Talk:Why Moderate Sized Rockets Are Better - Revision history

Farred: question mark

2013-06-10T03:52:15Z

question mark

Farred: comma

2013-06-10T03:44:31Z

comma

Farred: update

2013-06-10T03:41:01Z

update

Farred: update

2013-05-27T05:53:46Z

update

Farred: removing link to deleted article

2013-03-04T05:29:12Z

removing link to deleted article

Farred: talk

2009-08-13T14:00:17Z

talk

Farred: adding link

2009-08-13T13:08:33Z

adding link

Farred: talk

2009-05-25T16:43:25Z

talk

Farred: talk

2009-05-24T00:38:26Z

talk

T.Neo at 08:21, 19 May 2009

2009-05-19T08:21:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:52, 10 June 2013
Line 72:		Line 72:
	*The Ares V was canceled but the successor Space Launch System was enough like it to be thought of as the undead Ares V. David Leestma, space shuttle veteran, said that the Space Launch System "will be safe, affordable and sustainable."[http://news.yahoo.com/nasas-biggest-rocket-yet-aims-2017-test-flight-131647701.html;_ylt=A2KJ2Ugg3bNRKgoAxwTQtDMD YAHOO! NEWS] It is what one expects from a loyal worker backing up his boss. Bolden's boss is Obama, who approved the thing. We can guess that political considerations entered into the decision but I discuss practical and economic considerations. The SLS might well be as safe as other rockets that launch people to orbit, which is one of the reasons that astronaut work is dangerous. The affordability of the SLS is open to question. Can we really afford to put development of space resources aside to build a huge launcher that will certainly not have as low a cost per kilogram as the best moderate sized launchers? I have not read of any requirement for such a huge launcher that could not be met with moderate sized launchers, a refueling depot, and on orbit assembly of space vehicles from sections made to be assembled in orbit. Does sustainable mean anything other than affordable? Perhaps Leestma means that after the 16 available space shuttle main engines are used up in the first four flights of the SLS, a new expendable version of the SSME can be built to use on following flights. Nothing in the SLS will be reused, which is not the big fault of the SLS. The big faults are the high cost per each flight, the low flight rate (one half to at most two per year) and the high fixed cost for facilities for a monster sized undead version of the Ares V.		*The Ares V was canceled but the successor Space Launch System was enough like it to be thought of as the undead Ares V. David Leestma, space shuttle veteran, said that the Space Launch System "will be safe, affordable and sustainable."[http://news.yahoo.com/nasas-biggest-rocket-yet-aims-2017-test-flight-131647701.html;_ylt=A2KJ2Ugg3bNRKgoAxwTQtDMD YAHOO! NEWS] It is what one expects from a loyal worker backing up his boss. Bolden's boss is Obama, who approved the thing. We can guess that political considerations entered into the decision but I discuss practical and economic considerations. The SLS might well be as safe as other rockets that launch people to orbit, which is one of the reasons that astronaut work is dangerous. The affordability of the SLS is open to question. Can we really afford to put development of space resources aside to build a huge launcher that will certainly not have as low a cost per kilogram as the best moderate sized launchers? I have not read of any requirement for such a huge launcher that could not be met with moderate sized launchers, a refueling depot, and on orbit assembly of space vehicles from sections made to be assembled in orbit. Does sustainable mean anything other than affordable? Perhaps Leestma means that after the 16 available space shuttle main engines are used up in the first four flights of the SLS, a new expendable version of the SSME can be built to use on following flights. Nothing in the SLS will be reused, which is not the big fault of the SLS. The big faults are the high cost per each flight, the low flight rate (one half to at most two per year) and the high fixed cost for facilities for a monster sized undead version of the Ares V.

