Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: MicroBalrog on December 31, 2008, 07:46:04 AM
-
SpaceX to NASA: Don't 'Fly Russian'
Irene Klotz, Discovery News
Dec. 30, 2008 -- NASA has committed nearly $2 billion to a California start-up intent on breaking the status quo for launching cargo into space. Come January, SpaceX will see if the U.S. government is prepared to take the next step and buy into a plan for launching people into orbit as well.
Once the shuttles are retired in 2010, NASA plans to buy rides for astronauts traveling to the space station from Russia, which sells a three-person craft called Soyuz.
NASA's most recent contract with Russian space officials covers transportation and training for three astronauts to and from the space station, as well as a small amount of cargo delivery and return, for $141 million.
SpaceX founder Elon Musk says he expects to be able to fly seven astronauts to the station for about $100 million -- and have a ship that can stay behind to serve as an emergency escape vehicle to boot.
"It just seems insane to be sending cumulatively billions of dollars to the Russians at a time when we desperately need those dollars in the United States," Musk said in an interview with Discovery News.
SpaceX plans to begin petitioning Congress and the Obama administration in January for an additional $300 million to $400 million investment in his Dragon spacecraft. NASA earlier this month agreed to spend $1.6 billion on 12 cargo versions of Dragon to keep the space station resupplied after the shuttles are retired. The contract follows an earlier investment of $278 million in seed funds.
NASA also is developing its own rocket-launching system as part of a new exploration initiative called Constellation to ferry crews to and from the moon, as well as the space station. The spaceships, however, will not be ready until 2015 at the earliest, five years after the shuttle fleet's retirement.
Musk says because Dragon is designed to be parked at the space station it already is rated to the standards NASA uses for human spacecraft.
"It's really only the ascent phase (including an escape system) and the descent phase where additional work is needed," Musk said. "We already are required to carry biological cargo from the space station and return it to Earth -- things like plants and rodents and various life science experiments."
If the government is prepared to move quickly, Dragon could be ready to transport its first crew to the station in 2011, Musk added.
The company would match the government funds with its own $300 million investment.
"The alternative is NASA spend $70 million approximately a seat on the Soyuz, and if you have six to eight astronauts going to station a year, you're talking about a half-billion dollars per year going to the Russians for several years. In the meantime, all the manned spaceflight people who are at the Cape (Cape Canaveral, Fla., where the country's primary space launch site is located) are getting decommissioned because there's no manned spaceflight taking place," Musk said.
"The logic just seems overwhelming," he added. "It just seems like a no-brainer to me."
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/12/30/spacex-nasa-russia.html
Micro Sez: Glorious, glorious SpaceX! Forward!
-
"The logic just seems overwhelming," he added. "It just seems like a no-brainer to me."
Unfortunately, Congress is immune to logic.
-
"It's really only the ascent phase (including an escape system) and the descent phase where additional work is needed," Musk said.
:laugh: :laugh:
That is what lacking on the spacecraft I have in my garage also. :D
-
:laugh: :laugh:
That is what lacking on the spacecraft I have in my garage also. :D
I was thinking the same thing... :|
-
"It's really only the ascent phase (including an escape system) and the descent phase where additional work is needed,"
When I get this one done and one more and I will have two =D
-
Is this the SpaceX whose test vehicles keep exploding?
Sorry, the Russians have been doing it for a long time, and we pay them. That's free enterprise at work.
"It's really only the ascent phase (including an escape system) and the descent phase where additional work is needed," Musk said.
We could offer you ham and eggs, if only we had some eggs. And if we had some ham to go with the eggs.
Sounds like the vapor isn't only in the fuel system there, guy.
-
Where is Salvage 1 when you need it?...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvage_One (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvage_One)
-
In actuality, SpaceX had multiple successful tests, too. Don't you worry. That baby is going to fly.
-
In actuality, SpaceX had multiple successful tests, too. Don't you worry. That baby is going to fly.
One failure of a manned spacecraft is too many. They'll need to have hundreds of flights before they're rated for manned spaceflight.
