8 Reasons Why Going Back to the Moon Is Loony by MARGARET WERTHEIM
Space Cadet
Saw this article and thought I'd post it for comments.
Point 1 make me laugh, granted we need to take budget estimates with a
grain of salt and a OMB(or GAO?) audit shows that NASA(as well as DOD)
projects only over run by 30%. Doesn't the author remember that the
Russians were brought into the ISS in hope to save money as well as
keep there scientist from selling their services to 3rd world powers.
See how well that worked out. Of course without the Russians we would
not be able to continually crew ISS, we may not even have a space
station. Wether or not that is a good or bad thing I'll leave up to
the reader. Points 2 & 4 are just statements of fact. Where ever you
go beyound Earth's atmosphere you are going to need to BYO Air & Water
or extract it locally. Unless the author has some bias against HSF, but
then why don't come out and just say it? 3 is a valid concern, but if
you pile enough regolith on your shelter you can give yourself enough
shielding. Another strawman argument.
Point 5, just seems to be another statement of fact, that is cost money
to launch stuff from Earth. Well that is true, its going to be a while
before we can have the infrastructure in place to build and launch
stuff anywhere else for a while. Or is this the author's bias against
space exporation in general?
Point 6, granted that mining the Moon(or Asteroids for that matter) is
not like mining on Earth, so its going to take new techniques to do
this. And people have looked at how to make Lunar cement/bricks
without water.
Point 7, even though I think its a cool idea, but I do feel the
importance of Helium 3 is over rated, once we have master Nuclear
Fusion (of any kind) then I'll start taking Helium 3 more seriously,
thou, someone in this group(Henry Spencer?) pointed out that what he
heard from some experts in the field that the prospect of any kind of
controlled fusion may be unobtainable. Which is a depressing thought.
The author seems to ignore or unaware of the O'Neils idea of using
Lunar resources to build SPS and forgeting the limitations of ground
based Solar Power. As far as getting power from the Moon, I like Dennis
Wingo's argument(unproven, but testable) about possible PGMs on the
Moon from Asteroid impacts and using them for Hydrogen Fuel Cells to
power cars & homes, of course then you need a source for all the
hydrogen, which may involve using Nuclear power plants to crack water
for it.
Point 8, of course with any government program there is always a
boondoggle factor. So I think this is the only creditable argument
against it.
What do you think?
Just my $0.02
Space Cadet
derwetzelsDASHspacecadetATyahooDOTcom
Moon Society - St. Louis Chapter
http://www.moonsociety.org/chapters/stlouis/
There is only one (maybe 2) basic core reasons for humans to go
beyond LEO, That is for the establishment of space settlements or a
space based civilization. Everything else are details.
Gary Gray 11/9/2005
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/06/07/feuilletons-reasons.php
8 Reasons Why Going Back to the Moon Is Loony
by MARGARET WERTHEIM
In January 2004, President Bush committed the U.S. to returning to the
moon by 2020. No human has set foot on our celestial satellite for 30
years, but many space enthusiasts believe the moon should be our
staging post for journeys to Mars, a destination Bush has also made a
NASA priority. Space wayfarers dream of establishing a permanent colony
on the moon and of mining the lunar surface for materials to build the
local infrastructure and to provide power for long-ranging spacecraft.
Others imagine sifting through the lunar dust for helium 3 to fuel
fusion power stations here on Earth, or placing giant telescopes on the
far side to scan the cosmos for clues about the Big Bang. The vision is
mighty, but so are the barriers. During the last three decades, the
furthest man has ventured into space is 386 miles, about the distance
from Washington, D.C., to Boston. Though the Starship Enterprise
effortlessly cruises the galactic byways, in real life getting to the
moon is really, really hard. Building there will be even tougher. Below
are eight good reasons we should think seriously before indulging our
Seleneum dreams:
1. Cost. Though no official figures have been given, knowledgeable
pundits put a return to the moon at around $100 billion. But NASA's
track record on fiscal restraint invokes skepticism even among hardcore
fans. Arizona Senator John McCain has quipped that the agency's
acronym stands for "never a straight answer." In 1984, when Ronald
Reagan announced that we would build a space station to rival the
USSR's Mir, the estimated price tag was $8 billion. By the time the
International Space Station (ISS) is finished in 2007, the bill will
stand at over $100 billion, despite being scaled down in size and
scope. By comparison, the USSR built Mir for $4.3 billion and its
operating costs were just 3 percent of the ISS. Prudence suggests that
if we do go back to the moon we should recruit the Russians as
partners.
2. There Is No Atmosphere. With just one-eightieth of the Earth's
mass, the moon has commensurately lower gravity, which is great if you
want to play trampoline but lousy if you need to breathe, not to
mention work. Too gravitationally weak to hold an atmosphere, the
moon's face is a vacuum, so moon colonists will have to make their
own air.
3. Radiation. The lack of an atmosphere means the lunar surface is
bombarded by powerful radiation from cosmic rays. No human could ever
spend more than a few months on the moon during his or her entire life.
It will be a settlement of continual newbies.
4. Lack of Water. Again, due to low gravity and no atmosphere most
water long ago evaporated into outer space. Some scientists believe
there may still be pockets of ice hidden deep in shadows around lunar
mountains, but moon colonists should be planning to bring or make their
own H2O.
5. The Gravity Well. Proponents of space travel, including President
Bush, tout the moon's low gravity as a boon for launching crafts to
other planets - lunar escape velocity can be achieved for just 1/22nd
of the energy required to send a vehicle from Earth. But before you can
launch a craft from the moon you have to get it there. Either all the
parts have to be shipped from Earth, annihilating any energy saving, or
you have to make components on the moon itself from resources found
naturally there - a dim prospect considering the barren nature of the
lunar terrain.
6. Lack of Accessible Resources. Space enthusiasts are increasingly
championing In-Situ Resource Utilization - to wit, mining and
processing lunar materials. Specifically, they are interested in using
lunar regolith, the fine dust covering the moon's surface, as a
construction material. Unfortunately, moon dust is akin to a glassy
volcanic ash - to do anything with this stuff we'll have to
radically reinvent the building code. But who knows what wealth lies
beneath the lunar surface? In his 2004 speech, Bush enthused about the
moon's untapped and unknown mineral potential: "We may discover
resources . . . that will boggle the imagination," he declared. In
practice most mining relies on huge quantities of water for separating
different mineral components. In the absence of H2O, mining on the moon
is going to require a major technological revolution.
7. The Myth of Helium 3. Of all the moon's advantages, none is touted
more than its high concentration of helium 3, which is an ideal fuel
for nuclear fusion reactors. A helium 3 reactor would make an excellent
propulsive source for a Mars-bound spacecraft, but there is only an
estimated 10 kilograms on Earth. On the moon there's tons of the
stuff, so why not mine it in-situ? Proponents suggest that we could use
helium 3 not just for spacecraft but also to fuel terrestrial power
stations. The problem is that in order to get one pound of helium 3 you
have to sift through 200 million pounds of moon dust. If you are
willing to pay for that kind of infrastructure we'd be far better off
developing solar-power technology. Like helium 3 (which also comes from
the sun), there's enough sunlight to power all of humanity's needs
and it's freely available here on Earth.
8. The Moondoggle Factor. When President Bush launched his moon-Mars
vision, he justified the endeavor by claiming that "the fascination
generated by further [space] exploration will inspire our young people
to study math and science and engineering to create a new generation of
innovators and pioneers." Is the moon really that inspiring? NASA's
annual budget ($16 billion) is already three times that of the National
Science Foundation, and American children's science proficiency
continues to slide. In 2005 Congress actually cut the NSF's budget
and refused to fund another round of national Science and Technology
Centers because, in this age of burgeoning budget deficits, the nation
supposedly can't afford them. If we really want to inspire kids to
study math and science, investing in these areas directly would make a
whole lot more sense than sending spam in a can to mine ash in a
waterless vacuum.
Michael Rhino
news:1136580154.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> http://www.laweekly.com/ink/06/07/feuilletons-reasons.php
>
> 8 Reasons Why Going Back to the Moon Is Loony
> by MARGARET WERTHEIM
>
Any manned space program is going to be expensive. This is more expensive
than maintaining the status quo, but the status quo is starting to seem a
bit pointless.
> 2. There Is No Atmosphere.
> 4. Lack of Water.
All near term space destinations have these problems.
> 3. Radiation.
Easily dealt with by keeping humans in habitats protected by lunar regolith.
This means that you won't have humans bounding about on the surface very
much, but that's OK. I think that a lot of work will be done in garages
where humans will interact with robots that have been wandering around on
the surface.
> 6. Lack of Accessible Resources. Space enthusiasts are increasingly
> championing In-Situ Resource Utilization - to wit, mining and
> processing
If we are going to make significant progress in space, we have to master
this one. Sure, it's difficult, but it is a step that needs to be done.
> Specifically, they are interested in using
> lunar regolith, the fine dust covering the moon's surface, as a
> construction material. Unfortunately, moon dust is akin to a glassy
> volcanic ash - to do anything with this stuff we'll have to
> radically reinvent the building code.
What building code?
> In
> practice most mining relies on huge quantities of water for separating
> different mineral components. In the absence of H2O, mining on the moon
> is going to require a major technological revolution.
On Earth, they use water because it is readily available. On the moon, they
will look at alternatives. This is what you hire engineers for. Engineers
might fail, but we should make an attempt to figure this one out. If there
is a good method of recycling water, we can use water.
> 7. The Myth of Helium 3.
It's not something I was counting on.
Rémy MERCIER
Space Cadet Wrote:
> Hi All
> Saw this article and thought I'd post it for comments.
> Point 7, even though I think its a cool idea, but I do feel the
> importance of Helium 3 is over rated, once we have master Nuclear
> Fusion (of any kind) then I'll start taking Helium 3 more seriously,
> thou, someone in this group(Henry Spencer?) pointed out that what he
> heard from some experts in the field that the prospect of any kind of
> controlled fusion may be unobtainable. Which is a depressing
> .
Hi,
Since a few days I am very optimistic!
http://www.spacebanter.com/showthread.php?t=70567
Rémy
--
Rémy MERCIER
Michael Gallagher
>What do you think?
>
It's not the first time an article like this has surfaced. There
seems to be a knee-jerk reaciton by some people that anything aimed up
is somehow crazy. I remember an article on the Wall Street Journal
before the first Pegasus launch that referred to OSC' founders as
"three space nuts" -- it had the same basic "this is crazy!" tone.
Now someone is saying this about President Bush' Moon mission. Yawn.
