Talk:Water - Revision history

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

2008-09-10T08:36:58Z

Locally Made Lunar Rockets

T.Neo at 08:36, 10 September 2008

2008-09-10T08:36:00Z

156.99.55.125 at 22:47, 9 September 2008

2008-09-09T22:47:08Z

T.Neo at 09:50, 7 September 2008

2008-09-07T09:50:38Z

Farred: mass driver/rocket combo

2008-09-06T17:09:29Z

mass driver/rocket combo

T.Neo at 07:45, 2 September 2008

2008-09-02T07:45:35Z

Farred at 09:06, 1 September 2008

2008-09-01T09:06:39Z

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

2008-08-26T06:57:32Z

Locally Made Lunar Rockets

T.Neo at 06:53, 26 August 2008

2008-08-26T06:53:27Z

Jarogers2001: /* Locally Made Lunar Rockets */

2008-08-26T03:42:54Z

Locally Made Lunar Rockets

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:36, 10 September 2008
Line 131:		Line 131:
	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 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)	+	The rocket stage is only given a small boost by the mass driver. [[User:T.Neo\|T.Neo]] 08:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:36, 10 September 2008
Line 130:		Line 130:
	*the following from '''FARTHERRED''' 5:43 Central Standard Time 9 September		*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 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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:47, 9 September 2008
Line 127:		Line 127:
	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.		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)		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'''

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:50, 7 September 2008
Line 123:		Line 123:
	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.		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)		*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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:09, 6 September 2008
Line 119:		Line 119:

	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)		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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:45, 2 September 2008
Line 108:		Line 108:
	*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.		*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)		--[[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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:06, 1 September 2008
Line 87:		Line 87:

	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)		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)

@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 :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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:53, 26 August 2008
Line 82:		Line 82:
	[[User:T.Neo\|T.Neo]] 07:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)		[[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)		: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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:42, 26 August 2008
Line 81:		Line 81:
	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?		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)		[[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)