Republicans fully fund Bush's Space Plan

[Lord Zentei]

I see the steps you claimed exist are not quantified as I asked. Why am I not surprised.

The steps I referred to are steadily increasing payloads and altitudes, obviously.

They are courting "commercial activities". They are allying themselves with the Russian space agency.

Semantical bullcrap.

No it is not. "For-profit" enterprises are just that.

You were putting words in my goddamn mouth by claiming I said only NASA was worth supporting.

Well 'scuse me all to hell. I never claimed you said any such thing... Ok, looking at my posts I see I typed "Seriously, though: NASA landed on the moon 35 years ago, and what revolutionary new launch technology have they produced since then (apart from a deeply flawed and decidedly cost ineffective space shuttle)? While I support Bush's space plan, depending on NASA alone for producing cost effective approaches for public consumption may not be such a hot idea.". My mistake. I should not have typed "Nasa alone" I should have said "NASA and other national interests alone" happy now? Still, I can't help but feel that you are picking nits, since claiming that you said only NASA was worth supporting was not the point of my post at all.

And accomplishing nothing new. That's been my point the whole time. There will be no advances on commercial corporation's watches until there's a massive overhaul of the culture, and even then, what needs to happen in the long term(Permenant offworld habitation and the spread of the species), will never happen for profit.

Permenant offworld habitation and the spread of the species was not what I was going for with my reference to Scaled Composites and Mircorp. I just pointed out that there are people that are going into space for profit on the current engines, limited though their ambitions are, and that commercialization may help to push down costs. That is all.

[SirNitram]

I see the steps you claimed exist are not quantified as I asked. Why am I not surprised.

The steps I referred to are steadily increasing payloads and altitudes, obviously.

Which is exactly why I brought up the goddamn Saturn V, especially it's cargo variant.

They are courting "commercial activities". They are allying themselves with the Russian space agency.

Semantical bullcrap.

No it is not. "For-profit" enterprises are just that.

Here we go again. So desperate to shore up your comments you're now ignoring where this thread of conversasion came from. I specifically stated those not courting with NASA or other governmental interests. Because.. Guess what?.. NASA's space program had alot of contracts to commerical groups. The 'Privatization makes things better!' wank brigade obviously don't mean this kind of privatization.

You were putting words in my goddamn mouth by claiming I said only NASA was worth supporting.

Well 'scuse me all to hell. I never claimed you said any such thing... Ok, looking at my posts I see I typed "Seriously, though: NASA landed on the moon 35 years ago, and what revolutionary new launch technology have they produced since then (apart from a deeply flawed and decidedly cost ineffective space shuttle)? While I support Bush's space plan, depending on NASA alone for producing cost effective approaches for public consumption may not be such a hot idea.". My mistake. I should not have typed "Nasa alone" I should have said "NASA and other national interests alone" happy now? Still, I can't help but feel that you are picking nits, since claiming that you said only NASA was worth supporting was not the point of my post at all.

You flaming fucking retard. At no point did I say we have to rely exclusively on national agencies. Again, for your massively inadequete brain:

Corporate interests will not accomplish anything without a massive overhaul of their society, and will never accomplish what needs to happen, Habitation.

I don't know if English is a second or third language for you, but in case it is, you will find no instances of the words 'We must support governmental agencies instead' in that sentence. Take your fallacies elsewhere.

And accomplishing nothing new. That's been my point the whole time. There will be no advances on commercial corporation's watches until there's a massive overhaul of the culture, and even then, what needs to happen in the long term(Permenant offworld habitation and the spread of the species), will never happen for profit.

Permenant offworld habitation and the spread of the species was not what I was going for with my reference to Scaled Composites and Mircorp. I just pointed out that there are people that are going into space for profit on the current engines, limited though their ambitions are, and that commercialization may help to push down costs. That is all.

Yes, they're fucking around with what was accomplished decades ago. Whoopie. When they acheive something NASA hasn't, then you'll have something to crow about.

[phongn]

Even this I doubt. Even regaining the efficiency of the Saturn V, cost wise, would leave this technology massively out of civilian hands. And I see zero commercial attempts to make affordable engines, outside of a few groups trying to court NASA.

I think the problem is that everyone is forced to dick around with puny chemical engines and there's a limit on how efficient we're making them. Atlas V and Delta 4 probably have some of the most advanced engines yet it still costs a fortune to use them. Those are almost purely commerical programs, abliet tailored for government/military purposes first and foremost.

NTRs might help but even those are going to be damned expensive.