None of the technical problems -- lack of air, water, etc. -- are
showstoppers, only challenges we have to address. The guys actually
working on the mission plans are already aware of them, so it has to
be a slow news day if you expect people to be surprised by the idea
that you have to bring your own air and water to the Moon (although
now that I think about it, she may be unaware of the fact that
scientists have been looking for water at the lunar poles).
The political and budgetary concerns are more problematic, but not a
showstopper unless you are a Democrat who has hated GW since before
the 2000 election. OTOH, that's where an article like this could have
an impact.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Thomas Lee Elifritz
Michael Gallagher wrote:
> None of the technical problems -- lack of air, water, etc. -- are
> showstoppers, only challenges we have to address.
No, just the 100 billion price tag for four guys to put footprints on the moon while
developing no credible space infrastructure, while throwing away all of our SSMEs and
trashing the ISS, STS and life sciences research, and firing all of our talented
engineers All minor little technical nits.
Yes folks, we're going to ... mars.
Brad Guth
resources upon the moon. However, for each and every naysay there's a
good dozen must-do and should-do reasons why our moon is worthy of
becoming our salvation.
Without my involving NASA/Apollo, I can argue that lunar related
benefits are significant and reasonably obtainable.
Obviously church folks don't want humanity to realize upon what our
'once upon a time' icy proto-moon had accomplished on behalf of
transferring life onto Earth. They(aka God freakologest being 100%
anti-intelligent design) can't stand the soon to be bloody thoughts of
ET intelligent design having run amuck, any more so than the fact that
our extremely salty-ice covered proto-moon had been acquired from a
nearby solar system that's nearly 3.5 fold as massive as ours, plus
having been many fold greater yet in hosting the right kinds of solar
energy (all that's needed is a home world that has a thick and fully
cloud covered atmosphere, and you're good for go).
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
Good for you, Elifritz. On your taxable nickel and, please do remember
to take along sufficient body bags.
Since we can't seem to deal with the microbes and spores we've got,
whereas if you should try to return with anything from Mars, expect to
be greeted by a few SBLs/ABLs.
-
Brad Guth
Michael Gallagher
<cosm...@lifeformitis.org> wrote:
>
>
>No, just the 100 billion price tag for four guys to put footprints on the moon while
>developing no credible space infrastructure, while throwing away all of our SSMEs and
>trashing the ISS .....
Like SSMEs won't have to be put into production for the boosters?
Yes, they will be "thrown away" after each launch because the rockets
will be expendable, but they will be produced.
> ..... STS and life sciences research .....
The CEV will be used to service the space station when it is put into
service.
> ..... and firing all of our talented
>engineers.....
Unlikely (unless you know something I don't) as they will be needed to
build the CEV, boostes, mission modules, etc. ....
> ..... Yes folks, we're going to ... mars.
>
Yes, we are! :)
Brad Guth
Here's a perfectly good reason why we'll need to at least get
microsatellites orbiting close to that sucker, or eventually robotics
actually safely deployed upon the surface and doing their thing,
whereas the sooner that's accomplish the sooner we'll be able to clean
out the perpetrated cold-war trash that has been sucking the life out
of the heart and soul of humanity, plus having polluted our environment
to a global warming fairlywell along the way.
Actually, I'd have to further conclude that the rocket-science smarts
of your warm and fuzzy Third Reich, along with all of their
collaborating Jews, was certainly a highly productive technological
phase in humanity, as well as extremely profitable basis of knowing thy
enemy and thereby snookering thy humanity to boot. Especially somewhat
of a win-win for the old Skull and Bones gipper if you were on the
collaborating side of the perpetrated cold-war equation.
>donstockbaue; Oh, come on, Braddie. When I was there it wasn't
>that bad. Except for Randall Tunstall and Hector Garcia And SAIC's
>"Ms. Wednesday". Give'em a break. They've done some good for the
>World, at least.
I've never said that your brown-nosed Third Reich, SS minions or even
that of their boss (aka Hitler) were not sufficiently smart, and thus
having indirectly contributed some worth to humanity. I believe even
Godzilla has some redeeming points. Of course, if you're dead,
prematurely dying off or just having to live within a lower standard
because of that effort, as such you might place a somewhat different
value upon such Skull and Bones achievements.
I'm simply stipulating that you supposedly kind and all-knowing folks
need to be telling us poor and uneducated village idiots what's what.
As it was your very own pagan NASA/Apollo cult having claimed as to
what's still so unbelievably fantastic to start with.
Instead of using my numbers, I'm stuck with using the NASA/Apollo
numbers, plus those of other supposedly honest rocket-scientist that
you've bet your sorry life upon. Thus it's your very own laws of
physics and of your own hard-science that sucks and blows.
There's simply too much hocus pocus, as in perpetrated cold-war cloaks
and daggers, plus ample smoke and mirrors that's keeping us common folk
away from adding up their own numbers, as to how the heck our Saturn-V
even managed GSO with such a back-breaking 52.67t initial payload. At
the supposed utmost liftoff mass; I believe that's an impressive 58:1
ratio that shouldn't have been capable of GSO, especially way back then
having the greater inert/dry mass of the Saturn-5 being what it was,
and especially without benefit of SRBs instead of that pathetic
LOX/RP-1 first stage (at the officially reported liftoff mass, Saturn-V
actually gets this task closer to their having a 55:1 translunar
capability).
LOX/RP-1 simply doesn't even come anywhere close to SRBs. There are
many of our best and extremely powerful rockets configured as per using
SRBs that can't even be effectively utilized for accomplishing GSO
deployments, that is unless they're into using the 4 stage method. It
takes considerably more of and of somewhat bigger SRBs, plus the likes
of a composite 4-stage Proton method of 122:1 via the liftoff mass of
691,272 kg, whereas that's nearly the best rocket bang we've got to
work with, that's only capable of getting relatively small payloads of
5.645t into GSO.
Since anything of a 58:1 translunar capability simply isn't within the
Saturn-V cards, or within any other new and improved stacked set of
cards, as such why don't you do the math. Then you tell me how the hell
we managed to pull off those NASA/Apollo missions.
-
Brad Guth
Michael Gallagher
<cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
>Michael Gallagher wrote:
>
>>Like SSMEs won't have to be put into production for the boosters?
>>Yes, they will be "thrown away" after each launch because the rockets
>>will be expendable, but they will be produced.
>>
>That's kind of like throwing away four Trent 970s after every A380
>flight, at 15 million apiece, only worse.
>
That was the thinking behind the Space Shuttle -- instead of throwing
everything away after one use, save money by using it again. The
concept is valide, but it wasn't realized right (the first time).
>Everything else you say is laughable after that.
>
Suit yourself. But FYI, almost nothing I said isn't available on
public web sites. You think it's laughable? Ok. Think that. Just
don't credit me with the "joke."
Michael Gallagher
wrote:
> ..... we'll be able to clean
>out the perpetrated cold-war trash..... I'd have to further conclude that the rocket-science smarts
>of your warm and fuzzy Third Reich, along with all of their
>collaborating Jews .....
And then he wrote:
> ..... Then you tell me how the hell
>we managed to pull off those NASA/Apollo missions.
>-
I'm sure there are plenty of engineers around here who would be happy
to tell you. Would you give them a fair hearing -- and beleive them
if they lead you to the conclusion Apollo happened? There's no point
otherwise.
Brad Guth
LOONY by Brag Guth ...
Ariane-5.5 = 100t GSO (50t~75t LL-1) represents that a highly composite
scaled-down solution for getting a swarm of microsatellites into a
sufficiently close to the deck alternative, as into formations worth of
such nearby microsatellite lunar orbits has been more than affordably
doable.
Reusable SRBs understandably somewhat suck at their being a bit extra
massive, whereas the composite encased disposable SRBs are truly
impressive. Although, even the reusable SRBs still outperform the
disposable LOX/RP-1 alternative, whereas if to be using disposable SRBs
would far more than outperform even H2O2/C3H4O as the ultimate
do-everything of a combined kick-ass solution for getting whatever
tonnage into lunar orbit (of course that's certainly inclusive of
having easily established LL-1, which by the way should have been
accomplished decades ago if we were so absolutely dumb and dumber as
being so totally dumbfounded by what all of our perpetrated cold-war
fiascos created).
If the Ariane-5 reusable SRBs with their inert 37t each were replaced
with the likes of disposable composite SRBs offering less than a inert
mass of 7t each, obviously the existing 9.6t to GSO should advance to
60t. With less inert mass of what their current 275t worth of SRB
amounts to, clearly this represents extra volumes and/or extended
capacity for the solid fuel to be making up a portion of their
potentially 30t individual net worth savings.
In addition to packing disposable SRBs along for the initial ride, if
the Ariane-5 liquid fueled first stage of LXO/LH2 were replaced with
H2O2/C3H4O, as this would likely place their GSO payload at nearly 100t
with energy to spare. Clearly this is suggesting as to what could
become translunar worthy of deploying somewhat better than 50t into
lunar LL-1 (more tonnage yet if it's not having to get there overnight
or even via 2nd day delivery).
Unfortunately, this freaking God forsaken need-to-know GOOGLE/Usenet
(aka MI6/NSA~CIA) that seriously sucks and blows on a regular basis,
and that's even whenever they're not into their usual sharing such
nasty loads of PC malware/fuckware that's specifically intended to
robo-bash and if at all possible banish if not terminate those of us
sharing a bit too much of the truth, whereas instead of others that
have been claiming as supposedly knowing all there is to know sharing
in such honest research, discoveries and upon notions of whatever our
having connected the dots has managed to compile, as having been based
upon deductive reasoning and/or of merely sharing in a WYSIWYG worth of
whatever's actually available to being seen and thereby taken into
account, whereas in other dyslexic words of my limited wisdom; it seems
these Usenet gangs of MIB certified souls are so absolutely chuck full
of their own intellectual if not biological incest, so much so that
they're way beyond the point of no return as to their perverted realms
of common bigotry, arrogance and just plain old blatant brown-nosed
greed up their incest cloned kazoos.
As I've stated at least a good thousand times before (6 years worth and
counting); I've discovered extremely viable though humanly subjective
observational (aka Magellan radar imaging) evidence along with
sufficient other hard-science (much of which having the NASA stamp of
approval) that's entirely regular physics based (aka physics duh-101),
as for there being significant physical signs of there having been
other intelligent life, as surviving upon the mostly geothermally hot
and supposedly insurmountably nasty surface of Venus. It seems that
I've also discovered what else our once upon a time icy proto-moon and
of what our mutual gravity-well is actually good for, whereas lo and
behold there's even a perfectly worthy SWAG as to our ice-age cycles as
having been closely associated with the Sirius star/solar system that
needs your honest topic input, of your contributing and thus sharing
upon information instead of such topics being avoided/excluded or
otherwise continually topic/author stalked and summarily bashed simply
because you're too Jewish, too Catholic or too damn far into some other
perverted (aka up you's) terrestrial religion that's so insecure (aka
phony baloney bogus) that they can't possibly afford to take any such
hits.
