Page 5 of 7 [ 103 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

12 Aug 2011, 11:27 pm

The envronmentalists will never approve of Vasimir because it requires plutonium which could be disastrous if there is a launch failure.



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

12 Aug 2011, 11:33 pm

Even if this Stone Aerospace actually launched in 4 years it would be a test. There is no market for fuel in orbit and no gas stations to store it.

There are a lot of power point plans for space. Skepticism is warranted until someone flies.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

12 Aug 2011, 11:38 pm

simon_says wrote:
Even if this Stone Aerospace actually launched in 4 years it would be a test. There is no market for fuel in orbit and no gas stations to store it.

There are a lot of power point plans for space. Skepticism is warranted until someone flies.


Yeah exactly. All they have said is 'operations to begin'. That doesn't at all mean suddenly they'll be up and running in Shackleton Crater in 2015. That would be pretty nice though but it is not a realistic goal and I think they are aware of that. A lot of things can happen that could prevent their plans going to fruition, unfortunately.


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

12 Aug 2011, 11:43 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
The envronmentalists will never approve of Vasimir because it requires plutonium which could be disastrous if there is a launch failure.


Uh, what? No, the Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket propulsion system does not require plutonium. If they wanted to use an exothermic decay thermocouple power-plant, that's already been done back a few years ago with one of the Jovian space probes, but the propulsion system itself does not require plutonium. Are you trying to mimic me in what I have said about environmentalists and nuclear propulsion? If so, that's getting real old real fast.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

12 Aug 2011, 11:45 pm

Vigilans wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Even if this Stone Aerospace actually launched in 4 years it would be a test. There is no market for fuel in orbit and no gas stations to store it.

There are a lot of power point plans for space. Skepticism is warranted until someone flies.


Yeah exactly. All they have said is 'operations to begin'. That doesn't at all mean suddenly they'll be up and running in Shackleton Crater in 2015. That would be pretty nice though but it is not a realistic goal and I think they are aware of that. A lot of things can happen that could prevent their plans going to fruition, unfortunately.


Quite unfortunately, like with how things went for the Space Island Group. I really wish things would finally get moving rather than stalling forever.



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

13 Aug 2011, 12:17 am

You mean to tell me that Vasimr can make Mars in 30 days with solar power?



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

13 Aug 2011, 1:53 am

androbot2084 wrote:
You mean to tell me that Vasimr can make Mars in 30 days with solar power?


250 days or so as far as I can tell. The propulsion system is used only in space, after the initial usage of chemical thrusters to get it past Earth's escape velocity. The thrusters themselves are low yield yet high efficiency providing a constant acceleration. I do not know what the power-plant of the ships may be but even if they used nuclear decay batteries it would be nothing new to space travel and nothing in violation to any treaties. If environmentalists want to whine, then let them suck vacuum for all I care.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

13 Aug 2011, 7:19 am

androbot2084 wrote:
The envronmentalists will never approve of Vasimir because it requires plutonium which could be disastrous if there is a launch failure.


A minor change to the laws and the viros can go screw themselves.

ruveyn



Abgal64
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 408

18 Aug 2011, 7:14 pm

I have constructed a highly alternate Earth where humans, as of 2011 CE, have cites of over a million on Titan, Venus, Europa and Ceres and smaller cities on Mars, the Moon, Triton, Callisto, Umbriel, Io and in the Trans-Neptunian Objects, while they sent out a huge asteroid starship with over 300,000 people to Proxima Century a few years ago. This is all made possible by a united humankind and D-D fusion power.

Now, for the real world, I think, until fusion power comes along, the best solution for space travel is to use nuclear thermal rockets: They are capable of exceeding Earth's escape velocity and they are over twice as efficient as the best chemical rockets. In the inner solar system, solar thermal rockets could make cheap hauls between asteroid mines and Earth, but for most things, nuclear thermal is the way to go.

Easier than a space elevator is a space fountain, as it would be cheaper to make (though it would require a constant source of power input.) Until then, to get supplies into space from Earth, I suggest using cheap, disposable rockets in the manner of the Chinese and the Russians. And use in-situ resources as much as possible.

For a first colony, I suggest the Venusian cloudtops for their Earth-like temperature and pressure via the use of vacuum aerostat floating cities. Solar power would be superb on Venus, while power could easily be stored in molten carbonate fuel cells hanging beneath the aerostats so that the near surface heat of Venus would eliminate the need to use energy in heating the molten carbonate fuel cells. For materials, one could simply use nuclear or solar thermal rockets to haul mined Near Earth Asteroids' resources to low Venusian orbit and bring them down to the cities via a cheap glider of some sort. Also, the carbon in the Venusian atmosphere would be useful for making nanotubes and the sulfuric acid would be useful for industrial processes.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 Aug 2011, 8:08 pm

Abgal64 wrote:
I have constructed a highly alternate Earth where humans, as of 2011 CE, have cites of over a million on Titan, Venus, Europa and Ceres and smaller cities on Mars, the Moon, Triton, Callisto, Umbriel, Io and in the Trans-Neptunian Objects, while they sent out a huge asteroid starship with over 300,000 people to Proxima Century a few years ago. This is all made possible by a united humankind and D-D fusion power.

