
MikeD-1 says, "It's not like Venus, there we'd have to do some terraforming just to be able to land. But Luna and Mars we can build infrastructure on and terraform from onsite" 
dcarson says, "he also has one called Rejuvenating the Sun and Avoiding Other Global Catastrophes" 
You say, "depends... in Spin, they did <nowiki>Mars</nowiki> all by remote control, because that was the only way to do it" 
MikeD-1 says, "there were proposals for partially terraforming Venus as far back as the 70s" 
dcarson says, "the other book on that topic is Terraforming: Engineering Planetary Environments by Fogg" 
You say, "what if you just seeded venus's atmosphere with some mold?" 
dcarson says, "it would vaporize in the heat and go back to being CO2" 
MikeD-1 says, "the most promising proposals were expected to take about 200 years just to make it possible for us to land there, about 100-150 years to be able to send robotic missions" 
You say, "the high atmosphere? above the clouds?" 
dcarson says, "the other book on that topic is Terraforming: Engineering Planetary Environments by Fogg" 
dcarson says, "and bookfinder.com has a copy for only $353.98" 
MikeD-1 says, "the proposals did rely on biological aids" 
dcarson says, "at some point it will fall lower" 
MikeD-1 says, "that's why it would take about 200 years, we'd have to keep topping up the enzymes" 
MikeD-1 says, "oh, and that 200 years would only make it barely possible to send manned missions, we'd still need ev suits" 

[[User:Miros1|Rose/Miros]] 08:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

500 years ago, nobody would have appreciated our urban sprawls. They happened anyways. Likely the same situation will apply to altering the moon. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 09:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of terraforming Luna because it would lose its role s a key industrial centre.
Fully "paraforming" is something that I doubt is possible and it would also ruin Luna's economy.
I see small domes built built in craters, here and there. Medium term Luna will stay industrial.
Short-medium term terraforming efforts spent on Mars will be worth more, IMO. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 20:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:T.Neo

2008-10-29T20:19:27Z

T.Neo:

Welcome to Lunarpedia! - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 07:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 09:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in this: [http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=108208995063815796179.000459bb3b04acd74a45c&ll=52.48278,-119.53125&spn=125.896285,281.601563&z=2 Lunar Development World Map] - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 03:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but for some reason my browser/internet connection/computer doesn't seem like Google Maps, and never reallly has. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you please add similar markup to your new articles? It just helps keep things hooked together until some obsessive compulsive comes along and tidies up.
<nowiki>

{{stub}}

[[Category:Concept Scenarios]]

</nowiki>
[[User:Miros1|Rose/Miros]] 08:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC), the obsessive compulsive who's currently tidying up

Oh, sorry. It is my general laziness and forgetfulness. I'll see what I can do. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 20:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Size of Infrastructure

2008-10-27T07:46:54Z

T.Neo:

The assemblers need not be nano. Self-replicating factories will at first be very big. A good way to simplify the replication process is to have [[marsp:Shared componenting|shared componentsmarsp]].

As for HLVs, do not fixate on Ares V, constellation and NASA. One example is Sea Dragon. Sea Dragon had a payload capacity of 500 tons or so. HLVs have ~100, MLVs, say, ~20 tons. How hard would it be to scale down Sea Dragon to the size of an HLV or MLV?

If it is not vital to have a HLV for lunar return, it would certainly be preferred. Just not a NASA monstrosity. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 09:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
*As far as I know there is no need for HLVs to start a lunar colony. The costs of maintaining launch facilities for HLVs are outsized just as the rockets are outsized. Since HLVs are infrequently launched, the annual maintenance costs are spread over few launches making HLVs expensive per pound of payload. Eliminating an entire unneeded class of launch vehicle results in savings that should not be missed.--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 14:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
::Robert Bigelow has said that he plans to assemble mutiple Bigelow modules in LEO, then land them on the moon. For non-inflatable, rigid shell habitats, HLV's may be necessary. Using less costly, commercially available rockets is one of the advantages of the Bigelow approach. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 15:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

:I see your point, Farred. However, the whole concept behind BDB (Big Dumb Boosters) like Sea Dragon is to reduce those costs throught simplicity. For example, how about using room temperature propellants such as H2O2 and kerosine/hydrocarbon instead of cryogenics like Lox/LH2? I do think, However, that below a certain point, sea launch becomes too costly, and it would probably be better to do a conventional land launch. We ship cargo in bulk on huge container ships, not one-by-one on rowboats.

We also need smaller launchers, I am not saying that we don't. It is a pity BDB was never applied to smaller launchers. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 22:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
:The problem with H2O2 is its instability. The safeguards to protect against/prevent violent decomposition tend to be more expensive than going with LOX. BDB should probably be applied with LOX/Kerosene. SpaceX is trying to take this route. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 00:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Not even "real" kerosine. I am talking about something more like Jet A. The OTRAG project used plain gasoline, if I remember correctly. What about propane/MAPP gas/natural gas? Could these be used as room temperature, self pressurizing propellants?
With room temperature oxidisers, nitrogen tetroxide is used often, and nitric acid of several varieties have been considered. These two are toxic and volatile, so how do they stand up to H2O2?
Which is cheaper: Lox/H2O2?
*Cost per litre
*Cost of handling equipment
*Cost of maintaining handling equipment
*Cost in weight, of fill/drain and other handling systems on board the LV
*Cost in terms of Hi-tech materials used both on the pad and on the vehicle
*Also, if empty stages were to spill residual propellants, or the rocket went off course, H2O2 would quickly dilute into the water into low levels thatare tolerable. N204/Nitric acid would do terrible things, but LOX would just go boom.

SpaceX disappoints me with the amount of "Hi-Tech" components on their LVs, like the turbopump driven Merlin (First stage Falcon1, both stages Falcon9) and the niobium nozzle on the Kestrel engine. I am talking "down and dirty" technology, rugged, off the shelf, cheap. Like OTRAG.

A big dumb booster concept, the Beal BA-2, used jet fuel/H2O2 in all stages. It failed because, like I said before, it started out too big. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 08:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
*something from --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 00:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC) follows.
*There have been merchant vessels such as the Edmund Fitzgerald which carried 26000 tons of ore to the bottom of Lake Superior and rowboats have been economically important, but these craft have nothing more to do with rockets than a garbage truck does. In spite of any watercraft examples, eliminating launch facilities for HLVs would save money.
*Sea Dragon was an interesting design that might have been the cheapest way to launch very large payloads, but it was never built. It may be that there was some difficulty that was found during development of specifications for production that discouraged production. It may have been decided that there was simply no need for such a large rocket. In any case, it is not needed now.
*OTRAG’s Common Rocket Propulsion Units might have allowed the benefits of mass production to lower launch costs some, but OTRAG never launched to orbit. There is a reason that upper stages use higher specific impulse fuels than lower stages. Saving a pound on a third stage makes a bigger difference in the gross takeoff weight than saving a pound on a booster.
*I have no objection to propane and liquid oxygen; or RP1 and liquid oxygen as a first stage propellant. The thing that is unneeded is the size of a Saturn V.
*The Chinese seem to be building something big in the line of rocketry. Perhaps they intend to go to Mars and aspiring Martians should learn Chinese. It may take fifty years for financial returns to start coming in from industrial developments on Luna. We still need more information about available lunar resources to figure that out. It will take much more than fifty years to see the first financial returns from Mars. --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 00:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

OTRAG had low Isp upper stages. It sacrificed efficiency for a reason, lower production cost.
However, there are some uses for which there ''must'' be a high Isp. Things like Earth Departure stages, and landers, etc. Look, for example at a VASIMR lunar tug. It sacrifices production and operating costs for Isp and efficiency. Use lox/kerosine if you want. H2O2 might be inferior to Lox, but compared with other room temperature propellants, it comes out safer then N2O4.

To make space travel a real possibility, and to branch out of LEO, we need to leave behind the old NASA way of thinking. We need our launchers to be rugged and strong, simple and effective. We must reserve liquid hydrogen and turbopumps for moon landers. We must adopt simple methods of construction.

End of rant. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Wet workshop

2008-10-27T07:28:57Z

T.Neo:

Actually, if you're gonna melt 'em down, you can just crash land them, sufficiently far from anything that would be damaged by the tank or any subsequent moonquakes. [[User:Miros1|Rose/Miros]] 23:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point. While you're at it, make the crash sites far away from monuments as well. Something like a basin near one of the poles, deep enought to catch most of the debris. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Terraforming

2008-10-27T07:25:51Z

T.Neo:

Talk:Size of Infrastructure

2008-10-23T08:23:50Z

T.Neo:

Talk:Size of Infrastructure

2008-10-22T22:35:52Z

T.Neo:

Talk:Oganesson

2008-10-22T07:44:11Z

T.Neo: New page: Is there a reason for elements like Ununoctium to be on Lunarpedia? They aren't "real" in the sense that they do not occcur naturally. They therefore ''definatly'' aren't available on the ...

Is there a reason for elements like Ununoctium to be on Lunarpedia? They aren't "real" in the sense that they do not occcur naturally. They therefore ''definatly'' aren't available on the moon and they don't have any uses. Maybe a merge to a list of "Articficial heavy elements"? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:T.Neo

2008-10-22T07:33:59Z

T.Neo:

Talk:Lunar Regolith

2008-10-14T07:37:13Z

T.Neo:

What use of "Lunar Soil" is a misnomer? According to a definition in Merriam-Webster's Dictionary any unconsolidated material on the surface of a planet is soil.--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 05:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
*According to Wikipedia:"Lunar soil is the fine regolith found on the surface of the Moon." Wikipedia notes:"Some have argued that the term 'soil' is not correct in reference to the Moon because soil is defined as having organic content, whereas the Moon has none. However, standard usage among lunar scientists is to ignore that distinction." Whose definition is it that opposes a dictionary definition?--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 06:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
:Merriam Webster is blatantly incorrect in this case, and I wouldn't exactly call Wikipedia a reliable source. The general geologic definition of soil requires that regolith must have been so modified by chemical and biological processes that it is capable of supporting life. Some lunar/planetary scientists may disregard the difference. I know one who all but reams any students who do. Regardless, the terms refer to the same thing and are described within the same article. Regolith is the more accurate term. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 06:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

==Merge request==
I would like to merge [[Lunar Soil]] with this article. Lunar soil currently has one sentence that is not already contained within this article, and both substances are of the same chemical and mineralogical composition, and are produced by the same processes. They are the same substance. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 06:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I second the request for merge. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Office for Lunar Affairs

2008-10-13T07:53:36Z

T.Neo:

This is not an article. This is false advertising. --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 19:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I am under the impression that it is. Maybe the "lunar land claims thingy" article that claims to be based in mojave spaceport is as well. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:James, Mike, What are your opinions? - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 03:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

::We should probably clarify somewhere that the existence of content on Lunarpedia does not equate to an endorsement of either that organization or the content posted here. It would be good to counterbalance claims in articles about dubious business, organizations, et c. with problems with their models. OTOH, if the information about said organization or business is demonstrably false, it could be removed, or mentioned that the organization claims X, but this is provably false because of Y, as long as it's obvious and not merely seeming to be pushing a point-of-view.

::We probably need a category for land claims and related activities, as that's only going to increase as time progresses, and someone may come here in an attempt to make sense of the overlapping and mutually exclusive claims running around. -- [[User:Strangelv|Strangelv]] 19:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I hate all this land claims stuff. In the real world, we have something called "intent to occupy". [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 21:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
:"We should probably clarify somewhere that the existence of content on Lunarpedia does not equate to an endorsement of either that organization or the content posted here." Any recommendations on the template I just added to the article? - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 22:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

::An alarm like this isn't a good idea IMO. Intent to occupy should belong in the same grouping as the others, by the way. Possibly have a scale of enforceability from low to high, with each type of land claim's enforceability rating explained? How many types do we have? intent to occupy, sold parcels, different locations for claims, claims backed up by having landed things, separately for both not voided (I can think of only one arguable claim presently existing, although some or all of the money was NASA's) and voided by the Outer Space Treaty (it appears that US and CCCP both effectively established and respected each other's staked out territories on the visible Lunar surface, although the OST effectively voided these apparent claims -- and [[Angus Bay]], BTW, is in what was CCCP territory...)?

::Actually, there's at least one other claim category: claim made and then something by a government that's signed the OST has landed something on one's claim. While the court that heard the case threw it out (and the world in question was Eros, not Luna), there is the possibility of this coming up again sometime.

::What does, does not, may, or may not constitute an enforceable or at least respected claim is very arguably up in the air right now. We ought to try to be objective here. If we show a clear POV bias, our analysis will not be taken as seriously as it will be if we carefully weigh the pros and cons of every approach. That some approaches will be found rather wanting under such an analysis should clearly be due to their own lack of merits rather than our own gut reactions to these things.

::That we do not endorse what is here needs to be a global statement applying to everything here equally. -- [[User:Strangelv|Strangelv]] 01:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have a permanantly or semi-permanantly occupied base, a certain radius of land around that base is land that you control and own. The Moon, and every other celestial body in space, and certain "valuble" orbits (i.e. GEO) should be available to everyone, like international waters.
"Use them togther, use them in peace" [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Office for Lunar Affairs

2008-10-13T07:52:23Z

T.Neo:

This is not an article. This is false advertising. --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 19:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I am under the impression that it is. Maybe the "lunar land claims thingy" article that claims to be based in mojave spaceport is as well. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:James, Mike, What are your opinions? - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 03:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

::We should probably clarify somewhere that the existence of content on Lunarpedia does not equate to an endorsement of either that organization or the content posted here. It would be good to counterbalance claims in articles about dubious business, organizations, et c. with problems with their models. OTOH, if the information about said organization or business is demonstrably false, it could be removed, or mentioned that the organization claims X, but this is provably false because of Y, as long as it's obvious and not merely seeming to be pushing a point-of-view.

::We probably need a category for land claims and related activities, as that's only going to increase as time progresses, and someone may come here in an attempt to make sense of the overlapping and mutually exclusive claims running around. -- [[User:Strangelv|Strangelv]] 19:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I hate all this land claims stuff. In the real world, we have something called "intent to occupy". [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 21:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
:"We should probably clarify somewhere that the existence of content on Lunarpedia does not equate to an endorsement of either that organization or the content posted here." Any recommendations on the template I just added to the article? - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 22:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

::An alarm like this isn't a good idea IMO. Intent to occupy should belong in the same grouping as the others, by the way. Possibly have a scale of enforceability from low to high, with each type of land claim's enforceability rating explained? How many types do we have? intent to occupy, sold parcels, different locations for claims, claims backed up by having landed things, separately for both not voided (I can think of only one arguable claim presently existing, although some or all of the money was NASA's) and voided by the Outer Space Treaty (it appears that US and CCCP both effectively established and respected each other's staked out territories on the visible Lunar surface, although the OST effectively voided these apparent claims -- and [[Angus Bay]], BTW, is in what was CCCP territory...)?

::Actually, there's at least one other claim category: claim made and then something by a government that's signed the OST has landed something on one's claim. While the court that heard the case threw it out (and the world in question was Eros, not Luna), there is the possibility of this coming up again sometime.

::What does, does not, may, or may not constitute an enforceable or at least respected claim is very arguably up in the air right now. We ought to try to be objective here. If we show a clear POV bias, our analysis will not be taken as seriously as it will be if we carefully weigh the pros and cons of every approach. That some approaches will be found rather wanting under such an analysis should clearly be due to their own lack of merits rather than our own gut reactions to these things.

::That we do not endorse what is here needs to be a global statement applying to everything here equally. -- [[User:Strangelv|Strangelv]] 01:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have a permanantly or semi-permanantly occupied base, a certain radius of land around that base is land that you control and own. The Moon, and every other celestial body in space, and certain "valuble" orbits (i.e. GEO) should be available to everyone, like international waters.
"use them togther, use them in peace" [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Office for Lunar Affairs

2008-10-12T21:11:50Z

T.Neo:

Talk:Office for Lunar Affairs

2008-10-07T07:12:04Z

T.Neo:

User talk:Jarogers2001

2008-09-29T06:53:53Z

T.Neo:

Welcome to my mess. Occasionally I clean it up.

Leave me a message by editing this page. Please sign with '~~~~'

== Marspedia Redirect ==

I'm not sure redirecting your Marspedia user page to Lunarpedia is a good idea as it may lead to confusion when other Marspedia users click on the link. I also have other reasons to think it's not a good idea, but I'll refrain from mentioning those just yet as that site seems to getting off to a much slower start than expected. -- [[User:Mdelaney|Mdelaney]] 22:16, 05 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me put it another way. I doubt anyone would have a problem with you using a link, regular or interwiki, along with a note saying 
''"I don't want to maintain 5 separate user pages, so contact me at my lunarpedia one".'' 
I believe you could even do the same with the talk page. Then protect all the user pages and user talk pages apart from the ones you want to use. It's just the sudden jolt of a redirect that might be iffy. -- [[User:Mdelaney|Mdelaney]] 13:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we should make a template for doing just that. [[User:Mdelaney|Mdelaney]] 14:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, how about something like these?

{|
|{{User Lunarpedia.org}}
|{{User talk Lunarpedia.org}}
|-
|{{User Marspedia.org}}
|{{User talk Marspedia.org}}
|}

-- [[User:Mdelaney|Mdelaney]] 15:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, those have all been replaced by nicer better more functional ones now. Check my [[User_talk:Mdelaney|talk]] page to see them. I've also uploaded them to our other wikis. [[User:Mdelaney|Mdelaney]] 11:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Why did you hardcode the Eodictionary template to your page instead of making it an actual template? -- [[User:Mdelaney|Mdelaney]] 01:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Not that it matters now that I've made some.
{|
|{{User Exd Sysop}}
|{{User Lunarp Sysop}}
|{{User Marsp Sysop}}
|-
|{{User Sf Sysop}}
|
|
|}

-- [[User:Mdelaney|Mdelaney]] 01:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

== Please sign with <nowiki>'~~~~'</nowiki> ==

Would you believe I didn't even know about <nowiki>'~~~~'</nowiki>

Hey, did you notice I fixed the time so it reads UTC now?

-- [[User:Mdelaney|Mdelaney]] 14:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

== What's a bleb? ==

Hi Jarogers2001 - In answer to your question, I'm not sure that there is any formal definition for a "bleb" - it's basically synonomous with "grain" but with metals, like the nanophase iron in lunar soils, they are usually roughly spherical and so I think that "bleb" is basically a small "blob" [[User:IntrplnetSarah|IntrplnetSarah]] 21:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

==Thanks for the Pointer==
I think I have removed all unwanted signature stamps now. --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 16:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
==Editing Question==
I see from the edit history that you liked my "Sintered Brick Construction" article. Well it started out as a part of the "Roof Support" article and I recopied it. Now I would like to get rid of the excess copy in "Roof Support" in the best way. Should I just erase it? --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 01:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
==Sintered Regolith article==
That was good work. After careful consideration I realize that my submission was somewhat disparaging of NASA. I should have known better. I think I still have substantial capacity for improvement in holding up a high standard for Lunarpedia. --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 19:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
===Using Oxygen Atmospheres===
Certainly sintering regolith in an oxygen atmosphere has the potential to loose some oxygen, but oxygen is plentiful on Luna. Experimentation will show if there is benefit to ballance the cost. Some low partial pressure of oxygen could conceivably be found best for the process of sintering bricks. Hydrogen is scarce on Luna. Even if there are substantial deposits suitable for extraction I would not want to use it for anything so wasteful as rocket fuel. --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 14:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
===Messenger Program===
I do not know what aim or icq are, but do not tell me. I do not want to know. --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 16:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
===No Offense Taken===
I did not want to seem as though I were offended. All of this web posting is new to me. I generally do not like to be bothered with new gadgets like voice mail. I put up with some bother if it is usefull.
I am in the process of obtaining some graphics for posting on Lunarpedia. Does the author need to reveal his identity in order to render the graphics in the public domain? The whole process is strange to me. --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 14:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
===Glad-Handing===
Thanks for the encouragement, but I never had any intention of seeking advice for preparing a political persuasion presentation of the glad-handing nature. I am constitutionally unable to do such things. I recognize glad-handing as someone might recognize a foreign language that one can not speak. I can generate ideas, but it must always be up to others to decide how and if these ideas move through the political process. Writing to my own congressman and senators and putting ideas on the internet is about as far as I can go in political participation. There are more ideas to come when I can get them into a firm condition. It takes time. I hope to give you something to think about. --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 02:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
=== 3D Printer (metal color) ===
I looked at the suggested web page. The monomaniacal interest in industrial development is good. There seems to be an unrealistic expectation of ease of establishing a lunar base with people doing the work in person. The wire printer reminds me of rapid 3D modeling devices, wire feed metal spraying, general flame deposition, clay rope pottery, and wire aplied and worked into midevil armor. There is no machine for magically reproducing arbitrary 3D shapes in high strength metal to machine tolerances from metal stock input. I provide some references, because I know you like references.

clay rope pottery
http://library.thinkquest.org/J002046F/artwork.htm

wire feed metal spray
http://www.thermalspray.org/site_wireflame.asp

vacuum chamber for thin film solar cells
http://energy.ca.gov/pier/portfolio/Content/06/EISG/Atmospheric%20Plasma%20Deposition.htm

ceramic parts manufacture with flame deposition
http://www.priorartdatabase.com/IPCOM/000018591/

useful structures made by flame deposition
http://www.ntsi.org/procs/Nanotech2007v1/5/T80.903
== category tree ==
*I messed up the category tree and do not know how to fix it. The "Structural Engineering" article should be titled "Lunar Cement" and it should be in a new subcategory "structural Engineering" under "Infrastructures". The "Nnulcear Power" article has one too many n's in the title. I do not know how to get at it. --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 03:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I moved Nnuclear power to Nuclear Power. All you have to do to move a page is click the "move" tab at the top, then type in the new page name and the reason for the move. The old page name will be retained as a redirect to the newly named page. However, links to that article will not change, and neither will old redirects. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 06:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear Power

2008-09-29T06:49:06Z

T.Neo: Nnuclear Power moved to Nuclear Power: Typo in original title.