[Gil Hamilton]

We wouldn't be sure what sort of effects the EMP would have on the spacecraft's electronics from detonating nuclear devices a couple hundred meters from it until we actually tested the bloody thing. There would of course be a lot of shielding to put it mildly, but even then you're going to have some electronics exposed to the EMP, and since there's been so little testing of the effects of EMP it would be wise to use electronics we know aren't going to be knocked out by it in all locations on the vehicle until we figure out if we have the interior of the spacecraft sufficiently shielded to allow for more advanced electronics or not.

It still wouldn't be viable. They found that Orion couldn't make it into orbit due to air resistance, as was calculated in the fifties and as ignored by Larry Niven because Orion was cool.

[SirNitram]

Even this I doubt. Even regaining the efficiency of the Saturn V, cost wise, would leave this technology massively out of civilian hands. And I see zero commercial attempts to make affordable engines, outside of a few groups trying to court NASA.

I think the problem is that everyone is forced to dick around with puny chemical engines and there's a limit on how efficient we're making them. Atlas V and Delta 4 probably have some of the most advanced engines yet it still costs a fortune to use them. Those are almost purely commerical programs, abliet tailored for government/military purposes first and foremost.

NTRs might help but even those are going to be damned expensive.

Absolutely. As I've mentioned in a few SLAM threads, the capabilities I've found listed for the MITEE-B rocket are obscene(If my calc's are right, you could construct surface to orbit craft with similar mass ratios as modern aircraft), but the price is worse. Tens of millions per engine!

[phongn]

Absolutely. As I've mentioned in a few SLAM threads, the capabilities I've found listed for the MITEE-B rocket are obscene(If my calc's are right, you could construct surface to orbit craft with similar mass ratios as modern aircraft), but the price is worse. Tens of millions per engine!

Meh, that's not so bad.

It still wouldn't be viable. They found that Orion couldn't make it into orbit due to air resistance, as was calculated in the fifties and as ignored by Larry Niven because Orion was cool.

Got a cite, Gil? I'd love to read about that.

And yes, Orion rocks. Some dudes on the 'net made up a hypothetical drawing of Orion, probably horribly inaccurate but meh (link)

[Lord Zentei]

Here we go again. So desperate to shore up your comments you're now ignoring where this thread of conversasion came from. I specifically stated those not courting with NASA or other governmental interests. Because.. Guess what?.. NASA's space program had alot of contracts to commerical groups. The 'Privatization makes things better!' wank brigade obviously don't mean this kind of privatization.

Ok, I was still reflecting on your earlier statement that "no one will go into space for profit on the current engines". My bad.

You flaming fucking retard. At no point did I say we have to rely exclusively on national agencies. Again, for your massively inadequete brain:

Corporate interests will not accomplish anything without a massive overhaul of their society, and will never accomplish what needs to happen, Habitation.

I don't know if English is a second or third language for you, but in case it is, you will find no instances of the words 'We must support governmental agencies instead' in that sentence. Take your fallacies elsewher.

Wow, you really are testy, arent you? Take it easy.

And accomplishing nothing new. That's been my point the whole time. There will be no advances on commercial corporation's watches until there's a massive overhaul of the culture, and even then, what needs to happen in the long term(Permenant offworld habitation and the spread of the species), will never happen for profit.

Yes, they're fucking around with what was accomplished decades ago. Whoopie. When they acheive something NASA hasn't, then you'll have something to crow about.

Indeed. My point the whole time has been that reducing the cost of existing technology is just as important, and corporate interests may help to do so.

[kheegster]

Space elevators, my friends....space elevators .

[tharkûn]

Space elevators, my friends....space elevators

Made from what? The strongest materials I can readily see have moduli only up in the TPa range and are redox reactive in the upper atmosphere. We might be able to make such materials sometime in the near future, but not all that likely.

[tharkûn]

They would still need to expend the massive energy needed to overcome gravity. Conservation of energy doesn't just go away.

That is relatively easy. If you have a conductive cable for your elevator, then you can just run an electric motor. Otherwise you look at powering the the sucker with lasers or some other form of EM radiation.

The energy requirement drops precipitiously compared to a conventional rocket, the rocket has to expend massive amounts of energy to lift its own propellent, only a small fraction of the energy in a modern launch goes into the payload itself. Besides which rocket fuel takes loads of energy to produce and you have inefficiencies in combustion.