I believe that's too gosh darn freaking bad because, thus far within my
mindset of limited knowledge, I see no reasons as to perceive or
otherwise argue that whomever's surviving upon Venus haven't been far
more Christ like religious than whatever's terrestrial (good grief
almighty, via applied technology and having at least half a brain for
having utilized such, they could even look like us).
Think about it, folks; If you had been biologically evolved and/or
otherwise somewhat physically deposited and subsequently sequestered
upon the likes of Venus, wouldn't you have to think that your somewhat
unfortunate (aka toasty) existence would have greatly depended upon
having been on the good side of your God/creator? I mean, exactly how
much bad news can a Venusian soul take?
Usenet naysayers are not SWAG worthy, whereas instead they'll offer us
carefully scripted infomercials of their disinformation, plus
whatever's wag-thy-dog worthy of whatever else sustains their
mainstream status quo of ulterior motives and hidden agendas. The
proof has always been within their Skull and Bones cult like
need-to-know actions, rather than limited to their bigotry mindset of
mere words.
Is it pointless to ask; Are there any honest takers, or are you folks
simply too incest brown-nosed and thus way past the point of no return?
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
>to tell you. Would you give them a fair hearing -- and beleive them
>if they lead you to the conclusion Apollo happened? There's no point
>otherwise.
I would gladly take the information of others (aka rocket scientist)
into good faith account, without even sharing another word of my having
to return the favor should there be any hint of the all or nothing
cultism that's sucking the very life out of humanity, not to mention
having polluted our environment to a fairlywell.
Obviously I still don't fully appreciate the 63:1 ratio of what our
Saturn-V accomplished on behalf of getting nearly 50t past the LL-1
point of having accomplished those mostly robotic obtained images of
our moon from such close proximity.
Here's what I'm learing about modern SRBs, that should easily
outperform the LOX/RP-1.
Reusable SRB
Ariane SRB = 275t/37t = 4.73:1 thrust/inert ratio: 650t/37 = 17.6:1
Shuttle SRB = 590t/87 = 6.78:1 thrust/inert ratio: 1497t/87 = 17.2:1
Disposible SRB
Centaur/Aerojet SRB = 46.3t/3.65 = 12.685:1 thrust/inert ratio
168.7t/3.65t = 46.2:1
http://www.ilslaunch.com/launches/cbin/Mission_Overview/atlas/FINAL-PLUTO_MO.pdf
The NEW HORIZON of 478 kg is requiring 573.2t at liftoff
This alone is offering an impressive 1,199:1 ratio of rocket/payload
SRBs built by Aerojet are of composite encased solid rocket boosters
The pair of SRBs utilized: each weighs 46.3t
Packed with a solid fuel composite of: 42.6t
The disposable inert/dry mass is only: 3.63t
This form of disposable/composite SRB assisted launch is actually
looking good, that is if it's extra G forces doesn't manage to implode
everything upon launch. Therefore, I'd look forward to hearing from
those that supposedly have the "right stuff" about such rocket-science,
especially the sorts of rocket-science where all the numbers tend to
add up (however, the likes of infomercial [aka rusemaster] William Mook
doesn't count for all that much).
-
Brad Guth
Michael Gallagher
wrote:
>Obviously I still don't fully appreciate the 63:1 ratio of what our
>Saturn-V accomplished on behalf of getting nearly 50t past the LL-1
>point of having accomplished those mostly robotic obtained images of
>our moon from such close proximity.
>
Or you're forgetting -- if I'm reading this right -- that the Saturn V
was a three stage rocket. You're right, if all there was were the
F-1s, they probably wouldn't have done the job. But you didn't have
just the F-1s: the five J2 engines in the second stage and the single
J2 engine in the third stage got it into orbit. Then the S-IVB stage
restarted to push it out to the Moon.
And on top of that, there's the inverse square law, which determines
how much gravity decreases as you move away from the Earth. So you
can rely on engines smaller than the F-1 out towards the Moon because
you're not struggling against 1G all the way. Plus let's not forget
that the there's the issue of thrust versus the mass it's pushing.
The five F-1s produced 7.5 million pounds of thrust, which was more
than the stack weighed, so of course, it went up, and accelerated as
the fuel (which accounted for a lot of the mass) was used up.
If you want a "non-NASA" source for the math, may I point you at
"Interplanetary Flight" by Arthur C. Clarke. It was written before
NASA even existed, so there's no chance that They could have got to
it. Here is its entry at Amazon.com:
The version WITHOUT the math is "The Exploration of Space:"
They spell out EOR architectures NASA never used, but remember, they
were written before NASA ever existed, so of course the details
diverge. But if you want to play with the math from a source
untainted by NASA and not just rhetorically hit people over the head,
that's where I'd start.
Brad Guth
>Or you're forgetting -- if I'm reading this right -- that the Saturn V
>was a three stage rocket. You're right, if all there was were the
>F-1s, they probably wouldn't have done the job. But you didn't have
>just the F-1s: the five J2 engines in the second stage and the single
>J2 engine in the third stage got it into orbit. Then the S-IVB stage
>restarted to push it out to the Moon.
didn't even take the fullest advantage of the LL-1 alignment. With
nearly 50t to pack along for the ride, and with the sort of speedy
deployment obtained is why I'm still thinking it would have been
unlikely for the 4th stage (aka S-IVB) to have advaned much greater
than 15t into orbiting the moon.
>If you want a "non-NASA" source for the math, may I point you at
>"Interplanetary Flight" by Arthur C. Clarke. It was written before
>NASA even existed, so there's no chance that They could have got to
>it. Here is its entry at Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0425064484/qid=1137174320/sr=1-1/ref...
>The version WITHOUT the math is "The Exploration of Space:"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BC1PEW/qid=1137174474/sr=1-1/ref...
>They spell out EOR architectures NASA never used, but remember, they
>were written before NASA ever existed, so of course the details
>diverge. But if you want to play with the math from a source
>untainted by NASA and not just rhetorically hit people over the head,
>that's where I'd start.
Thanks for each of those bits of information. I'll see what's what
because, if the old days of accomplishing 63:1 w/o SRBs were so
obtainable with such a horrific amount of payload tonnage, plus initial
ice loads and good deal of aerodynamic drag to boot, then of the most
modern H2O2/C3H4O plus having the latest expendable composite SRB as
first stage should be capable of the 25:1 ratio that I'd been
previously asking about, as perhaps as suggesting upon what such a
composite two-stage alternative that would get microsatellites as
quickly if not even somewhat faster into the necessary orbiting phase,
that I'd like to see as starting in at just 25 km off the lunar deck.
Basically, that's exactly what I've been looking for, is the matter of
rocket-science fact (not fiction as published by Arthur C. Clarke) that
such a small amount of modern-day rocket can manage to accomplish the
microsatellite deployment task, and thus relatively dirt cheap and damn
near as launched from most any backyard to boot.
An individual 10 kg microsatellite should therefore demand as little as
a 250 kg worth of total launch mass. Whereas a collective payload of
having to get 10 each of these 10 kg microsatellites safely deployed
should manage just fine and dandy with as little as 2.5t worth of gross
liftoff mass, and so forth.
These days the micro circuitry of what can be packaged within a 10 kg
limit is absolutely terrific, especially if the individual satellite is
only given 60 days by which to survive before biting itself into moon
dust or having impacted something far worse. 60 days is actually
accomplishing a rather terrific amount of gathering upon such nearby
science data, especially if we're having 10 of these little suckers as
zipping in all directions around our moon, some of which might even
manage to survive their semi-soft crash landing.
BTW; some folks simply deserve being "rhetorically hit people over the
head", especially of those claiming to know absolutely all there is to
know, but otherwise continually keeping such wizardly knowledge as
need-to-know or as taboo/nondisclosure.
-
Brad Guth
Terrell Miller
"Brad Guth" <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137264430....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>If you want a "non-NASA" source for the math, may I point you at
>>"Interplanetary Flight" by Arthur C. Clarke. It was written before
>>NASA even existed, so there's no chance that They could have got to
>>it. Here is its entry at Amazon.com:
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0425064484/qid=1137174320/sr=1-1/ref...
>
>>The version WITHOUT the math is "The Exploration of Space:"
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BC1PEW/qid=1137174474/sr=1-1/ref...
<snip>
> Basically, that's exactly what I've been looking for, is the matter of
> rocket-science fact (not fiction as published by Arthur C. Clarke)
Brad, ACC was an aeronautical engineer long before he started writing
science fiction, and he's written a mixture of both in his long publishing
career.
Michael Gallagher
wrote:
>>Michael Gallagher
>>Or you're forgetting -- if I'm reading this right -- that the Saturn V
>>was a three stage rocket. You're right, if all there was were the
>>F-1s, they probably wouldn't have done the job. But you didn't have
>>just the F-1s: the five J2 engines in the second stage and the single
>>J2 engine in the third stage got it into orbit. Then the S-IVB stage
>>restarted to push it out to the Moon.
>But they didn't just drift away from the gravity of Earth .....
Nothing "drifted" anywhere, Brad. For one thing, Earth's gravity
extends a considerable distance away from Earth, theoretically to the
end of the Universe, but the inverse square law (
http://physics.about.com/od/gravity/ ) dictates it would be so weak
as to be not worth considering. But 250,000 miles away, it is still
strong enough to hold something in orbit, which is why there is a Moon
over our heads for you to argue we never landed on.
Basically, getting to the Moon requires you put your vehicle in a long
eliptical orbit around the Earth, an orbit which itersects the Moon's
orbit, and you time it so the Moon is at or near that point when you
get to it. To this end, the Apollo spacecraft left Earth orbit at
about 24,500 mph, just under escape velocity, and decellerated for
most of the way out. Then the Moon' gravity took over and they
settled into orbit.
So there's no "drifting" invloved, just plain old fashioned orbital
mechancis. If you believe the Space Shuttle is real and there are
satellites overhead, then you are witnessing orbital mechanics in
operation. And we used it to get to the Moon.
> .... With
>nearly 50t to pack along for the ride, and with the sort of speedy
>deployment obtained ....
The only place where deployment was "speedy" was in Ron Howard's film,
APOLLO 13. As much as I love it, he fudged some of the technical
detaisl and compressed the launch to show it in less time than it
actually happened. Separating from the S-IVB stage and docking with
the LEM took place after the spacecraft had been boosted from LEO.
> ..... is why I'm still thinking it would have been
>unlikely for the 4th stage (aka S-IVB).....
The S-IVB was the THIRD stage of the Saturn V. It was a three stage
rocket, not four.