I still think the company is the opposite of Scaled, and is vaporware. Dude, on one of their launches that didn't just blow up completely, the first stage sep HIT the second stage bell and caused an unrecoverable oscillation. They don't have their s__ together and won't for a long time.
-
One failure of a manned spacecraft is too many.
So I presume the Soyuz and Space Shuttle need to go, too?
-
Yeah, expecting zero losses in a space program is completely unrealistic. We can't even get zero losses when developing aircraft, let alone spacecraft, which is inherently more dangerous.
Also, stating that they are nothing but "vaporware" because they lost a few rockets is just as unrealistic. NASA and the Soviets went through similar issues, and they had the full funding of their respective governments behind them along with the best and brightest scientists the world had seen. Any upstart working on a shoestring budget is going to have similar issues.
-
They've launched four rockets.
Two blew up. The third had a timing error that caused a stage to hit the engine and take it completely out of control. They blew a DoD satellite and a NASA package to tiny bits.
Their fourth launch got up, but nobody will let them fly anything. All they flew was a test article.
I think the company's just running on borrowed time. Scaled already has the contract with Virgin, they're the future.
-
There are three dozen private space start-ups out there. Why is that one company 'the future'?
-
They've launched four rockets.
Two blew up. The third had a timing error that caused a stage to hit the engine and take it completely out of control. They blew a DoD satellite and a NASA package to tiny bits.
Their fourth launch got up, but nobody will let them fly anything. All they flew was a test article.
I think the company's just running on borrowed time. Scaled already has the contract with Virgin, they're the future.
You ever take a look at NASA's early tests? Their first attempt, the Vangaurd TV3, rose a few feet off the ground, stopped, fell over and exploded. And their success rates, even when they did get it right - with the Explorer I missions and the Jupiter C rockets - they still managed to screw up every third or fourth launch, with many planned payloads never reaching orbit.
And again, this was with government money greasing the wheels and a lot of damn good scientists.
One in four is not that bad for a non-government effort, given the enormous monetary and intellectual investment that is necessary in order to achieve orbit. If this stuff were easy, there wouldn't be so few countries with spaceflight capabilities.
-
Their shtuff is a little more together than you think, they just integrated their 9 engine model today, which should launch rather soon.
-
There are three dozen private space start-ups out there. Why is that one company 'the future'?
There's something to be said for having video of manned spacecraft in successful operation, not just CG renderings of what they'll have "someday".
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scaled.com%2Fprojects%2Ftierone%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Fvideo%2F14p_1b.jpg&hash=0aa56d50369d4fe56a0cdfd9dd9717b3dfdee52c)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scaled.com%2Fprojects%2Ftierone%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Fvideo%2F14p_apogee.jpg&hash=f67b99ced93e0202815bc69527b0e7352fbeeca1)
-
There's something to be said for having video of manned spacecraft in successful operation, not just CG renderings of what they'll have "someday".
Don't let black sky and the curvature of the Earth fool you, there's a HUGE difference between sub-orbital flight and achieving orbit. The engineering challenges, dynamic loads etc., to reach escape velocity are orders of magnitude different.
If it weren't, the x-15 program would have become the basis for America's manned space program, and not the rockets. Nor would the Space Shuttle have been such an enormous money sink. Making spacecraft out of airplanes is a false economy for all but the first few miles of the flight, or if you're only going sub-orbital. Once you're out of the atmosphere, every bit of aerodynamic structure is wasted mass-fraction that could have been fuel or payload.
Don't get me wrong, Rutan and the people at Scaled Composites are geniuses, but "Spaceship"One (my quotes) and the Virgin/SpaceshipTwo project are really just a media relations stunt to keep the money rolling in. Although that tells me this means they're more than just engineering geniuses. =)
I'd lay 10-1 odds that when Rutan gets serious about getting into space, what actually makes orbit looks nothing like an aircraft. And he's already done rocket/capsule style designs back when NASA was first casting about for concepts for the CEV/Orion/Constellation system or "Son of Apollo" to replace the wasteful Shuttle.