*NASA is looking at nuclear power for a lunar base<ref> http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/sep/HQ_08-227_MoonPower.html </ref>. This makes sense. There are few things that can be done to hurry the development of a profitable industrial infrastructure on Luna. This is one of them. It would still be quite a few years before we reach the point that further investments could be considered profit motivated, but this could supply power until a circumpolar electrical distribution system is established. By that time people may have learned enough about lunar development to put definite numbers on the time and money required to get a first financial return.
*An advantage of an enriched uranium power plant over a plutonium radio thermal generator besides being able to produce more and better regulated power is that the initial supply of uranium fuel is neither very radioactive nor very poisonous. The anti nuclear crowd can be told that uranium is spread all over the Earth anyway, and if they do not like it they should be happy to see some of it leaving Earth. The fuel elements do not become seriously radioactive until the core of the power plant is started up. Eventually the used fuel could be disposed of by just letting it sit in the no longer operating power plant. If it is desired to refuel the plant, burial of nuclear waste on Luna should not be a problem. Just set them down, cover them with a slab of cast glass and mark the spot for avoidance.
*Reference
<references/>
[[category:Power Supply]]

Space suit

2008-09-28T16:51:22Z

T.Neo:

A '''Space suit''' is a pressure suit to protect a human from the harsh extremes of Space. Due to the conditions on the Moon, people going outside will need protection in the form of space suits.

== Characteristics ==
Space suits have to protect against vacuum and temperature changes, provide oxygen and remove carbon dioxide and provide communications. Spacesuits have to be easy to to get in an out of and move around in.

== New spacesuit designs ==

===Pressurised suits vs. skintight suits===
All spacesuits used to date have been pressurized, i.e. filled with air. It can be difficult to move in these suits, and as such they are only pressurized to a third of normal pressure to allow easy movement. At this low pressure, someone could suffer nitrogen narcosis. This requires the person who will be executing the EVA to breath pure oxygen for a few hours to purge their body of nitrogen, or to "camp out" overnight in a low pressure atmosphere. This is time consuming and not practical if an emergency EVA were to be carried out. An alternative could be a skintight suit, like the MIT biosuit, however, these suits are difficult to enter and exit. A hybrid could be considered.

===Rear-entry spacesuit===
The Russian Orlan spacesuit is entered through the rear, with the backpack acting as a door, whereas the American EMU has various seals at the waist, the helmet, the gloves, the boots, etc. The russian system can be entered in only five minutes, and with one seal is considerably safer as well.

===Suitport===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitport Suitport on Wikipedia]
The suitport may help prevent the problem of dust inside the habitat.

== Referances ==
A large portion of this text is taken directly from the Marspedia article [[marsp:Space suit|Space suitmarsp]]. The revision history can be found there.

Space suit

2008-09-28T16:41:25Z

T.Neo: New page: ---- Under construction ---- A '''Space suit''' is a pressure suit to protect a human from the harsh extremes of Space. Due to the conditions on the Moon, people going outside will need...

----
Under construction

----

A '''Space suit''' is a pressure suit to protect a human from the harsh extremes of Space. Due to the conditions on the Moon, people going outside will need protection.

Suitport:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitport]

Talk:Railroads

2008-09-18T07:28:25Z

T.Neo:

Just thought you might be interested 
http://www.erosproject.com/metrocircus.html?source=ErosProject 
--[[User:mdelaney|MikeD]] - 20:49, 10 March 2007 (GMT)

===cost due to gravity===

This statement is questionable: "The cost of building such a structure compared to earth is greatly reduced due to the 1/6 [[Gravity]]"
Building infrastructure on the Moon will be extremely expensive compared to Earth. 1/6 gravity helps a little, but does not make it cheaper than Earth. Please reword this sentence. thanks.[[User:Cfrjlr|Charles F. Radley]] 14:14, 10 March 2007 (PST)

===Restructure of Bulk/cargo/passenger and addition of new section===
I've tried to restructure the proposed progression from bulk to passenger and add a section on types, but I still find the organizational structure of this article to be unsatisfactory. -- [[User:Strangelv|Strangelv]] 08:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

== Railroads on MArs and asteroids ==

"Mars
With such a thin atmosphere and no oxygen, Mars has essentially the same dynamics as the moon only with more gravity (better cornering)."

Don't compare Mars to the Moon. Mars has windblown dust, etc. "More gravity" means more materials to construct the railroad.

"Asteroids
All asteroid like objects have a gravitational force insufficient for traditional railways. The modifications necessary are two fold. An upper track must be added like roller coaster to be able to go a reasonable speed without jumping the track. All materials must be securely fastened with either lids or binding clamps."

A railroad is definatly not neccesary on an asteroid. Maybe a tether an pully system between two spacecraft hovering above the surface. I would not really bother attaching something to any asteroid, especially a rubble pile, since it would just float away. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

*It is certainly possible that things could be rigidly attached to an asteroid, even it does happen to be a rubble pile. Ceres for example has an escape velocity of 1140 <ref> http://en.wikipedia.org article on “Ceres (dwarf planet)” </ref> miles per hour. So things do not just drift away. With a gravity of only 1/36th of a g, things that are dislodged might fly a ways before coming back to ground, but it would be hard to get them into orbit. If it were desired to move something from one point on Ceres equator to the opposite point, it would have to be moved 1500 kilometers. So it is conceivable that a railroad could someday be useful.
*reference
<references/>
--'''FARTHERRED''' 11:57AM Central Standard Time 17 September 20008

Ceres is an exeptionally big asteroid, if it can be called one at all. I am talking about much smaller objects, like NEOs and the martian moons. Here, railroad is not necessary, but some other system of propellantless goods transfer would be ideal. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Category talk:POV

2008-09-16T13:15:09Z

T.Neo:

What is POV?--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 01:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Is that Point of View? --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 01:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct. POV = point of view. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 13:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Robots in Space Suits

2008-09-15T07:35:15Z

T.Neo: New page: Is this space suits as in human space suits? Robots will not look very human. Try stuffing a Mars Rover into a space suit. Otherwise, The idea of having gaskets around joints is a sound on...

Is this space suits as in human space suits? Robots will not look very human. Try stuffing a Mars Rover into a space suit. Otherwise, The idea of having gaskets around joints is a sound one. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Railroads

2008-09-15T07:29:02Z

T.Neo: /* Restructure of Bulk/cargo/passenger and addition of new section */

Talk:Railroads

2008-09-15T07:27:31Z

T.Neo:

Talk:ISS into the Pacific

2008-09-13T14:31:49Z

T.Neo:

'''Not yet:'''

The great successes of the ISS, and there were many, were mostly about international politics and the dissolution of the USSR. We need to do a very large and public analysis of the contribution and weakness of the ISS program to generate the critical lessons learned we need for a large back to the Moon program.

Only after such a study is made, should we decide the fate of the ISS.

The ISS also shows us how a bad name can kill a program.

--[[User:Jriley|Jriley]] 04:37, 10 March 2007 (PST)

----

This article yields no information about the moon, and from a technical standpoint, its assertion that the ISS is in the wrong orbit for access to the moon is just plain silly. It appears to be motivated by purely political intent, which again means it has no place in the Lunarpedia unless you want to open a section on Idiotic Political Smoke Screens.

Recommend deleting it.

-- Greg

:The purpose of this article, and a number of simular entries, was to start a discussion to provide incite into what gets people hot about space. This approach is detailed in [[Show Stoppers]] and the [[Purposes List]].

:Had a technical person wished to defend the ISS, then they could provide technical information on the use of the ISS as a safety station on the way to the Moon and exactly what this would mean to launch windows. No such defender has come forth.

:So far the input on nearly all of these articles has been extremely low. All these articles have demonstrated so far is how increasable low interest is in returning to the Moon and how much work we have ahead of us.

:This type of article belongs on Lunarpedia if, and only if, one of Lunarpedia's purposes is to make returning to the Moon happen. That is to be an active tool.

:--[[User:Jriley|Jriley]] 22:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

::It may be too early in Lunarpedia's development for the controversial question concept to take off. Most of our contributors are too busy trying to create new content to make Lunarpedia a major attraction to stop and think of such subtleties at this time. As it stands, Mike and I don't even really have time to even write many articles, as we're too busy with top level maintenance and administrative stuff -- and that was bad enough ''before'' the wiki project got multiplied by a factor of five... -- [[User:Strangelv|Strangelv]] 22:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

::It could be helpful to create a tag template for your controversial question series to clarify the purpose of them so that people aren't looking at them hoping to get something from them that they aren't meant to provide. -- [[User:Strangelv|Strangelv]] 22:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

== Broken Promises ==

::{| style="border-style:none;border-width:0px"
| style="border-style:dashed; border-width:1px; border-color:#668B88;" | The ISS has failed to provide the promised medical and pharmacuetical advances that were used to sell the space station plan to congress.
|}

That has a lot to do with designing so much of the station so it could only be launched by the Shuttle. Between the groundings caused by fuel line fractures and the extended grounding of the fleet after the loss of Columbia and then the very careful and conservative return to service, the ISS construction program is now close to 7 years behind schedule and still slipping. Add to this that in its' present configuration it takes the entire crew of 3 just to run the station, there is little or no science done.

But they do still find time to run the Boston marathon.

-- [[User:Mdelaney|Mdelaney]] 06:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

:I genuinely hope that this will change once the crew is expanded. Letting such a large investment go to waste doesn't seem logical to me. The boston marathon stunt does provide the opportunity to get physiological measurements on a female who has been in microgravity long enough to begin experiencing muscle/bone loss. It's too good of a data gathering opportunity to pass up. -- [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 01:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

----

Jriley makes sense. I was opposed to building the space station as planned because it is permanently manned before the proper infrastructure is in place to make reasonable use of people. I would have gone with a remotely operated lunar base instead of the space station and shed no tears over the loss of expertise in the manned space program as employees drifted away. They could have archived as much of the details of how they do their jobs as possible, and then gone on to do something useful. It would take a long time to restart a manned program when it is finally needed, but the need is a long time away. What we have is a show space program. Some people would be better impressed if we were efficiently doing something to further humanity's future in space. We can learn things like how to avoid the bearing problem that threatens the space station's solar arrays. We may need to keep the space station for a while to satisfy international agreements. We may be able to convince other nations that keeping space station agreements is just too expensive, and we can make up the debt some other way. Then we might be able to convert the space station to all robotic operation and lower costs. I am not sure we can lower costs but we should look into it. --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 15:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
===Political Difficulties in National Funding===
Mdelaney wrote that medical and pharmaceutical advances were promised to sell the space station to congress. Its more complicated than that. Congressmen were generally not fooled by the probability that such advances and others would occur. They needed a story to tell constituents to explain the reason for their votes. The second layer of persuasion was political support from people whose employment would cease if the space station failed, and people in communities where employment would be lost if the space station failed. These were highly motivated supporters of a program that they saw as having "lunch" written all over it. There were true believers too. The harm they have done by saddling the U.S. with a manned space program that is mainly a welfare program for a dependent constituency is worse then the mere cost of the program. The argument comes up (I won't say from whom) that as long as we are going to have astronauts up there anyway lets save a particular task for them. So, efficient methods of doing things like robotic servicing of satellites are never given a serious effort, no matter if plenty of money were available. It is not the space station so much as the whole manned space program that is the enemy. It just keeps sailing on with no destination like the Flying Dutchman, just as much a curse to those who do know where they are headed. Some say that the division between manned and robotic space programs is a competition wrongly foisted upon space enthusiasts by congress which lumps their funding together, and that we should support both programs. But I say that the average congressman does not know beans about our future in space and cares less. Our message should be that the main effect of the current manned space program on our future in space is to detract from it. This is so much the case that having to coexist with a manned space program is likely to kill any serious attempt to develop industry using the raw materials of Luna, if it has not already done so. That is just for the United States though. Other nations are poised to make attempts at Luna, and they might not copy our mistakes. --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 00:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

:I am not opposed to manned spaceflight, but I am opposed to the promotion of an environment where it would be the sole domain of governments. Instead of seeking to eliminate the manned program we should take an industry building approach in the same way that NACA did for atmospheric flight. There are many things that can be done by robots, but a robot is never a substitute for a human in tasks that aren't redundant processes (such as maintaining robots in the field). Instead of seeking to eliminate a manned program we should instead foster the development of private replacements which can carry people for much less than NASA, allowing more funding to be freed up in the long run for the support of a lunar base. I am of the opinion that the ISS should remain in place until a suitable private LEO destination is in place for private flights. Today we have reached a technological nexus where this is finally possible. Google search for Bigelow Aerospace. -- [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 00:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

===problems with a manned spaceflight bureaucracy===
I am not opposed to manned spaceflight. I am opposed to the farce that constitutes the current U. S. manned space program. I did write "robotic servicing of satellites [is] never given a serious effort" but I should have written remote control servicing. I do not propose that an artificially intelligent robot perform maintenance on satellites. I propose that technicians perform this maintenance by remote controlled devices while the technicians remain comfortably on Earth. This method properly developed would likely be more convenient for any particular task than working in a space suit and allow shifts of technicians to stay on the job for much less than the expense of having them in space in person. The space station we have now is a special case. Every thing there was designed to maximize its convenience to human operation on site. In an ideal world the space station would have been designed to maximize convenience for remote operation. However even using the robonaut and others of similar make, it might be cheaper to run the space station remotely than to keep men there in person.
I do not think employees of the manned space program have the intention of doing harm, but just look at the program's record. First the Apollo program sent astronauts to Luna. That was the first and last worthwhile thing it did. It made more sense then to send men to Luna. Remote control was not as highly developed then. When the decision was made to have a human pilot for the space shuttle, that was a big mistake. This wasn't done because of lack of ability to land a shuttle by remote control, even the Russians landed their version of a shuttle by remote control. Robotic autolanding can be done today and I guess that it could have been done when the first shuttle was built. Flying a space ship is naturally a computer's job, but the shuttle's designers built a man into their design because they wanted to give astronauts something to do that had prestige. Then the space station was a make work program for astronauts from the word go. Astronauts being there was always the primary consideration. Actually accomplishing something on the space station was something to be considered when the program got around to it. The only thing that couldn't be done more cheaply remotely on a space station is testing human endurance of weightlessness. The results of the test are only applicable to working on a space station or flying to Mars, two expensive things that are not at all urgent. If lunar industry is developed first, respectable size spaceships could be built to take people to Mars in comfort. The Hubble Space Telescope is grand, but for the cost of each servicing mission there could have been a whole new telescope in orbit. A remote controlled space station would not have been hung up with all of the life support problems. It could have been developed to assemble a multi mirror telescope better than the Hubble. I have read the words "permanently manned base" referring to Luna, and it just makes me sick. It does not seem at all likely that the current manned space program is in the mood to let remote controlled devices develop local resources until most of the mass needed to support people can be gotten from Luna. That would almost make it seem as if people were not needed. The manned space program wouldn't tolerate that. It is bound and determined to ruin the moon base like it ruined the space station and the shuttle, and for the same reason. It insists on making every other consideration secondary to having a man on site. For the U. S. manned space program a few men would not go to the moon for a purpose. A few men on the moon would be the purpose. They turn everything into a show.
I set my sights higher. A civilization in space is my purpose.

===more===
I might as well sign this stuff. I can summarize everything with four words. Industrial Infrastructure in Space. Humanity can establish itself as a space faring civilization if it chooses. However "buy in" is as old as the hills. People lost considerable sums of money on typewriter schemes before someone came up with a typewriter that was good enough. Hucksters continued to make money on rain making schemes long after people had had enough time to learn about them because another sucker is born every minute. Don't fall for any modern equivalent of a rain making scheme.
--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 10:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
===backtracking===
There are some worthwhile things associated with the manned program. The sponsoring of research such as fuel cell research was good. I oppose the program as a hole.--'''FARTHERRED''' 3:01PM Central Daylight Time
===The Start of Political Problems===
Although the Apollo program accomplished much of great value, as much as could have been expected, it also had a detrimental legacy. As Apollo was a showpiece of U.S. technical competency, so the later manned space program carried on this tradition. Commitments were made to bring competent people into the Apollo program. Their bosses, the president and congress, did not want to say, "Thanks. We are finished with your services now. Go look for some other position."
Politically powerful interests seemed to believe, without any technical justification, that having a man in space was central to further progress toward a future in which travel to Luna and Mars was part of ordinary economic life. In any case a hiatus in the launching of men into space was seen as a step backward in technical ability. So the continued launching of men into space was ordered as a way to show technical competency. For the last twenty years the U.S. has had the ability to begin development of the infrastructure that would support human economic use of lunar materials. This process is necessarily slow, and there is nothing that people in space suits on Luna could do during the early part of this development that would be worth the cost of supporting them there. The actual technical development has been neglected in favor of the show of technical development. The expected result of continuing this line of effort is that the manned space program would remain an appropriations farming operation run by people content to work in an appropriations farming operation. It would not contribute except accidentally to any economic use of lunar materials. I see no reason to believe that any such accidental development would ever occur. If those who claim to seek economic space settlements allow themselves to become part of the government show program, they are not serving their professed goal. Corporations that want to sell big boosters to such efforts will subject their corporate efforts to feast of famine at the whim of political expediency. One year congress will support big manned space efforts. The next year the large line items will tempt cuts in manned space programs. I would not invest in such a company. --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 02:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
===For Full Honesty===
I must admit that there is a function that humans on Luna could perform better than machines if it was at all reasonable to support humans on site. That is conflict. Naturally a response time of 0.37 seconds would be superior to a response time of 3 seconds for many applications in war, but in covert conflict with those whom you are openly applauding and helping, a quick response time is even more important. The space station is a reasonable training ground in case covert agents are needed on Luna. There are many reasons for avoiding covert conflict. Its messy. Its wasteful. Its embarrassing when it is found out. Let us just admit that there are serious differences of opinion between various governments, and no one country will always get its way. When there is a need for people on Luna, let us be open and honest about our concerns. Let us leave covert operations back on Earth for as long as possible. Of course you can trust fully what I write. I am being completely open and honest, except of course for my name.
--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 00:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
:You have yet to demonstrate an existing technical capability for robots, tele-operated or not, to use a variety of standardized, and especially improvised, tools to repair other robots. This would require a detailed plan for using lunar resources to manufacture replacement parts and then install a part into a unit in the field, as well as designing those robots to be field reparable. There is also the issue of dust fouling your equipment whenever a sensitive area is opened, which will result in an increase in equipment breakdowns and the need for regular strip downs and maintenance in a dust free environment. The repair bot idea has been bandied around for years and we still haven't pulled it off in ANY sector. It is perpetually "right around the corner" along with flying cars and other futuristic technologies that have yet to appear. Until that capability is proven your entire point is moot in reference to the lunar surface. I really really like the idea, but without any supporting evidence or technical research it's going to seem like you are blowing smoke. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 02:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
===Robot Repairs Robot===
I am uncertain which of my statements you consider doubtful. If you think that people might not be able to service satellites with remote controlled devices, I say certainly no one can do so now. People can do remote control surgery, <ref> daVinci Surgical System http://www.intuitivesurgical.com/products/davinci_surgicalsystem/index.aspx </ref> but remote control satellite servicing is impossible because no one has done the development work. There is reason for no one developing remote control servicing of lawn mowers. It would be physically possible to develop a pair of remote controlled manipulators that a couple of guys at consoles could send out to a customers pick up truck. They could grab the lawn mower, carry it into the shop, take the thing apart completely, fix what needs fixing, shine up the mower, and present the customer with a bill for $1,763,487.95. For some reason lawn mower repair shops prefer to hire human mechanics. For servicing satellites the repairman can not go around the corner for a greasyburger and soft drink at lunch time. So it’s hard to get repairmen to show on location for satellite servicing, but NASA managed to get a few to take on the work. If someone did develop remote satellite servicing, it would need to include remote control rendezvous and docking besides having the satellite designed to be serviced. On Luna robot servicing of robot would be restricted to those things designed to be serviced. Swapping out replaceable bearings might be included in the set. I certainly think such repairs would be done in a lighted, thermally controlled, dust controlled enclosure.
===Financial Concerns===
The remote control servicing of satellites might not be ready to make money. It would have cost less to design the Hubble to be serviced by remote control and design, build and launch the devices to do that than it cost to build the Hubble that was built and service it with the Shuttle. I do not need references for that. If you have insufficient knowledge to realize that is true, just take my word for it, or don't.
--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 19:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
:I do not disagree, but there will be others who will unless you explain your viewpoint using reason, references and example. "If you have insufficient knowledge to realize that is true, just take my word for it, or don't." I recommend that you handle your statements more diplomatically in the future if you wish to make your point in a convincing manner. Supposition, conjecture, sincerity, and argumentum ad populum are insufficient for producing a viable rebuttal in any credible scientific or technological forum. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 06:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

