Sea Dragon and Augustine`s Mars
SEN...@argo.rhein-neckar.de
Augustine: "Under current plans, as many as 12 Ares V vehicles would
be needed to launch each biannual set of missions." (to Mars)
The launch window to Mars is only a few months. Through how many launch
pads will they squeeze this 12 Ares V?
What about the Sea Dragon?
1 Ares V = 160 t LEO (I am already metric)
12 x 160 t = 1920 t
1 Sea Dragon = 550 t
With 4 Sea Dragons one would get 2200 t to LEO. And without any pad at all!
A Sea Dragon, developed by two competing companies, may even cost less then
already spent on Ares I and V. And each will cost much less then the same
payload by any Ares. And there is no big problem like solving vibrations
or heat load in a small mass budget. The Sea Dragon is the dream of any
engineer, and Ares his nightmare.
It was always said that the Sea Dragon had no mission. Now we have one.
Is US spaceflight today too shy to take big steps their fathers generation
thought in the 1960s?
## CrossPoint v3.12d R ##
Derek Lyons
>SEN...@argo.rhein-neckar.de wrote:
>:And each will cost much less then the same payload by any Ares.
>:And there is no big problem like solving vibrations
>:or heat load in a small mass budget.
>
>Pure paper vehicles are always incredibly inexpensive to use and easy
>to complete. Once you have to actually fly them they get more
>expensive and inevitably have a series of hard problems to solve
>before they're workable.
I wish I could find Rickover's listing of the difference(s) between
paper reactors and real reactors. (It goes along the same lines as
your comparison above.)
Not that many posters here have the wit to understand them.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Rick Jones
> I wish I could find Rickover's listing of the difference(s) between
> paper reactors and real reactors. (It goes along the same lines as
> your comparison above.)
> Not that many posters here have the wit to understand them.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover#Paper_Reactors.2C_Real_Reactors_.281953.29
linking to http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/Rickover.pdf
would that be what you seek?
rick jones
--
I don't interest myself in "why." I think more often in terms of
"when," sometimes "where;" always "how much." - Joubert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
Derek Lyons
>Derek Lyons <fair...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I wish I could find Rickover's listing of the difference(s) between
>> paper reactors and real reactors. (It goes along the same lines as
>> your comparison above.)
>
>> Not that many posters here have the wit to understand them.
>
>http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover#Paper_Reactors.2C_Real_Reactors_.281953.29
>
>linking to http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/Rickover.pdf
>
>would that be what you seek?
That's not the version I recall, but it's close enough.
SEN...@argo.rhein-neckar.de
> :Augustine: "Under current plans, as many as 12 Ares V vehicles would
> :be needed to launch each biannual set of missions." (to Mars)
> :
> :The launch window to Mars is only a few months. Through how many launch
> :pads will they squeeze this 12 Ares V?
> :
> :What about the Sea Dragon?
> :
> :1 Ares V = 160 t LEO (I am already metric)
> :
> :12 x 160 t = 1920 t
> :
> :1 Sea Dragon = 550 t
> :
> :With 4 Sea Dragons one would get 2200 t to LEO. And without any pad at all!
>
> Well, not quite true. You have to assemble and fuel the things
> somewhere and monitor the launch and such the same way. You're going
> to need some really big floaties associated with your launches.
Off shore subliers, some tugs and LNG tankers. But not a nuclear powered
carrier like they thought in the 1960s for processing LOX. You need a
port with an LOX plant or pipeline of course. LNG or kerosene you already
get from ports.
>
> :
> :A Sea Dragon, developed by two competing companies, may even cost less then
> :already spent on Ares I and V.
> :
>
> How do you plan to fuel it? How do you plan to 'stack' it? How much
> flight test are you going to have to do to prove out the designs?
>
After Rusty found the declassified reports of the Sea Dragon ("Liquid
Rocket Plant") I did an review in sci.space.history some time ago. Read
it, the links to the reports are there.
> It's not going to be cheaper...
>
> :
> :And each will cost much less then the same
> :payload by any Ares. And there is no big problem like solving vibrations
> :or heat load in a small mass budget.
> :
>
> Pure paper vehicles are always incredibly inexpensive to use and easy
> to complete. Once you have to actually fly them they get more
> expensive and inevitably have a series of hard problems to solve
> before they're workable.
Sure. But why to start with a Ares family wich shows a lot of serve
problem from the very beginning already in paper state?
> :
> :The Sea Dragon is the dream of any
> :engineer, and Ares his nightmare.
> :
>
> Rhetoric shows the lack of cogent arguments.
Maybe I was not clear enough. If you have a vehicle with a big free mass
budget from the beginning, your engineering work is much easier. In Ares
I (and partly in V) its the thight mass budget was maks the development
difficult and costly. They already cut from the the Orion payload vehicle.
>
> :
> :It was always said that the Sea Dragon had no mission. Now we have one.
> :Is US spaceflight today too shy to take big steps their fathers generation
> :thought in the 1960s?
> :
>
> More rhetoric.
No, the core of the problem! Sea Dragon and manned Mars is much less a
technical problem compared to Apollo in 1963. Its mainly a matter of will.
The USA is big in waging wars today but no longer has the guts for large
technical civil projects. In war you can always call "Mission acomplished".
In a manned Mars flight everyone sees whether you screwed or not. The
people of today no longer realize what balls their fathers had in the
1960s.
SENECA
Eric Chomko
> fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
>
> :Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ::>SEN...@argo.rhein-neckar.de wrote:
>
> :>:And each will cost much less then the same payload by any Ares.
> :>:And there is no big problem like solving vibrations
> :>:or heat load in a small mass budget.
> :>
> :>Pure paper vehicles are always incredibly inexpensive to use and easy
> :>to complete. Once you have to actually fly them they get more
> :>expensive and inevitably have a series of hard problems to solve
> :>before they're workable.
> :
> :I wish I could find Rickover's listing of the difference(s) between
> :paper reactors and real reactors. (It goes along the same lines as
> :your comparison above.)
> :
> :Not that many posters here have the wit to understand them.
>
> Rickover was a pretty bright guy. He was an incredible asshole, but
> very bright.
>
> [I'm not as bright as Rickover, but to make up for it I'm not as big
> an asshole as he is, either.]
That latter is debatable. :)