-
Didn't someone design and test a vertical take-off and launch vehicle back in the 90's?
-
Didn't someone design and test a vertical take-off and launch vehicle back in the 90's?
If you mean the DC-X, it didn't work out well.
Yeah, it looked all Flash Gordon, but...
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F7%2F70%2FDC-XA_first_landing.jpg%2F180px-DC-XA_first_landing.jpg&hash=a6033da50bd3593ac4bc76650cde7d45c84407f5)
It showed its flaws when it fell over and burned.
-
Okay, I remember now. Supposedly the landing gear failed. It was still an interesting concept and different from other ideas.
-
Okay, I remember now. Supposedly the landing gear failed. It was still an interesting concept and different from other ideas.
Yes, a very simple failure, and one that had no bearing on the actual VTOL technology, certain maneuvers, the engines, the flight software, and the streamlined design/build/logistic train that the DCX was a testbed for. It was a huge success for such a shoestring budget.
IIRC, when it fell over on landing and burned, it was already on "gravy time" past it's initial budgeted set of flights. It was never intended to do more than go a few thousand feet up and maneuver, then land. The main point was to prove that a rocket only landing and hover was possible. The DCX was never intended to actually address the challenge of getting a SSTO vehicle with a useful payload into orbit.
IMO, unless there's an unforeseen technological revolution, SSTO launch technology is a dead-end right now, because materials science and the engineering just isn't up to the task of a craft that's light enough, yet strong enough, with enough thrust efficiency to get a useful mass-fraction, of payload vs. ship vs. fuel into orbit. (The Moon and Mars are a different animal though, places the lessons learned from the DCX may pave the way for reusable landers for.)
Multi-stage rockets seem wasteful, and may be from a cost and logistics standpoint, but they confer huge efficiencies in terms of the actual physics of getting a mass into orbit. You get all the earlier stages kinetic energy, but ditch all their mass penalty as soon as they're exhausted.
-
I very much we will see single stage to anywhere, let alone SSTO, until we see working anti-gravity generators.
-
Multi-stage rockets seem wasteful, and may be from a cost and logistics standpoint, but they confer huge efficiencies in terms of the actual physics of getting a mass into orbit. You get all the earlier stages kinetic energy, but ditch all their mass penalty as soon as they're exhausted.
Seems to me that the most efficient solution would be a pure rocket driven payload launched from a high altitude "mother ship" aircraft. =|
-
Seems to me that the most efficient solution would be a pure rocket driven payload launched from a high altitude "mother ship" aircraft. =|
True, however, there must be hidden costs or expenses with this approach, if there weren't, we'd be doing more of that kind of launch already.
You can count the working examples of this approach on one hand. The X-15, Spaceship One, The Pegasus Launcher, and that ASAT missile launched from the F-15 during the 80's. Forgive me if I've forgotten one, but I still have my pinky finger left. =)
And, if you want to be nit-picky, the X-15 and Spaceship One, and the Virgin/Spaceship Two, are only sub-orbital.
Then, if you want to discuss really useful payloads, say like, Space Shuttle, Apollo/Saturn V, Arianne V, Energia-sized ones, the carrier aircraft has to be HUGE. Larger than the current crop of big planes like the B-52, 747, Airbus A380, Antonov, C-5Galaxy etc. And to be a useful first stage, that aircraft also has to fly much higher and faster than any of those examples, while being much larger with more cargo capacity.
The development costs for large aircraft like that are already large, the saving grace is that there's a world market for hundreds, perhaps thousands of them to amortize those costs over the entire commercial air transport and cargo market. (And IMO, the A380 has already screwed the pooch except for the EU subsidizing them...)Such a large, high, and fast launch craft would cost even more to develop, but the demand for them would only be a handful of them.
So I think that while the first stage reusable launcher aircraft concept is attractive initially, when you try to expand it to the larger payloads a space station, Lunar or Mars missions, or the "fourth stage" booster that interplanetary probes and geosynchronous satellites require, you start running into the cost and complexity problems that have made the Space Shuttle such a waste in the first place. The very thing all these X-space systems are trying to get away from. It might work out for a crew-only or small low-earth orbit satellite launcher, but you're going to need to keep spending on traditional boosters in parallel for the larger payloads anyway.
I think it keeps coming back to the idea that there are no "tricks" for getting into space. Regular old KISS rockets seem to be the way to go for now. And maybe pray that large scale carbon nanotube production pans out, and we can make a space elevator someday.
-
Then, if you want to discuss really useful payloads, say like, Space Shuttle, Apollo/Saturn V, Arianne V, Energia-sized ones, the carrier aircraft has to be HUGE. Larger than the current crop of big planes like the B-52, 747, Airbus A380, Antonov, C-5Galaxy etc. And to be a useful first stage, that aircraft also has to fly much higher and faster than any of those examples, while being much larger with more cargo capacity.
The development costs for large aircraft like that are already large, the saving grace is that there's a world market for hundreds, perhaps thousands of them to amortize those costs over the entire commercial air transport and cargo market. (And IMO, the A380 has already screwed the pooch except for the EU subsidizing them...)Such a large, high, and fast launch craft would cost even more to develop, but the demand for them would only be a handful of them.
Yes, but in the long run it would save billions or trillions. Look how long the B-52 and C-130 have been flying.
I think the main problem has been political, at least as far as NASA is concerned. I remember reading somewhere (don't know now if this is true) that the original plan for the shuttle was something air launched, but the up front development costs were so huge that they fell back to "off the shelf" type vertical launch technology. (I've also read that all the 1950s air launch technology was just tossed aside in order to race to the moon :( )
The shuttle, by any reasonable cost and time analysis, has been an unmitigated failure. It has never been "operational" in the true sense of the word, and the per pound cost for payload for the "re-usable" shuttle exceeded multi-stage throw away rockets. :rolleyes:
Given enough time and free enterprise funding, Rutan and Co. are going to get there. Right now they are about where we would have/should have been about 1963 if NASA hadn't started doing the human cannonball approach. By now, we probably would have had routine civilian orbital space stations, "shuttles" to the moon, and trips to Mars.
-
Yes, but in the long run it would save billions or trillions. Look how long the B-52 and C-130 have been flying.
The Space Shuttle was supposed to save billions with it's reusable components too. I think in a nutshell it's that you can't look at a B-52 and decide to make a good air-breathing reusable first stage, make it have twice the payload, twice the operational ceiling, and twice the speed (if any of those doublings is even enough...) and then hope and pray that it would be even ten times the cost.
The problem is that such an aircraft would still have an enormous logistical trail, and need constant inspection and maintenance between each flight. The more you pour into the "up front" development costs of the air-breathing mother craft, you just get uber-expensive bleeding edge technology that needs ever more upkeep. Rutan and Scaled Composites have a good start, but once you re-size the concept to get a multi-person crew into orbit, or a Space Shuttle bay-sized payload, it scales really badly.
I think the main problem has been political, at least as far as NASA is concerned.
We're in absolute agreement there. =|
I remember reading somewhere (don't know now if this is true) that the original plan for the shuttle was something air launched, but the up front development costs were so huge that they fell back to "off the shelf" type vertical launch technology. (I've also read that all the 1950s air launch technology was just tossed aside in order to race to the moon :( )
The earlier 50's and 60's Shuttle on a Shuttle concepts with winged first-stages may well have been worse than the final form the Shuttle took. At least with the External Tank, and SRB's, one fails some step of the refit process, another can be put into it's place. If the Shuttle sucks, why put it on an even bigger one?
The shuttle, by any reasonable cost and time analysis, has been an unmitigated failure. It has never been "operational" in the true sense of the word, and the per pound cost for payload for the "re-usable" shuttle exceeded multi-stage throw away rockets. :rolleyes:
Given enough time and free enterprise funding, Rutan and Co. are going to get there. Right now they are about where we would have/should have been about 1963 if NASA hadn't started doing the human cannonball approach. By now, we probably would have had routine civilian orbital space stations, "shuttles" to the moon, and trips to Mars.
I hope so, I just want any of these ventures to succeed, a few of them to foster even more competition would be even better. As far as "McDonald's on the Moon", it's always been a cart-n-horse problem. There's been a lack of space exploitation due to a lack of cheap launch access, but there's a lack of cheap launch access due to a lack of space exploitation. Round and round we go...
-
Part of where I think they went wrong is making the shuttle a cargo vessel. It's probably a lot cheaper to just blast tonnage into space, without first wrapping in a huge aircraft structure. How often do we need to bring cargo down from orbit ? =|
A little 6 or 8 seat commuter might make some sense.
-
Part of where I think they went wrong is making the shuttle a cargo vessel. It's probably a lot cheaper to just blast tonnage into space, without first wrapping in a huge aircraft structure. How often do we need to bring cargo down from orbit ? =|
A little 6 or 8 seat commuter might make some sense.
Low Earth Orbit and the unhealthy focus on it bears a lot of the blame here. IMHO its probably best to either purchase or just licence Soyuz or Jules Verne for the purpose - they are both (Soyuz especially) proven technology and to waste any more money on what is basically showboating would be as criminal as the switch to LEO originally was. Getting a proper heavy-lift capacity back would allow at least some orbital assembly of craft.
Whats needed is to refocus on manned exploration of the solar system, starting with the moon. If you are going to throw billions and billions of dollars / euros / roubles into space exploration then it really should be aimed at stuff that seizes the imagination. Robots are helpful but they are not the be all and end all of space exploration.
-
Whats needed is to refocus on manned exploration of the solar system, starting with the moon. If you are going to throw billions and billions of dollars / euros / roubles into space exploration then it really should be aimed at stuff that seizes the imagination. Robots are helpful but they are not the be all and end all of space exploration.
I think what is needed is to make it pay for itself. Once we reach the asteroids, it sure as hell will. Many out there are incredibly rich in platinum group metals, and whoever gets there first can stake a claim.
At this rate, China's going to get there first.
-
I think what is needed is to make it pay for itself. Once we reach the asteroids, it sure as hell will. Many out there are incredibly rich in platinum group metals, and whoever gets there first can stake a claim.
At this rate, China's going to get there first.
The Chinese are still (admittedly they have a lot less unknowns to encounter) around where the USSR was in 1965 - they are not that much of a threat now, though if NASA keeps being gutted (Obama was at once stage suggesting a five-year hiatus in the Constellation programme, which would effectively kill the US manned space programme) then they (or a resurgent Russian space programme) will be.
I would also disagree that the belt is that much of a goldmine - it is nowhere near as dense as portrayed in films (all of the trans-belt probes have negotiated it easily). IMHO the planetary bodies will be where the money is made, after all you have an entire world to mine in.
-
The planets might also provide some method of being self sufficient.
-
The Chinese are still (admittedly they have a lot less unknowns to encounter) around where the USSR was in 1965 - they are not that much of a threat now, though if NASA keeps being gutted (Obama was at once stage suggesting a five-year hiatus in the Constellation programme, which would effectively kill the US manned space programme) then they (or a resurgent Russian space programme) will be.
I would also disagree that the belt is that much of a goldmine - it is nowhere near as dense as portrayed in films (all of the trans-belt probes have negotiated it easily). IMHO the planetary bodies will be where the money is made, after all you have an entire world to mine in.
Belt? There's plenty of near-earth asteroids that may well be easier to get to than the Moon. Send sampling probes to those, mine the ones with platinum group metals.
-
Belt? There's plenty of near-earth asteroids that may well be easier to get to than the Moon. Send sampling probes to those, mine the ones with platinum group metals.
Even the closest near-earth asteroids would be considerably more difficult to get to than the Moon, which is after all reasonably close and a reasonably big target.
-
Even the closest near-earth asteroids would be considerably more difficult to get to than the Moon, which is after all reasonably close and a reasonably big target.
The problem with the Moon is that it's somewhat light on the periodic table. A lot of Titanium and silicates. And no tectonic activity to keep churning up the heavier stuff to the surface as on Earth. The great thing of course is what everyone knows, the moon is prime real estate. As they say, "Location, location, location."
Rendezvous with an asteroid is no problem, NASA/JPL already has a great deal of experience with that. I have no idea if anyone's realistically tackled the technical challenge of how to dig, or refine/smelt ore in zero-g. Then, moving either the ore or the asteroid to a commercially lucrative orbit can easily wipe out any profit, or take years of waiting.
It may be possible to send an automated probe that constructs mining and refining facilites out of the asteroid material itself, and/or builds solar panels and an electromagnetic mass-driver to either launch ore pellets back to Earth or wherever it's desired, or act as a rocket to move the remainder of the asteroid itself.
However, now we're talking both pie-in-the-sky technology, and huge sums of money and a long period of time to realize a return on the investment. Also, such an asteroid so outfitted would not only be a mine, but a rather potent weapon. Either the launched ore pellets, or the whole asteroid itself. :|
Although, such high levels of automation, engineering, and materials handling may be post-Singularity technology, so the current crop of economic and military paradigms may not even be applicable anymore.
-
The problem with the Moon is that it's somewhat light on the periodic table. A lot of Titanium and silicates. And no tectonic activity to keep churning up the heavier stuff to the surface as on Earth. The great thing of course is what everyone knows, the moon is prime real estate. As they say, "Location, location, location."
Rendezvous with an asteroid is no problem, NASA/JPL already has a great deal of experience with that. I have no idea if anyone's realistically tackled the technical challenge of how to dig, or refine/smelt ore in zero-g. Then, moving either the ore or the asteroid to a commercially lucrative orbit can easily wipe out any profit, or take years of waiting.
It may be possible to send an automated probe that constructs mining and refining facilites out of the asteroid material itself, and/or builds solar panels and an electromagnetic mass-driver to either launch ore pellets back to Earth or wherever it's desired, or act as a rocket to move the remainder of the asteroid itself.
However, now we're talking both pie-in-the-sky technology, and huge sums of money and a long period of time to realize a return on the investment. Also, such an asteroid so outfitted would not only be a mine, but a rather potent weapon. Either the launched ore pellets, or the whole asteroid itself. :|
Although, such high levels of automation, engineering, and materials handling may be post-Singularity technology, so the current crop of economic and military paradigms may not even be applicable anymore.
The Moon's usefulness will probably be more as a launchpad to the rest of the solar system than a place that gets mined, but even so I would wager that it holds more mineral wealth than all the systems asteroids combined. Mars probably holds several orders of magnitude more than that.
As for the technology, mining on a planetary body (asteroid mining is as you note currently pie-in-the-sky) should not be that much more different than it is on Earth for the most part (excepting Venus, Mercury and the gas giants for the moment), nor should refining. Transportation would be the problem - unless you were talking about especially rare or expensive items one cannot imagine at current prices moving the stuff about being worthwhile. It would probably make more sense to use it on site.
As an aside, did you know that Paulson's bailout would have paid for three full Apollo programmes?
;/
-
The Moon's usefulness will probably be more as a launchpad to the rest of the solar system than a place that gets mined, but even so I would wager that it holds more mineral wealth than all the systems asteroids combined. Mars probably holds several orders of magnitude more than that.
As for the technology, mining on a planetary body (asteroid mining is as you note currently pie-in-the-sky) should not be that much more different than it is on Earth for the most part (excepting Venus, Mercury and the gas giants for the moment), nor should refining. Transportation would be the problem - unless you were talking about especially rare or expensive items one cannot imagine at current prices moving the stuff about being worthwhile. It would probably make more sense to use it on site.
As an aside, did you know that Paulson's bailout would have paid for three full Apollo programmes?
;/
Mining on some of the other moons or planets might be easier than Earth in some ways, no pesky Oxygen to screw up your metals. And while mass is mass is mass wherever you go in the Universe (I hope...) everywhere you or a machine can stand in the solar system has lower gravity than Earth, which means machines won't have to lift as hard, and assuming sufficient fuel or energy, launch costs are less too.
Mercury, it's no worse than the Moon if you make some shade, and there's tons of solar power to be had. Venus, making machines last down on the surface is problematic, but OTOH, you have a 900 degree head start on whatever it is you're trying to smelt.
The asteroids have certain economy too. If there are simple ways to refine and smelt ores in microgravity, the launch costs are almost nothing if you're willing to wait. A slug of ore certainly will be patient, it certainly won't spoil. And you can make mylar mirrors of most any size you care to, so perhaps a solar smelter is possible.
And planetary destinations with atmosphere do confer some savings. I see no reason the ore or refined metals couldn't be fashioned into flat aerodynamic frisbee shapes, and aerobraked at Earth, Mars, Titan, or into orbit about any of the gas-giants.
As far as measuring bailouts in Apollo programs... meh. It's fiat money anyway. And an average nickle-iron earth crossing asteroid is worth something on the order of four trillion dollars on the world's metal markets, assuming you can get it to market for less than that. =D
-
Unless the ore is available as rather large nuggets (which seems unlikely), refining is going to have to take place on sight out of sheer necessity. Right now you have to process almost 7 tons of rock to get a single troy ounce of gold, for instance, and you have to go through almost 210 tons to get a troy ounce of platinum. Although platinum exists in higher concentrations on the moon and asteroids, you're still going to have to go through a LOT of rock to get to the metal, and it'd be extremely inefficient to haul all of that rock to earth in order to do smelting.
It'd be easier to do the operation on asteroids, I think, simply because you won't need massive amounts of rocket fuel to get the refined ore back to earth. The moon is a little worse, but due to its low density and proximity to earth it wouldn't be all that bad. Mars would be difficult simply due to it's distance from earth along with its higher escape velocity. Venus I think would be more trouble than it's worth, and require some pretty far out technology.
-
Hrmm. It's a vacuum; all you'd need to do as far as smelting goes is heat the rock to a temperature where the bonds break and keep it there a while until outgassing is done.
Your main heat transfer method out of anything in space is radiative, it'd take far less energy to keep something molten out there than it would on Earth.
-
The moon is a little worse, but due to its low density and proximity to earth it wouldn't be all that bad.
Plus you would have all these neat tunnels when you were done ;)
-
Speaking of tunnels, anyone know how to do the math to figure out how deep a tunnel in Mars would have to be before the atmosphere packed itself in to a habitable level?
-
I was thinking the same thing... :|
-And- while making his "keep those dollars at home" pitch he asks for 300-400 million more in "investment"? Maybe I should be happy that he wants less pork then GM, but, Uhm... no. It turns out I'm not. bk (supports private space development) 425
-
Speaking of tunnels, anyone know how to do the math to figure out how deep a tunnel in Mars would have to be before the atmosphere packed itself in to a habitable level?
At roughly 1% of Earth's atmospheric density, and roughly 1/3rd the gravity, I think the answer is "way deeper than would be worth it".
-
Well, the original thoughtline was that if we're doing massive construction on Mars then we've got some awesome technology by then, and a couple miles/tens of miles deep tunnel could be enough to gain habitable pressure... but oxygenated air would be lighter than the native atmosphere so there's be a little J-hook in the tunnel not unlike a plumbing trap.
You wouldn't even need a door. You'll trap a habitable atmosphere on Mars by gravity alone, and can filter in some outside air for a bank of plants to keep the O2 levels up.
I mean, we already have boring machines here that'll run pretty much indefinitely with enough electricity, and there isn't any geological activity to worry about... if there's groundwater and runoff that's even kind of a plus since it's going to make a natural seal for the habitat. Heh, could even just drop far enough so that standing water wouldn't escape the tunnel and then use the habitat's water supply as both the air seal and the pressurization mechanism.
-
Is there a safe way to use some type of nuclear source to power a space vehicle?
-
Is there a safe way to use some type of nuclear source to power a space vehicle?
What do you think powers the probes? ;)
Radioisotope decay.
Though actual reactors are forbidden by test ban treaties. That's what killed the Orion design, using sequential hydrogen bombs to get to Mars in a couple months tops.
-
Is there a safe way to use some type of nuclear source to power a space vehicle?
Not for launch, but for interplanetary/stellar travel starting from orbit.
actual reactors are forbidden by test ban treaties. That's what killed the Orion design, using sequential hydrogen bombs to get to Mars in a couple months tops.
Are you serious? I thought the "Orion" was the Russian nuclear rocket from "Deep Impact" ???
-
Project Orion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion))
-
I still think the company is the opposite of Scaled, and is vaporware. Dude, on one of their launches that didn't just blow up completely, the first stage sep HIT the second stage bell and caused an unrecoverable oscillation. They don't have their s__ together and won't for a long time.
I would like to say here that SpaceX had a successful commercial launch (http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2009/07/falcon_1_flight.html) yesterday.
-
I agree, SpaceX is coming along nicely.
And when it comes to their failure record, what I look for as a red flag is repeated failures. As long as they're learning, It's good.
And a few more successful launches, their learning curve is orders of magnitude better than either NASA's or Intercosmos's ever was. =)
-
The shuttle, by any reasonable cost and time analysis, has been an unmitigated failure. It has never been "operational" in the true sense of the word, and the per pound cost for payload for the "re-usable" shuttle exceeded multi-stage throw away rockets. :rolleyes:
I wonder how much of that was due to political interference with both the engineering and science . . .
* Various congressmen wanted a space center built on the left coast. NASA spent billions on construction of another shuttle launch complex, which, immediately on completion, they decommissioned. But there were quite a few extra construction jobs for a while out there.
* Woodpeckers started pecking at the tiles on a shuttle. All the bedwetting handwringers in charge couldn't come up with a solution, so they delayed a launch and spent plenty of money on woodpecker abatement programs. (Note that a couple of guys with BB guns would've solved the problem immediately.)
* A Florida company proposed a seamless casing for the SRBs, which would be refilled on the coast and floated down by barge to NASA. This was rejected, as Utah senator Jake Garn (a former astronaut himself) got "rail transportable" written into the requirements. Guess what - Morton-Thiokol (a Utah company) got the contract to make a segmented, rail-transportable SRB. An SRB sprung a leak at a seam, and 73 seconds into takeoff, a shuttle blew up.
* NASA switched to a "green" foam to insulate the fuel tank - a foam that was known to come off in chunks, as reported on NASA's own website. But it was GREEN, so they COULDN'T change back. A chunk hit the heat shield of a shuttle during take off and knocked a hole in an orbiter, and on re-entry . . . scratch another shuttle & crew.
And following the "iceberg principle" (9/10 of an iceberg is below the surface) there's probably a LOT more we'll never hear about.
:mad:
-
Go SpaceX! They have a facility up in McGregor (SW of Waco, TX) where they test the rocket engine configurations. Apparently, whenever they do a night test it scares the crap out of everyone within a few miles. I'd like to drive up there and watch one. :cool:
-
Go SpaceX! They have a facility up in McGregor (SW of Waco, TX) where they test the rocket engine configurations. Apparently, whenever they do a night test it scares the crap out of everyone within a few miles. I'd like to drive up there and watch one. :cool:
That's near my backyard....may have to drive over there and watch the fireworks.... =D
-
"The logic just seems overwhelming," he added. "It just seems like a no-brainer to me."
Seems like a no-brainer to me, too. SpaceX gets the U.S. government to pay for developing and building their delivery vehicles, then SpaceX charges said U.S. governement millions of bucks in taxi fare to catch a ride to the space station.
Yep, it's a no-brainer all right.
-
Seems like a no-brainer to me, too. SpaceX gets the U.S. government to pay for developing and building their delivery vehicles, then SpaceX charges said U.S. governement millions of bucks in taxi fare to catch a ride to the space station.
Yep, it's a no-brainer all right.
And it'll still cost less than the shuttle.