===Things Fall Apart===
The entire lunar enterprise might fail from a cause of which I am ignorant. That is a vast area of potential problems. The thing to do is be flexible in facing new problems as they present themselves, and have a good exit strategy. So, if after sending a few rovers to Luna, nothing is working out as hoped, rejoice in all of the scientific data and the glory of having done that much and move on to other things. --'''FARTHERRED''' 6:00 pm Central Daylight Time

==The Need for References==
References are helpful for many things, but I do not really need them to show the superiority of remote control devices to astronauts in person as means to get things done on a space station. What references to cost data could show would be a complicated accounting system designed more to hide costs than reveal them. Beyond the reference I made to remote control surgery, things that are common knowledge are sufficient to show that the astronauts on the space station add to the expense of what they do. For work in the vacuum of outer space special tools and lubricants are needed. That is true whether the tools are wielded by astronauts or remote controlled manipulators. The difference is that astronauts need constant life support and three square meals a day. Remote control devices are happy to have some electricity, a reasonable operating temperature, and some lubrication now and then. Either by swapping out bearings or finding some way to lubricate them in space remote control devices should last a dozen years or more in space. The electronics on the voyager spacecraft lasted more than 30 years, and were still going the last time I checked. Twelve years of consumables to support astronauts plus crew change amounts to quite a few pounds launched into space that would not be required for remote control devices. If remote control devices are not as swift for some tasks, they can stay at them for much longer for the same money. New models of devices can be designed to overcome the shortcomings of old models.
The task of repairing a remote control manipulator by remote control to the extent of swapping out bearings does not seem more difficult than remote control surgery. If NASA can not do it, the reason is that they do not see that as their mission. It is NASA's political bosses that want astronauts on the space station. I want people in space too, but I can see how the development of industry on Luna could lead to a situation in which a couple of mechanics on Luna could go around the corner for a greasyburger and a soft drink and you would have nearly the same situation that makes remote control devices to repair motors on Earth uneconomic. However, until there is a reasonable amount of industrial infrastructure, astronauts in space suits will not be the most economic way to get industrial infrastructure.
:I really do not see how references can improve that much, but I will give a few.
:There has been work with low volatility liquid lubricants for bearings in space.<ref> http://www.nyelubricants.com/2001_010.htm </ref> Promising substances are found among the silahydrocarbons.
:The need for dry film lubricant and special tools for use in vacuum are among the problems faced by astronauts in space. <ref>http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/123417/innovative_tools_created_for_hubble_repair/ </ref>
:Molybdenum disulfide is among the substances that made an early contribution to lubrication problems in space. Research is ongoing. <ref>http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/fall2006/04.html </ref>
===Do People Care?===
:If no one writes any substantive disagreement with anything I have written, does it mean that no one disagrees or that I have scared off readers with boredom? If there are good arguments, can they be reworked into a really slick glad-hander special of political persuasion? The lunar development concept might be able to survive keeping the space station in the space program for a while, but if men are sent to Luna in a mere remake of the Apollo program, people will see that as representing what the outer space effort is. After seeing that nothing comes of it, they will not want to pay for anything like that for a long time.
=== Capability of Robots===
:The distinction between robots and remote manipulators is important. Whenever the use of robots is suggested there is likely to be the argument against it that the robot can not substitute for the intelligence of a human. With remote manipulators one does not substitute for the intelligence of a human, one moves the intelligence to the work by radio through the remote manipulator. This has drawbacks. Working with a pair of gloves is something most of us have experienced. The clumsiness of gloves in an inconvenience. Working with remote manipulators is worse than an inconvenience. Work can take 30 to 100 times as long as doing the job with bare hands. <ref>McGraw-Hill ENCYCLOPEDIA OF Science & Technology (c) 1997, article on "Remote manipulators, Strengths and weaknesses" </ref> Even with the avoidance of human life support in space and crew change, can remote manipulators really be more economic? They are helped out by the possibility of one device combining remote manipulator and robot functions. A computer can follow the actions directed by the human operator and learn some tasks that are repetitive. In satellite servicing well marked points can be painted on the satellite for a computer to orient to. When operations get to Luna, tasks had better have a high proportion of dull repetition, or the whole notion of for profit operations will simply not apply.
--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 21:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
===References===
<references/>

== ISS is a failiure, due to design. ==

Many people, i.e. Grant Bonin, will argue that HLVs are white elephants and that MLVs are suitable for all our operations in space. however, I will show that this is wrong, using the ISS as an example.

The ISS is made of of segments- modules. These were either brought up in the Space Shuttle, or the Proton rocket.
Despite being a monsterous launch vehicle, the shuttle is of comperable performance to MLVs like the proton, due to the generally parasitic and unwanted orbiter going along for the ride.

Thus, all the delays and the operating costs of the shuttle made the construction a disaster. If it were for one simple launch on a Saturn INT-21, the ISS could have been launched in one, no hassle flight. Minimal setting up would have been performed in orbit, and the shuttle could fly logistics flights.

I am not saying that all MLVs are as bad as the shuttle. However, MLVs will also experiance disasters, cost cuts, political hurdles, etc. The advantage with shuttle is that the module was just a module. The shuttle trucked it there, and then set it up in place. Mir was differant. Each module was a spacecraft with orbital manuvering systems, etc.

The advantage of an HLV is that most contruction goes on on Earth, where things are relativly easy and safe. Our HLVs need to be big and dumb, Sea Dragon is a good example. I wonder how easy it would be to make a 100-ton range launcher using the same principles as Sea Dragon, and launch it from land like the Saturn V.

Plus, a gigantic HLV will stir the imagination of the people. It wasn't when a road was resurfaced last that people got excited about a construction project. It was when a bridge, gigantic skyscraper or dam was constructed.

As for the ISS itself, the US should complete it, leave it to ESA and Russia, and when they get tired of it, they'll probably sell it off to Biglow as a hotel.

The ISS gave us a vital lesson in the return to the Moon and the colonization of the solar system. Go '''BIG'''. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 10:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:I think that every internal room should also be capable of supporting a teleoperated waldo like robonaut. All equipment that is part of the station should have teleoperability and remote control built in, or it should be operable via a robonaut. This will allow people on the ground to do routine maintenance tasks as well as a good deal of research without having to expand life support. Humans would be available to do logistics, research, and problem resolution without having to spend most of their time doing routine maintenance like on the ISS. This robotic-human syneregy will be applicable to other space construction projects like Solar Power Satellites and lunar operations. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 17:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Your idea sparks to mind the "teleoperator" concept in the '70s, to reboost skylab. This would have been ideal, espcially since STS-2 "skylab boost" never materialized. With Skylab-shuttle we might be in a very differant place today. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 14:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

the following from:--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 02:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
*T.Neo wrote: "ISS is a failure, due to design." but can he prove it? Not without defining failure. Not without defining the purpose that the ISS failed to achieve. NASA has become expert in writing fuzzy goal statements. However, if you read between the lines you find that their underlying purpose is to keep the manned space program busy. At this the Space Shuttle and the ISS have been successful. What they have failed at is accomplishing any worthwhile purpose in a cost effective way. For the money spent on the Hubble we could have gotten more and better telescopes launched on expendable launchers. There is no way to measure the cost effectiveness of keeping astronauts busy any more than one could measure the cost effectiveness of a vacation trip to a lake home. The ISS did not fail in any particular measure because of a lack of heavy lift launchers. They failed to meet schedule and cost goals because of a lack of a reasonable goal that would allow measurements of cost effectiveness and allow reasonable planning. They fell victim to an idea. The idea is: "As long as we will have astronauts there anyway, save that for the astronauts to do." There should not be astronauts up there as a first consideration. Astronauts or technicians should be passengers into orbit only if they are needed to do something that would be more expensive to do remotely. In the [[Size of Infrastructure]] article there is reference to a space station for assembling and refueling space vehicles. Not only can this task be done without people on the station, people would be a considerable detriment to the mission by their vibrations and bouncing around. Indeed, people made many experiments on the ISS difficult for these reasons. If astronauts could not assemble the space station on time and under budget, it does not mean that remote controlled devices could not assemble a useful space station if people made a serious effort to do that. However, the assembly and refueling station ought to fit in one launch and be nearly self deploying. Remote manipulators should have an easy task in setting it up. --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 02:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Projects like the ISS have not kept the space program busy, they have drained time and resources that could have been spent on other things (Mars missions, lunar missions, etc.) Your fuel depot concept doesn't even need teleoperated setup, as it could be entirely self deploying. Something derived from a rocket upper stage might be a good start. Add long-term storage systems, solar panels and pumps. The ISS was derived project freedom, the spacestation back in the days when the shuttles were to fly every week, etc, etc. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 09:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

== Being Nearly Kind ==
by '''FARTHERRED''' 5:37PM Central Standard Time 9 September
About 323 of my words ago I had written something that impugned the motives of NASA employees. Certainly I find fault enough with what NASA does without impugning motives that no one can know. So I deleted it. NASA must deal with political superiors who consider a show of U.S. technical competency as worthwhile in itself. They have reasonable grounds for doubt about a program to build industrial infrastructure on Luna. Admittedly it is such a long range program that it can not be accounted worthwhile from the anticipated return on investment by accepted financial practices; and lunar base advocates have so far done an insufficient job of showing that such a program would be likely successful even with long term effort. For instance, it has not been mentioned that the lack of long endurance lubricants in vacuum could be worked around by robots wearing space suits. At least a gas tight covering of knee of elbow joints could be done with a bellows that has a flange pressed to a point above and below the joint by a threaded ring. Electrical power wire, control wire, and thermal management fluid hoses could run in a bundle outside of the bellows and have connectors for wires and hoses that would run around the bellows to the joint. That way the wires and hoses could be disconnected, the bellows unfastened, and the joint unpinned for maintenance. NASA should have been working on problems like this instead of testing human endurance in weightlessness. How much testing of human endurance of weightlessness is needed anyway? As much as such endurance was tested in the Apollo program was enough. In the [[People Carry]] article there is a section on exercise that suggests how people might live in one gravity on Luna. While some details might be different in implementation, the basic idea is sound.--'''FARTHERRED'''
:I find the axing of the Robonaut project to be infuriating. Just my $.02 - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 17:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I find robonaut too anthropocentric. Space robots need not be anthropocentric. For example, something derived from the MSL rover to be used on Mars, equipped with robotic arms and able to recharge from an external power source. Could something like this be used on the moon? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 14:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Water

2008-09-10T08:36:58Z

T.Neo: /* Locally Made Lunar Rockets */

''Other substances, such as aluminum or magnesium and oxygen can be used for rocket fuel. We have plenty of those.''

Oxygen has been used for decades as rocket oxidizer. Although magnesium and aluminium are good fuels, and are used in solid rockets, they can not be used in a liquid rocket, as they have to be kept very hot to be a liquid, leading to compatibility issues with supercold LOX. An alternative would be to have a hybrid rocket: a tank of LOX, and a tube filled with metal powder. However, the metal powder will fall out the nozzle. This is why solid rockets use a binder to keep the fuels together. The binder will have to be shipped from Earth. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 08:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Response from Bryce: T.Neo raises a good point. Solid and even hybrid rocket fuel here on Earth is mixed with a binder, which is often a high hydrocarbon rubberlike substance. That's pretty pricey on the Moon and, again, we hate to "throw away" hydrogen (and carbon) in this way. Maybe given the vacuum and anhydrous environment of the Moon, we could do some sort of "sintering" process to cause our fuel to stick together until used, and yet have the oxidizer reach it when needed.

The reason the metal fuel is in powder form is because there is more surface area. If the aluminium was just one solid sheet, the reaction with oxygen would create an impervious barrier of aluminium oxide, preventing further reaction. Sintering the fuel would, I imagine, decrease the surface area and lead to the same problem. But, maybe the ratio of fuel to binder could be changed, with the binder being just a thin layer holding the powder together. What would this material be? What about the remaining fuel left in cargo lander fuel tanks? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

:That could be a possibility. NASA is currently working on ways to scavenge unused fuel from the lunar landers so it can be used in an outpost. I've heard mention of hybrid engines which would use hexagonal cross-section metal rods in addition to hydrogen/LOX in the combustion chamber to add additional boost, but that is for interplanetary/cislunar ships which would not land. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 14:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Abundance of oxygen could be an advantage for a "direct ascent" lander. It does not have to carry the oxidiser for the return trip, only the fuel. I am weary about any potential hybrid/solid rocket for manned transportation. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
===liquid aluminum / liquid oxygen rockets===
T.Neo should not give up too easily on liquid aluminum / liquid oxygen rockets. The liquid oxygen in the tanks would be used to cool the combustion chamber wall in a tube wall construction design. So before it is injected into the combustion chamber it will be a hot gas. Liquid hydrogen is used to cool the combustion chamber wall of the space shuttle main engine. The temperature differences there are greater than there will be in the aluminum oxygen rocket. Oxygen is not as good a coolant as hydrogen so the aluminum oxygen rocket will not be able to run up to as high a temperature or pressure as the space shuttle main engine. The rocket would not reach that temperature any way because of all the excess oxydizer necessary to keep sufficient gas in the combustion chamber to serve as a working fluid. People at the following web sites think aluminum/oxygen rockets are worth considering:
http://www.asi.org/adb/06/09/03/02/095/al-o-propellants.html
and
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3c2.html
===mass drivers===
All of this rocket stuff is just a preliminary expedient anyway. See the [[Mass Drivers]] article to see what ought be the economic method of getting stuff from Luna to lunar orbit when things are more fully developed.--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 22:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with cooling the engine, I have a problem with keeping the aluminium liquid, and keeping the LOX cold, all while trying to keep the rocket in one piece. The binder in use in a hybrid rocket can be a thin film holding the fuel together. Importing volatiles is not so hard. We can make lander stages out of volatiles, we can make our Earth Departure stages out of volatiles, so that when we crash them into the Moon to calibrate our tectonic sensors we can provide future generations with volatiles. The Ranger probes used balsa wood to cushion lunar impact. Why not send huge chunks of plastic to crash into the moon? No landers, etc. This approach could even be used to land "dumb" payloads on the Moon. Do not confuse "Reuseable" with "reuturn to Earth". I think Mass drivers are the way to go to lift payloads off the Moon, cargo at least. I was thinking of a rocket second stage, if not that, some sort of device for orbital manuvering. I think that a solar thermal rocket using LOx as a working fluid could fit the job nicely. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 12:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
===problems, problems===
:There is a tendency of lunar base enthusiasts to go off on tangents worrying about problems that turn out to be irrelevant and ignoring serious problems. This situation is a result of our ignorance. With what little information we have I am not convinced that the maintaining the aluminum liquid and oxygen liquid in separate tanks on one rocket vehicle will be the big problem. Lacking proper reference works at hand at the moment, I looked up a couple of web pages that incidentally touched on the liquid temperature of aluminum. Omni Technologies gives a temperature for melting their aluminum based brazing material as 582 – 604 degrees centigrade. http://www.omnibraze.com/wire.html A research paper by A. Gerlich et al. gives the melting point of an aluminum magnesium eutectic as 437 degrees centrigrade. http://www.materialsaustralia.com/Materials_Forum/Vol29/GP%2046.pdf With some aluminum, magnesium and silicon in the pot the melting temperature might be managably low. Vacuum insulation is not difficult to come by or maintain on Luna. Even though the actual fuel that is put into such a hypothetical rocket just prior to launch must be considerably hotter than the melting point to insure that some higher melting point phase does not freeze out to coat the inner surface of tubing, the temperature involved should not melt insulation materials available.
:A concern that must be addressed is the tendency for metals from which one might otherwise construct a combustion chamber to burn away in a high temperature high pressure pure oxygen environment. I can not say off hand what alloy or ceramic might be suitable for the combustion chamber wall. There is also the problem of aluminum oxide particles in the rocket exhaust abrading the throat of the combustion chamber. Perhaps expendable ceramic inserts to line the combustion chamber throat would be called for.
:My main point is that until there is more definite data, we can not completely rule out a liquid aluminum / liquid oxygen rocket. Have you got a rocket test stand in your garage that operates in a high vacuum?
:Just putting in capital letters fixed the link to the Mass Drivers article. '''--FARTHERRED'''

:Why not use powdered aluminum in a straight tube and feed it into the combustion chamber by pushing on the other end? Aluminum could disperse when blown by the oxygen. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 03:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean push the powder into the combustion chamber? Could work. I am looking at this from the perspective of ACPC propellant.
-Do away with Ammonium perchlorate oxidser, and turn the device into a hybrid rocket with oxygen oxidizer.
-Reduce the amount of binder to a bare minimum.
Yes, the binder has to be imported from Earth, but only a small amount is used. As I said in my previous comment, getting volatiles to the moon is not as hard as you might think. Even with some Aluminium/Magnesium/silicon fuel, I am unsure about what the rocket might be contructed of, etc. Remember how small the apollo lunar module was, getting off the Moon SSTO. Now, if there was a hybrid, with a mass driver accelerating a rocket powered second stage, the two could be much smaller then a pure rocket or pure mass driver system. This means that the colonists only need to build a mass driver that is half the length, and a rocket stage that is half the size. We have not tested aluminium rocket technology. The safest, cost effective way would be a hybrid rocket. No, I do not have a working test model in my garage, but I am working on it. I have several crazy propellant ideas. Now, where can I find some liquid Flourine? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
===Pumping Aluminum Powder===
In response to Jarogers2001’s suggestion of feeding powdered aluminum into the combustion chamber of a rocket
:Let us take the transfer of powdered aluminum to the combustion chamber of a rocket one step at a time. First, if the aluminum powder were in a vertical cylinder opening at the bottom into the combustion chamber, that cylinder would need to be pressurized with a nonoxidizing gas to the same pressure as the combustion chamber to prevent the oxygen from the combustion chamber moving into the stored aluminum powder bringing the flame front with it. Otherwise the cylinder would be just a portion of the combustion chamber and not the type of rocket engine being discussed. To keep the aluminum powder from just falling into the combustion chamber prematurely there would need to be a door between the fuel chamber and the combustion chamber that would open or disintegrate into a number of pieces that could fall through the combustion chamber when the rocket was ignited. The aluminum would not need to be pushed into the combustion chamber, it would fall in. There would be very poor control of the rate of fuel injection.
:Second, the aluminum powder could be pushed through a cylinder with a horizontal axis by an auger and fall at one end into the combustion chamber. Again, the aluminum storage chamber would need to be pressurized.
:Third aluminum powder in cans could be pushed into the combustion chamber through a port with a set of seals preserving combustion chamber pressure. The cans, perhaps made of aluminum titanium alloy, would need to retain structural integrity just long enough get through the port seals, and then burn completely with their contents.
:Fourth cans of aluminum powder could be added to the combustion chamber by a positive displacement pump having two rotors of two or more lobes each. Although such pumps are usually used for liquids they might serve for cans of aluminum powder. Check out an example at the Pump World web page. http://www.pumpworld.com/positive_displacement_pump_basic.htm A set of springs might be added to the pump so cans of aluminum powder would be positively ejected from the pump cavity as the cavity opens onto the combustion chamber rather than having the can squashed by the vane that tries to close the cavity. The ends of the rotor vanes might be lubricated with gold to prevent excessive blow-by. It would cost about twice as much as grease on Luna because in addition to transportation costs the raw material cost would be significant. The cost would be justified only if the rocket engine provided great advantages over competing types.
:In summary, although it does not seem to be proven that pushing aluminum powder into the combustion chamber of a rocket is absolutely physically impossible, there does seem to be the lack of any great motivation for putting money into pursuing this idea.'''--FARTHERRED''' 11:43am central daylight time on the 16th of August

