# 11560 byprometheuspan@... on June 29, 2010, 8:46 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
"Any constructive suggestions?"
we need three main forms of craft.
spaceplanes, low energy small orbital habitats, and asteroid colonies,
in that order. Even lunar and martian colonization are expedited via that path.
I have posted some examples many f which are old and back when i barely knew how to use the program.
This should be an open source design process by now. Maybe you haven't had an engineer or draftsperson yet...i don't know what the hold up is.
I'm only here long enough to determine if this can get lucid.
It isn't. Nt by along shot.
waky waky.
Now. what should I draw?
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Victor Smith" wrote:
# 11561 byvictors@... on June 29, 2010, 8 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Well Pan, I'm not an engineer, and don't know how to use autocad (hell, I can't even draw something recognizable in Paint). But how about low tech. Say we utilize superpressure helium balloons (which maintain the same altitude day and night, unlike conventional types) in an array to hang a big platform at the top of the atmosphere. We use the platform as a spaceport/assembly structure to launch something on the order of the Bigelow Genesis modules (my early thoughts[before I learned of Bigelow] were to lift a cylinder made of alternating layers of kevlar and styrofoam} that has been lifted to the platform using more balloons. From that altitude it should be possible to attain a good orbit using strap on solid fuel boosters like on the shuttle. Hold on to the boosters rather than jettisoning them for further usage once in orbit. Drag from the atmosphere should be negligible at that altitude, so I see no major hurdles to doing it this way, though I'm certain there would be some problems to overcome. It seems to me that this methodology would be inexpensive enough that it could be undertaken by a private consortium. If we made the cylinder big enough, say 50'-60' diameter, we could probably spin it for gravity without experiencing too severe coriolus effects at the inner hull. As I've said, I'm not an engineer, it may not be feasible, but I'd be willing to give it a try if I had the money. Once we're out there, we could, perhaps start salvage operations, gathering some our orbiting halo of space junk. Shuttle main tanks salvaged could be ancillary habitats, perhaps set aside for manufacturing processes, other items could be either recycled for use or simply piled up around the habitat for additional shielding. It doesn't take much of a rocket to maneuver around once you're in orbit, we have several types that might suffice. I mean the reason we're not living in space already is that NASA has to make everything as complicated as possible with triple redundant systems out the yang. Well, that's fine if you happen to be a government beaurocracy with a big budget and a primary aim of self perpetuation, but for us plebes that are motivated to just get us into space in numbers, maybe we're willing to take a few more risks than NASA is in order to bootstrap ourselves to where we want to go.
Vic
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 3:46 AM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] waky waky
"Any constructive suggestions?"
yes. somebody generae some paint sketches forme to take to autocad.
we need three main forms of craft.
spaceplanes, low energy small orbital habitats, and asteroid colonies,
in that order. Even lunar and martian colonization are expedited via that path.
I have posted some examples many f which are old and back when i barely knew how to use the program.
This should be an open source design process by now. Maybe you haven't had an engineer or draftsperson yet...i don't know what the hold up is.
I'm only here long enough to determine if this can get lucid.
It isn't. Nt by along shot.
waky waky.
Now. what should I draw?
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Victor Smith" wrote:
# 11562 byjpowell@... on June 29, 2010, 8:05 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Something like this?
www.jpaerospace.com
--- On Tue, 6/29/10, Victor Smith wrote:
From: Victor Smith
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] waky waky
To: spacesettlers@...m
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2010, 1:00 PM
Well Pan, I'm not an engineer, and don't know how to use autocad (hell, I can't even draw something recognizable in Paint). But how about low tech. Say we utilize superpressure helium balloons (which maintain the same altitude day and night, unlike conventional types) in an array to hang a big platform at the top of the atmosphere. We use the platform as a spaceport/assembly structure to launch something on the order of the Bigelow Genesis modules (my early thoughts[before I learned of Bigelow] were to lift a cylinder made of alternating layers of kevlar and styrofoam} that has been lifted to the platform using more balloons. From that altitude it should be possible to attain a good orbit using strap on solid fuel boosters like on the shuttle. Hold on to the boosters rather than jettisoning them for further usage once in orbit. Drag from the atmosphere should be negligible at that altitude, so I see no major hurdles to doing it this way,
though I'm certain there would be some problems to overcome. It seems to me that this methodology would be inexpensive enough that it could be undertaken by a private consortium. If we made the cylinder big enough, say 50'-60' diameter, we could probably spin it for gravity without experiencing too severe coriolus effects at the inner hull. As I've said, I'm not an engineer, it may not be feasible, but I'd be willing to give it a try if I had the money. Once we're out there, we could, perhaps start salvage operations, gathering some our orbiting halo of space junk. Shuttle main tanks salvaged could be ancillary habitats, perhaps set aside for manufacturing processes, other items could be either recycled for use or simply piled up around the habitat for additional shielding. It doesn't take much of a rocket to maneuver around once you're in orbit, we have several types that might suffice. I mean the reason we're not living in space already is that
NASA has to make everything as complicated as possible with triple redundant systems out the yang. Well, that's fine if you happen to be a government beaurocracy with a big budget and a primary aim of self perpetuation, but for us plebes that are motivated to just get us into space in numbers, maybe we're willing to take a few more risks than NASA is in order to bootstrap ourselves to where we want to go.