Brad Guth
>science fiction, and he's written a mixture of both in his long publishing
>career.
of a decade ago?
A good book (fiction or not) is just a book of numbers and formula,
whereas hard rocket-science that's first hand and subsequently
documented and reported to us village idiots as such, is all that I'm
looking for.
Within this effort that I've already posted elsewhere, I'm just trying
my best to figure out exactly how low of a rocket/payload ratio is
doable for my lunar microsatellites. Perhaps you'd know of a real
honest to God rocket-scientist that could share what I'd really like to
honestly know about. In the mean time, here's more of what I've been
need-to-know learning that doesn't add up.
>From a somewhat distant orbit has thus far been sufficient for
obtaining the vast amounts of moon-science that's still extensively
being utilized as of today. If being so far away has thus far been
good to science, just think what having microsatellites starting in at
25 km off the lunar deck should accomplish. Such as the Clementine
mission was essentially kept far away from the moon (otherwise too much
aerobreaking):
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_moon.html
"The Clementine imaging experiment showed that such permanently
shadowed areas do exist in the bottom of deep craters near the Moon's
south pole. In fact, it appears that approximately 6000 to 15,000
square kilometers (2300 to 5800 square miles) of area around the south
pole is permanently shadowed. The permanently shadowed area near the
north pole appears on Clementine images to be considerably less, but
the Lunar Prospector results show a much larger water-bearing area at
the north pole. Much of the area around the south pole is within the
South Pole-Aitken Basin (shown at left in blue on a lunar topography
image), a giant impact crater 2500 km (1550 miles) in diameter and 12
km deep at its lowest point. Many smaller craters exist on the floor of
this basin. Since they are down in this basin, the floors of many of
these craters are never exposed to sunlight. Within these craters the
temperatures would never rise above about 100 K (280 degrees below zero
F) (2). Any water ice at the bottom of the crater could probably exist
for billions of years at these temperatures."
-
However folks, what an absolute total wag-thy-dog of another joke on
us; as supposedly within nearly a pure vacuum upon the nasty deck
that's supposedly still hosting a toasty core of a geothermally capable
moon, plus half the time receiving 1.4 kw/m2 of raw (full spectrum)
solar influx upon such a dark and nasty surface, plus having a little
secondary IR from Earth and 24/7 unlimited cosmic influx. Yet lo and
behold, by way of their hocus pocus of conditional physics and skewed
soft-science, we're supposed to buy into their argument that there's
polar surface ice to be found. (I think NOT, especially NOT of plain
old water)
First of all, we still have absolutely no such hard-science with regard
to raw ice surviving in space, much less upon our extra hot (hot enough
for sustaining a 14,000 km surround of a sodium populated atmosphere)
and otherwise a nasty surface of secondary/recoil as the TBI as all get
out nasty moon. It's been that damn simple from the very get go.
I'd have to suppose if there were at least an 84 mb composite worth of
sodium, Ar, O2 and Rn to work with, as just maybe a salty ice cave or
as more than likely having been sequestered deep within a rock crevasse
is doable, or perhaps most likely a geode pocket that's containing a
subsurface brine that's nearly a solid might still coexist. At 10 mb
or less, I wouldn't exactly bother looking for even deeply protected
polar surface ice, or even the likes of extremely dirty dry-ice covered
ice, other than going for whatever's sealed within solid geode pockets
that have never seen vacuum nor the extremely harsh light of a lunar
day.
With regard to what sort of rocket deployment effort it takes for
getting such probes into orbiting our moon (this is where it gets a bit
more need-to-know as well as taboo/nondisclosure than you'd care to
think).
http://www.llnl.gov/etr/pdfs/06_94.1.pdf
Clementine Mass: 424 kg (with propellant)
Launch Vehicle: Titan IIG + Star-37 as 3rd stage
http://www.geocities.com/launchreport/titan2.html
Launch vehicle Titan 23G liftoff mass: 150t
A good 25 years after the NASA/Apollo efforts that supposedly managed
at accomplishing their goal of getting such a massive payload into
lunar orbit with merely 63:1, whereas the much newer Clementine
involved 356:1, while having taken a good 3 weeks (nearly 10 fold
longer) in order to get that relatively small package into lunar orbit
(apparently for going the long way around and taking ten fold longer
per deployment requires 5.65 times more energy per tonne than what had
been accomplished 25 years earlier and in one tenth the time, sure why
the hell not).
Clementine Flight Plan (1994)
January 25 Launch (16:34 UTC)
February 3 Leave Earth Orbit
February 5 First Earth Flyby
February 15 Second Earth Flyby
February 19 Enter Lunar Orbit
Titan 23G direct route escape payload is merely 230 kg, thus we're
talking as bad off as 652:1
I'm fairly certain that for the extra payload and/or of going for the
moon requires the small but extremely powerful Star-37 solid rocket
motor as third stage.
5.4.7: Solid motors / Star-37 SRM
http://planet4589.org/space/book/lv/engines/kick/motors.html
TE Star 37 impulse/1584 kn Fuelled mass/620 kg
NASA/Apollo (believe it, or else you'll get nuked)
Saturn-V liftoff mass: 3,038,500 kg.
Payload into lunar orbit: 48,500 kg.
That's w/o SRB/SRM at merely 62.65:1
Cutting the launch mass and cutting your supposed payload as placed
into lunar orbit is still offering a good 64:1
US Expendable Launch Vehicle Data for Planetary Missions
http://www1.jsc.nasa.gov/bu2/ELV_US.html
With all of this new and improved information that my three remaining
dyslexic brain cells are having to cope with such need-to-know
information, I'm not exactly certain as to what sort of actual tonnage
the NASA/Apollo missions accomplished at getting into lunar orbit.
Obviously we accomplished something at least robotic (aka Chapel Bell
transponder/probe) worthy that managed to orbit our moon, it just
wasn't the sort of do-everything (aka 'man on the moon') package that
we've been told about.
Of course, if you'd care to insist that such was doable exactly as your
NASA/Apollo Koran scriptures have to tell us, whereas by their own
numbers I shouldn't have any modern day problems whatsoever with their
latest rocket-science achieving a 32:1 ratio on behalf of deploying my
cheap but otherwise extremely good science effective microsatellites,
into orbiting that moon, starting in at 25 km off the lunar deck, and
for getting those little suckers into that orbit within 48 hours seems
perfectly doable, that is unless we've been lied to.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
Thanks for all of the terrific feedback, as well as per the notions as
having been previously contributed by Terrell Miller that thinks a
science-fiction book is all that matters.
Therefore, at the very most with using modern expendable composite SRB
and the upper SRM along with perhaps having a mid stage being of the
much better H2O2/C3H4O format shouldn't take but a 32:1 configuration,
and merely 48 hours worth of being able to this smaller package of
microsatellites into lunar orbit. After all, those Massive Apollo
missions accomplished that along with all of their volumetric bulk at
the nifty 64:1 ratio without benefit of SRBs and/or the final SRM kick
in the butt.
I wonder why it was so gosh darn rocket spendy, and thus terribly ratio
inefficient and 10 fold time consuming on top of that for getting
little Clementine into such a wide (aerobreaking avoidance) orbit?
Dr John Stockton
15 Jan 2006 15:39:05 local, seen in news:sci.space.policy, Terrell
Miller <mill...@bellsouth.net> posted :
>Brad, ACC was an aeronautical engineer long before he started writing
>science fiction, and he's written a mixture of both in his long publishing
>career.
Untrue.
(1) He started writing science fiction while still at school, before he
was 16; I have a copy of a story by him which was published in the month
of his 20th birthday.
(2) Was he ever really an aeronautical engineer? IMHO, the term does not
really fit his wartime work, for example. OTOH, he was an amateur
astronautical engineer before WWII, i.e. in the late Thirties.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
Terrell Miller
> >Brad, ACC was an aeronautical engineer long before he started writing
>>science fiction, and he's written a mixture of both in his long publishing
>>career.
> Then where's ACC with regard to what's doable as of today, or even as
> of a decade ago?
since Sir Arthur is almost 90, he mostly sits around the house and has staff
to take care of him, and has done for quite some time. He's not in the best
of health.
>Michael Gallagher,
>Thanks for all of the terrific feedback, as well as per the notions as
>having been previously contributed by Terrell Miller that thinks a
>science-fiction book is all that matters.
we're not talking about one of his fiction books, Brad. He wrote
*nonfiction* as well.
Not a difficult concept to grasp, sport: lots of sf writers have day jobs,
or had them before they went full-time. ACC is one.
John Stockton wrote:
>>Brad, ACC was an aeronautical engineer long before he started writing
>>science fiction, and he's written a mixture of both in his long publishing
>>career.
>Untrue.
>(1) He started writing science fiction while still at school, before he
>was 16; I have a copy of a story by him which was published in the month
>of his 20th birthday.
sorry, poetic license on my part. He wrote sf but didn't publish any until
after the war.
>(2) Was he ever really an aeronautical engineer? IMHO, the term does not
>really fit his wartime work, for example. OTOH, he was an amateur
>astronautical engineer before WWII, i.e. in the late Thirties.
you be the judge:
http://www.lsi.usp.br/~rbianchi/clarke/ACC.Biography.html
"Arthur C. Clarke was born in the seaside town of Minehead, Somerset,
England on December 16, 1917. In 1936 he moved to London, where he joined
the British Interplanetary Society. There he started to experiment with
astronautic material in the BIS, write the BIS Bulletin and science fiction.
During World War II, as a RAF officer, he was in charge of the first radar
talk-down equipment, the Ground Controlled Approach, during its experimental
trials. His only non-science-fiction novel, Glide Path, is based on this
work.
After the war, he returned to London and to the BIS, which he presided in
46-47 and 50-53.
In 1945 he published the technical paper "Extra-terrestrial Relays" laying
down the principles of the satellite communication with satellites in
geostationary orbits - a speculation realized 25 years later. His invention
has brought him numerous honors, such as the 1982 Marconi International
Fellowship, a gold medal of the Franklin Institute, the Vikram Sarabhai
Professorship of the Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad, the Lindbergh
Award and a Fellowship of King's College, London. Today, the geostationary
orbit at 42,000 kilometers is named The Clarke Orbit by the International
Astronomical Union.
The first story Clarke sold professionally was "Rescue Party", written in
March 1945 and appearing in Astounding Science in May 1946.
He obtained first class honors in Physics and Mathematics at the King's
College, London, in 1948."
for the learning-impaired amongst us (Brad), you'll note that Glide Path was
his only non-sf *novel*, not his only non-sf *book*
HTH,
Brad Guth
>Brad. He wrote *nonfiction* as well.
specifications and thus essentially first hand launch?