So that leaves hybrid rockets and liquid rockets. What about so called "flashbulb" rockets? Are they only for orbit circularization? And solar thermal for orbital manuvering? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 08:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
===Locally Made Lunar Rockets===
:As T.Neo suggests, flashbulb rockets are only for circularizing the orbit into which a payload is placed by a mass driver. This is not a high specific impulse or a low empty weight rocket. The delta v requirement is small. The matters of concern are ease of manufacture and reliable performance.
:For a solid fuel, lox oxidizer rocket the binder does not necessarily need to be a polymer. Keep in mind that the finished chunk of solid fuel should burn at a high controlled rate and maintain a large enough surface area to provide the desired burn rate and provide sufficient heat transfer to the exhaust gas. An advantage of pumped oxygen as the oxidizer is that it allows control by valves. A disadvantage is the requirement of power for the pump. The chunk of fuel might reasonably contain aluminum, magnesium, titanium and alloy flakes sintered together with a low melting alloy of mostly aluminum with magnesium, silicon, and perhaps sodium and calcium thrown in. The manufacturing process should result in a high porosity closed cell structure that breaks down by melting and oxidation in the rocket engine to leave a rough porous surface that burns at a high controlled rate. Adding hydrogen gas to the fuel mix to hold open pores would also provide some combustion rate control as escaping steam would form hydrogen again as it reacts with metal fuel components in a quasiequilibrium fashion. Steam and hydrogen would interfere with the oxygen reaching the burning surface. Adding silicon dioxide might provide rate control if the hydrogen is too expensive. This sort of technology can only be developed by a long series of tests, if it is at all possible.
:A solar thermal rocket using oxygen reaction mass is certainly possible. It might be desirable to boost the specific impulse by electrically heating the oxygen after it was preheated by direct solar energy. The advantage of the orbit to orbit transfer mission is that high thrust to weight ratio is not such a stringent requirement. I can only guess how far this advantage might be pushed. Electrodes used to heat the oxygen would absorb heat from that oxygen on one side and be cooled by the incoming liquid stream on the other. The expansion nozzle could be radiatively cooled because the engine would operate at low pressure.
:The potential for development is great. If NASA sticks to a reasonable budget, it can not all be done by 2020. NASA should see if 2030 works. Instead, the last I heard is that they want to use a nitrogen tetroxide and monomethylhydrazine assent stage after having astronauts waltz around on Luna for a while. If there is a need to put on a show for the yokels, it would be better handled by the National Rocketry and Canyon Jumping Administration. If someone is not impressed enough with the noise of the rockets, he can be given a seat closer to the path of the rocket motorcycle rider that charges out over the take-off ramp. Something of this nature could be jerry rigged in about a year, and if we loose one canyon jumper there would be other volunteers. It would provide a better demonstration of American technical superiority than the stupid death-warmed-over program that NASA's political bosses have forced upon them. --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 18:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sintering the fuel together with a low-melting point binder might do the trick. Pumping the LOX is a problem. Could pressurized oxygen gas be used to force the LOX into the engine? Right now NASA is doing everything wrong. I think that a first step in the right direction would be for them to be sensible, dump Constellation and adopt DIRECT. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 08:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

:Pressure feed rockets do not have as great a specific impulse potential as turbo pumped rockets. Perhaps the lox could be mixed with ozone and the ozone be catalytically decomposed to provide power for the oxidizer pump. Required engeneering data would include the solubility of Ozone in liquid oxygen at operating temperatures, the energy availabel per kilogram of ozone and the concentration of ozone in solution at which it becomes an explosion hazard. We do not want some ozone freezing out in nearly pure form on a tank wall and exploding from some stray vibration. I hear that if one were to strike a tank of liquid ozone with a hammer, one would never hear the clang.
:What is this DIRECT T.Neo writes about? Is that Mars Direct? --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 19:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

::Ozone? Hmm, not too sure... [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 06:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

::[http://www.directlauncher.com/ DIRECT 2.0]. Personally, I don't buy into the idea. All I've heard is NASA bashing, repetitive accusations of foul play in op-eds, and outrage over non-compliance with congressional mandates with little substance and not enough study to back it up. I read the ESAS study front to back and I find myself agreeing with it's conclusions. My personal preference is for COTS. Playing the "congress said" mandate card is a quick way to kill any rational effort, because congress doesn't understand the word "rational." The DIRECT people don't see this. I honestly suspect that Direct is an effort carried out by NASA engineers who are afraid of losing their jobs, which is very understandable. However, NASA is not the end all, be all of aerospace. The best engineering talent will be able to find higher paying work in the private sector. People forget that government jobs pay {insert fecal-referencing profanity of your choice}. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 05:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point about DIRECT, but I still think that Constellation is not applicable to the SDLV category anymore. No SSMEs*, no 4-segment boosters, differant tank diameters, etc. Meanwhile Ares I has run into problems. Weight constraints, etc. How much more harder is it to man-rate a Delta-IV heavy then it is to create a new launcher?
We do not neeed NASA to return to the Moon, we should not want NASA to return us to the Moon. The shuttle was a mistake, Constellation is a bigger one.
*I am not saying that an SSME would be a better choice then a RS-68 or J-2X.
[[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:The problem with the SSME is that it is built to be reusable for, lets be honest, darn near forever. It's an absolute masterpiece of engineering who's high cost to produce is offset my it's incredible dependability, efficiency, and reusability. Dunk it in the ocean once and you lose that investment. The central H2/LOX stage of DIRECT or Constellation HLV will be disposable and if they survive re-entry will end up in the ocean. I would tend to go with a cheaper, expendable engine for the core stage. I support the Ares 5 idea with a larger diameter and larger SRBs because of it's increased payload capabilities. It means retooling the plants used to produce equipment for the space shuttle, but it also means an increased payload capability and the additional fuel to compensate for disposable engines with a lower ISP than the SSMEs. All of the skill sets required for space shuttle production will still be applicable to the Ares HLV, but I fear we will suffer a brain drain like that experienced between apollo and the shuttle. With our congress, that may be unavoidable in any vehicle switch. On the bright side, the talent that flees will head for the private sector or go into retirement until they hear the call of NASA. While I tend to balk at the idea of extending the shuttle, the recent events involving Russia may require just that to maintain our presence on the ISS. It's probably a good idea (in my opinion) and will provide an additional buffer for accumulated NASA talent. I know there's debate about ISS, but lets leave that on the ISS discussion page. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 19:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:As for the Ares 1, I don't remember what the cost comparisons are but I now think it would have been a better idea to man rate a delta or atlas, then move directly to an Ares 5 with our own version of an ATV. However, if NASA can pull of each Ares 1 launch for less money and with higher capabilities that an atlas or delta, I'll be sitting here with my foot in my mouth. Wouldn't be the first time I ended up chewing my boot. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 19:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:''We do not neeed NASA to return to the Moon, we should not want NASA to return us to the Moon. The shuttle was a mistake, Constellation is a bigger one.'' I pretty much agree with everything except that last part, but only because of the need for an HLV. It's a pity that congress would never approve something on the scale of Sea Dragon. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 19:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You are so right! I forgot the part of needing HLV, I think an HLV is definatly needed. A rocket like Sea Dragon
would pretty much solve our problems. A Moon base, a Mars base, missions to Saturn, etc. Beside that, Sea Dragon was designed to be cheaper then conventional boosters. A perfect example of "big dumb booster" approach.
Why wouldn't a design like Mars direct launcher work:

*Replace the LOX tank with a cylindrical tank
*Remove forward orbiter attach point
*Reinforce rear orbiter attach point
*Create a engine module with 2-3 RS-68 engines and place it on the rear attach point
*Place payload fairing and payload on top.

~It shouldn't be too hard to put the engines at the bottom of the tank, considering Aft Cargo Carrier.
NASA made a mistake in the '70s by discontinuing the Saturn-V, an HLV. If, for example, they had used Shuttle-Saturn, how hard would it be to still launch something like a saturn INT-21 from the same pad?
That is the pity with the Shuttle. Its archetecture has so much potential for use as an HLV, yet all of that is used up taking the "useless" Orbiter to space. At least one shuttle disaster could have been avoided if it were not for NASA inconsiderance.
EDIT:
What about taking a man rated Delta CBC and, instead of LRBs, use shuttle SRBs instead. How will this effect performance?
I support using expendable engines in SDLVs. They would definatly be a better choice. Same with 5-segment SRBs.
However, I do not support having a new tank diameter. What I have always wanted to see is ''Four'' SRBs on something like Ares V. How much would this boost payload? Would it be feasible?
[[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
:I'm not sure, but four SRBs could cause a vibration problem. Then again, that may be overcome and the SRBs could take the Ares so high that the SRBs would suffer damage when falling and would not be recoverable. All of that is pure speculation, but the idea is worth a thought. I don't know the answers to most of these questions, but I would like to note that the original idea for the Ares V was taken from Mars Direct. Even the name was taken from the Mars Direct plan. However, the Mars Direct numbers for a Mars mission were optimistic, resulting in the compromise of Mars Semi-Direct. Since then the only changes to the concept were using expendable engines and increasing the tank diameter. IIRC the 5 segment SRBs were a part of the Mars Direct concept, but I may be wrong. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 03:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the 5-segment SRBs were for the shuttle, I think one was actually test-fired. There were other ideas, the ARSRM, SRBs made out of graphite epoxy, etc. Wouldn't the large payload of the four-SRBs Ares dampen out the vibration? What about making a stage-and a half launcher out of an Ares V core? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 06:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is something from --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 09:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
There have been some abbreviations used here that I am unsure of. I list them along with my best guess as to what is meant.

Abbreviations:
*SSTO: Single Stage To Orbit
*ARSRM: AR Solid Rocket Motors (What does that AR represent?)
*SRB: Solid Rocket Booster
*ACPC propellant: (What is ACPC?)
*ATV: Automated Transfer Vehicle
*ESAS: Exploration Systems Architecture Study
*COTS: Commercial Orbital Transfer Services (This is a particularly bad acronym because of over use. Let it mean Commercial off the shelf and eliminate other meanings. People should research acronyms before instituting them and avoid those with common alternate meanings, unless their purpose is to avoid communicating with any but a small inner circle.)
*CBC: Common Booster Core
*SDLV: Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicle
*SSME: Space Shuttle Main Engine

*T.Neo wrote: “Importing volatiles is not so hard.”
However if there will need to be return flights of people for crew change, the scraps of fuel scavenged from a couple of previous descent craft will not be enough to fuel and ascent. Recycling plastic fuel tanks and other plastic parts of descent vehicles to scavenge hydrogen and carbon will require different technologies than the processes for recovering volatiles from the lunar surface. I would not count too much on it. It is not “hard” if other people do it, just expensive.
*T.Neo wrote: “We have not tested aluminium rocket technology. The safest, cost effective way would be a hybrid rocket.” However, the safest and the least costly alternatives for lifting men from Luna depend upon how often the trip will be made. With just one human mission using previously developed technology saves much testing. If many trips of crew exchange are contemplated but none of them occur until after twenty years of robotic infrastructure development, then a hydrogen oxygen rocket will probably be best for crew exchange with the oxygen being produced on Luna and sent into low lunar orbit for fueling descent stages. The current manned program of lunar exploration will not use any lunar water for fuel and has little to do with industrial infrastructure development. The machines will do the work and the men are along for show. The NASA program is all about crossing moon off of their to do list and nothing about the future of man in space, except as it interferes with the possibility of funding a rational program.
*T.Neo is unsure about ozone used to power an oxidizer turbopump for a lunar ascent module. There is no worry about ozone being released into the ambient atmosphere of Luna and poisoning the local inhabitants. It can be dissolved into liquid oxygen as it is produced. Just make sure that it does not separate into ozone rich and ozone poor phases during handling. The homogenous solution should have enough energy to power a turbopump when it is catalytically decomposed.
--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 09:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

*APCP- Ammonium perchlorate composite propellant. Solid rocket fuel, like the stuff used in the shuttle SRBs, high end model rockets, etc.
*ARSRM- Advanced solid rocket motor (Sorry, must have been a typo, I think it is actually ASRM)
*COTS- Also unsure of what this is.
*Volatiles- Recycling all material brought from Earth would be a good start.

*I said previously that I was unsure of hybrid rockets for manned transportation. I am discussing hybrid rockets as a cargo launch, posssibly incorperating a mass driver.

*There is no need to worry about Ozone being released into the atmosphere. I am concerned about the volatility of Ozone, even when in solution with LOX. If the precautions you suggest are followed correctly, maybe it could work.

To answer the previous comment by Jarogers2001, The boosters for Mars Direct were the so called ASRMs, not the five segment boosters. Something I just thought of now, is replacing shuttle SRBs with Atlas V first stages. What about doing this with an Ares V? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

this from --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 17:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
When I read, "Ozone? Hmm, not too sure... " I thought that was about as favorable an assesment as one could honestly give without actually building a detailed virtual model. Then T.Neo wrote,"...it could work." He is too kind, but the information content of the comment is the same. T.Neo's suggestions should be considered fairly.
*To evaluate a launch technology one must consider its use. There is some possible benefit to bringing lunar polar samples to Earth. For this use a small hypergol engine is probably the best because of simplicity and dependability. Engineering in sufficient reliability for any other kind of ascent craft would require more money not justified for a one time use. If a lunar base becomes sufficiently developed to produce an economic export, it must be exported by mass driver. A rocket second stage adds mass that must be deducted from the payload. If a mass driver were designed to put only half of the energy into a payload needed to reach orbit it would accelerate the cargo to 1188 meters per second leaving 499 meters per second for the rocket stage, including the circularizing burn. If we guess at the exhaust velocity as 1764 meters per second and 10% empty weight for the rocket then for 100 kg of cargo up we need to at 34.5 kg of fuel and 3.4 kg rocket empty weight for a total of 138 kg to be launched by the mass driver to get 100 kg to orbit. To get the rockets back to Luna to reuse them requires 9 kg of fuel for the return flight. So 91 kg of arbitrary payload plus 9 kg of fuel to return the rocket to Luna and 38 kg of rocket and fuel for the to orbit trip yields 66% of the mass driver load being cargo for a net power saving of 24% to get that cargo to orbit. Of course if the rockets have other cargo than their own empty weight coming down to Luna that makes the idea more attractive. --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 17:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at how small the LM acent stage was. Now, if the acent stage was acelerated by a mass driver first...
One could look at this as a mass driver enhanced rocket, not a rocket enhanced mass driver. Having the rocket return for reuse could work, maybe, it could truck in hydrogen or other volatiles from an orbiting tug.
This idea is primarily based on the need for lunar materials for building space colonies. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 09:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

*the following from '''FARTHERRED''' 5:43 Central Standard Time 9 September
The mere fact that a rocket second stage could reduce the size and so the capital cost and power use of a mass driver does not necessarily mean it is an improvement. Rocket transportation is rather inefficient. The possibility of electrical acceleration of cargo from Luna is a major factor that makes it a good choice for industrial development as compared to Mars. My feel for the economics without being able to calculate a cost is that the rocket stage for cargo shot out of a mass driver should be minimized. By guess, it should supply not more than 15 meters per second which is more than the absolute minimum for circularization. Having the mass driver launch into an orbit with an underground perilune increases the necessary circularization delta v but moves the crash point for failed rocket stages a bit further away. Of course any transportation to orbit that does not use hydrogen conserves water. --'''FARTHERRED'''

The rocket stage is only given a small boost by the mass driver. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 08:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Water

2008-09-10T08:36:00Z

T.Neo:

''Other substances, such as aluminum or magnesium and oxygen can be used for rocket fuel. We have plenty of those.''

Oxygen has been used for decades as rocket oxidizer. Although magnesium and aluminium are good fuels, and are used in solid rockets, they can not be used in a liquid rocket, as they have to be kept very hot to be a liquid, leading to compatibility issues with supercold LOX. An alternative would be to have a hybrid rocket: a tank of LOX, and a tube filled with metal powder. However, the metal powder will fall out the nozzle. This is why solid rockets use a binder to keep the fuels together. The binder will have to be shipped from Earth. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 08:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Response from Bryce: T.Neo raises a good point. Solid and even hybrid rocket fuel here on Earth is mixed with a binder, which is often a high hydrocarbon rubberlike substance. That's pretty pricey on the Moon and, again, we hate to "throw away" hydrogen (and carbon) in this way. Maybe given the vacuum and anhydrous environment of the Moon, we could do some sort of "sintering" process to cause our fuel to stick together until used, and yet have the oxidizer reach it when needed.