Vic
From: pan p
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 3:46 AM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] waky waky
"Any constructive suggestions?"
yes. somebody generae some paint sketches forme to take to autocad.
we need three main forms of craft.
spaceplanes, low energy small orbital habitats, and asteroid colonies,
in that order. Even lunar and martian colonization are expedited via that path.
I have posted some examples many f which are old and back when i barely knew how to use the program.
This should be an open source design process by now. Maybe you haven't had an engineer or draftsperson yet...i don't know what the hold up is.
I'm only here long enough to determine if this can get lucid.
It isn't. Nt by along shot.
waky waky.
Now. what should I draw?
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Victor Smith" wrote:
>
> I'll go along with that. Personally, I expect that Mankind will try every option open to him, both machine and biological. Different strokes for different folks has always held true for Man, and probably always will. Some will choose to go the way of staying 'pure' in the Human biological sense, while others will choose to augment via nanotech or go all mech, and it will all work out as a cultural diversity that will enrich all of Humanity. In the meantime, since none of the above is currently available, we should be bending all our efforts to establishing beachhead settlements in space, be they Lunar, O'neil toruses, rotating tin cans or blow-up habitats based on Bigelows' Genesis modules. This is the PRIMARY need that must be addressed NOW, or it won't do us any good to have life extension by whatever means on an overcrowded energy and resource starved planet. Workable strategies to effect a manned beginning on this goal is what we need to be coming
up with here. Any constructive suggestions?
# 11563 byjpowell@... on June 29, 2010, 8:07 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Lets try that again.
--- On Tue, 6/29/10, John Powell wrote:
From: John Powell
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] waky waky
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2010, 1:05 PM
Something like this?
John Powell
www.jpaerospace.com
--- On Tue, 6/29/10, Victor Smith wrote:
From: Victor Smith
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] waky waky
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2010, 1:00 PM
Well Pan, I'm not an engineer, and don't know how to use autocad (hell, I can't even draw something recognizable in Paint). But how about low tech. Say we utilize superpressure helium balloons (which maintain the same altitude day and night, unlike conventional types) in an array to hang a big platform at the top of the atmosphere. We use the platform as a spaceport/assembly structure to launch something on the order of the Bigelow Genesis modules (my early thoughts[before I learned of Bigelow] were to lift a cylinder made of alternating layers of kevlar and styrofoam} that has been lifted to the platform using more balloons. From that altitude it should be possible to attain a good orbit using strap on solid fuel boosters like on the shuttle. Hold on to the boosters rather than jettisoning them for further usage once in orbit. Drag from the atmosphere should be negligible at that altitude, so I see no major hurdles to doing it this way,
though I'm certain there would be some problems to overcome. It seems to me that this methodology would be inexpensive enough that it could be undertaken by a private consortium. If we made the cylinder big enough, say 50'-60' diameter, we could probably spin it for gravity without experiencing too severe coriolus effects at the inner hull. As I've said, I'm not an engineer, it may not be feasible, but I'd be willing to give it a try if I had the money. Once we're out there, we could, perhaps start salvage operations, gathering some our orbiting halo of space junk. Shuttle main tanks salvaged could be ancillary habitats, perhaps set aside for manufacturing processes, other items could be either recycled for use or simply piled up around the habitat for additional shielding. It doesn't take much of a rocket to maneuver around once you're in orbit, we have several types that might suffice. I mean the reason we're not living in space already is that
NASA has to make everything as complicated as possible with triple redundant systems out the yang. Well, that's fine if you happen to be a government beaurocracy with a big budget and a primary aim of self perpetuation, but for us plebes that are motivated to just get us into space in numbers, maybe we're willing to take a few more risks than NASA is in order to bootstrap ourselves to where we want to go.