−	:NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said that the SLS will create good-paying American jobs. That is, he admits that the SLS is a jobs program, but is it a space program. Bolden said that the SLS would ensure U.S. leadership in space.[http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/sls1.html NASA ''Beyond Earth''] What sort of leadership did he mean? First prize in the big rocket competition? For any practical purpose the SLS is a handicap compared to moderate sized launchers, unless there is some secret payload that simply cannot be launched on a smaller launcher. What is the big payload? NASA's budget does not reveal added funds for development of some huge payload. The most likely situation is that the SLS is just a jobs program preventing highly skilled people from doing something useful instead of running the SLS. Obama is copying one of the worst faults of the U.S.S.R. There is always the comfort that Obama's time in office is limited. The Saturn V was scrapped for financial reasons and so the SLS can eventually be scrapped also. - [[User:Farred\|Farred]] 03:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)	+	:NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said that the SLS will create good-paying American jobs. That is, he admits that the SLS is a jobs program, but is it a space program? Bolden said that the SLS would ensure U.S. leadership in space.[http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/sls1.html NASA ''Beyond Earth''] What sort of leadership did he mean? First prize in the big rocket competition? For any practical purpose the SLS is a handicap compared to moderate sized launchers, unless there is some secret payload that simply cannot be launched on a smaller launcher. What is the big payload? NASA's budget does not reveal added funds for development of some huge payload. The most likely situation is that the SLS is just a jobs program preventing highly skilled people from doing something useful instead of running the SLS. Obama is copying one of the worst faults of the U.S.S.R. There is always the comfort that Obama's time in office is limited. The Saturn V was scrapped for financial reasons and so the SLS can eventually be scrapped also. - [[User:Farred\|Farred]] 03:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:44, 10 June 2013
Line 72:		Line 72:
	*The Ares V was canceled but the successor Space Launch System was enough like it to be thought of as the undead Ares V. David Leestma, space shuttle veteran, said that the Space Launch System "will be safe, affordable and sustainable."[http://news.yahoo.com/nasas-biggest-rocket-yet-aims-2017-test-flight-131647701.html;_ylt=A2KJ2Ugg3bNRKgoAxwTQtDMD YAHOO! NEWS] It is what one expects from a loyal worker backing up his boss. Bolden's boss is Obama, who approved the thing. We can guess that political considerations entered into the decision but I discuss practical and economic considerations. The SLS might well be as safe as other rockets that launch people to orbit, which is one of the reasons that astronaut work is dangerous. The affordability of the SLS is open to question. Can we really afford to put development of space resources aside to build a huge launcher that will certainly not have as low a cost per kilogram as the best moderate sized launchers? I have not read of any requirement for such a huge launcher that could not be met with moderate sized launchers, a refueling depot, and on orbit assembly of space vehicles from sections made to be assembled in orbit. Does sustainable mean anything other than affordable? Perhaps Leestma means that after the 16 available space shuttle main engines are used up in the first four flights of the SLS, a new expendable version of the SSME can be built to use on following flights. Nothing in the SLS will be reused, which is not the big fault of the SLS. The big faults are the high cost per each flight, the low flight rate (one half to at most two per year) and the high fixed cost for facilities for a monster sized undead version of the Ares V.		*The Ares V was canceled but the successor Space Launch System was enough like it to be thought of as the undead Ares V. David Leestma, space shuttle veteran, said that the Space Launch System "will be safe, affordable and sustainable."[http://news.yahoo.com/nasas-biggest-rocket-yet-aims-2017-test-flight-131647701.html;_ylt=A2KJ2Ugg3bNRKgoAxwTQtDMD YAHOO! NEWS] It is what one expects from a loyal worker backing up his boss. Bolden's boss is Obama, who approved the thing. We can guess that political considerations entered into the decision but I discuss practical and economic considerations. The SLS might well be as safe as other rockets that launch people to orbit, which is one of the reasons that astronaut work is dangerous. The affordability of the SLS is open to question. Can we really afford to put development of space resources aside to build a huge launcher that will certainly not have as low a cost per kilogram as the best moderate sized launchers? I have not read of any requirement for such a huge launcher that could not be met with moderate sized launchers, a refueling depot, and on orbit assembly of space vehicles from sections made to be assembled in orbit. Does sustainable mean anything other than affordable? Perhaps Leestma means that after the 16 available space shuttle main engines are used up in the first four flights of the SLS, a new expendable version of the SSME can be built to use on following flights. Nothing in the SLS will be reused, which is not the big fault of the SLS. The big faults are the high cost per each flight, the low flight rate (one half to at most two per year) and the high fixed cost for facilities for a monster sized undead version of the Ares V.