The reason the metal fuel is in powder form is because there is more surface area. If the aluminium was just one solid sheet, the reaction with oxygen would create an impervious barrier of aluminium oxide, preventing further reaction. Sintering the fuel would, I imagine, decrease the surface area and lead to the same problem. But, maybe the ratio of fuel to binder could be changed, with the binder being just a thin layer holding the powder together. What would this material be? What about the remaining fuel left in cargo lander fuel tanks? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

:That could be a possibility. NASA is currently working on ways to scavenge unused fuel from the lunar landers so it can be used in an outpost. I've heard mention of hybrid engines which would use hexagonal cross-section metal rods in addition to hydrogen/LOX in the combustion chamber to add additional boost, but that is for interplanetary/cislunar ships which would not land. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 14:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Abundance of oxygen could be an advantage for a "direct ascent" lander. It does not have to carry the oxidiser for the return trip, only the fuel. I am weary about any potential hybrid/solid rocket for manned transportation. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
===liquid aluminum / liquid oxygen rockets===
T.Neo should not give up too easily on liquid aluminum / liquid oxygen rockets. The liquid oxygen in the tanks would be used to cool the combustion chamber wall in a tube wall construction design. So before it is injected into the combustion chamber it will be a hot gas. Liquid hydrogen is used to cool the combustion chamber wall of the space shuttle main engine. The temperature differences there are greater than there will be in the aluminum oxygen rocket. Oxygen is not as good a coolant as hydrogen so the aluminum oxygen rocket will not be able to run up to as high a temperature or pressure as the space shuttle main engine. The rocket would not reach that temperature any way because of all the excess oxydizer necessary to keep sufficient gas in the combustion chamber to serve as a working fluid. People at the following web sites think aluminum/oxygen rockets are worth considering:
http://www.asi.org/adb/06/09/03/02/095/al-o-propellants.html
and
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3c2.html
===mass drivers===
All of this rocket stuff is just a preliminary expedient anyway. See the [[Mass Drivers]] article to see what ought be the economic method of getting stuff from Luna to lunar orbit when things are more fully developed.--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 22:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with cooling the engine, I have a problem with keeping the aluminium liquid, and keeping the LOX cold, all while trying to keep the rocket in one piece. The binder in use in a hybrid rocket can be a thin film holding the fuel together. Importing volatiles is not so hard. We can make lander stages out of volatiles, we can make our Earth Departure stages out of volatiles, so that when we crash them into the Moon to calibrate our tectonic sensors we can provide future generations with volatiles. The Ranger probes used balsa wood to cushion lunar impact. Why not send huge chunks of plastic to crash into the moon? No landers, etc. This approach could even be used to land "dumb" payloads on the Moon. Do not confuse "Reuseable" with "reuturn to Earth". I think Mass drivers are the way to go to lift payloads off the Moon, cargo at least. I was thinking of a rocket second stage, if not that, some sort of device for orbital manuvering. I think that a solar thermal rocket using LOx as a working fluid could fit the job nicely. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 12:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
===problems, problems===
:There is a tendency of lunar base enthusiasts to go off on tangents worrying about problems that turn out to be irrelevant and ignoring serious problems. This situation is a result of our ignorance. With what little information we have I am not convinced that the maintaining the aluminum liquid and oxygen liquid in separate tanks on one rocket vehicle will be the big problem. Lacking proper reference works at hand at the moment, I looked up a couple of web pages that incidentally touched on the liquid temperature of aluminum. Omni Technologies gives a temperature for melting their aluminum based brazing material as 582 – 604 degrees centigrade. http://www.omnibraze.com/wire.html A research paper by A. Gerlich et al. gives the melting point of an aluminum magnesium eutectic as 437 degrees centrigrade. http://www.materialsaustralia.com/Materials_Forum/Vol29/GP%2046.pdf With some aluminum, magnesium and silicon in the pot the melting temperature might be managably low. Vacuum insulation is not difficult to come by or maintain on Luna. Even though the actual fuel that is put into such a hypothetical rocket just prior to launch must be considerably hotter than the melting point to insure that some higher melting point phase does not freeze out to coat the inner surface of tubing, the temperature involved should not melt insulation materials available.
:A concern that must be addressed is the tendency for metals from which one might otherwise construct a combustion chamber to burn away in a high temperature high pressure pure oxygen environment. I can not say off hand what alloy or ceramic might be suitable for the combustion chamber wall. There is also the problem of aluminum oxide particles in the rocket exhaust abrading the throat of the combustion chamber. Perhaps expendable ceramic inserts to line the combustion chamber throat would be called for.
:My main point is that until there is more definite data, we can not completely rule out a liquid aluminum / liquid oxygen rocket. Have you got a rocket test stand in your garage that operates in a high vacuum?
:Just putting in capital letters fixed the link to the Mass Drivers article. '''--FARTHERRED'''

:Why not use powdered aluminum in a straight tube and feed it into the combustion chamber by pushing on the other end? Aluminum could disperse when blown by the oxygen. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 03:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean push the powder into the combustion chamber? Could work. I am looking at this from the perspective of ACPC propellant.
-Do away with Ammonium perchlorate oxidser, and turn the device into a hybrid rocket with oxygen oxidizer.
-Reduce the amount of binder to a bare minimum.
Yes, the binder has to be imported from Earth, but only a small amount is used. As I said in my previous comment, getting volatiles to the moon is not as hard as you might think. Even with some Aluminium/Magnesium/silicon fuel, I am unsure about what the rocket might be contructed of, etc. Remember how small the apollo lunar module was, getting off the Moon SSTO. Now, if there was a hybrid, with a mass driver accelerating a rocket powered second stage, the two could be much smaller then a pure rocket or pure mass driver system. This means that the colonists only need to build a mass driver that is half the length, and a rocket stage that is half the size. We have not tested aluminium rocket technology. The safest, cost effective way would be a hybrid rocket. No, I do not have a working test model in my garage, but I am working on it. I have several crazy propellant ideas. Now, where can I find some liquid Flourine? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
===Pumping Aluminum Powder===
In response to Jarogers2001’s suggestion of feeding powdered aluminum into the combustion chamber of a rocket
:Let us take the transfer of powdered aluminum to the combustion chamber of a rocket one step at a time. First, if the aluminum powder were in a vertical cylinder opening at the bottom into the combustion chamber, that cylinder would need to be pressurized with a nonoxidizing gas to the same pressure as the combustion chamber to prevent the oxygen from the combustion chamber moving into the stored aluminum powder bringing the flame front with it. Otherwise the cylinder would be just a portion of the combustion chamber and not the type of rocket engine being discussed. To keep the aluminum powder from just falling into the combustion chamber prematurely there would need to be a door between the fuel chamber and the combustion chamber that would open or disintegrate into a number of pieces that could fall through the combustion chamber when the rocket was ignited. The aluminum would not need to be pushed into the combustion chamber, it would fall in. There would be very poor control of the rate of fuel injection.
:Second, the aluminum powder could be pushed through a cylinder with a horizontal axis by an auger and fall at one end into the combustion chamber. Again, the aluminum storage chamber would need to be pressurized.
:Third aluminum powder in cans could be pushed into the combustion chamber through a port with a set of seals preserving combustion chamber pressure. The cans, perhaps made of aluminum titanium alloy, would need to retain structural integrity just long enough get through the port seals, and then burn completely with their contents.
:Fourth cans of aluminum powder could be added to the combustion chamber by a positive displacement pump having two rotors of two or more lobes each. Although such pumps are usually used for liquids they might serve for cans of aluminum powder. Check out an example at the Pump World web page. http://www.pumpworld.com/positive_displacement_pump_basic.htm A set of springs might be added to the pump so cans of aluminum powder would be positively ejected from the pump cavity as the cavity opens onto the combustion chamber rather than having the can squashed by the vane that tries to close the cavity. The ends of the rotor vanes might be lubricated with gold to prevent excessive blow-by. It would cost about twice as much as grease on Luna because in addition to transportation costs the raw material cost would be significant. The cost would be justified only if the rocket engine provided great advantages over competing types.
:In summary, although it does not seem to be proven that pushing aluminum powder into the combustion chamber of a rocket is absolutely physically impossible, there does seem to be the lack of any great motivation for putting money into pursuing this idea.'''--FARTHERRED''' 11:43am central daylight time on the 16th of August

So that leaves hybrid rockets and liquid rockets. What about so called "flashbulb" rockets? Are they only for orbit circularization? And solar thermal for orbital manuvering? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 08:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
===Locally Made Lunar Rockets===
:As T.Neo suggests, flashbulb rockets are only for circularizing the orbit into which a payload is placed by a mass driver. This is not a high specific impulse or a low empty weight rocket. The delta v requirement is small. The matters of concern are ease of manufacture and reliable performance.
:For a solid fuel, lox oxidizer rocket the binder does not necessarily need to be a polymer. Keep in mind that the finished chunk of solid fuel should burn at a high controlled rate and maintain a large enough surface area to provide the desired burn rate and provide sufficient heat transfer to the exhaust gas. An advantage of pumped oxygen as the oxidizer is that it allows control by valves. A disadvantage is the requirement of power for the pump. The chunk of fuel might reasonably contain aluminum, magnesium, titanium and alloy flakes sintered together with a low melting alloy of mostly aluminum with magnesium, silicon, and perhaps sodium and calcium thrown in. The manufacturing process should result in a high porosity closed cell structure that breaks down by melting and oxidation in the rocket engine to leave a rough porous surface that burns at a high controlled rate. Adding hydrogen gas to the fuel mix to hold open pores would also provide some combustion rate control as escaping steam would form hydrogen again as it reacts with metal fuel components in a quasiequilibrium fashion. Steam and hydrogen would interfere with the oxygen reaching the burning surface. Adding silicon dioxide might provide rate control if the hydrogen is too expensive. This sort of technology can only be developed by a long series of tests, if it is at all possible.
:A solar thermal rocket using oxygen reaction mass is certainly possible. It might be desirable to boost the specific impulse by electrically heating the oxygen after it was preheated by direct solar energy. The advantage of the orbit to orbit transfer mission is that high thrust to weight ratio is not such a stringent requirement. I can only guess how far this advantage might be pushed. Electrodes used to heat the oxygen would absorb heat from that oxygen on one side and be cooled by the incoming liquid stream on the other. The expansion nozzle could be radiatively cooled because the engine would operate at low pressure.
:The potential for development is great. If NASA sticks to a reasonable budget, it can not all be done by 2020. NASA should see if 2030 works. Instead, the last I heard is that they want to use a nitrogen tetroxide and monomethylhydrazine assent stage after having astronauts waltz around on Luna for a while. If there is a need to put on a show for the yokels, it would be better handled by the National Rocketry and Canyon Jumping Administration. If someone is not impressed enough with the noise of the rockets, he can be given a seat closer to the path of the rocket motorcycle rider that charges out over the take-off ramp. Something of this nature could be jerry rigged in about a year, and if we loose one canyon jumper there would be other volunteers. It would provide a better demonstration of American technical superiority than the stupid death-warmed-over program that NASA's political bosses have forced upon them. --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 18:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sintering the fuel together with a low-melting point binder might do the trick. Pumping the LOX is a problem. Could pressurized oxygen gas be used to force the LOX into the engine? Right now NASA is doing everything wrong. I think that a first step in the right direction would be for them to be sensible, dump Constellation and adopt DIRECT. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 08:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

:Pressure feed rockets do not have as great a specific impulse potential as turbo pumped rockets. Perhaps the lox could be mixed with ozone and the ozone be catalytically decomposed to provide power for the oxidizer pump. Required engeneering data would include the solubility of Ozone in liquid oxygen at operating temperatures, the energy availabel per kilogram of ozone and the concentration of ozone in solution at which it becomes an explosion hazard. We do not want some ozone freezing out in nearly pure form on a tank wall and exploding from some stray vibration. I hear that if one were to strike a tank of liquid ozone with a hammer, one would never hear the clang.
:What is this DIRECT T.Neo writes about? Is that Mars Direct? --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 19:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

::Ozone? Hmm, not too sure... [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 06:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

::[http://www.directlauncher.com/ DIRECT 2.0]. Personally, I don't buy into the idea. All I've heard is NASA bashing, repetitive accusations of foul play in op-eds, and outrage over non-compliance with congressional mandates with little substance and not enough study to back it up. I read the ESAS study front to back and I find myself agreeing with it's conclusions. My personal preference is for COTS. Playing the "congress said" mandate card is a quick way to kill any rational effort, because congress doesn't understand the word "rational." The DIRECT people don't see this. I honestly suspect that Direct is an effort carried out by NASA engineers who are afraid of losing their jobs, which is very understandable. However, NASA is not the end all, be all of aerospace. The best engineering talent will be able to find higher paying work in the private sector. People forget that government jobs pay {insert fecal-referencing profanity of your choice}. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 05:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point about DIRECT, but I still think that Constellation is not applicable to the SDLV category anymore. No SSMEs*, no 4-segment boosters, differant tank diameters, etc. Meanwhile Ares I has run into problems. Weight constraints, etc. How much more harder is it to man-rate a Delta-IV heavy then it is to create a new launcher?
We do not neeed NASA to return to the Moon, we should not want NASA to return us to the Moon. The shuttle was a mistake, Constellation is a bigger one.
*I am not saying that an SSME would be a better choice then a RS-68 or J-2X.
[[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:The problem with the SSME is that it is built to be reusable for, lets be honest, darn near forever. It's an absolute masterpiece of engineering who's high cost to produce is offset my it's incredible dependability, efficiency, and reusability. Dunk it in the ocean once and you lose that investment. The central H2/LOX stage of DIRECT or Constellation HLV will be disposable and if they survive re-entry will end up in the ocean. I would tend to go with a cheaper, expendable engine for the core stage. I support the Ares 5 idea with a larger diameter and larger SRBs because of it's increased payload capabilities. It means retooling the plants used to produce equipment for the space shuttle, but it also means an increased payload capability and the additional fuel to compensate for disposable engines with a lower ISP than the SSMEs. All of the skill sets required for space shuttle production will still be applicable to the Ares HLV, but I fear we will suffer a brain drain like that experienced between apollo and the shuttle. With our congress, that may be unavoidable in any vehicle switch. On the bright side, the talent that flees will head for the private sector or go into retirement until they hear the call of NASA. While I tend to balk at the idea of extending the shuttle, the recent events involving Russia may require just that to maintain our presence on the ISS. It's probably a good idea (in my opinion) and will provide an additional buffer for accumulated NASA talent. I know there's debate about ISS, but lets leave that on the ISS discussion page. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 19:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:As for the Ares 1, I don't remember what the cost comparisons are but I now think it would have been a better idea to man rate a delta or atlas, then move directly to an Ares 5 with our own version of an ATV. However, if NASA can pull of each Ares 1 launch for less money and with higher capabilities that an atlas or delta, I'll be sitting here with my foot in my mouth. Wouldn't be the first time I ended up chewing my boot. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 19:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:''We do not neeed NASA to return to the Moon, we should not want NASA to return us to the Moon. The shuttle was a mistake, Constellation is a bigger one.'' I pretty much agree with everything except that last part, but only because of the need for an HLV. It's a pity that congress would never approve something on the scale of Sea Dragon. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 19:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You are so right! I forgot the part of needing HLV, I think an HLV is definatly needed. A rocket like Sea Dragon
would pretty much solve our problems. A Moon base, a Mars base, missions to Saturn, etc. Beside that, Sea Dragon was designed to be cheaper then conventional boosters. A perfect example of "big dumb booster" approach.
Why wouldn't a design like Mars direct launcher work:

*Replace the LOX tank with a cylindrical tank
*Remove forward orbiter attach point
*Reinforce rear orbiter attach point
*Create a engine module with 2-3 RS-68 engines and place it on the rear attach point
*Place payload fairing and payload on top.

~It shouldn't be too hard to put the engines at the bottom of the tank, considering Aft Cargo Carrier.
NASA made a mistake in the '70s by discontinuing the Saturn-V, an HLV. If, for example, they had used Shuttle-Saturn, how hard would it be to still launch something like a saturn INT-21 from the same pad?
That is the pity with the Shuttle. Its archetecture has so much potential for use as an HLV, yet all of that is used up taking the "useless" Orbiter to space. At least one shuttle disaster could have been avoided if it were not for NASA inconsiderance.
EDIT:
What about taking a man rated Delta CBC and, instead of LRBs, use shuttle SRBs instead. How will this effect performance?
I support using expendable engines in SDLVs. They would definatly be a better choice. Same with 5-segment SRBs.
However, I do not support having a new tank diameter. What I have always wanted to see is ''Four'' SRBs on something like Ares V. How much would this boost payload? Would it be feasible?
[[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
:I'm not sure, but four SRBs could cause a vibration problem. Then again, that may be overcome and the SRBs could take the Ares so high that the SRBs would suffer damage when falling and would not be recoverable. All of that is pure speculation, but the idea is worth a thought. I don't know the answers to most of these questions, but I would like to note that the original idea for the Ares V was taken from Mars Direct. Even the name was taken from the Mars Direct plan. However, the Mars Direct numbers for a Mars mission were optimistic, resulting in the compromise of Mars Semi-Direct. Since then the only changes to the concept were using expendable engines and increasing the tank diameter. IIRC the 5 segment SRBs were a part of the Mars Direct concept, but I may be wrong. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 03:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the 5-segment SRBs were for the shuttle, I think one was actually test-fired. There were other ideas, the ARSRM, SRBs made out of graphite epoxy, etc. Wouldn't the large payload of the four-SRBs Ares dampen out the vibration? What about making a stage-and a half launcher out of an Ares V core? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 06:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is something from --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 09:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
There have been some abbreviations used here that I am unsure of. I list them along with my best guess as to what is meant.

Abbreviations:
*SSTO: Single Stage To Orbit
*ARSRM: AR Solid Rocket Motors (What does that AR represent?)
*SRB: Solid Rocket Booster
*ACPC propellant: (What is ACPC?)
*ATV: Automated Transfer Vehicle
*ESAS: Exploration Systems Architecture Study
*COTS: Commercial Orbital Transfer Services (This is a particularly bad acronym because of over use. Let it mean Commercial off the shelf and eliminate other meanings. People should research acronyms before instituting them and avoid those with common alternate meanings, unless their purpose is to avoid communicating with any but a small inner circle.)
*CBC: Common Booster Core
*SDLV: Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicle
*SSME: Space Shuttle Main Engine

*T.Neo wrote: “Importing volatiles is not so hard.”
However if there will need to be return flights of people for crew change, the scraps of fuel scavenged from a couple of previous descent craft will not be enough to fuel and ascent. Recycling plastic fuel tanks and other plastic parts of descent vehicles to scavenge hydrogen and carbon will require different technologies than the processes for recovering volatiles from the lunar surface. I would not count too much on it. It is not “hard” if other people do it, just expensive.
*T.Neo wrote: “We have not tested aluminium rocket technology. The safest, cost effective way would be a hybrid rocket.” However, the safest and the least costly alternatives for lifting men from Luna depend upon how often the trip will be made. With just one human mission using previously developed technology saves much testing. If many trips of crew exchange are contemplated but none of them occur until after twenty years of robotic infrastructure development, then a hydrogen oxygen rocket will probably be best for crew exchange with the oxygen being produced on Luna and sent into low lunar orbit for fueling descent stages. The current manned program of lunar exploration will not use any lunar water for fuel and has little to do with industrial infrastructure development. The machines will do the work and the men are along for show. The NASA program is all about crossing moon off of their to do list and nothing about the future of man in space, except as it interferes with the possibility of funding a rational program.
*T.Neo is unsure about ozone used to power an oxidizer turbopump for a lunar ascent module. There is no worry about ozone being released into the ambient atmosphere of Luna and poisoning the local inhabitants. It can be dissolved into liquid oxygen as it is produced. Just make sure that it does not separate into ozone rich and ozone poor phases during handling. The homogenous solution should have enough energy to power a turbopump when it is catalytically decomposed.
--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 09:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

*APCP- Ammonium perchlorate composite propellant. Solid rocket fuel, like the stuff used in the shuttle SRBs, high end model rockets, etc.
*ARSRM- Advanced solid rocket motor (Sorry, must have been a typo, I think it is actually ASRM)
*COTS- Also unsure of what this is.
*Volatiles- Recycling all material brought from Earth would be a good start.

*I said previously that I was unsure of hybrid rockets for manned transportation. I am discussing hybrid rockets as a cargo launch, posssibly incorperating a mass driver.

*There is no need to worry about Ozone being released into the atmosphere. I am concerned about the volatility of Ozone, even when in solution with LOX. If the precautions you suggest are followed correctly, maybe it could work.

To answer the previous comment by Jarogers2001, The boosters for Mars Direct were the so called ASRMs, not the five segment boosters. Something I just thought of now, is replacing shuttle SRBs with Atlas V first stages. What about doing this with an Ares V? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

this from --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 17:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
When I read, "Ozone? Hmm, not too sure... " I thought that was about as favorable an assesment as one could honestly give without actually building a detailed virtual model. Then T.Neo wrote,"...it could work." He is too kind, but the information content of the comment is the same. T.Neo's suggestions should be considered fairly.
*To evaluate a launch technology one must consider its use. There is some possible benefit to bringing lunar polar samples to Earth. For this use a small hypergol engine is probably the best because of simplicity and dependability. Engineering in sufficient reliability for any other kind of ascent craft would require more money not justified for a one time use. If a lunar base becomes sufficiently developed to produce an economic export, it must be exported by mass driver. A rocket second stage adds mass that must be deducted from the payload. If a mass driver were designed to put only half of the energy into a payload needed to reach orbit it would accelerate the cargo to 1188 meters per second leaving 499 meters per second for the rocket stage, including the circularizing burn. If we guess at the exhaust velocity as 1764 meters per second and 10% empty weight for the rocket then for 100 kg of cargo up we need to at 34.5 kg of fuel and 3.4 kg rocket empty weight for a total of 138 kg to be launched by the mass driver to get 100 kg to orbit. To get the rockets back to Luna to reuse them requires 9 kg of fuel for the return flight. So 91 kg of arbitrary payload plus 9 kg of fuel to return the rocket to Luna and 38 kg of rocket and fuel for the to orbit trip yields 66% of the mass driver load being cargo for a net power saving of 24% to get that cargo to orbit. Of course if the rockets have other cargo than their own empty weight coming down to Luna that makes the idea more attractive. --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 17:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at how small the LM acent stage was. Now, if the acent stage was acelerated by a mass driver first...
One could look at this as a mass driver enhanced rocket, not a rocket enhanced mass driver. Having the rocket return for reuse could work, maybe, it could truck in hydrogen or other volatiles from an orbiting tug.
This idea is primarily based on the need for lunar materials for building space colonies. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 09:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

*the following from '''FARTHERRED''' 5:43 Central Standard Time 9 September
The mere fact that a rocket second stage could reduce the size and so the capital cost and power use of a mass driver does not necessarily mean it is an improvement. Rocket transportation is rather inefficient. The possibility of electrical acceleration of cargo from Luna is a major factor that makes it a good choice for industrial development as compared to Mars. My feel for the economics without being able to calculate a cost is that the rocket stage for cargo shot out of a mass driver should be minimized. By guess, it should supply not more than 15 meters per second which is more than the absolute minimum for circularization. Having the mass driver launch into an orbit with an underground perilune increases the necessary circularization delta v but moves the crash point for failed rocket stages a bit further away. Of course any transportation to orbit that does not use hydrogen conserves water. --'''FARTHERRED'''

The rocket satge is only given a small boost by the mass driver. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 08:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Water

2008-09-07T09:50:38Z

T.Neo:

Talk:Size of Infrastructure

2008-09-07T09:39:20Z

T.Neo: New page: The assemblers need not be nano. Self-replicating factories will at first be very big. A good way to simplify the replication process is to have [[marsp:Shared componenting|shared componen...