The big difference between a rocket and an elevator would be the power requirement. An elevator could climb as slowly as desired so you can work at much lesser power requirements. Further the slow speed of ascent mean you could get away with a far less robust craft, no need to withstand explosive combustion, searing wind resistance, or high g-loads.

And that would be one looooooong ride up...

Absolutely. The length is the major killer here. The length of the cable, even if anchored in space, is such that you are still looking at unholy amounts of shear.

[Knife]

And yes, Orion rocks. Some dudes on the 'net made up a hypothetical drawing of Orion, probably horribly inaccurate but meh (link)

I've never been a big Orion fan. I prefer NERVA, though in recent years, I've become a big M2P2 fan whore, though it really isn't a land to orbit system.

[tharkûn]

With the energy/power thing, I hear NASA is working on using lasers (I think they are xray lasers, but I'm not sure about that) to power the next generation space shuttle. As you said, rocket fuel has lots of mass and eliminating that hurdle would make space flights much more affordable. I'm pretty sure they have completed preliminary testing on very small craft, but they are still having a hard time getting the power to lift a massive ship.

News to me. I wouldn't expect it to work. Rocketry requires quite high power outputs so powering your craft is going to requiring very intense lasers operating continiously, and the energy quickly being converted into some form of kinetic energy to throw propollent out the back. Either NASA has some bloody brilliant photovoltaics generations beyond industry, or the spacecraft isn't going to be going up.

Unless you have force that can counteract gravity without a continious flow of propellent (like friction on a cable); you are going to have a power requirement in the neighborhood of current rockets. You could conceivably deliver more power with nuclear engines, but I just can't see how in hell convert EM into kinetic fast enough, and with enough efficiency, to beat even today's chemical rockets.

[tharkûn]

NASA's website has some information on the laser propulsion. Just do a search on laser propulsion and you can get some information. It sounds nice on the surface, but their studies are showing it to be very impractical. The clouds, for one, absorb much of the energy before it gets to the craft. To achieve affordable space travel, some breakthrough will of course have to be made. What this will be, I have no idea. And I doubt it will come any time soon.

What NASA wants to do is not eliminate propellent, but to use an ultra-high powered laser, and use that to create plasma jets by ablating graphite at the back of a capsule.

The major hurdle there is building the laser. Currently they are running at .5% efficiency which will likely take more energy to lift than the shuttle (scaling up is going to bite you in the ass). The savings would be: graphite is much cheaper than rocket fuel, the exhaust velocities would kick the crap out of chemical combustion, and graphite doesn't require tanks. If you could build a reliable laser that had a long service life and wasn't obnoxious for service costs, this might actuall work. For now you are looking only for proof of concept.

Laser ablation would most likely result in significant savings in the long run, what I thought you were talking about was an airbreathing rocket or laser sailing both of which are completely impractical.

[Admiral Valdemar]

What NASA wants to do is not eliminate propellent, but to use an ultra-high powered laser, and use that to create plasma jets by ablating graphite at the back of a capsule.

The major hurdle there is building the laser. Currently they are running at .5% efficiency which will likely take more energy to lift than the shuttle (scaling up is going to bite you in the ass). The savings would be: graphite is much cheaper than rocket fuel, the exhaust velocities would kick the crap out of chemical combustion, and graphite doesn't require tanks. If you could build a reliable laser that had a long service life and wasn't obnoxious for service costs, this might actuall work. For now you are looking only for proof of concept.

Laser ablation would most likely result in significant savings in the long run, what I thought you were talking about was an airbreathing rocket or laser sailing both of which are completely impractical.

Would this be a ground based laser or one that was carried on the craft and directed at the graphite source?

[tharkûn]

The fuel would be on the rocket, and the energy from the ground laser (or microwave antenna) would shoot up and ignite it, providing the thrust. Some of the problems right now are keeping the craft cool and building the high power laser that can stay in operation for a continued period. The laser itself, though, will be mounted on a mountian

I'm not sure, at the intensities needed to lift off a rocket you might just be dealing with carbon plasma. Keeping the craft cool is the far easier of the problems, building a GW X-ray laser that can burn for several minutes continiously is bloody nuts.

Either we will need major advances in laser technology or major increases in ablation efficiency. Either way planty of room for scientists and egineers to do cool crap.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It still wouldn't be viable. They found that Orion couldn't make it into orbit due to air resistance, as was calculated in the fifties and as ignored by Larry Niven because Orion was cool. :lol:

That's simply not the case. I'll explain why in another post (probably sometime later today), when I have the energy to write it all out, but the Orion Project nor its auditors came up with this conclusion. The project remains quite viable.