Vic
From: pan p
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 3:46 AM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] waky waky
"Any constructive suggestions?"
yes. somebody generae some paint sketches forme to take to autocad.
we need three main forms of craft.
spaceplanes, low energy small orbital habitats, and asteroid colonies,
in that order. Even lunar and martian colonization are expedited via that path.
I have posted some examples many f which are old and back when i barely knew how to use the program.
This should be an open source design process by now. Maybe you haven't had an engineer or draftsperson yet...i don't know what the hold up is.
I'm only here long enough to determine if this can get lucid.
It isn't. Nt by along shot.
waky waky.
Now. what should I draw?
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Victor Smith" wrote:
>
> I'll go along with that. Personally, I expect that Mankind will try every option open to him, both machine and biological. Different strokes for different folks has always held true for Man, and probably always will. Some will choose to go the way of staying 'pure' in the Human biological sense, while others will choose to augment via nanotech or go all mech, and it will all work out as a cultural diversity that will enrich all of Humanity. In the meantime, since none of the above is currently available, we should be bending all our efforts to establishing beachhead settlements in space, be they Lunar, O'neil toruses, rotating tin cans or blow-up habitats based on Bigelows' Genesis modules. This is the PRIMARY need that must be addressed NOW, or it won't do us any good to have life extension by whatever means on an overcrowded energy and resource starved planet. Workable strategies to effect a manned beginning on this goal is what we need to be coming
up with here. Any constructive suggestions?
# 11564 byvictors@... on June 29, 2010, 10:14 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Yes, John something like that. II couldn't find any tech specs for the lifting bodies. Are they superpressure balloons (if so, they are certainly configured differently from any I've seen before) or are they using a different concept? The Dark Sky Station must use something similar to superpressure in order to maintain altitude, but the ascender and orbiter seem differently constructed. With a 5 day climb to orbit, it should be possible to tow, or otherwise convey, a fairly large module as long as the mass is fairly low. That would get a starter hab into orbit. I like it.
Vic
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 3:05 PM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] waky waky
Something like this?
John Powell
www.jpaerospace.com
--- On Tue, 6/29/10, Victor Smith wrote:
From: Victor Smith
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] waky waky
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2010, 1:00 PM
Well Pan, I'm not an engineer, and don't know how to use autocad (hell, I can't even draw something recognizable in Paint). But how about low tech. Say we utilize superpressure helium balloons (which maintain the same altitude day and night, unlike conventional types) in an array to hang a big platform at the top of the atmosphere. We use the platform as a spaceport/assembly structure to launch something on the order of the Bigelow Genesis modules (my early thoughts[before I learned of Bigelow] were to lift a cylinder made of alternating layers of kevlar and styrofoam} that has been lifted to the platform using more balloons. From that altitude it should be possible to attain a good orbit using strap on solid fuel boosters like on the shuttle. Hold on to the boosters rather than jettisoning them for further usage once in orbit. Drag from the atmosphere should be negligible at that altitude, so I see no major hurdles to doing it this way,
though I'm certain there would be some problems to overcome. It seems to me that this methodology would be inexpensive enough that it could be undertaken by a private consortium. If we made the cylinder big enough, say 50'-60' diameter, we could probably spin it for gravity without experiencing too severe coriolus effects at the inner hull. As I've said, I'm not an engineer, it may not be feasible, but I'd be willing to give it a try if I had the money. Once we're out there, we could, perhaps start salvage operations, gathering some our orbiting halo of space junk. Shuttle main tanks salvaged could be ancillary habitats, perhaps set aside for manufacturing processes, other items could be either recycled for use or simply piled up around the habitat for additional shielding. It doesn't take much of a rocket to maneuver around once you're in orbit, we have several types that might suffice. I mean the reason we're not living in space already is that
NASA has to make everything as complicated as possible with triple redundant systems out the yang. Well, that's fine if you happen to be a government beaurocracy with a big budget and a primary aim of self perpetuation, but for us plebes that are motivated to just get us into space in numbers, maybe we're willing to take a few more risks than NASA is in order to bootstrap ourselves to where we want to go.