What does his publishing of whatever 'should work' have to do with the
real thing?
You do realize that it currently takes the best of 790t worth the very
latest and best SRB assisted configured liftoff mass in order to manage
9.6t into GSO. Only the extensive use of the much lower inert mass of
composite/disposable SRBs and/or of having a core H2O2/RP-1 or better
yet H2O2/C3H4O configuration can outperform that number, whereas non of
this was Saturn-V utilized.
>you be the judge:
I believe that's exactly what I'm doing. I'm being the judge, and thus
far I do not like what I'm hearing about proven rocket/payload ratios.
However, since you're so gosh darn smart, why don't you simply share
upon whatever sort of ratio it takes, as based upon the real thing?
Where's all of your official NASA reports on each of the total launch
configurations, of their rocket/payload liftoff mass and time to orbit
of each and every kg worth of satellite (other than Apollo related) as
having been individually deployed into orbiting our moon, and certainly
if you'd care to include terrestrial LEO stuff that's deployed below
700 km, plus whatever it takes for our having accomplished all of those
GSO deployments, whereas that sort of rocket/payload info is just
perfectly fine and dandy as is.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
Thanks for that good information about ACC. I hope that you folks can
appreciate that I'm not bashing down upon Arthur C. Clarke, especially
with the sorts of stuff that I've been into Usenet and Internet
publishing that's absolutely chuck full of trial and errors.
All I want to learn about is what's the best small/compact configured
rocket/payload ratio to ride these days, especially if I wanted to see
that delivery manage to get my somewhat micro deployments into orbiting
our moon, without the translunar phase taking weeks on end.
-
Brad Guth
Michael Gallagher
wrote:
>Michael Gallagher,
>Thanks for all of the terrific feedback, as well as per the notions as
>having been previously contributed by Terrell Miller that thinks a
>science-fiction book is all that matters.
>
You're welcome, but "Interplanetary FLight" and "Exploration of Space"
are not science FICTION books. They are science FACT. They lay out
the theoretical underpinnings of travelling to the Moon and other
planets -- the REAL underpinnings, not the pile of
incorrect/incomprehensible assumptions you are working from.
"Interplanetary Flight" gives you the actual equations to play with.
That is what you wanted, right? A non-NASA source of the underlying
theory? Well, I just aimed you right at it. You want to write it off
as "science fiction," go right ahead. Your loss.
>..... A good 25 years after the NASA/Apollo efforts that supposedly managed
>at accomplishing their goal of getting such a massive payload into
>lunar orbit with merely 63:1, whereas the much newer Clementine
>involved 356:1, while having taken a good 3 weeks (nearly 10 fold
>longer) in order to get that relatively small package into lunar orbit
>(apparently for going the long way around and taking ten fold longer
>per deployment requires 5.65 times more energy per tonne than what had
>been accomplished 25 years earlier and in one tenth the time, sure why
>the hell not).
>
>Clementine Flight Plan (1994)
>January 25 Launch (16:34 UTC)
>February 3 Leave Earth Orbit
>February 5 First Earth Flyby
>February 15 Second Earth Flyby
>February 19 Enter Lunar Orbit
>
I admit I do not know a lot about the Clemintine mission. But it was
not primarily a lunar missions. It was a collaboration of NASA and
SDIO to test technologies for the now-defunct Strategic Defense
Initiaive. After photogrpahing the Moon, they wanted it to "target"
an asteroid, but IIRC, a technical problem eliminated that.
Four years after Clemintine, NASA launched the Lunar Prospector:
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/profile.cfm?Sort=Advanced&MCode=LunarPr&Target=Moon
As your can see, it took only four days to get to the Moon, and it was
launched on a solid-fuled Lockheed Martin launcher. Why get there
quicker? Because it was going there quicker.
The same thing happened with Voyager and its successors, Galileo and
Cassini. Why did it take the latter two mission longer to get to
Jupiter and Saturn than Voyager? Because we didn't have a booster big
enough to do it (more or less), so they spent years playing "planetary
pinball" in the inner solar system, each getting a grvity assist by
one flyby of Venus and two from Earth; Cassini also got an assist from
Jupiter, and IIRC, at the time, both it and Galieo sent back
observations. But the point is they didn't go directly to the target.
The same is true of Clemintine. It took a while to get to the Moon
because they took "the scenic route."
>Titan 23G direct route escape payload is merely 230 kg, thus we're
>talking as bad off as 652:1
>
>I'm fairly certain that for the extra payload and/or of going for the
>moon requires the small but extremely powerful Star-37 solid rocket
>motor as third stage.
>
>5.4.7: Solid motors / Star-37 SRM
>http://planet4589.org/space/book/lv/engines/kick/motors.html
>TE Star 37 impulse/1584 kn Fuelled mass/620 kg
>
>NASA/Apollo (believe it, or else you'll get nuked)
Nuked? I doubt it. In fact, I'd worry about someone who was worried
about that.
>Saturn-V liftoff mass: 3,038,500 kg.
>Payload into lunar orbit: 48,500 kg.
>That's w/o SRB/SRM at merely 62.65:1
>Cutting the launch mass and cutting your supposed payload as placed
>into lunar orbit is still offering a good 64:1
>
The Saturn V's frist stage engines each developed 1.5 million pounds
of thrust, fir a grand total from five engines of over 7.5 million
pounds of thrust, and more than the 5.9 million pounds of thrust
developed by two SRBs in the Shuttle stack (eac is about 2 million).
Plug those numbers in.
>US Expendable Launch Vehicle Data for Planetary Missions
>http://www1.jsc.nasa.gov/bu2/ELV_US.html
>
>With all of this new and improved information that my three remaining
>dyslexic brain cells are having to cope with such need-to-know
>information ....
If it was need to know, you probably wouldn't know it.
> ..... I'm not exactly certain as to what sort of actual tonnage
>the NASA/Apollo missions accomplished at getting into lunar orbit.
Look up the mass of the Apollo CSM and LM. There's your answer.
>Of course, if you'd care to insist that such was doable exactly as your
>NASA/Apollo Koran scriptures have to tell us .....
It's not a question of believing any scriptures, Brad. Reality is as
follows:
1. Apollo went to the Moon and landed men there, as stated in history
books. The Moon Hoax Conspiracy theories have already been debunked a
million times over.
2. You are totally, absolutely, categorically wrong. I can't be any
more adamant than that without descending to the level of a personal
attack. But the amount you are WRONG about WRT Apollo is matched only
by the amount of history you've had to rewrite to keep your house of
cards from falling down. You want to call me snookered, fooled,
blast me for being In On It, go right ahead. It doesn't change the
reality that you are wrong. The material I've pointed you at will
show you what's right. You don't want to use it or you prefer to
dimiss it, that's your problem.
Brad Guth
Thanks much for all the educational feedback. I appreciate it very
much.
The mostly SRB/SRM assisted launch and having accomplished the
deployment of Lunar Prospector at merely 158 kg within 4 days is more
like it.
According to "Astronautica / Athena-2" as having total Mass of 120,700
kg / 158 kg (via Wikipedia) is merely a 764:1 accomplishment as of
1998, thus merely 30 years after the Saturn-V slug w/o benefit of SRBs
nor SRMs is certainly taking the rocket/payload ratio in the right
direction, that is if you'd take 764:1 at 33% extra time as long for
getting there as supposedly being better off than 64:1.
>Look up the mass of the Apollo CSM and LM. There's your answer.
I've certainly been there, done that. At nearly 47t, I believe it's
still an impressive 64:1 accomplishment that transpired in roughly 3
days days, thus 33% faster than Lunar Prospector's 4 days worth of
translunar achievement.
Are you still that certain your 1) and 2) are on a viable track, or is
my math of better than 64:1 verses your Lunar Prospector at 764:1 what
I think it is?
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
That's simply not at all true. Just look at what Michael Gallagher has
provided in the way of what he honestly thinks as having supposedly
outperformed the Saturn-V by way of the Lunar Prospector mission being
nearly 1/12th as good of rocket/payload ratio (actually it's a whole
lot worse yet because of taking 33% longer). This following is what
I'd subsequently contributed as my reply;
-
According to "Astronautica / Athena-2" as having total Mass of 120,700
kg / 158 kg (via Wikipedia) is merely a 764:1 accomplishment as of
1998, thus merely 30 years after the Saturn-V slug w/o benefit of SRBs
nor SRMs is certainly taking the rocket/payload ratio in the right
direction, that is if you'd take 764:1 at 33% extra time as long for
getting there as supposedly being better off than 64:1.
>Gallagher; Look up the mass of the Apollo CSM and LM. There's your answer.
I've certainly been there, done exactly that. At nearly 47t, I believe
it's still an impressive 64:1 accomplishment that transpired in roughly
3 days days, thus 33% faster than Lunar Prospector's 4 days worth of
translunar achievement.
I needed to ask Gallagher; Are you still that certain your 1) and 2)
are on a viable track, or is my math of better than 64:1 verses your
Lunar Prospector at 764:1 what I think it is?
-
Perhaps you've got somewhat better rocket-science (aka translunar
stinger) than Michael Gallagher, that'll get my microsatellites of 10
kg each into orbiting extremely close to the lunar deck, say starting
in at 25 km.
-
Brad Guth
Dr John Stockton
16 Jan 2006 18:59:15 remote, seen in news:sci.space.policy, Terrell
Miller <mill...@bellsouth.net> posted :
>John Stockton wrote:
>>>Brad, ACC was an aeronautical engineer long before he started writing
>>>science fiction, and he's written a mixture of both in his long publishing
>>>career.
>
>>Untrue.
>
>>(1) He started writing science fiction while still at school, before he
>>was 16; I have a copy of a story by him which was published in the month
>>of his 20th birthday.
>
>sorry, poetic license on my part. He wrote sf but didn't publish any until
>after the war.
The month of his 20th birthday was December 1937 - well before we, let
alone the US, entered WWII.
>>(2) Was he ever really an aeronautical engineer? IMHO, the term does not
>>really fit his wartime work, for example. OTOH, he was an amateur
>>astronautical engineer before WWII, i.e. in the late Thirties.
>
>you be the judge:
>
>http://www.lsi.usp.br/~rbianchi/clarke/ACC.Biography.html
> ...
All well-known, and from more reliable sources.
> ...
>During World War II, as a RAF officer, he was in charge of the first radar
>talk-down equipment, the Ground Controlled Approach, during its experimental
>trials.
GCA is at best on the fringes of aeronautics.
>The first story Clarke sold professionally was "Rescue Party", written in
>March 1945 and appearing in Astounding Science in May 1946.
"Sold professionally" is not the same as "writing" or "published".