−	:NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said that the SLS will create good-paying American jobs. That is he admits that the SLS is a jobs program, but is it a space program. Bolden said that the SLS would ensure U.S. leadership in space.[http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/sls1.html NASA ''Beyond Earth''] What sort of leadership did he mean? First prize in the big rocket competition? For any practical purpose the SLS is a handicap compared to moderate sized launchers, unless there is some secret payload that simply cannot be launched on a smaller launcher. What is the big payload? NASA's budget does not reveal added funds for development of some huge payload. The most likely situation is that the SLS is just a jobs program preventing highly skilled people from doing something useful instead of running the SLS. Obama is copying one of the worst faults of the U.S.S.R. There is always the comfort that Obama's time in office is limited. The Saturn V was scrapped for financial reasons and so the SLS can eventually be scrapped also. - [[User:Farred\|Farred]] 03:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)	+	:NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said that the SLS will create good-paying American jobs. That is, he admits that the SLS is a jobs program, but is it a space program. Bolden said that the SLS would ensure U.S. leadership in space.[http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/sls1.html NASA ''Beyond Earth''] What sort of leadership did he mean? First prize in the big rocket competition? For any practical purpose the SLS is a handicap compared to moderate sized launchers, unless there is some secret payload that simply cannot be launched on a smaller launcher. What is the big payload? NASA's budget does not reveal added funds for development of some huge payload. The most likely situation is that the SLS is just a jobs program preventing highly skilled people from doing something useful instead of running the SLS. Obama is copying one of the worst faults of the U.S.S.R. There is always the comfort that Obama's time in office is limited. The Saturn V was scrapped for financial reasons and so the SLS can eventually be scrapped also. - [[User:Farred\|Farred]] 03:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:41, 10 June 2013
Line 69:		Line 69:

	*There are some things that do not change much in fifty years. The reasons for Wernher von Braun wanting to use smaller rockets to launch to orbit and assemble moon and Mars vehicles in orbit are still valid. More frequent launches with smaller facilities would have been cheaper than Saturn Vs. The savings would not be obtained for free. Rendezvous and docking with fuel depots and assembly facilities in orbit would be required. There is no reason to be in a great hurry today. We can develop the facilities in space and put them to multiple uses. Because of current fiscal limits we probably need to wait for the end of the ISS program before any useful robotic space station can be developed. Robonaut program data and all ISS data can be archived for future use. Robonaut and any anthropomorphic robot will have no place in an economically run space station, just as there is no place for a switch board operator in a modern communications satellite. - [[User:Farred\|Farred]] 05:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)		*There are some things that do not change much in fifty years. The reasons for Wernher von Braun wanting to use smaller rockets to launch to orbit and assemble moon and Mars vehicles in orbit are still valid. More frequent launches with smaller facilities would have been cheaper than Saturn Vs. The savings would not be obtained for free. Rendezvous and docking with fuel depots and assembly facilities in orbit would be required. There is no reason to be in a great hurry today. We can develop the facilities in space and put them to multiple uses. Because of current fiscal limits we probably need to wait for the end of the ISS program before any useful robotic space station can be developed. Robonaut program data and all ISS data can be archived for future use. Robonaut and any anthropomorphic robot will have no place in an economically run space station, just as there is no place for a switch board operator in a modern communications satellite. - [[User:Farred\|Farred]] 05:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
		+
		+	*The Ares V was canceled but the successor Space Launch System was enough like it to be thought of as the undead Ares V. David Leestma, space shuttle veteran, said that the Space Launch System "will be safe, affordable and sustainable."[http://news.yahoo.com/nasas-biggest-rocket-yet-aims-2017-test-flight-131647701.html;_ylt=A2KJ2Ugg3bNRKgoAxwTQtDMD YAHOO! NEWS] It is what one expects from a loyal worker backing up his boss. Bolden's boss is Obama, who approved the thing. We can guess that political considerations entered into the decision but I discuss practical and economic considerations. The SLS might well be as safe as other rockets that launch people to orbit, which is one of the reasons that astronaut work is dangerous. The affordability of the SLS is open to question. Can we really afford to put development of space resources aside to build a huge launcher that will certainly not have as low a cost per kilogram as the best moderate sized launchers? I have not read of any requirement for such a huge launcher that could not be met with moderate sized launchers, a refueling depot, and on orbit assembly of space vehicles from sections made to be assembled in orbit. Does sustainable mean anything other than affordable? Perhaps Leestma means that after the 16 available space shuttle main engines are used up in the first four flights of the SLS, a new expendable version of the SSME can be built to use on following flights. Nothing in the SLS will be reused, which is not the big fault of the SLS. The big faults are the high cost per each flight, the low flight rate (one half to at most two per year) and the high fixed cost for facilities for a monster sized undead version of the Ares V.
		+
		+	:NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said that the SLS will create good-paying American jobs. That is he admits that the SLS is a jobs program, but is it a space program. Bolden said that the SLS would ensure U.S. leadership in space.[http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/sls1.html NASA ''Beyond Earth''] What sort of leadership did he mean? First prize in the big rocket competition? For any practical purpose the SLS is a handicap compared to moderate sized launchers, unless there is some secret payload that simply cannot be launched on a smaller launcher. What is the big payload? NASA's budget does not reveal added funds for development of some huge payload. The most likely situation is that the SLS is just a jobs program preventing highly skilled people from doing something useful instead of running the SLS. Obama is copying one of the worst faults of the U.S.S.R. There is always the comfort that Obama's time in office is limited. The Saturn V was scrapped for financial reasons and so the SLS can eventually be scrapped also. - [[User:Farred\|Farred]] 03:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 [[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.
+*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.
+**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.
+**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.  ( added 27 May 2013 ==> ) Mars has the advantage of having nitrogen and argon more conveniently available for an atmosphere for life support of workers than Ceres.  Human workers would likely be required to extract resources from either Mars or Ceres vecause of the long communications delays involved.
-*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 device like a 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 [[Variable-specific-impulse magnetoplasma rocket (VASIMR)|VASIMR]] rocket.
+**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 device like a 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 [[Variable-specific-impulse magnetoplasma rocket (VASIMR)|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.
@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 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)
+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 man in 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)
 *The trouble with NASA is that it is operated with an entitlement program mentality.  The human space flight people do not think that they are obligated to provide some benefit to the country or to humanity.  They consider that they must be employed by the federal government for human space flight because that is what they do, and since that is how things are done, that can not change.  The Michoud production facility might keep on producing either shuttle external tanks or Ares-Vs not because they are needed, but because as T.Neo said,"trying to change NASA's direction is pointless".  Economic distress to the workers, the communities, and the contractors associated with NASA would result from stopping any program, and congressmen want to avoid economic distress in their districts.  The Space Shuttle would have continued on forever in spite of excessive cost if it had not killed astronauts.  This is what should be changed in NASA.  Production of Ares-Vs should depend upon a need for Ares-Vs.  Since there is no need for such a massive amount of cargo into orbit as would efficiently use Ares-Vs, there should be no Ares-Vs.  It is the launching of one a year or one every other year that makes the Ares-V so inefficient.  The launch facilities and the manufacturing plant are just as expensive to maintain if you manufacture and launch one a year as they are if you manufacture and launch twenty a year, and they are mighty expensive.
 *NASA desperately needs direction.  There is no need to change NASA's direction for human space flight, because it has no direction now.  The theoretical long term profitability criterion can allow NASA to accomplish the ground work for people doing profitable work in space.  On the way it calls for a hiatus in manned flights and the cancellation of Ares-V.--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 00:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 *I am a mostly peaceable person.  A Japanese soldier killed my uncle in the Philippines, but I do not blame the unknown Japanese soldier, probably long dead.  The failure of proper international relations was at fault for U.S. and Japanese soldiers killing each other.  When someone is found to have committed serial murders, I approve without anger of that one's death, because it helps to maintain social order.  If people abolish the death penalty, I do not complain.  Warehousing serial murderers is an alternate expense to dealing with the legal ploys of fanatic anti-death-penalty lawyers.  However, I think I can work up a little anger over the Ares-V and the whole Constellation program.
 *The Space Shuttle fiasco can be somewhat excused because of ignorance, but NASA with eyes wide open made plans to keep expensive Space Shuttle infrastructure as a make work project when NASA is finally forced to abandon the Space Shuttle.  It would be better to have half the displaced workers digging holes while the other half fills holes in.  There is no possibility for a sufficiently massive space program to efficiently use the capabilities of a Saturn V class launcher.  Instead of falsely labeling space development efforts as hopelessly expensive, lets put the blame for excess expenditures squarely where it belongs, with the entitlement program mentality of the president and congress.  Employ the Space Shuttle workforce with federal funds if necessary, but do not bill useless programs to the space development budget.  T.Neo points out the duplication of thrusters for space maneuvering that could be avoided by using 2 Ares-Vs instead of eight smaller rockets for a manned Mars mission, as well as duplicate electronics for controlling those thrusters and controlling the to orbit trajectory.  The actual actuators to control the assent of smaller rockets are proportionately cheaper than their Ares-V size counterparts.  Electronics have gotten cheaper since the Saturn-V.  Rockets have not.  I would write that T.Neo strains out the gnat and swallows the camel, but a camel is so pitifully small next to an Ares-V.  Like the ancient Thai kings would ruin a subordinate by giving him a white elephant, congress can ruin space development by giving NASA an Ares-V.  I only wonder whether or not that is the intent.--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 16:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 *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 device like a [[Water Pump Merry Go Round|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 [[Variable-specific-impulse magnetoplasma rocket (VASIMR)|VASIMR]] rocket.
+*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 device like a 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 [[Variable-specific-impulse magnetoplasma rocket (VASIMR)|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.

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:43, 25 May 2009
Line 61:		Line 61:
	*The trouble with NASA is that it is operated with an entitlement program mentality. The human space flight people do not think that they are obligated to provide some benefit to the country or to humanity. They consider that they must be employed by the federal government for human space flight because that is what they do, and since that is how things are done, that can not change. The Michoud production facility might keep on producing either shuttle external tanks or Ares-Vs not because they are needed, but because as T.Neo said,"trying to change NASA's direction is pointless". Economic distress to the workers, the communities, and the contractors associated with NASA would result from stopping any program, and congressmen want to avoid economic distress in their districts. The Space Shuttle would have continued on forever in spite of excessive cost if it had not killed astronauts. This is what should be changed in NASA. Production of Ares-Vs should depend upon a need for Ares-Vs. Since there is no need for such a massive amount of cargo into orbit as would efficiently use Ares-Vs, there should be no Ares-Vs. It is the launching of one a year or one every other year that makes the Ares-V so inefficient. The launch facilities and the manufacturing plant are just as expensive to maintain if you manufacture and launch one a year as they are if you manufacture and launch twenty a year, and they are mighty expensive.		*The trouble with NASA is that it is operated with an entitlement program mentality. The human space flight people do not think that they are obligated to provide some benefit to the country or to humanity. They consider that they must be employed by the federal government for human space flight because that is what they do, and since that is how things are done, that can not change. The Michoud production facility might keep on producing either shuttle external tanks or Ares-Vs not because they are needed, but because as T.Neo said,"trying to change NASA's direction is pointless". Economic distress to the workers, the communities, and the contractors associated with NASA would result from stopping any program, and congressmen want to avoid economic distress in their districts. The Space Shuttle would have continued on forever in spite of excessive cost if it had not killed astronauts. This is what should be changed in NASA. Production of Ares-Vs should depend upon a need for Ares-Vs. Since there is no need for such a massive amount of cargo into orbit as would efficiently use Ares-Vs, there should be no Ares-Vs. It is the launching of one a year or one every other year that makes the Ares-V so inefficient. The launch facilities and the manufacturing plant are just as expensive to maintain if you manufacture and launch one a year as they are if you manufacture and launch twenty a year, and they are mighty expensive.
	*NASA desperately needs direction. There is no need to change NASA's direction for human space flight, because it has no direction now. The theoretical long term profitability criterion can allow NASA to accomplish the ground work for people doing profitable work in space. On the way it calls for a hiatus in manned flights and the cancellation of Ares-V.--[[User:Farred\|Farred]] 00:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)		*NASA desperately needs direction. There is no need to change NASA's direction for human space flight, because it has no direction now. The theoretical long term profitability criterion can allow NASA to accomplish the ground work for people doing profitable work in space. On the way it calls for a hiatus in manned flights and the cancellation of Ares-V.--[[User:Farred\|Farred]] 00:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
		+	*I am a mostly peaceable person. A Japanese soldier killed my uncle in the Philippines, but I do not blame the unknown Japanese soldier, probably long dead. The failure of proper international relations was at fault for U.S. and Japanese soldiers killing each other. When someone is found to have committed serial murders, I approve without anger of that one's death, because it helps to maintain social order. If people abolish the death penalty, I do not complain. Warehousing serial murderers is an alternate expense to dealing with the legal ploys of fanatic anti-death-penalty lawyers. However, I think I can work up a little anger over the Ares-V and the whole Constellation program.
		+	*The Space Shuttle fiasco can be somewhat excused because of ignorance, but NASA with eyes wide open made plans to keep expensive Space Shuttle infrastructure as a make work project when NASA is finally forced to abandon the Space Shuttle. It would be better to have half the displaced workers digging holes while the other half fills holes in. There is no possibility for a sufficiently massive space program to efficiently use the capabilities of a Saturn V class launcher. Instead of falsely labeling space development efforts as hopelessly expensive, lets put the blame for excess expenditures squarely where it belongs, with the entitlement program mentality of the president and congress. Employ the Space Shuttle workforce with federal funds if necessary, but do not bill useless programs to the space development budget. T.Neo points out the duplication of thrusters for space maneuvering that could be avoided by using 2 Ares-Vs instead of eight smaller rockets for a manned Mars mission, as well as duplicate electronics for controlling those thrusters and controlling the to orbit trajectory. The actual actuators to control the assent of smaller rockets are proportionately cheaper than their Ares-V size counterparts. Electronics have gotten cheaper since the Saturn-V. Rockets have not. I would write that T.Neo strains out the gnat and swallows the camel, but a camel is so pitifully small next to an Ares-V. Like the ancient Thai kings would ruin a subordinate by giving him a white elephant, congress can ruin space development by giving NASA an Ares-V. I only wonder whether or not that is the intent.--[[User:Farred\|Farred]] 16:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:38, 24 May 2009
Line 59:		Line 59:
	While some of the points you make are intriguing, and I find your different ideology fascinating, I still disagree.		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)		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)
		+	*The trouble with NASA is that it is operated with an entitlement program mentality. The human space flight people do not think that they are obligated to provide some benefit to the country or to humanity. They consider that they must be employed by the federal government for human space flight because that is what they do, and since that is how things are done, that can not change. The Michoud production facility might keep on producing either shuttle external tanks or Ares-Vs not because they are needed, but because as T.Neo said,"trying to change NASA's direction is pointless". Economic distress to the workers, the communities, and the contractors associated with NASA would result from stopping any program, and congressmen want to avoid economic distress in their districts. The Space Shuttle would have continued on forever in spite of excessive cost if it had not killed astronauts. This is what should be changed in NASA. Production of Ares-Vs should depend upon a need for Ares-Vs. Since there is no need for such a massive amount of cargo into orbit as would efficiently use Ares-Vs, there should be no Ares-Vs. It is the launching of one a year or one every other year that makes the Ares-V so inefficient. The launch facilities and the manufacturing plant are just as expensive to maintain if you manufacture and launch one a year as they are if you manufacture and launch twenty a year, and they are mighty expensive.
		+	*NASA desperately needs direction. There is no need to change NASA's direction for human space flight, because it has no direction now. The theoretical long term profitability criterion can allow NASA to accomplish the ground work for people doing profitable work in space. On the way it calls for a hiatus in manned flights and the cancellation of Ares-V.--[[User:Farred\|Farred]] 00:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:21, 19 May 2009
Line 56:		Line 56:
	*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.		*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)		*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)