Vic
From: pan p
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 3:46 AM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] waky waky
"Any constructive suggestions?"
yes. somebody generae some paint sketches forme to take to autocad.
we need three main forms of craft.
spaceplanes, low energy small orbital habitats, and asteroid colonies,
in that order. Even lunar and martian colonization are expedited via that path.
I have posted some examples many f which are old and back when i barely knew how to use the program.
This should be an open source design process by now. Maybe you haven't had an engineer or draftsperson yet...i don't know what the hold up is.
I'm only here long enough to determine if this can get lucid.
It isn't. Nt by along shot.
waky waky.
Now. what should I draw?
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Victor Smith" wrote:
>
> I'll go along with that. Personally, I expect that Mankind will try every option open to him, both machine and biological. Different strokes for different folks has always held true for Man, and probably always will. Some will choose to go the way of staying 'pure' in the Human biological sense, while others will choose to augment via nanotech or go all mech, and it will all work out as a cultural diversity that will enrich all of Humanity. In the meantime, since none of the above is currently available, we should be bending all our efforts to establishing beachhead settlements in space, be they Lunar, O'neil toruses, rotating tin cans or blow-up habitats based on Bigelows' Genesis modules. This is the PRIMARY need that must be addressed NOW, or it won't do us any good to have life extension by whatever means on an overcrowded energy and resource starved planet. Workable strategies to effect a manned beginning on this goal is what we need to be coming
up with here. Any constructive suggestions?
# 11565 byvictors@... on June 29, 2010, 10:16 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
I preferred the full website...the pdf was most helpful. Still no specs, though, unless they're embedded somewhere in the blogs.
Vic
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 3:07 PM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] waky waky
Lets try that again.
http://www.jpaerospace.com/art/dss_block3.jpg
--- On Tue, 6/29/10, John Powell wrote:
From: John Powell
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] waky waky
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2010, 1:05 PM
Something like this?
John Powell
www.jpaerospace.com
--- On Tue, 6/29/10, Victor Smith wrote:
From: Victor Smith
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] waky waky
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2010, 1:00 PM
Well Pan, I'm not an engineer, and don't know how to use autocad (hell, I can't even draw something recognizable in Paint). But how about low tech. Say we utilize superpressure helium balloons (which maintain the same altitude day and night, unlike conventional types) in an array to hang a big platform at the top of the atmosphere. We use the platform as a spaceport/assembly structure to launch something on the order of the Bigelow Genesis modules (my early thoughts[before I learned of Bigelow] were to lift a cylinder made of alternating layers of kevlar and styrofoam} that has been lifted to the platform using more balloons. From that altitude it should be possible to attain a good orbit using strap on solid fuel boosters like on the shuttle. Hold on to the boosters rather than jettisoning them for further usage once in orbit. Drag from the atmosphere should be negligible at that altitude, so I see no major hurdles to doing it this way,
though I'm certain there would be some problems to overcome. It seems to me that this methodology would be inexpensive enough that it could be undertaken by a private consortium. If we made the cylinder big enough, say 50'-60' diameter, we could probably spin it for gravity without experiencing too severe coriolus effects at the inner hull. As I've said, I'm not an engineer, it may not be feasible, but I'd be willing to give it a try if I had the money. Once we're out there, we could, perhaps start salvage operations, gathering some our orbiting halo of space junk. Shuttle main tanks salvaged could be ancillary habitats, perhaps set aside for manufacturing processes, other items could be either recycled for use or simply piled up around the habitat for additional shielding. It doesn't take much of a rocket to maneuver around once you're in orbit, we have several types that might suffice. I mean the reason we're not living in space already is that
NASA has to make everything as complicated as possible with triple redundant systems out the yang. Well, that's fine if you happen to be a government beaurocracy with a big budget and a primary aim of self perpetuation, but for us plebes that are motivated to just get us into space in numbers, maybe we're willing to take a few more risks than NASA is in order to bootstrap ourselves to where we want to go.
Vic
From: pan p
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 3:46 AM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] waky waky
"Any constructive suggestions?"
yes. somebody generae some paint sketches forme to take to autocad.
we need three main forms of craft.
spaceplanes, low energy small orbital habitats, and asteroid colonies,
in that order. Even lunar and martian colonization are expedited via that path.
I have posted some examples many f which are old and back when i barely knew how to use the program.
This should be an open source design process by now. Maybe you haven't had an engineer or draftsperson yet...i don't know what the hold up is.