I think your source may be confusing "John W Campbell" with the somewhat
wider SF sphere; and/or counting only publication in the Western
Hemisphere. Read "Odyssey" (NMcA) and "The Collected Stories" (ACC).
Brad Guth
at least robotically and then eventually onto the somewhat testy
earthshine illuminated deck.
There's simply not a great deal of spore populated dust that'll have
survived the trauma of having coexisted within the nearly cosmic vacuum
of space, unless having been contained sufficiently deep within solids
(including ice). There have been ESA affilated notions and even a
sufficient degree of soft-science pointing out that a stiff solar wind
could manage to deposit already tuff little Venus spores as is, roughly
each and every 19 months (+/- a week or so). After all, at those times
when Venus is just a bit further off than 100 fold the distance to our
moon, whereas a modest solar wind of just 400 km/s is good for a spore
delivery within 27 hours, whereas doing the math on a bad solar day
gets downright interesting as to wondering, just how long might a Venus
spore or even a diatom manage to hold it's little breath?
However folks, what's all the freaking big deal (not to mention spendy,
time consuming and having been responsible for polluting our
environment from the very get-go), about such an itsy bitsy STARDUST
satellite collection of star and comet dust?
As forwarded by Andrew Yee
Stardust parachutes to soft landing in Utah with dust samples from
comet
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.news/browse_frm/thread/f6f4f9f1c733edfc/77b889dd776d603c#77b889dd776d603c
Actually, our extremely nearby moon is by far offering us the best ever
star-dust and/or comet-dust catcher in the neighborhood. Our moon is
nearly a perfect cosmic morgue that has supposedly been around for
quite some time, and it even accommodates a thick layer of an extremely
low surface tention (meaning soft and fluffy for meters on end) bed of
bone-dry dust of it's very own to start with. In addition to having
collected vast amounts of local and distant star-dust, plus more
comet-dust than you can shake a fist full of flaming sticks at, it is
also providing itself as a darn good meteor catcher, cosmic ray catcher
and solar infused sucker of the sorts of nasty influx having given
birth to absolute loads of secondary/recoil radioactive elements to
boot. Most likely hosting a good amount Uranium which continually
gives birth to the decay elements of Radium(Ra226 and Ra228), that ever
since has been reproducing the likes of Radon(Rn222) gas by the tonnes
per day if not by the hour.
Somewhere sufficiently deep within our moon are likely to be discovered
sealed geode pockets containing a salty brine, or at least the
sequestered solids of salty remainders of what had once upon a time
been a direct result of the extremely thick saltwater-ice covered
surface. Too bad we still haven't established squat worth of anything
sub-surface or upon the dusty-surface, or even so much as sufficiently
nearby orbiting science instruments telling us a damn thing about the
local environment, of whatever minerals or other viable elements of
what our extremely nearby moon has to offer. However, it seems that I
have created a sufficiently cheap and quick fix for that.
First of all, I'm not actually the all-knowing wizard/messenger from
hell that's being Mr. anti-NASA/Apollo for sport. I'm just being the
best soul that I can at returning the warm and fuzzy favor, especially
upon those less than kind individuals and downright narly agencies
responsible for all the decades of our perpetrated cold-war(s), and
otherwise with all of my warmth and affection on behalf of having to
return the favor to all those LLPOF ruse/sting rusemasters of the
century that are related to pulling off the task of our supposedly
walking upon our moon (that could be a rather neat trick if you haven't
the means by which to get there in the first place, at least not any
where close to the nearly 47t worth, along with an unproven
fly-by-rocket lander just for making astronaut life a little more
sporting).
BTW; I'm into building upon yet another one of my new and hopefully
improved topics, that as for the moment is less stalked and summarily
bashed than most of my previous efforts that clearly get run amuck by
the mainstream status quo and gauntlet of their flak. Check out this
new and improved topic, and please do bother yourself to contributing
whatever's sufficiently on-topic, or of whatever's "credential" worthy
by way of your high standards and accountability upon such important
matters.
Compact Translunar Rockets for Microsatellites
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.history/browse_frm/thread/bd4191ba33248c64/3e6dfada18d1d671?hl=en#3e6dfada18d1d671
This next part is merely an extract of what I've replied to Michael
Gallagher, as having been contributed within this following topic
that's supposedly overloaded with the sorts of certified "credentials"
up the kazoo that yourself and most others of your brude should admire;
8 Reasons Why Going Back to the Moon Is Loony by MARGARET WERTHEIM
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/3dde2f877e3e4153/296e6f054bce2653?lnk=st&q=brad+guth&rnum=3&hl=en#296e6f054bce2653
According to "Astronautica / Athena-2" as having total Mass of 120,700
kg / 158 kg (via Wikipedia) is merely a 764:1 accomplishment as of
1998, thus merely 30 years after the Saturn-V slug w/o benefit of SRBs
nor SRMs is certainly taking the rocket/payload ratio in the right
direction, that is if you'd take 764:1 at 33% extra time as long for
getting there as supposedly being better off than 64:1.
>Gallagher; Look up the mass of the Apollo CSM and LM. There's your answer.
I've certainly been there, done exactly that. At nearly 47t, I believe
it's still an impressive 64:1 accomplishment that transpired in roughly
3 days days, thus 33% faster than Lunar Prospector's 4 days worth of
translunar achievement.
I need to ask; Are you still that certain your 1) and 2) are on a
viable track, or is my math of better than 64:1 verses your Lunar
Prospector at 764:1 what I think it is?
-
Brad Guth
Michael Gallagher
><<>Gallagher; Look up the mass of the Apollo CSM and LM. There's your answer.
I've certainly been there, done exactly that. At nearly 47t, I believe
it's still an impressive 64:1 accomplishment that transpired in roughly
3 days days, thus 33% faster than Lunar Prospector's 4 days worth of
translunar achievement.
I need to ask; Are you still that certain your 1) and 2) are on a
viable track, or is my math of better than 64:1 verses your Lunar
Prospector at 764:1 what I think it is?>>
Brad, I have no idea what those ratios mean, and even if I did, they probably aren't relevant to the issue.
I do recall that Prospector spent some time in parking orbit before heading TLI. It might have been for a day; I don't remember. But whatever correlation you think you've made is irellevant. Your math, in other words, is absolutely meaningless.
The only ratio I know of that's of any importancce is the mass of the vehicle fueled:dry weight of the vehicle, and that only becomes important when you talk about SSTO. And that is also explained in the books I mentioned, which also explain how staging overcomes that. I read "Exploration of Space" from cover to cover when I was 13 years old. No math of the kind you've posted is mentioned at all.
Your figures are neither right nor wrong; your figures mean absolutely nothing.
Brad Guth
>and even if I did, they probably aren't relevant to the issue.
of your supposed rocket-science and other smarts, that you have
absolutely no freaking idea or viable notions as to what the rocket
liftoff mass per payload mass ratio is all about, or how it could
possibly be related to this argument of whatever it takes for quickly
getting 47t into orbiting our moon. How about you give me a break.
>whatever correlation you think you've made is irellevant
>Your figures are neither right nor wrong; your figures mean
>absolutely nothing.
Is that another typical batch of those MI6/NSA~CIA scripted responses?
Are you and of your santimounious naysay of damage-control even for
real?
If you can't manage to come down to my common level of honesty, don't
expect myself to beg my way up to your pagan brown-nosed high and
mighty wizard of Oz status quo.
As to that "No math of the kind you've posted is mentioned at all" is
exactly what I've meant by way of having been on a need-to-know (aka
taboo/nondisclosure) basis, whereas the most direct and usable numbers
that might make those NASA/Apollo missions look a wee bit phony baloney
are merely excluded, like so much other that has been excluded from the
official mainstream publications, and otherwise sequestered as far away
as possible from the public media. You're just like my sometimes
friend William Mook, whereas if it's not something within his CIA World
Fact Book it either doesn't exist or simply doesn't count for squat.
If you plan upon keeping this sort of nonsense up, in no time at all
I'm going postal all over your sorry but otherwise apparently
dumbfounded butt.
-
Brad Guth
William Mook
I don't know what propels Brad, but I do know what propels rockets and
what the ratios mean and his use of them is confusing at best.
Propellant fraction can be rewritten as mass ratio;
1/(1-u) = MR
So, if u=0.5 (50% propellant fraction) mass ratio MR=2,
if u = 0.7 (70% propellant fraction) mass ratio MR = 3.33_
So, that's a relevant ratio.
Propellant fraction is related to final velocity of a rocket propelled
vehicle by the rocket equation;
Vf = Ve * LN(1/(1-u))
Where Vf = final velocity
Ve=exhaust velocity
LN(...) = Natural Logarithm
u= propellant fraction
Now, we need to discuss Ve.
Ve - the exhaust velocity - is the speed at which exhaust products exit
a rocket engine. This can be related to specific impulse (Isp) by;
Ve = Isp * g0
Where: Ve = exhaust velocity
Isp = specific impulse (given by propellants used)
g0 = acceleration at Earth's surface (9.82 m/s/s)
So, if we have an Isp = 450 seconds which is typical of the propellants
used by the Apollo Saturn V upper stages, then the exhaust velocity is
4.419 km/sec.
If we have an Isp = 325 seconds which is typical of the hypergolic
propellants used by the Proton, then the exhaust velocity is 3.919
km/sec.
If we have an Isp of 200 seconds which it typical of solid rockets,
then we have an exhaust velocity of 1.964 km/sec
Now all of these things work together to achieve a rocket system of a
given performance.
So, say we want to achieve a velocity of 10.85 km/sec - which is needed
for a translunar injection. Sure, we can shave this by a few tenths of
a km/sec if we are prepared to add a day or two to the mission, which
is cool with a robotic probe, but uncool for a piloted ship, because
the ship has to carry provisions for that extra day, which usually
cancels the advantage!
But setting aside the astrodynamics for a minute, lets keep our focus
on the rocket equation and see how performance of the rocket changes
the size and propellant fraction of the rocket;
So, say we have three rocket systems and we want to design a rocket
with each of them capable of achieving 10.85 km/sec final velocity.
Here they are;
Solid: Ve = 2 km/sec
Hypergolic: Ve = 3.5 km/sec
Cryogenic: Ve = 5.0 km/sec
Nuclear: Ve = 9.0 km/sec
Our rocket equation tells us;
Ve = Vf * LN(1/(1-u))
And we fill in the unknowns for each system;
Solid: 10.85 = 2.0 * LN(1/(1-u))
Hypergolic: 10.85 = 3.5 * LN(1/(1-u))
Cryogenic: 10.85 = 5.0 * LN(1/(1-u))
Nuclear: 10.85= 9.0 * LN(1/(1-u))
Now we re-arrange everything to solve for u;
u = 1 - 1/EXP(Vf/Ve)
Solid: u = 1 - 1/EXP(10.85/2.0) = 0.9956 --> MR = 227:1
Hypergolic: u = 1 - 1/EXP(10.85/3.5) = 0.9550 --> MR = 22.20:1
Cryogenic: u = 1 - 1/EXP(10.85/5.0) = 0.8858 --> .MR = 8.76
Nuclear: u = 1 - 1/EXP(10.85/9.0) = 0.7005 --> MR = 3.34
Now, you will see immediately that these ratios are far smaller than
the ratios Brad bandies about.