Talk:ISS into the Pacific

2008-09-07T09:11:12Z

T.Neo:

'''Not yet:'''

The great successes of the ISS, and there were many, were mostly about international politics and the dissolution of the USSR. We need to do a very large and public analysis of the contribution and weakness of the ISS program to generate the critical lessons learned we need for a large back to the Moon program.

Only after such a study is made, should we decide the fate of the ISS.

The ISS also shows us how a bad name can kill a program.

--[[User:Jriley|Jriley]] 04:37, 10 March 2007 (PST)

----

This article yields no information about the moon, and from a technical standpoint, its assertion that the ISS is in the wrong orbit for access to the moon is just plain silly. It appears to be motivated by purely political intent, which again means it has no place in the Lunarpedia unless you want to open a section on Idiotic Political Smoke Screens.

Recommend deleting it.

-- Greg

:The purpose of this article, and a number of simular entries, was to start a discussion to provide incite into what gets people hot about space. This approach is detailed in [[Show Stoppers]] and the [[Purposes List]].

:Had a technical person wished to defend the ISS, then they could provide technical information on the use of the ISS as a safety station on the way to the Moon and exactly what this would mean to launch windows. No such defender has come forth.

:So far the input on nearly all of these articles has been extremely low. All these articles have demonstrated so far is how increasable low interest is in returning to the Moon and how much work we have ahead of us.

:This type of article belongs on Lunarpedia if, and only if, one of Lunarpedia's purposes is to make returning to the Moon happen. That is to be an active tool.

:--[[User:Jriley|Jriley]] 22:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

::It may be too early in Lunarpedia's development for the controversial question concept to take off. Most of our contributors are too busy trying to create new content to make Lunarpedia a major attraction to stop and think of such subtleties at this time. As it stands, Mike and I don't even really have time to even write many articles, as we're too busy with top level maintenance and administrative stuff -- and that was bad enough ''before'' the wiki project got multiplied by a factor of five... -- [[User:Strangelv|Strangelv]] 22:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

::It could be helpful to create a tag template for your controversial question series to clarify the purpose of them so that people aren't looking at them hoping to get something from them that they aren't meant to provide. -- [[User:Strangelv|Strangelv]] 22:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

== Broken Promises ==

::{| style="border-style:none;border-width:0px"
| style="border-style:dashed; border-width:1px; border-color:#668B88;" | The ISS has failed to provide the promised medical and pharmacuetical advances that were used to sell the space station plan to congress.
|}

That has a lot to do with designing so much of the station so it could only be launched by the Shuttle. Between the groundings caused by fuel line fractures and the extended grounding of the fleet after the loss of Columbia and then the very careful and conservative return to service, the ISS construction program is now close to 7 years behind schedule and still slipping. Add to this that in its' present configuration it takes the entire crew of 3 just to run the station, there is little or no science done.

But they do still find time to run the Boston marathon.

-- [[User:Mdelaney|Mdelaney]] 06:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

:I genuinely hope that this will change once the crew is expanded. Letting such a large investment go to waste doesn't seem logical to me. The boston marathon stunt does provide the opportunity to get physiological measurements on a female who has been in microgravity long enough to begin experiencing muscle/bone loss. It's too good of a data gathering opportunity to pass up. -- [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 01:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

----

Jriley makes sense. I was opposed to building the space station as planned because it is permanently manned before the proper infrastructure is in place to make reasonable use of people. I would have gone with a remotely operated lunar base instead of the space station and shed no tears over the loss of expertise in the manned space program as employees drifted away. They could have archived as much of the details of how they do their jobs as possible, and then gone on to do something useful. It would take a long time to restart a manned program when it is finally needed, but the need is a long time away. What we have is a show space program. Some people would be better impressed if we were efficiently doing something to further humanity's future in space. We can learn things like how to avoid the bearing problem that threatens the space station's solar arrays. We may need to keep the space station for a while to satisfy international agreements. We may be able to convince other nations that keeping space station agreements is just too expensive, and we can make up the debt some other way. Then we might be able to convert the space station to all robotic operation and lower costs. I am not sure we can lower costs but we should look into it. --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 15:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
===Political Difficulties in National Funding===
Mdelaney wrote that medical and pharmaceutical advances were promised to sell the space station to congress. Its more complicated than that. Congressmen were generally not fooled by the probability that such advances and others would occur. They needed a story to tell constituents to explain the reason for their votes. The second layer of persuasion was political support from people whose employment would cease if the space station failed, and people in communities where employment would be lost if the space station failed. These were highly motivated supporters of a program that they saw as having "lunch" written all over it. There were true believers too. The harm they have done by saddling the U.S. with a manned space program that is mainly a welfare program for a dependent constituency is worse then the mere cost of the program. The argument comes up (I won't say from whom) that as long as we are going to have astronauts up there anyway lets save a particular task for them. So, efficient methods of doing things like robotic servicing of satellites are never given a serious effort, no matter if plenty of money were available. It is not the space station so much as the whole manned space program that is the enemy. It just keeps sailing on with no destination like the Flying Dutchman, just as much a curse to those who do know where they are headed. Some say that the division between manned and robotic space programs is a competition wrongly foisted upon space enthusiasts by congress which lumps their funding together, and that we should support both programs. But I say that the average congressman does not know beans about our future in space and cares less. Our message should be that the main effect of the current manned space program on our future in space is to detract from it. This is so much the case that having to coexist with a manned space program is likely to kill any serious attempt to develop industry using the raw materials of Luna, if it has not already done so. That is just for the United States though. Other nations are poised to make attempts at Luna, and they might not copy our mistakes. --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 00:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

:I am not opposed to manned spaceflight, but I am opposed to the promotion of an environment where it would be the sole domain of governments. Instead of seeking to eliminate the manned program we should take an industry building approach in the same way that NACA did for atmospheric flight. There are many things that can be done by robots, but a robot is never a substitute for a human in tasks that aren't redundant processes (such as maintaining robots in the field). Instead of seeking to eliminate a manned program we should instead foster the development of private replacements which can carry people for much less than NASA, allowing more funding to be freed up in the long run for the support of a lunar base. I am of the opinion that the ISS should remain in place until a suitable private LEO destination is in place for private flights. Today we have reached a technological nexus where this is finally possible. Google search for Bigelow Aerospace. -- [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 00:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

===problems with a manned spaceflight bureaucracy===
I am not opposed to manned spaceflight. I am opposed to the farce that constitutes the current U. S. manned space program. I did write "robotic servicing of satellites [is] never given a serious effort" but I should have written remote control servicing. I do not propose that an artificially intelligent robot perform maintenance on satellites. I propose that technicians perform this maintenance by remote controlled devices while the technicians remain comfortably on Earth. This method properly developed would likely be more convenient for any particular task than working in a space suit and allow shifts of technicians to stay on the job for much less than the expense of having them in space in person. The space station we have now is a special case. Every thing there was designed to maximize its convenience to human operation on site. In an ideal world the space station would have been designed to maximize convenience for remote operation. However even using the robonaut and others of similar make, it might be cheaper to run the space station remotely than to keep men there in person.
I do not think employees of the manned space program have the intention of doing harm, but just look at the program's record. First the Apollo program sent astronauts to Luna. That was the first and last worthwhile thing it did. It made more sense then to send men to Luna. Remote control was not as highly developed then. When the decision was made to have a human pilot for the space shuttle, that was a big mistake. This wasn't done because of lack of ability to land a shuttle by remote control, even the Russians landed their version of a shuttle by remote control. Robotic autolanding can be done today and I guess that it could have been done when the first shuttle was built. Flying a space ship is naturally a computer's job, but the shuttle's designers built a man into their design because they wanted to give astronauts something to do that had prestige. Then the space station was a make work program for astronauts from the word go. Astronauts being there was always the primary consideration. Actually accomplishing something on the space station was something to be considered when the program got around to it. The only thing that couldn't be done more cheaply remotely on a space station is testing human endurance of weightlessness. The results of the test are only applicable to working on a space station or flying to Mars, two expensive things that are not at all urgent. If lunar industry is developed first, respectable size spaceships could be built to take people to Mars in comfort. The Hubble Space Telescope is grand, but for the cost of each servicing mission there could have been a whole new telescope in orbit. A remote controlled space station would not have been hung up with all of the life support problems. It could have been developed to assemble a multi mirror telescope better than the Hubble. I have read the words "permanently manned base" referring to Luna, and it just makes me sick. It does not seem at all likely that the current manned space program is in the mood to let remote controlled devices develop local resources until most of the mass needed to support people can be gotten from Luna. That would almost make it seem as if people were not needed. The manned space program wouldn't tolerate that. It is bound and determined to ruin the moon base like it ruined the space station and the shuttle, and for the same reason. It insists on making every other consideration secondary to having a man on site. For the U. S. manned space program a few men would not go to the moon for a purpose. A few men on the moon would be the purpose. They turn everything into a show.
I set my sights higher. A civilization in space is my purpose.

===more===
I might as well sign this stuff. I can summarize everything with four words. Industrial Infrastructure in Space. Humanity can establish itself as a space faring civilization if it chooses. However "buy in" is as old as the hills. People lost considerable sums of money on typewriter schemes before someone came up with a typewriter that was good enough. Hucksters continued to make money on rain making schemes long after people had had enough time to learn about them because another sucker is born every minute. Don't fall for any modern equivalent of a rain making scheme.
--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 10:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
===backtracking===
There are some worthwhile things associated with the manned program. The sponsoring of research such as fuel cell research was good. I oppose the program as a hole.--'''FARTHERRED''' 3:01PM Central Daylight Time
===The Start of Political Problems===
Although the Apollo program accomplished much of great value, as much as could have been expected, it also had a detrimental legacy. As Apollo was a showpiece of U.S. technical competency, so the later manned space program carried on this tradition. Commitments were made to bring competent people into the Apollo program. Their bosses, the president and congress, did not want to say, "Thanks. We are finished with your services now. Go look for some other position."
Politically powerful interests seemed to believe, without any technical justification, that having a man in space was central to further progress toward a future in which travel to Luna and Mars was part of ordinary economic life. In any case a hiatus in the launching of men into space was seen as a step backward in technical ability. So the continued launching of men into space was ordered as a way to show technical competency. For the last twenty years the U.S. has had the ability to begin development of the infrastructure that would support human economic use of lunar materials. This process is necessarily slow, and there is nothing that people in space suits on Luna could do during the early part of this development that would be worth the cost of supporting them there. The actual technical development has been neglected in favor of the show of technical development. The expected result of continuing this line of effort is that the manned space program would remain an appropriations farming operation run by people content to work in an appropriations farming operation. It would not contribute except accidentally to any economic use of lunar materials. I see no reason to believe that any such accidental development would ever occur. If those who claim to seek economic space settlements allow themselves to become part of the government show program, they are not serving their professed goal. Corporations that want to sell big boosters to such efforts will subject their corporate efforts to feast of famine at the whim of political expediency. One year congress will support big manned space efforts. The next year the large line items will tempt cuts in manned space programs. I would not invest in such a company. --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 02:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
===For Full Honesty===
I must admit that there is a function that humans on Luna could perform better than machines if it was at all reasonable to support humans on site. That is conflict. Naturally a response time of 0.37 seconds would be superior to a response time of 3 seconds for many applications in war, but in covert conflict with those whom you are openly applauding and helping, a quick response time is even more important. The space station is a reasonable training ground in case covert agents are needed on Luna. There are many reasons for avoiding covert conflict. Its messy. Its wasteful. Its embarrassing when it is found out. Let us just admit that there are serious differences of opinion between various governments, and no one country will always get its way. When there is a need for people on Luna, let us be open and honest about our concerns. Let us leave covert operations back on Earth for as long as possible. Of course you can trust fully what I write. I am being completely open and honest, except of course for my name.
--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 00:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
:You have yet to demonstrate an existing technical capability for robots, tele-operated or not, to use a variety of standardized, and especially improvised, tools to repair other robots. This would require a detailed plan for using lunar resources to manufacture replacement parts and then install a part into a unit in the field, as well as designing those robots to be field reparable. There is also the issue of dust fouling your equipment whenever a sensitive area is opened, which will result in an increase in equipment breakdowns and the need for regular strip downs and maintenance in a dust free environment. The repair bot idea has been bandied around for years and we still haven't pulled it off in ANY sector. It is perpetually "right around the corner" along with flying cars and other futuristic technologies that have yet to appear. Until that capability is proven your entire point is moot in reference to the lunar surface. I really really like the idea, but without any supporting evidence or technical research it's going to seem like you are blowing smoke. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 02:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
===Robot Repairs Robot===
I am uncertain which of my statements you consider doubtful. If you think that people might not be able to service satellites with remote controlled devices, I say certainly no one can do so now. People can do remote control surgery, <ref> daVinci Surgical System http://www.intuitivesurgical.com/products/davinci_surgicalsystem/index.aspx </ref> but remote control satellite servicing is impossible because no one has done the development work. There is reason for no one developing remote control servicing of lawn mowers. It would be physically possible to develop a pair of remote controlled manipulators that a couple of guys at consoles could send out to a customers pick up truck. They could grab the lawn mower, carry it into the shop, take the thing apart completely, fix what needs fixing, shine up the mower, and present the customer with a bill for $1,763,487.95. For some reason lawn mower repair shops prefer to hire human mechanics. For servicing satellites the repairman can not go around the corner for a greasyburger and soft drink at lunch time. So it’s hard to get repairmen to show on location for satellite servicing, but NASA managed to get a few to take on the work. If someone did develop remote satellite servicing, it would need to include remote control rendezvous and docking besides having the satellite designed to be serviced. On Luna robot servicing of robot would be restricted to those things designed to be serviced. Swapping out replaceable bearings might be included in the set. I certainly think such repairs would be done in a lighted, thermally controlled, dust controlled enclosure.
===Financial Concerns===
The remote control servicing of satellites might not be ready to make money. It would have cost less to design the Hubble to be serviced by remote control and design, build and launch the devices to do that than it cost to build the Hubble that was built and service it with the Shuttle. I do not need references for that. If you have insufficient knowledge to realize that is true, just take my word for it, or don't.
--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 19:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
:I do not disagree, but there will be others who will unless you explain your viewpoint using reason, references and example. "If you have insufficient knowledge to realize that is true, just take my word for it, or don't." I recommend that you handle your statements more diplomatically in the future if you wish to make your point in a convincing manner. Supposition, conjecture, sincerity, and argumentum ad populum are insufficient for producing a viable rebuttal in any credible scientific or technological forum. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 06:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

===Things Fall Apart===
The entire lunar enterprise might fail from a cause of which I am ignorant. That is a vast area of potential problems. The thing to do is be flexible in facing new problems as they present themselves, and have a good exit strategy. So, if after sending a few rovers to Luna, nothing is working out as hoped, rejoice in all of the scientific data and the glory of having done that much and move on to other things. --'''FARTHERRED''' 6:00 pm Central Daylight Time

==The Need for References==
References are helpful for many things, but I do not really need them to show the superiority of remote control devices to astronauts in person as means to get things done on a space station. What references to cost data could show would be a complicated accounting system designed more to hide costs than reveal them. Beyond the reference I made to remote control surgery, things that are common knowledge are sufficient to show that the astronauts on the space station add to the expense of what they do. For work in the vacuum of outer space special tools and lubricants are needed. That is true whether the tools are wielded by astronauts or remote controlled manipulators. The difference is that astronauts need constant life support and three square meals a day. Remote control devices are happy to have some electricity, a reasonable operating temperature, and some lubrication now and then. Either by swapping out bearings or finding some way to lubricate them in space remote control devices should last a dozen years or more in space. The electronics on the voyager spacecraft lasted more than 30 years, and were still going the last time I checked. Twelve years of consumables to support astronauts plus crew change amounts to quite a few pounds launched into space that would not be required for remote control devices. If remote control devices are not as swift for some tasks, they can stay at them for much longer for the same money. New models of devices can be designed to overcome the shortcomings of old models.
The task of repairing a remote control manipulator by remote control to the extent of swapping out bearings does not seem more difficult than remote control surgery. If NASA can not do it, the reason is that they do not see that as their mission. It is NASA's political bosses that want astronauts on the space station. I want people in space too, but I can see how the development of industry on Luna could lead to a situation in which a couple of mechanics on Luna could go around the corner for a greasyburger and a soft drink and you would have nearly the same situation that makes remote control devices to repair motors on Earth uneconomic. However, until there is a reasonable amount of industrial infrastructure, astronauts in space suits will not be the most economic way to get industrial infrastructure.
:I really do not see how references can improve that much, but I will give a few.
:There has been work with low volatility liquid lubricants for bearings in space.<ref> http://www.nyelubricants.com/2001_010.htm </ref> Promising substances are found among the silahydrocarbons.
:The need for dry film lubricant and special tools for use in vacuum are among the problems faced by astronauts in space. <ref>http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/123417/innovative_tools_created_for_hubble_repair/ </ref>
:Molybdenum disulfide is among the substances that made an early contribution to lubrication problems in space. Research is ongoing. <ref>http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/fall2006/04.html </ref>
===Do People Care?===
:If no one writes any substantive disagreement with anything I have written, does it mean that no one disagrees or that I have scared off readers with boredom? If there are good arguments, can they be reworked into a really slick glad-hander special of political persuasion? The lunar development concept might be able to survive keeping the space station in the space program for a while, but if men are sent to Luna in a mere remake of the Apollo program, people will see that as representing what the outer space effort is. After seeing that nothing comes of it, they will not want to pay for anything like that for a long time.
=== Capability of Robots===
:The distinction between robots and remote manipulators is important. Whenever the use of robots is suggested there is likely to be the argument against it that the robot can not substitute for the intelligence of a human. With remote manipulators one does not substitute for the intelligence of a human, one moves the intelligence to the work by radio through the remote manipulator. This has drawbacks. Working with a pair of gloves is something most of us have experienced. The clumsiness of gloves in an inconvenience. Working with remote manipulators is worse than an inconvenience. Work can take 30 to 100 times as long as doing the job with bare hands. <ref>McGraw-Hill ENCYCLOPEDIA OF Science & Technology (c) 1997, article on "Remote manipulators, Strengths and weaknesses" </ref> Even with the avoidance of human life support in space and crew change, can remote manipulators really be more economic? They are helped out by the possibility of one device combining remote manipulator and robot functions. A computer can follow the actions directed by the human operator and learn some tasks that are repetitive. In satellite servicing well marked points can be painted on the satellite for a computer to orient to. When operations get to Luna, tasks had better have a high proportion of dull repetition, or the whole notion of for profit operations will simply not apply.
--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 21:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
===References===
<references/>

== ISS is a failiure, due to design. ==

Many people, i.e. Grant Bonin, will argue that HLVs are white elephants and that MLVs are suitable for all our operations in space. however, I will show that this is wrong, using the ISS as an example.

The ISS is made of of segments- modules. These were either brought up in the Space Shuttle, or the Proton rocket.
Despite being a monsterous launch vehicle, the shuttle is of comperable performance to MLVs like the proton, due to the generally parasitic and unwanted orbiter going along for the ride.

Thus, all the delays and the operating costs of the shuttle made the construction a disaster. If it were for one simple launch on a Saturn INT-21, the ISS could have been launched in one, no hassle flight. Minimal setting up would have been performed in orbit, and the shuttle could fly logistics flights.

I am not saying that all MLVs are as bad as the shuttle. However, MLVs will also experiance disasters, cost cuts, political hurdles, etc. The advantage with shuttle is that the module was just a module. The shuttle trucked it there, and then set it up in place. Mir was differant. Each module was a spacecraft with orbital manuvering systems, etc.

The advantage of an HLV is that most contruction goes on on Earth, where things are relativly easy and safe. Our HLVs need to be big and dumb, Sea Dragon is a good example. I wonder how easy it would be to make a 100-ton range launcher using the same principles as Sea Dragon, and launch it from land like the Saturn V.