Now, for the real world, I think, until fusion power comes along, the best solution for space travel is to use nuclear thermal rockets: They are capable of exceeding Earth's escape velocity and they are over twice as efficient as the best chemical rockets. In the inner solar system, solar thermal rockets could make cheap hauls between asteroid mines and Earth, but for most things, nuclear thermal is the way to go.

Easier than a space elevator is a space fountain, as it would be cheaper to make (though it would require a constant source of power input.) Until then, to get supplies into space from Earth, I suggest using cheap, disposable rockets in the manner of the Chinese and the Russians. And use in-situ resources as much as possible.

For a first colony, I suggest the Venusian cloudtops for their Earth-like temperature and pressure via the use of vacuum aerostat floating cities. Solar power would be superb on Venus, while power could easily be stored in molten carbonate fuel cells hanging beneath the aerostats so that the near surface heat of Venus would eliminate the need to use energy in heating the molten carbonate fuel cells. For materials, one could simply use nuclear or solar thermal rockets to haul mined Near Earth Asteroids' resources to low Venusian orbit and bring them down to the cities via a cheap glider of some sort. Also, the carbon in the Venusian atmosphere would be useful for making nanotubes and the sulfuric acid would be useful for industrial processes.


Welcome yet another new user interested in responding to my threads.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

18 Aug 2011, 9:48 pm

Abgal64 wrote:
I have constructed a highly alternate Earth where humans, as of 2011 CE, have cites of over a million on Titan, Venus, Europa and Ceres and smaller cities on Mars, the Moon, Triton, Callisto, Umbriel, Io and in the Trans-Neptunian Objects, while they sent out a huge asteroid starship with over 300,000 people to Proxima Century a few years ago. This is all made possible by a united humankind and D-D fusion power.

Now, for the real world, I think, until fusion power comes along, the best solution for space travel is to use nuclear thermal rockets: They are capable of exceeding Earth's escape velocity and they are over twice as efficient as the best chemical rockets. In the inner solar system, solar thermal rockets could make cheap hauls between asteroid mines and Earth, but for most things, nuclear thermal is the way to go.

Easier than a space elevator is a space fountain, as it would be cheaper to make (though it would require a constant source of power input.) Until then, to get supplies into space from Earth, I suggest using cheap, disposable rockets in the manner of the Chinese and the Russians. And use in-situ resources as much as possible.

For a first colony, I suggest the Venusian cloudtops for their Earth-like temperature and pressure via the use of vacuum aerostat floating cities. Solar power would be superb on Venus, while power could easily be stored in molten carbonate fuel cells hanging beneath the aerostats so that the near surface heat of Venus would eliminate the need to use energy in heating the molten carbonate fuel cells. For materials, one could simply use nuclear or solar thermal rockets to haul mined Near Earth Asteroids' resources to low Venusian orbit and bring them down to the cities via a cheap glider of some sort. Also, the carbon in the Venusian atmosphere would be useful for making nanotubes and the sulfuric acid would be useful for industrial processes.


To put a brief point on it, you have written fiction.

In the real world all we have overhead is ISS sh*t-can alpha which flies in a uselessly low orbit.

ruveyn



Abgal64
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 408

18 Aug 2011, 10:10 pm

That is why I was thinking of how we could get beyond low Earth orbit, at least to the planetary stage.



Scandium
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 784
Location: Orange County, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Cluster

18 Aug 2011, 10:20 pm

I don't think we have the technology or the resources to make a floating research station on Venus. I think we should study Europa. We already know it has water on it (not necessarily as a liquid, though).



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Aug 2011, 6:28 am

Abgal64 wrote:
That is why I was thinking of how we could get beyond low Earth orbit, at least to the planetary stage.


Scandium wrote:
I don't think we have the technology or the resources to make a floating research station on Venus. I think we should study Europa. We already know it has water on it (not necessarily as a liquid, though).


You two know each other from elsewhere? And androbot2084 probably as well?



Abgal64
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 408

19 Aug 2011, 10:03 am

Scandium wrote:
I don't think we have the technology or the resources to make a floating research station on Venus. I think we should study Europa. We already know it has water on it (not necessarily as a liquid, though).
That would be a great idea... if we had fusion power. If there is easy to mine Uranium on Europa, then it would be an obvious choice; however, Venus, being in the Inner Solar System, is far easier to get to.

I have worked on Europa as well, and in my constructed world its ocean's oxygen rich waters support a genetically modified pond smelt fishery fed by Earth chemoautotrophs as well as waste products from the hothouse farms above.

Europa makes sense once we get fusion power but until then, I think Venus makes the most sense. Of course, it would be great to study Europa just for research now as it is before building a colony there.

@iamnotaparakeet: No, we do not know each other.



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

19 Aug 2011, 11:41 am

We already have fusion power. Its called nuclear pulse propulsion. Carl Sagan proposed an interstellar mission to get rid of the worlds nuclear weapons. This is a mission we can't afford to pass up.