What's up with that?
Well, this equation is for a single stage vehicle. Typically
multi-stage vehicles are used. And you have to do a sequence of
calculations like I did with my Saturn V analysis.
Why use more than one stage?
Well, there's the pesky issue of STRUCTURE. You have to account for
the tanks, the equipment, the engines, and airframe - and when you do
that, its hard using 1960s technology to get structure fraction below
15% or so.
Using advanced 21st century materials it might be possible to get
structure fraction below 8% or so with cryogens. This is what the
whole SSTO program was about. Easy to get down to 5% or less if you're
using solids or hypergolics. Of course the proton uses 1950s
technology - with updates.
Anyway, assuming a structure fraction of 15% throughout means, even if
we carry no payload whatever, we can't get a propellant fraction above
85%. What do we do about that?
Well, we don't have to carry all that structure with us when we don't
need it. We can throw it away. So, we need big ass engines to get off
the ground, but as we burn off propellant, we can toss those big
engines away and use tinier engines, to propel the remaining propellant
further! That's why rockets that have to go faster than about twice
their exhaust speed - come in stages.
Using stages changes the overall mass ratio because the propellant has
to carry the stages part of the way through the speed changes that are
going on with the payload.
How fast can a single stage go; that's an interesting question - well,
plug in u=0.85 into the rocket equation and see that its 1.897 times
the exhaust velocity of the rocket propelling the stage
Solid: Vf = 2.0 * LN(1/(1-0.85)) = 3.79 km/sec
Hyper: Vf = 3.5 * LN(1/(1-0.85)) = 6.64 km/sec
Cryo: Vf = 5.0 * LN(1/(1-0.85)) = 9.49 km/sec
Nuc: Vf = 9.0 * LN(1/(1-0.85)) = 17.07 km/sec
Solids and hypergolics can have a smaller structural fractiono than
cryogenics and nuclear rockets since the hypergolic and solid rockets
are simpler to work with and have simpler propellant requirements.
If we substitute an appropriate fraction for each type we can get a
combined equation that's interesting;
TYPE best best
Solid s=0.05 --> u = 0.95, Ve=2.0
Hyper: s=0.08 --> u = 0.92, Ve = 3.5
Cryo: s=0.15 --> u = 0.85, Ve = 5.0
Nuc: s= 0.24 --> u = 0.76, Ve = 9.0
So, a single stage with zero payload with best engineering for each
propellant type achieves a final velocity of;
Solid: Vf = 5.99 km/sec
Hyper: Vf = 8.84 km/sec
Cryo: Vf = 9.49 km/sec
Nuc: Vf = 12.84 km/sec
Anyway the differences in payload size, performance, transit times, and
all the rest, are easily explained by a clear understanding of the
issues involved.
Michael Gallagher
>explanation or rocket science<
Thanks for your explantion, William. I'd known the general ideas but not the math. Thanks
for filling in the blanks.
Brad probably won't believe it, but thanks.
Brad Guth
Thanks again for all the terrific info that I'll hopefully learn
another thing or two from. BTW; what's "weirder and weirder" about the
truth?
It's rather odd that all of the sudden you're being so informative and
so rocket-science worthy, yet you can't be bothered sharing exactly
what it'll take for getting 100 kg worth of my microsatellites into
orbiting our moon. Obviously the old Athena-2 was capable of 185 kg as
is, with the new and composite improved Athena-2.1 being potentially
worth nearly a full 1,000 kg, making it into a four day (possibly 3 day
Earth-->moon) 125:1 accomplishment.
However, the all-solid SRB/SRM launch as having accomplished the
somewhat speedy deployment of Lunar Prospector at merely 158 kg within
4 days, is perhaps more like 4.5 days if taken from Earth's surface to
lunar orbit, is still sufficiently impressive for a nearly 10t inert
amount of dead mass at liftoff.
That's a 12.3:1 launch ratio of whatever solid-fuel/inert mass, whereas
if composites were to be utilized should easily become worthy of 25:1,
if not best applied composite and multi-stage solid-fuel effort being
worthly of a 50:1 launch ratio.
However, if looking at the for-real point-A to point-B task of our
having deployed the Lunar Prospector represents a 764:1 overall ratio,
that which took 4.5 days in order to have established such from the
surface of mother Earth to getting 185 kg orbiting our moon. Whereas
the Saturn-V w/o SRB/SRM benefit somehow managed to deploy from the
surface of Earth into a much closer lunar orbit as hauling a massive
payload of nearly 47t, and as somehow having supposedly accomplished
that 3-stage task within less than 3 days while utilizing merely a 64:1
overall ratio.
Is it my incredibly piss poor math or, is it something other that's
simply not adding up. Are each and every one of the rantings of
"loote" and "tj Frazir" actually that far out of the ballpark?
Some how the three decades newer and supposedly improved 764:1 as
opposed to the three decades older 64:1 is not adding up to any laws of
physics or even hocus-pocus rocket science that I can uncover. In
other words, the likes of STINGERs simply shouldn't fly, as opposed to
the greater inert mass and compromises of LOX/RP-1 and a couple of
LOX/LH2 stages w/o trajectury benefits of SRBs or SRMs. Even the best
of LOX/RP-1 plus LOX/LH2 along with composite/disposable SRBs can't get
remotely close to the 64:1 ratio as of today, or even of what's planned
on the books for tomorrow. Ariane-5 at the Liftoff mass of 780 tonnes,
as having managed to launch 5 tonnes (.641% of the total launch mass)
worth of payload into geostationary orbits of roughly 36,000 km with
energy to spare. Whereas the maximum liftoff of 795 tonnes accommodates
the potential payload of getting 9.6 tonnes (1.2% of the total launch
mass) into GSO seems fairly impressive enough at 83:1. Although, I'm
wondering if William Mook can share as to how much cut in payload it
has to represent if that Ariane-5 best effort needed to become a
translunar orbit deployment within 3 days, or how about 2 days?
If you have the real things to compare to (aka Lunar Prospector,
Clementine and Apollo), as such you obviously don't have to go through
any such paper Saturn-V analysis or Athena-2 analysis, now do you?
Yet because you're required by penalty of torture if not death to
support your pagan NASA/Apollo perpetrated cold-war, that which
obviously has to include the Saturn-V smoke and mirror portion of your
ruse/sting of the century, whereas such you have no viable options than
to stay the course, or else those MIB are going to physically revoke
your extremely brown-nose status, if not a whole lot worse.
-
Brad Guth
Michael Gallagher
><snip>
Thanks for the postingm, William. I'd known the theory for eyars, but not the math. :o Hopefully, Brad will put it to good use and not dismiss it as "wizardry." His loss if he does.
Brad Guth
likes of the Lunar Prospector and Clementine missions. As to the
Saturn-V/apollo crapolla of their perpetrated cold-war, by way of their
own rocket-science numbers, it's somewhat unlikely they got their whole
9 yards of nearly 50t up to GSO (God forbid, why the hell would you
want to get your DNA parked there?).
So, what portion(s) of the Apollo missions made the roundabout and
returned with all of those terrific Kodak moments as obtained from
lunar orbit?
Are we talking 5t, 10t or perhaps(iffy) 15t ???
-
Brad Guth
Michael Gallagher
wrote:
>
>All I want to learn about is what's the best small/compact configured
>rocket/payload ratio to ride these days, especially if I wanted to see
>that delivery manage to get my somewhat micro deployments into orbiting
>our moon, without the translunar phase taking weeks on end.
>-
Smallest booster available these days would be the Delta 2. It was
used to send Sojurner to Mars, and that rover is smaller than my
microwave oven. Figure on power and retro rockets for landing, that
would probably be the one to go with.
Michael Gallagher
wrote:
>How many rockets w/satellite payloads did ACC manage to create to his
>specifications and thus essentially first hand launch?
>
Well, he laid out the parameters of the geosynchronous orbit which
comsats use today; it's exactly as he predicted. (Years later, ne
noted that he hadn't patented the concept, in an article called "How I
Blew a Billion Dollars in my Spare Time")
>What does his publishing of whatever 'should work' have to do with the
>real thing?
>
When they are based on the laws of physics and play out in reality,
they have everything to do with it.
>.... Where's all of your official NASA reports on each of the total launch
>configurations, of their rocket/payload liftoff mass and time to orbit
>of each and every kg worth of satellite (other than Apollo related) as
>having been individually deployed into orbiting our moon, and certainly
>if you'd care to include terrestrial LEO stuff that's deployed below
>700 km, plus whatever it takes for our having accomplished all of those
>GSO deployments, whereas that sort of rocket/payload info is just
>perfectly fine and dandy as is.
>-
AFAIK, that information is publicly available, but as it is somwhat
involved, may be hard to find. You might not find it at a public
library, for instance. But it's not classified. You should probably
do your search in "space hisory." Whether you agree with what you
read is your problem.
Michael Gallagher
wrote:
>Then where's ACC with regard to what's doable as of today, or even as
>of a decade ago?
>
The formulas in those books are the same ones used today or a decade
ago. To coin a phrase, you can't change the laws of physics. They
are the same now as they were 50 or 100 years ago.
>I'm just trying
>my best to figure out exactly how low of a rocket/payload ratio is
>doable for my lunar microsatellites .....
The rocket/payload ratio is irellevant. Basically, you take the mass
of your payload, figure out where you want to send it, and doing the
math tells you how big the rocket should be. The farther you want to
go, the bigger the rocket. It's the difference between getting a
payload to 17,500 mph to orbit the Earth .... and just under planetary
escape velocity of 25,000 mph, fast enough to head out to the Moon but
slow enough that it slows down and doesn't whip past the Moon into
deep space. See?
> .... Perhaps you'd know of a real
>honest to God rocket-scientist that could share what I'd really like to
>honestly know about .....
They are around here, on this forum, and have tried to explain. Why
don't you listen?
Michael Gallagher
wrote:
>>Michael Gallagher; Brad, I have no idea what those ratios mean,
>>and even if I did, they probably aren't relevant to the issue.