Plus, a gigantic HLV will stir the imagination of the people. It wasn't when a road was resurfaced last that people got excited about a construction project. It was when a bridge, gigantic skyscraper or dam was constructed.

As for the ISS itself, the US should complete it, leave it to ESA and Russia, and when they get tired of it, they'll probably sell it off to Biglow as a hotel.

The ISS gave us a vital lesson in the return to the Moon and the colonization of the solar system. Go '''BIG'''. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 10:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:I think that every internal room should also be capable of supporting a teleoperated waldo like robonaut. All equipment that is part of the station should have teleoperability and remote control built in, or it should be operable via a robonaut. This will allow people on the ground to do routine maintenance tasks as well as a good deal of research without having to expand life support. Humans would be available to do logistics, research, and problem resolution without having to spend most of their time doing routine maintenance like on the ISS. This robotic-human syneregy will be applicable to other space construction projects like Solar Power Satellites and lunar operations. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 17:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Your idea sparks to mind the "teleoperator" concept in the '70s, to reboost skylab. This would have been ideal, espcially since STS-2 "skylab boost" never materialized. With Skylab-shuttle we might be in a very differant place today. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 14:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

the following from:--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 02:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
*T.Neo wrote: "ISS is a failure, due to design." but can he prove it? Not without defining failure. Not without defining the purpose that the ISS failed to achieve. NASA has become expert in writing fuzzy goal statements. The likely motive is to be able to say that whatever they happen to accomplish, it is a success. However, if you read between the lines you find that their underlying purpose is to keep the manned space program busy. At this the Space Shuttle and the ISS have been successful. What they have failed at is accomplishing any worthwhile purpose in a cost effective way. For the money spent on the Hubble we could have gotten more and better telescopes launched on expendable launchers. There is no way to measure the cost effectiveness of keeping astronauts busy any more than one could measure the cost effectiveness of a vacation trip to a lake home. The ISS did not fail in any particular measure because of a lack of heavy lift launchers. They failed to meet schedule and cost goals because of a lack of a reasonable goal that would allow measurements of cost effectiveness and allow reasonable planning. They fell victim to an idea. The idea is: "As long as we will have astronauts there anyway, save that for the astronauts to do." There should not be astronauts up there as a first consideration. Astronauts or technicians should be passengers into orbit only if they are needed to do something that would be more expensive to do remotely. In the [[Size of Infrastructure]] article there is reference to a space station for assembling and refueling space vehicles. Not only can this task be done without people on the station, people would be a considerable detriment to the mission by their vibrations and bouncing around. Indeed, people made many experiments on the ISS difficult for these reasons. If astronauts could not assemble the space station on time and under budget, it does not mean that remote controlled devices could not assemble a useful space station if people made a serious effort to do that. However, the assembly and refueling station ought to fit in one launch and be nearly self deploying. Remote manipulators should have an easy task in setting it up. --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 02:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Projects like the ISS have not kept the space program busy, they have drained time and resources that could have been spent on other things (Mars missions, lunar missions, etc.) Your fuel depot concept doesn't even need teleoperated setup, as it could be entirely self deploying. Something derived from a rocket upper stage might be a good start. Add long-term storage systems, solar panels and pumps. The ISS was derived project freedom, the spacestation back in the days when the shuttles were to fly every week, etc, etc. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 09:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:ISS into the Pacific

2008-09-06T14:36:24Z

T.Neo: /* ISS is a failiure, due to design. */

Talk:ISS into the Pacific

2008-09-05T10:51:55Z

T.Neo: New section: ISS is a failiure, due to design.

Talk:Water

2008-09-02T07:45:35Z

T.Neo:

Talk:Water

2008-08-26T06:57:32Z

T.Neo: /* Locally Made Lunar Rockets */

Talk:Water

2008-08-26T06:53:27Z

T.Neo:

''Other substances, such as aluminum or magnesium and oxygen can be used for rocket fuel. We have plenty of those.''

Oxygen has been used for decades as rocket oxidizer. Although magnesium and aluminium are good fuels, and are used in solid rockets, they can not be used in a liquid rocket, as they have to be kept very hot to be a liquid, leading to compatibility issues with supercold LOX. An alternative would be to have a hybrid rocket: a tank of LOX, and a tube filled with metal powder. However, the metal powder will fall out the nozzle. This is why solid rockets use a binder to keep the fuels together. The binder will have to be shipped from Earth. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 08:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Response from Bryce: T.Neo raises a good point. Solid and even hybrid rocket fuel here on Earth is mixed with a binder, which is often a high hydrocarbon rubberlike substance. That's pretty pricey on the Moon and, again, we hate to "throw away" hydrogen (and carbon) in this way. Maybe given the vacuum and anhydrous environment of the Moon, we could do some sort of "sintering" process to cause our fuel to stick together until used, and yet have the oxidizer reach it when needed.

The reason the metal fuel is in powder form is because there is more surface area. If the aluminium was just one solid sheet, the reaction with oxygen would create an impervious barrier of aluminium oxide, preventing further reaction. Sintering the fuel would, I imagine, decrease the surface area and lead to the same problem. But, maybe the ratio of fuel to binder could be changed, with the binder being just a thin layer holding the powder together. What would this material be? What about the remaining fuel left in cargo lander fuel tanks? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

:That could be a possibility. NASA is currently working on ways to scavenge unused fuel from the lunar landers so it can be used in an outpost. I've heard mention of hybrid engines which would use hexagonal cross-section metal rods in addition to hydrogen/LOX in the combustion chamber to add additional boost, but that is for interplanetary/cislunar ships which would not land. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 14:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Abundance of oxygen could be an advantage for a "direct ascent" lander. It does not have to carry the oxidiser for the return trip, only the fuel. I am weary about any potential hybrid/solid rocket for manned transportation. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
===liquid aluminum / liquid oxygen rockets===
T.Neo should not give up too easily on liquid aluminum / liquid oxygen rockets. The liquid oxygen in the tanks would be used to cool the combustion chamber wall in a tube wall construction design. So before it is injected into the combustion chamber it will be a hot gas. Liquid hydrogen is used to cool the combustion chamber wall of the space shuttle main engine. The temperature differences there are greater than there will be in the aluminum oxygen rocket. Oxygen is not as good a coolant as hydrogen so the aluminum oxygen rocket will not be able to run up to as high a temperature or pressure as the space shuttle main engine. The rocket would not reach that temperature any way because of all the excess oxydizer necessary to keep sufficient gas in the combustion chamber to serve as a working fluid. People at the following web sites think aluminum/oxygen rockets are worth considering:
http://www.asi.org/adb/06/09/03/02/095/al-o-propellants.html
and
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3c2.html
===mass drivers===
All of this rocket stuff is just a preliminary expedient anyway. See the [[Mass Drivers]] article to see what ought be the economic method of getting stuff from Luna to lunar orbit when things are more fully developed.--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 22:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with cooling the engine, I have a problem with keeping the aluminium liquid, and keeping the LOX cold, all while trying to keep the rocket in one piece. The binder in use in a hybrid rocket can be a thin film holding the fuel together. Importing volatiles is not so hard. We can make lander stages out of volatiles, we can make our Earth Departure stages out of volatiles, so that when we crash them into the Moon to calibrate our tectonic sensors we can provide future generations with volatiles. The Ranger probes used balsa wood to cushion lunar impact. Why not send huge chunks of plastic to crash into the moon? No landers, etc. This approach could even be used to land "dumb" payloads on the Moon. Do not confuse "Reuseable" with "reuturn to Earth". I think Mass drivers are the way to go to lift payloads off the Moon, cargo at least. I was thinking of a rocket second stage, if not that, some sort of device for orbital manuvering. I think that a solar thermal rocket using LOx as a working fluid could fit the job nicely. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 12:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
===problems, problems===
:There is a tendency of lunar base enthusiasts to go off on tangents worrying about problems that turn out to be irrelevant and ignoring serious problems. This situation is a result of our ignorance. With what little information we have I am not convinced that the maintaining the aluminum liquid and oxygen liquid in separate tanks on one rocket vehicle will be the big problem. Lacking proper reference works at hand at the moment, I looked up a couple of web pages that incidentally touched on the liquid temperature of aluminum. Omni Technologies gives a temperature for melting their aluminum based brazing material as 582 – 604 degrees centigrade. http://www.omnibraze.com/wire.html A research paper by A. Gerlich et al. gives the melting point of an aluminum magnesium eutectic as 437 degrees centrigrade. http://www.materialsaustralia.com/Materials_Forum/Vol29/GP%2046.pdf With some aluminum, magnesium and silicon in the pot the melting temperature might be managably low. Vacuum insulation is not difficult to come by or maintain on Luna. Even though the actual fuel that is put into such a hypothetical rocket just prior to launch must be considerably hotter than the melting point to insure that some higher melting point phase does not freeze out to coat the inner surface of tubing, the temperature involved should not melt insulation materials available.
:A concern that must be addressed is the tendency for metals from which one might otherwise construct a combustion chamber to burn away in a high temperature high pressure pure oxygen environment. I can not say off hand what alloy or ceramic might be suitable for the combustion chamber wall. There is also the problem of aluminum oxide particles in the rocket exhaust abrading the throat of the combustion chamber. Perhaps expendable ceramic inserts to line the combustion chamber throat would be called for.
:My main point is that until there is more definite data, we can not completely rule out a liquid aluminum / liquid oxygen rocket. Have you got a rocket test stand in your garage that operates in a high vacuum?
:Just putting in capital letters fixed the link to the Mass Drivers article. '''--FARTHERRED'''

:Why not use powdered aluminum in a straight tube and feed it into the combustion chamber by pushing on the other end? Aluminum could disperse when blown by the oxygen. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 03:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean push the powder into the combustion chamber? Could work. I am looking at this from the perspective of ACPC propellant.
-Do away with Ammonium perchlorate oxidser, and turn the device into a hybrid rocket with oxygen oxidizer.
-Reduce the amount of binder to a bare minimum.
Yes, the binder has to be imported from Earth, but only a small amount is used. As I said in my previous comment, getting volatiles to the moon is not as hard as you might think. Even with some Aluminium/Magnesium/silicon fuel, I am unsure about what the rocket might be contructed of, etc. Remember how small the apollo lunar module was, getting off the Moon SSTO. Now, if there was a hybrid, with a mass driver accelerating a rocket powered second stage, the two could be much smaller then a pure rocket or pure mass driver system. This means that the colonists only need to build a mass driver that is half the length, and a rocket stage that is half the size. We have not tested aluminium rocket technology. The safest, cost effective way would be a hybrid rocket. No, I do not have a working test model in my garage, but I am working on it. I have several crazy propellant ideas. Now, where can I find some liquid Flourine? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
===Pumping Aluminum Powder===
In response to Jarogers2001’s suggestion of feeding powdered aluminum into the combustion chamber of a rocket
:Let us take the transfer of powdered aluminum to the combustion chamber of a rocket one step at a time. First, if the aluminum powder were in a vertical cylinder opening at the bottom into the combustion chamber, that cylinder would need to be pressurized with a nonoxidizing gas to the same pressure as the combustion chamber to prevent the oxygen from the combustion chamber moving into the stored aluminum powder bringing the flame front with it. Otherwise the cylinder would be just a portion of the combustion chamber and not the type of rocket engine being discussed. To keep the aluminum powder from just falling into the combustion chamber prematurely there would need to be a door between the fuel chamber and the combustion chamber that would open or disintegrate into a number of pieces that could fall through the combustion chamber when the rocket was ignited. The aluminum would not need to be pushed into the combustion chamber, it would fall in. There would be very poor control of the rate of fuel injection.
:Second, the aluminum powder could be pushed through a cylinder with a horizontal axis by an auger and fall at one end into the combustion chamber. Again, the aluminum storage chamber would need to be pressurized.
:Third aluminum powder in cans could be pushed into the combustion chamber through a port with a set of seals preserving combustion chamber pressure. The cans, perhaps made of aluminum titanium alloy, would need to retain structural integrity just long enough get through the port seals, and then burn completely with their contents.
:Fourth cans of aluminum powder could be added to the combustion chamber by a positive displacement pump having two rotors of two or more lobes each. Although such pumps are usually used for liquids they might serve for cans of aluminum powder. Check out an example at the Pump World web page. http://www.pumpworld.com/positive_displacement_pump_basic.htm A set of springs might be added to the pump so cans of aluminum powder would be positively ejected from the pump cavity as the cavity opens onto the combustion chamber rather than having the can squashed by the vane that tries to close the cavity. The ends of the rotor vanes might be lubricated with gold to prevent excessive blow-by. It would cost about twice as much as grease on Luna because in addition to transportation costs the raw material cost would be significant. The cost would be justified only if the rocket engine provided great advantages over competing types.
:In summary, although it does not seem to be proven that pushing aluminum powder into the combustion chamber of a rocket is absolutely physically impossible, there does seem to be the lack of any great motivation for putting money into pursuing this idea.'''--FARTHERRED''' 11:43am central daylight time on the 16th of August

So that leaves hybrid rockets and liquid rockets. What about so called "flashbulb" rockets? Are they only for orbit circularization? And solar thermal for orbital manuvering? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 08:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
===Locally Made Lunar Rockets===
:As T.Neo suggests, flashbulb rockets are only for circularizing the orbit into which a payload is placed by a mass driver. This is not a high specific impulse or a low empty weight rocket. The delta v requirement is small. The matters of concern are ease of manufacture and reliable performance.
:For a solid fuel, lox oxidizer rocket the binder does not necessarily need to be a polymer. Keep in mind that the finished chunk of solid fuel should burn at a high controlled rate and maintain a large enough surface area to provide the desired burn rate and provide sufficient heat transfer to the exhaust gas. An advantage of pumped oxygen as the oxidizer is that it allows control by valves. A disadvantage is the requirement of power for the pump. The chunk of fuel might reasonably contain aluminum, magnesium, titanium and alloy flakes sintered together with a low melting alloy of mostly aluminum with magnesium, silicon, and perhaps sodium and calcium thrown in. The manufacturing process should result in a high porosity closed cell structure that breaks down by melting and oxidation in the rocket engine to leave a rough porous surface that burns at a high controlled rate. Adding hydrogen gas to the fuel mix to hold open pores would also provide some combustion rate control as escaping steam would form hydrogen again as it reacts with metal fuel components in a quasiequilibrium fashion. Steam and hydrogen would interfere with the oxygen reaching the burning surface. Adding silicon dioxide might provide rate control if the hydrogen is too expensive. This sort of technology can only be developed by a long series of tests, if it is at all possible.
:A solar thermal rocket using oxygen reaction mass is certainly possible. It might be desirable to boost the specific impulse by electrically heating the oxygen after it was preheated by direct solar energy. The advantage of the orbit to orbit transfer mission is that high thrust to weight ratio is not such a stringent requirement. I can only guess how far this advantage might be pushed. Electrodes used to heat the oxygen would absorb heat from that oxygen on one side and be cooled by the incoming liquid stream on the other. The expansion nozzle could be radiatively cooled because the engine would operate at low pressure.
:The potential for development is great. If NASA sticks to a reasonable budget, it can not all be done by 2020. NASA should see if 2030 works. Instead, the last I heard is that they want to use a nitrogen tetroxide and monomethylhydrazine assent stage after having astronauts waltz around on Luna for a while. If there is a need to put on a show for the yokels, it would be better handled by the National Rocketry and Canyon Jumping Administration. If someone is not impressed enough with the noise of the rockets, he can be given a seat closer to the path of the rocket motorcycle rider that charges out over the take-off ramp. Something of this nature could be jerry rigged in about a year, and if we loose one canyon jumper there would be other volunteers. It would provide a better demonstration of American technical superiority than the stupid death-warmed-over program that NASA's political bosses have forced upon them. --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 18:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sintering the fuel together with a low-melting point binder might do the trick. Pumping the LOX is a problem. Could pressurized oxygen gas be used to force the LOX into the engine? Right now NASA is doing everything wrong. I think that a first step in the right direction would be for them to be sensible, dump Constellation and adopt DIRECT. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 08:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

:Pressure feed rockets do not have as great a specific impulse potential as turbo pumped rockets. Perhaps the lox could be mixed with ozone and the ozone be catalytically decomposed to provide power for the oxidizer pump. Required engeneering data would include the solubility of Ozone in liquid oxygen at operating temperatures, the energy availabel per kilogram of ozone and the concentration of ozone in solution at which it becomes an explosion hazard. We do not want some ozone freezing out in nearly pure form on a tank wall and exploding from some stray vibration. I hear that if one were to strike a tank of liquid ozone with a hammer, one would never hear the clang.
:What is this DIRECT T.Neo writes about? Is that Mars Direct? --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 19:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
::[http://www.directlauncher.com/ DIRECT 2.0]. Personally, I don't buy into the idea. All I've heard is NASA bashing, repetitive accusations of foul play in op-eds, and outrage over non-compliance with congressional mandates with little substance and not enough study to back it up. I read the ESAS study front to back and I find myself agreeing with it's conclusions. My personal preference is for COTS. Playing the "congress said" mandate card is a quick way to kill any rational effort, because congress doesn't understand the word "rational." The DIRECT people don't see this. I honestly suspect that Direct is an effort carried out by NASA engineers who are afraid of losing their jobs, which is very understandable. However, NASA is not the end all, be all of aerospace. The best engineering talent will be able to find higher paying work in the private sector. People forget that government jobs pay {insert fecal-referencing profanity of your choice}. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 05:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point about DIRECT, but I still think that Constellation is not applicable to the SDLV category anymore. No SSMEs*, no 4-segment boosters, differant tank diameters, etc. Meanwhile Ares I has run into problems. Weight constraints, etc. How much more harder is it to man-rate a Delta-IV heavy then it is to create a new launcher?
We do not neeed NASA to return to the Moon, we should not want NASA to return us to the Moon. The shuttle was a mistake, Constellation is a bigger one.
*I am not saying that an SSME would be a better choice then a RS-68 or J-2X.
[[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:The problem with the SSME is that it is built to be reusable for, lets be honest, darn near forever. It's an absolute masterpiece of engineering who's high cost to produce is offset my it's incredible dependability, efficiency, and reusability. Dunk it in the ocean once and you lose that investment. The central H2/LOX stage of DIRECT or Constellation HLV will be disposable and if they survive re-entry will end up in the ocean. I would tend to go with a cheaper, expendable engine for the core stage. I support the Ares 5 idea with a larger diameter and larger SRBs because of it's increased payload capabilities. It means retooling the plants used to produce equipment for the space shuttle, but it also means an increased payload capability and the additional fuel to compensate for disposable engines with a lower ISP than the SSMEs. All of the skill sets required for space shuttle production will still be applicable to the Ares HLV, but I fear we will suffer a brain drain like that experienced between apollo and the shuttle. With our congress, that may be unavoidable in any vehicle switch. On the bright side, the talent that flees will head for the private sector or go into retirement until they hear the call of NASA. While I tend to balk at the idea of extending the shuttle, the recent events involving Russia may require just that to maintain our presence on the ISS. It's probably a good idea (in my opinion) and will provide an additional buffer for accumulated NASA talent. I know there's debate about ISS, but lets leave that on the ISS discussion page. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 19:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:As for the Ares 1, I don't remember what the cost comparisons are but I now think it would have been a better idea to man rate a delta or atlas, then move directly to an Ares 5 with our own version of an ATV. However, if NASA can pull of each Ares 1 launch for less money and with higher capabilities that an atlas or delta, I'll be sitting here with my foot in my mouth. Wouldn't be the first time I ended up chewing my boot. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 19:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:''We do not neeed NASA to return to the Moon, we should not want NASA to return us to the Moon. The shuttle was a mistake, Constellation is a bigger one.'' I pretty much agree with everything except that last part, but only because of the need for an HLV. It's a pity that congress would never approve something on the scale of Sea Dragon. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 19:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You are so right! I forgot the part of needing HLV, I think an HLV is definatly needed. A rocket like Sea Dragon
would pretty much solve our problems. A Moon base, a Mars base, missions to Saturn, etc. Beside that, Sea Dragon was designed to be cheaper then conventional boosters. A perfect example of "big dumb booster" approach.
Why wouldn't a design like Mars direct launcher work:

*Replace the LOX tank with a cylindrical tank
*Remove forward orbiter attach point
*Reinforce rear orbiter attach point
*Create a engine module with 2-3 RS-68 engines and place it on the rear attach point
*Place payload fairing and payload on top.