I'm only here long enough to determine if this can get lucid.
It isn't. Nt by along shot.
waky waky.
Now. what should I draw?
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Victor Smith" wrote:
>
> I'll go along with that. Personally, I expect that Mankind will try every option open to him, both machine and biological. Different strokes for different folks has always held true for Man, and probably always will. Some will choose to go the way of staying 'pure' in the Human biological sense, while others will choose to augment via nanotech or go all mech, and it will all work out as a cultural diversity that will enrich all of Humanity. In the meantime, since none of the above is currently available, we should be bending all our efforts to establishing beachhead settlements in space, be they Lunar, O'neil toruses, rotating tin cans or blow-up habitats based on Bigelows' Genesis modules. This is the PRIMARY need that must be addressed NOW, or it won't do us any good to have life extension by whatever means on an overcrowded energy and resource starved planet. Workable strategies to effect a manned beginning on this goal is what we need to be coming
up with here. Any constructive suggestions?
# 11566 byprometheuspan@... on June 30, 2010, 6:12 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Victor Smith" wrote:
>
> Well Pan, I'm not an engineer, and don't know how to use autocad (hell, I can't even draw something recognizable in Paint). But how about low tech. Say we utilize superpressure helium balloons (which maintain the same altitude day and night, unlike conventional types) in an array to hang a big platform at the top of the atmosphere.
okay, i see a giant torus to connect them and some sort of lightweight mesh launch platform..
--------
Makes sense to me.
Approximately equal to my x2 design concept.
From that altitude it should be possible to attain a good orbit using strap on solid fuel boosters like on the shuttle.
yes... or other options we should review such as ramrockets...
"Hold on to the boosters rather than jettisoning them for further usage once in orbit. Drag from the atmosphere should be negligible at that altitude, so I see no major hurdles to doing it this way, though I'm certain there would be some problems to overcome. "
Negligible drag is a big question, even 1/100th the drag could be a serious issue if you haven't worked out minimal levels of nose cone pointyness.
"It seems to me that this methodology would be inexpensive enough that it could be undertaken by a private consortium. "
well, the creation of the platform would be expensive, but launches thereafter would be significantly cheaper than what we are doing now.
A lot like a space elevator, lots of cost to start up but once its going things get cheaper fast.
If we made the cylinder big enough, say 50'-60' diameter, we could probably spin it for gravity without experiencing too severe coriolus effects at the inner hull. As I've said, I'm not an engineer, it may not be feasible,"
My X2 designs call for a full 100 meters, I have run this past math
gys before and that seems to be around where Coriolis effects become tolerable.
" but I'd be willing to give it a try if I had the money. Once we're out there, we could, perhaps start salvage operations, gathering some our orbiting halo of space junk. Shuttle main tanks salvaged could be ancillary habitats, perhaps set aside for manufacturing processes, other items could be either recycled for use or simply piled up around the habitat for additional shielding. It doesn't take much of a rocket to maneuver around once you're in orbit, we have several types that might suffice."
As long as its a long term stable orbit we don't need to maneuver really at all, at least not at first. Such a station would be larger than the international space station even starting. I like the idea of collecting space junk. Some of it is quite small, but pulling all of those bullets out of orbit seems a good gift to future generations.
Any mass in orbit is precious as it took quite a bit of energy to get it up there.
"I mean the reason we're not living in space already is that NASA has to make everything as complicated as possible with triple redundant systems out the yang."
And pretend that 1970s technology is the best that we have.
"Well, that's fine if you happen to be a government beaurocracy with a big budget and a primary aim of self perpetuation, but for us plebes that are motivated to just get us into space in numbers, maybe we're willing to take a few more risks than NASA is in order to bootstrap ourselves to where we want to go."
I'm not there with you on that, I think triple redundant is a fine way to go and a lot easier using 2010 technology than 1960s technology on steroids. NASAs main problem is that they are a matrix dead end con game, not a space exploration organization. Their mission is to make believe that there are enormous limitations that don't exist in order to give PNAC time to pull together military space domination. In short, its all a scam to keep us out of space, not get us into space.
Just like the oil companies and etc have scammed to keep us driving around in cosmetically redressed 1940s cars now 70 years running.
If you look at the images I posted, some of them are labeled "X2" and that is my design concept for a space blimp.
I would love to hear some more details about the high altitude launch platform you envision and may draw a quick treatment to get things going.
:)