>You've got to be absolutely kidding. Now you're saying that with all
>of your supposed rocket-science and other smarts, that you have
>absolutely no freaking idea or viable notions as to what the rocket
>liftoff mass per payload mass ratio is all about, or how it could
>possibly be related to this argument of whatever it takes for quickly
>getting 47t into orbiting our moon. How about you give me a break.
>
I never claimed to have rocket science smarts. I've followed space
exploration since I was a kid, and I've read a lot about it. I don't
know the math, but I do know the basics. Payload mass/booster mas
ratios never came up anywhere that I remember.
I DO know that the size of the booster depends on where the payload is
going. You want to put a small saellite in LEO, for instance, the
air-launched Pegasus rocket will do just fine. You want to send the
same payload to Mars, you need a Delta 2. It's not a straight ratio
of this-to-that.
>Is that another typical batch of those MI6/NSA~CIA scripted responses?
>
MI6? NSA? CIA? Don't even have their phone numbers.
>Are you and of your santimounious naysay of damage-control even for
>real?
>
Are you for real?
>If you can't manage to come down to my common level of honesty, don't
>expect myself to beg my way up to your pagan brown-nosed high and
>mighty wizard of Oz status quo.
>
Brad, I have tried to be fair and polite. I tried to steer you
towards information that would help you get at the theoretical
underpinnings of rocket science. You want to be paranoid, fine, be
that way.
>As to that "No math of the kind you've posted is mentioned at all" is
>exactly what I've meant by way of having been on a need-to-know (aka
>taboo/nondisclosure) basis .....
It's not on a "non-disclosure" basis, brad. It just means nothing.
It has nothing to do with the mechanics. So it doesn't matter. So
you won't find it anywhere because rocket scientists *simply do not
think about it.*
What matters is not just the mass of the payload but how fast you want
it to go. The New Horizons porbe, for instance, was launched on an
Atlas V and left Earth at 30,000 mph -- well over planetary escape
velocity of 25,000 mph. But would you need as big a rocket if you
wanted to put the same size vehicle in Low Earth orbit at 17,500 mph?
No. You would need a smaller rocket ... which would, logically,
change the ratio you are playing with. But the ratio means NOTHING.
You can't find it anywhere because in all probability, it has nothing
to do with determining the size of a booster for a given mission. The
basic laws of motion, beginning with F=ma, do. Remember that form
highschool?
> ..... If you plan upon keeping this sort of nonsense up, in no time at all
>I'm going postal all over your sorry but otherwise apparently
>dumbfounded butt.
>-
Feel free to killfile me, Brad; I don't care. But let me know where
you live, so that when you decide to go out into a crowd with a
machine gun, I won't be anywhere near you.
>Brad Guth
Michael Gallagher
wrote:
>I believe in whatever actually works, as having been proven by the
>likes of the Lunar Prospector and Clementine missions. As to the
>Saturn-V/apollo crapolla of their perpetrated cold-war, by way of their
>own rocket-science numbers, it's somewhat unlikely they got their whole
>9 yards of nearly 50t up to GSO (God forbid, why the hell would you
>want to get your DNA parked there?).
>
The numbers William posted are the underpinning for what works. You
want to figure out how big a rocket would be required to get Apollo to
the Moon? Plug in the mubers yourself. Want to figure out how big a
rocket you need to get your payloads where you want to go? Ditto.
>So, what portion(s) of the Apollo missions made the roundabout and
>returned with all of those terrific Kodak moments as obtained from
>lunar orbit?
>
>Are we talking 5t, 10t or perhaps(iffy) 15t ???
>-
All of it.
Brad Guth
>> to do with the real thing?
>When they are based on the laws of physics and play out in reality,
>they have everything to do with it.
Michael Gallagher,
Then you're saying, and/or at least suggesting, that ACC had
established the 57:1 ratio within his fly-by-rocket physics for getting
the likes of 51t deployed into orbiting our moon? (somehow I don't
think so, at least not via our rocket-science of the mid to late 60's
wasn't quite that good, nor is that good as of today)
>AFAIK, that information is publicly available, but as it is somwhat
>involved, may be hard to find. You might not find it at a public
>library, for instance. But it's not classified. You should probably
>do your search in "space hisory." Whether you agree with what you
>read is your problem.
I tend to read whatever I can. Just seems rather odd that the likes of
the Steven Pietrobon's LRB upgrade of using that somewhat better off
than all-solid method, especially of h2o2/c3h4o as core instead of his
original h2o2/kero performance
<http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/pub/lrb.pdf> is quite easy to locate
and even somewhat village idiot understandable, as opposed to all of
the need-to-know of hocus-pocus and perpetrated cold-war cloak and
dagger aspects of our NASA (aka MI6/NSA-CIA-->DoD) Apollo fiasco that
simply doesn't seem to add up, that is unless we're talking about 15t
or perhaps as few as 5t making their go around and science recovery
(including those nifty Kodak moments obtained from orbit), which is
still ten fold better off than anything the USSR accomplished.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
on paper as opposed to what has actually been accomplished if you'd
care to exclude the Apollo missions of supposedly taking 51t into lunar
orbit, or at least 51t past LL1.
>> b.g.; What does his publishing of whatever 'should work' have
>> to do with the real thing?
If what yove've previously contribited is still the holy grail status
quo matter of fact:
>When they are based on the laws of physics and play out in reality,
>they have everything to do with it.
Michael Gallagher,
Then you're saying, and/or at least suggesting, that ACC had
established the 57:1 ratio within his fly-by-rocket physics for getting
the likes of 51t safely and somewhat quickly deployed into orbiting our
moon? (somehow I don't think so, at least not via our rocket-science
of the mid to late 60's wasn't quite that good, nor is that good as of
today)
>AFAIK, that information is publicly available, but as it is somwhat
>involved, may be hard to find. You might not find it at a public
>library, for instance. But it's not classified. You should probably
>do your search in "space hisory." Whether you agree with what you
>read is your problem.
I tend to read whatever I can. Just seems rather odd that the likes of
Steven Pietrobon's LRB upgrade of using that somewhat better off than
all-solid method, especially of h2o2/c3h4o as core instead of his
original h2o2/kero performance
<http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/pub/lrb.pdf> is quite easy to locate
and even somewhat village idiot understandable, as opposed to all of
the need-to-know of hocus-pocus and perpetrated cold-war cloak and
dagger aspects of our NASA (aka MI6/NSA-CIA-->DoD) Apollo fiasco that
simply doesn't seem to add up, that is unless we're talking about 15t
or perhaps as few as 5t making their go around and science recovery
(including those nifty Kodak moments obtained from orbit), which is
still ten fold better off than anything the USSR accomplished.
If the "S-IVB was the THIRD stage of the Saturn V. It was a three
stage rocket, not four." thus having no benefit of SRBs at launch and
no such SRM kicker stage seems rather inert massive, thus extremely
impressive for the mid to late 60's of rocket-science that can't be
duplicated nor much less out done by anyone (including ourselves) as of
today.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
>but how fast you want it to go.
pass LL-1 is still a pretty nifty trick that's still
taboo/nondisclosure as all get-out...
>The New Horizons porbe, for instance, was launched on an
>Atlas V and left Earth at 30,000 mph -- well over planetary escape
>velocity of 25,000 mph. But would you need as big a rocket if you
>wanted to put the same size vehicle in Low Earth orbit at 17,500 mph?
>No. You would need a smaller rocket ... which would, logically,
>change the ratio you are playing with. But the ratio means NOTHING.
>You can't find it anywhere because in all probability, it has nothing
>to do with determining the size of a booster for a given mission. The
>basic laws of motion, beginning with F=ma, do. Remember that form
>highschool?
In other words and of whatever hard-rocket-science knowledge that
you've apparently based your entire life upon, whereas New Horizons
having proven once again that perhaps not more than 15t of the
extremely old and badly outdated Saturn-V NASA/Apollo missions made it
into orbiting our moon, if that much.
Oops! If it rocks your mainstream status quo good ship LOLLIPOP, it
isn't going to fly, especially if I'm not into worshiping your pagan
brown-nosed NASA/Apollo cult.
If you want to believe that our government never lies it's sorry butts
off, never perpetrated the cold-war(s) and, that your beloved NASA is
better than unprotected sex, in which case I have nothing that's
suitable for your extremely brown-nosed mindset or just typically
mainstream snookered/dumbfounded soul to ponder.
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
>of your payload, figure out where you want to send it, and doing the
>math tells you how big the rocket should be. The farther you want to
>go, the bigger the rocket. It's the difference between getting a
>payload to 17,500 mph to orbit the Earth .... and just under planetary
>escape velocity of 25,000 mph, fast enough to head out to the Moon but
>slow enough that it slows down and doesn't whip past the Moon into
>deep space. See?
That's absolutely the terrific sort of news that I could use, whereas
then my original 32:1 ratio of what modern day applied rocket to
payload is entirely doable, as for getting a good batch of those 10 kg
microsatellites into orbiting our moon. Although, considering that it
was so much slower while capable of taking the more direct route, I'm
still but wondering as why it took 764:1 for accommodating the Lunar
Prospector? (what the hell were they doing wrong?)
>They are around here, on this forum, and have tried to explain. Why
>don't you listen?
I don't have to listen outside of what you've just stipulated, that
such old and outdated as the inert massive rocket-science was as of 4
decades ago, whereas their better than 60:1 ratio worked like such a
charm that has never been accomplished since. So, let us stick with
what works.
After all, exactly like Lunar Prospector, a batch of these
microsatellites are not hauling DNA, thus having to spend lots more
time within the Van Allen zone of death because of taking the more
direct route, and if need be taking twice as long getting to the moon
isn't a problem, and then because of using the significant payload
advantage of LRBs running on h2o2/c3h4o, plus having the core/2nd stage
of LO2/LH2 and a couple of disposable composite solids should more than
outperform the old and somewhat (aka outdated) inert massive Saturn-V
alternative by at least 2:1.
Lets see, even if we used the old but totally proven 60:1 method is
going to get 51+ tonnes of microsatellites (5,000 of those 10 kg units
plus a mothership) past LL-1 and into orbiting our moon within less
than three days because, of such a robotic mission being able to take
the shortcut directly through the very worse of the Van Allen zone. Of
course we should be able to double upon that performance with the
newest improvements in rocket-science that'll cut the inert/dry mass
nearly if not better than half. Thereby 100+ tonnes should be doable
with not more than a 3200 tonne liftoff mass.
I wasn't exactly planning on doing 5,000 and/or much less 10,000
microsatellites at once, but what the hell, I'll take whatever's
available. A Saturn-V has got to be dirt cheap, especially since the
LXO/LH2 and even the RP-1 fuel is cheap at government wholesale bulk
prices, and otherwise since all the R&D as well as having a 100% safety
record is a done deal.
-
Brad Guth