~It shouldn't be too hard to put the engines at the bottom of the tank, considering Aft Cargo Carrier.
NASA made a mistake in the '70s by discontinuing the Saturn-V, an HLV. If, for example, they had used Shuttle-Saturn, how hard would it be to still launch something like a saturn INT-21 from the same pad?
That is the pity with the Shuttle. Its archetecture has so much potential for use as an HLV, yet all of that is used up taking the "useless" Orbiter to space. At least one shuttle disaster could have been avoided if it were not for NASA inconsiderance.
EDIT:
What about taking a man rated Delta CBC and, instead of LRBs, use shuttle SRBs instead. How will this effect performance?
I support using expendable engines in SDLVs. They would definatly be a better choice. Same with 5-segment SRBs.
However, I do not support having a new tank diameter. What I have always wanted to see is ''Four'' SRBs on something like Ares V. How much would this boost payload? Would it be feasible?
[[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
:I'm not sure, but four SRBs could cause a vibration problem. Then again, that may be overcome and the SRBs could take the Ares so high that the SRBs would suffer damage when falling and would not be recoverable. All of that is pure speculation, but the idea is worth a thought. I don't know the answers to most of these questions, but I would like to note that the original idea for the Ares V was taken from Mars Direct. Even the name was taken from the Mars Direct plan. However, the Mars Direct numbers for a Mars mission were optimistic, resulting in the compromise of Mars Semi-Direct. Since then the only changes to the concept were using expendable engines and increasing the tank diameter. IIRC the 5 segment SRBs were a part of the Mars Direct concept, but I may be wrong. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 03:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the 5-segment SRBs were for the shuttle, I think one was actually test-fired. There were other ideas, the ARSRM, SRBs made out of graphite epoxy, etc. Wouldn't the large payload of the four-SRBs Ares dampen out the vibration? What about making a stage-and a half launcher out of an Ares V core? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 06:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Architecture in Field Stone

2008-08-25T07:51:34Z

T.Neo:

Some ideas we need to work through even if they are preposterous. Such ideas may contain bits and pieces we can use elsewhere.

--[[User:Jriley|Jriley]] 13:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

----

== Rocket stage ==

The rocket stage at the base of the hab looks far to small to do an apollo style Translunar injection.
Executing an injection burn for a weak stability boundary transfer, ''maybe''. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 09:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
=== Last Stage ===
What is pictured may be intended as only the last stage of a multi-stage vehicle. It may have been responsible only for the lunar descent. In any case, I would not count upon such illustrations to be to scale. --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 18:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The text states that the rocket stage is intended to do all the burns. I think that the arrangment here needs an EDS. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You thought I thought that the rocket stage was for liftoff from Earth? Of course not, it is too small. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Water

2008-08-25T07:46:24Z

T.Neo:

''Other substances, such as aluminum or magnesium and oxygen can be used for rocket fuel. We have plenty of those.''

Oxygen has been used for decades as rocket oxidizer. Although magnesium and aluminium are good fuels, and are used in solid rockets, they can not be used in a liquid rocket, as they have to be kept very hot to be a liquid, leading to compatibility issues with supercold LOX. An alternative would be to have a hybrid rocket: a tank of LOX, and a tube filled with metal powder. However, the metal powder will fall out the nozzle. This is why solid rockets use a binder to keep the fuels together. The binder will have to be shipped from Earth. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 08:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Response from Bryce: T.Neo raises a good point. Solid and even hybrid rocket fuel here on Earth is mixed with a binder, which is often a high hydrocarbon rubberlike substance. That's pretty pricey on the Moon and, again, we hate to "throw away" hydrogen (and carbon) in this way. Maybe given the vacuum and anhydrous environment of the Moon, we could do some sort of "sintering" process to cause our fuel to stick together until used, and yet have the oxidizer reach it when needed.

The reason the metal fuel is in powder form is because there is more surface area. If the aluminium was just one solid sheet, the reaction with oxygen would create an impervious barrier of aluminium oxide, preventing further reaction. Sintering the fuel would, I imagine, decrease the surface area and lead to the same problem. But, maybe the ratio of fuel to binder could be changed, with the binder being just a thin layer holding the powder together. What would this material be? What about the remaining fuel left in cargo lander fuel tanks? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

:That could be a possibility. NASA is currently working on ways to scavenge unused fuel from the lunar landers so it can be used in an outpost. I've heard mention of hybrid engines which would use hexagonal cross-section metal rods in addition to hydrogen/LOX in the combustion chamber to add additional boost, but that is for interplanetary/cislunar ships which would not land. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 14:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Abundance of oxygen could be an advantage for a "direct ascent" lander. It does not have to carry the oxidiser for the return trip, only the fuel. I am weary about any potential hybrid/solid rocket for manned transportation. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
===liquid aluminum / liquid oxygen rockets===
T.Neo should not give up too easily on liquid aluminum / liquid oxygen rockets. The liquid oxygen in the tanks would be used to cool the combustion chamber wall in a tube wall construction design. So before it is injected into the combustion chamber it will be a hot gas. Liquid hydrogen is used to cool the combustion chamber wall of the space shuttle main engine. The temperature differences there are greater than there will be in the aluminum oxygen rocket. Oxygen is not as good a coolant as hydrogen so the aluminum oxygen rocket will not be able to run up to as high a temperature or pressure as the space shuttle main engine. The rocket would not reach that temperature any way because of all the excess oxydizer necessary to keep sufficient gas in the combustion chamber to serve as a working fluid. People at the following web sites think aluminum/oxygen rockets are worth considering:
http://www.asi.org/adb/06/09/03/02/095/al-o-propellants.html
and
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3c2.html
===mass drivers===
All of this rocket stuff is just a preliminary expedient anyway. See the [[Mass Drivers]] article to see what ought be the economic method of getting stuff from Luna to lunar orbit when things are more fully developed.--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 22:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with cooling the engine, I have a problem with keeping the aluminium liquid, and keeping the LOX cold, all while trying to keep the rocket in one piece. The binder in use in a hybrid rocket can be a thin film holding the fuel together. Importing volatiles is not so hard. We can make lander stages out of volatiles, we can make our Earth Departure stages out of volatiles, so that when we crash them into the Moon to calibrate our tectonic sensors we can provide future generations with volatiles. The Ranger probes used balsa wood to cushion lunar impact. Why not send huge chunks of plastic to crash into the moon? No landers, etc. This approach could even be used to land "dumb" payloads on the Moon. Do not confuse "Reuseable" with "reuturn to Earth". I think Mass drivers are the way to go to lift payloads off the Moon, cargo at least. I was thinking of a rocket second stage, if not that, some sort of device for orbital manuvering. I think that a solar thermal rocket using LOx as a working fluid could fit the job nicely. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 12:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
===problems, problems===
:There is a tendency of lunar base enthusiasts to go off on tangents worrying about problems that turn out to be irrelevant and ignoring serious problems. This situation is a result of our ignorance. With what little information we have I am not convinced that the maintaining the aluminum liquid and oxygen liquid in separate tanks on one rocket vehicle will be the big problem. Lacking proper reference works at hand at the moment, I looked up a couple of web pages that incidentally touched on the liquid temperature of aluminum. Omni Technologies gives a temperature for melting their aluminum based brazing material as 582 – 604 degrees centigrade. http://www.omnibraze.com/wire.html A research paper by A. Gerlich et al. gives the melting point of an aluminum magnesium eutectic as 437 degrees centrigrade. http://www.materialsaustralia.com/Materials_Forum/Vol29/GP%2046.pdf With some aluminum, magnesium and silicon in the pot the melting temperature might be managably low. Vacuum insulation is not difficult to come by or maintain on Luna. Even though the actual fuel that is put into such a hypothetical rocket just prior to launch must be considerably hotter than the melting point to insure that some higher melting point phase does not freeze out to coat the inner surface of tubing, the temperature involved should not melt insulation materials available.
:A concern that must be addressed is the tendency for metals from which one might otherwise construct a combustion chamber to burn away in a high temperature high pressure pure oxygen environment. I can not say off hand what alloy or ceramic might be suitable for the combustion chamber wall. There is also the problem of aluminum oxide particles in the rocket exhaust abrading the throat of the combustion chamber. Perhaps expendable ceramic inserts to line the combustion chamber throat would be called for.
:My main point is that until there is more definite data, we can not completely rule out a liquid aluminum / liquid oxygen rocket. Have you got a rocket test stand in your garage that operates in a high vacuum?
:Just putting in capital letters fixed the link to the Mass Drivers article. '''--FARTHERRED'''

:Why not use powdered aluminum in a straight tube and feed it into the combustion chamber by pushing on the other end? Aluminum could disperse when blown by the oxygen. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 03:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean push the powder into the combustion chamber? Could work. I am looking at this from the perspective of ACPC propellant.
-Do away with Ammonium perchlorate oxidser, and turn the device into a hybrid rocket with oxygen oxidizer.
-Reduce the amount of binder to a bare minimum.
Yes, the binder has to be imported from Earth, but only a small amount is used. As I said in my previous comment, getting volatiles to the moon is not as hard as you might think. Even with some Aluminium/Magnesium/silicon fuel, I am unsure about what the rocket might be contructed of, etc. Remember how small the apollo lunar module was, getting off the Moon SSTO. Now, if there was a hybrid, with a mass driver accelerating a rocket powered second stage, the two could be much smaller then a pure rocket or pure mass driver system. This means that the colonists only need to build a mass driver that is half the length, and a rocket stage that is half the size. We have not tested aluminium rocket technology. The safest, cost effective way would be a hybrid rocket. No, I do not have a working test model in my garage, but I am working on it. I have several crazy propellant ideas. Now, where can I find some liquid Flourine? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
===Pumping Aluminum Powder===
In response to Jarogers2001’s suggestion of feeding powdered aluminum into the combustion chamber of a rocket
:Let us take the transfer of powdered aluminum to the combustion chamber of a rocket one step at a time. First, if the aluminum powder were in a vertical cylinder opening at the bottom into the combustion chamber, that cylinder would need to be pressurized with a nonoxidizing gas to the same pressure as the combustion chamber to prevent the oxygen from the combustion chamber moving into the stored aluminum powder bringing the flame front with it. Otherwise the cylinder would be just a portion of the combustion chamber and not the type of rocket engine being discussed. To keep the aluminum powder from just falling into the combustion chamber prematurely there would need to be a door between the fuel chamber and the combustion chamber that would open or disintegrate into a number of pieces that could fall through the combustion chamber when the rocket was ignited. The aluminum would not need to be pushed into the combustion chamber, it would fall in. There would be very poor control of the rate of fuel injection.
:Second, the aluminum powder could be pushed through a cylinder with a horizontal axis by an auger and fall at one end into the combustion chamber. Again, the aluminum storage chamber would need to be pressurized.
:Third aluminum powder in cans could be pushed into the combustion chamber through a port with a set of seals preserving combustion chamber pressure. The cans, perhaps made of aluminum titanium alloy, would need to retain structural integrity just long enough get through the port seals, and then burn completely with their contents.
:Fourth cans of aluminum powder could be added to the combustion chamber by a positive displacement pump having two rotors of two or more lobes each. Although such pumps are usually used for liquids they might serve for cans of aluminum powder. Check out an example at the Pump World web page. http://www.pumpworld.com/positive_displacement_pump_basic.htm A set of springs might be added to the pump so cans of aluminum powder would be positively ejected from the pump cavity as the cavity opens onto the combustion chamber rather than having the can squashed by the vane that tries to close the cavity. The ends of the rotor vanes might be lubricated with gold to prevent excessive blow-by. It would cost about twice as much as grease on Luna because in addition to transportation costs the raw material cost would be significant. The cost would be justified only if the rocket engine provided great advantages over competing types.
:In summary, although it does not seem to be proven that pushing aluminum powder into the combustion chamber of a rocket is absolutely physically impossible, there does seem to be the lack of any great motivation for putting money into pursuing this idea.'''--FARTHERRED''' 11:43am central daylight time on the 16th of August

So that leaves hybrid rockets and liquid rockets. What about so called "flashbulb" rockets? Are they only for orbit circularization? And solar thermal for orbital manuvering? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 08:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
===Locally Made Lunar Rockets===
:As T.Neo suggests, flashbulb rockets are only for circularizing the orbit into which a payload is placed by a mass driver. This is not a high specific impulse or a low empty weight rocket. The delta v requirement is small. The matters of concern are ease of manufacture and reliable performance.
:For a solid fuel, lox oxidizer rocket the binder does not necessarily need to be a polymer. Keep in mind that the finished chunk of solid fuel should burn at a high controlled rate and maintain a large enough surface area to provide the desired burn rate and provide sufficient heat transfer to the exhaust gas. An advantage of pumped oxygen as the oxidizer is that it allows control by valves. A disadvantage is the requirement of power for the pump. The chunk of fuel might reasonably contain aluminum, magnesium, titanium and alloy flakes sintered together with a low melting alloy of mostly aluminum with magnesium, silicon, and perhaps sodium and calcium thrown in. The manufacturing process should result in a high porosity closed cell structure that breaks down by melting and oxidation in the rocket engine to leave a rough porous surface that burns at a high controlled rate. Adding hydrogen gas to the fuel mix to hold open pores would also provide some combustion rate control as escaping steam would form hydrogen again as it reacts with metal fuel components in a quasiequilibrium fashion. Steam and hydrogen would interfere with the oxygen reaching the burning surface. Adding silicon dioxide might provide rate control if the hydrogen is too expensive. This sort of technology can only be developed by a long series of tests, if it is at all possible.
:A solar thermal rocket using oxygen reaction mass is certainly possible. It might be desirable to boost the specific impulse by electrically heating the oxygen after it was preheated by direct solar energy. The advantage of the orbit to orbit transfer mission is that high thrust to weight ratio is not such a stringent requirement. I can only guess how far this advantage might be pushed. Electrodes used to heat the oxygen would absorb heat from that oxygen on one side and be cooled by the incoming liquid stream on the other. The expansion nozzle could be radiatively cooled because the engine would operate at low pressure.
:The potential for development is great. If NASA sticks to a reasonable budget, it can not all be done by 2020. NASA should see if 2030 works. Instead, the last I heard is that they want to use a nitrogen tetroxide and monomethylhydrazine assent stage after having astronauts waltz around on Luna for a while. If there is a need to put on a show for the yokels, it would be better handled by the National Rocketry and Canyon Jumping Administration. If someone is not impressed enough with the noise of the rockets, he can be given a seat closer to the path of the rocket motorcycle rider that charges out over the take-off ramp. Something of this nature could be jerry rigged in about a year, and if we loose one canyon jumper there would be other volunteers. It would provide a better demonstration of American technical superiority than the stupid death-warmed-over program that NASA's political bosses have forced upon them. --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 18:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sintering the fuel together with a low-melting point binder might do the trick. Pumping the LOX is a problem. Could pressurized oxygen gas be used to force the LOX into the engine? Right now NASA is doing everything wrong. I think that a first step in the right direction would be for them to be sensible, dump Constellation and adopt DIRECT. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 08:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

:Pressure feed rockets do not have as great a specific impulse potential as turbo pumped rockets. Perhaps the lox could be mixed with ozone and the ozone be catalytically decomposed to provide power for the oxidizer pump. Required engeneering data would include the solubility of Ozone in liquid oxygen at operating temperatures, the energy availabel per kilogram of ozone and the concentration of ozone in solution at which it becomes an explosion hazard. We do not want some ozone freezing out in nearly pure form on a tank wall and exploding from some stray vibration. I hear that if one were to strike a tank of liquid ozone with a hammer, one would never hear the clang.
:What is this DIRECT T.Neo writes about? Is that Mars Direct? --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 19:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
::[http://www.directlauncher.com/ DIRECT 2.0]. Personally, I don't buy into the idea. All I've heard is NASA bashing, repetitive accusations of foul play in op-eds, and outrage over non-compliance with congressional mandates with little substance and not enough study to back it up. I read the ESAS study front to back and I find myself agreeing with it's conclusions. My personal preference is for COTS. Playing the "congress said" mandate card is a quick way to kill any rational effort, because congress doesn't understand the word "rational." The DIRECT people don't see this. I honestly suspect that Direct is an effort carried out by NASA engineers who are afraid of losing their jobs, which is very understandable. However, NASA is not the end all, be all of aerospace. The best engineering talent will be able to find higher paying work in the private sector. People forget that government jobs pay {insert fecal-referencing profanity of your choice}. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 05:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point about DIRECT, but I still think that Constellation is not applicable to the SDLV category anymore. No SSMEs*, no 4-segment boosters, differant tank diameters, etc. Meanwhile Ares I has run into problems. Weight constraints, etc. How much more harder is it to man-rate a Delta-IV heavy then it is to create a new launcher?
We do not neeed NASA to return to the Moon, we should not want NASA to return us to the Moon. The shuttle was a mistake, Constellation is a bigger one.
*I am not saying that an SSME would be a better choice then a RS-68 or J-2X.
[[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:The problem with the SSME is that it is built to be reusable for, lets be honest, darn near forever. It's an absolute masterpiece of engineering who's high cost to produce is offset my it's incredible dependability, efficiency, and reusability. Dunk it in the ocean once and you lose that investment. The central H2/LOX stage of DIRECT or Constellation HLV will be disposable and if they survive re-entry will end up in the ocean. I would tend to go with a cheaper, expendable engine for the core stage. I support the Ares 5 idea with a larger diameter and larger SRBs because of it's increased payload capabilities. It means retooling the plants used to produce equipment for the space shuttle, but it also means an increased payload capability and the additional fuel to compensate for disposable engines with a lower ISP than the SSMEs. All of the skill sets required for space shuttle production will still be applicable to the Ares HLV, but I fear we will suffer a brain drain like that experienced between apollo and the shuttle. With our congress, that may be unavoidable in any vehicle switch. On the bright side, the talent that flees will head for the private sector or go into retirement until they hear the call of NASA. While I tend to balk at the idea of extending the shuttle, the recent events involving Russia may require just that to maintain our presence on the ISS. It's probably a good idea (in my opinion) and will provide an additional buffer for accumulated NASA talent. I know there's debate about ISS, but lets leave that on the ISS discussion page. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 19:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:As for the Ares 1, I don't remember what the cost comparisons are but I now think it would have been a better idea to man rate a delta or atlas, then move directly to an Ares 5 with our own version of an ATV. However, if NASA can pull of each Ares 1 launch for less money and with higher capabilities that an atlas or delta, I'll be sitting here with my foot in my mouth. Wouldn't be the first time I ended up chewing my boot. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 19:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:''We do not neeed NASA to return to the Moon, we should not want NASA to return us to the Moon. The shuttle was a mistake, Constellation is a bigger one.'' I pretty much agree with everything except that last part, but only because of the need for an HLV. It's a pity that congress would never approve something on the scale of Sea Dragon. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 19:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You are so right! I forgot the part of needing HLV, I think an HLV is definatly needed. A rocket like Sea Dragon
would pretty much solve our problems. A Moon base, a Mars base, missions to Saturn, etc. Beside that, Sea Dragon was designed to be cheaper then conventional boosters. A perfect example of "big dumb booster" approach.
Why wouldn't a design like Mars direct launcher work:

*Replace the LOX tank with a cylindrical tank
*Remove forward orbiter attach point
*Reinforce rear orbiter attach point
*Create a engine module with 2-3 RS-68 engines and place it on the rear attach point
*Place payload fairing and payload on top.

~It shouldn't be too hard to put the engines at the bottom of the tank, considering Aft Cargo Carrier.
NASA made a mistake in the '70s by discontinuing the Saturn-V, an HLV. If, for example, they had used Shuttle-Saturn, how hard would it be to still launch something like a saturn INT-21 from the same pad?
That is the pity with the Shuttle. Its archetecture has so much potential for use as an HLV, yet all of that is used up taking the "useless" Orbiter to space. At least one shuttle disaster could have been avoided if it were not for NASA inconsiderance.
EDIT:
What about taking a man rated Delta CBC and, instead of LRBs, use shuttle SRBs instead. How will this effect performance?
I support using expendable engines in SDLVs. They would definatly be a better choice. Same with 5-segment SRBs.
However, I do not support having a new tank diameter. What I have always wanted to see is ''Four'' SRBs on something like Ares V. How much would this boost payload? Would it be feasible?
[[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Water

2008-08-25T07:35:17Z

T.Neo:

Talk:Water

2008-08-22T07:53:25Z

T.Neo:

Talk:Architecture in Field Stone

2008-08-22T07:42:39Z

T.Neo: