> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:29:00 -0700
> From: "Ed Schonert"
> Subject: Asteroid Belt First
>
> Thanks for your comments Al, all my arguments seemed
> so "air tight"
> yesterday but began to see the holes myself last
> night:
> On first 08:01:24 AM critique I believe you are
> exaggerating that
> energy to boost waste to Jupiter's orbit will be
> more than that obtained
> generating the waste. I'm hoping someone more
> familiar with the
> orbital mechanics & energy obtained per ton of waste
> generated in
> nuclear reactors will confirm this. You sound like
> typical environment-
> alist who produces figures to prove all nuclear
> power was generated
> at some great total net loss. My intent was a
> "locomotive" nuclear
> powered rocket at the space colony (2.2AU) would
> accelerate load
> of waste toward Jupiter (5.2AU), let it go & return
> itself to colony.
chug the exact answer out, but the delta-v required to
move into a jupiter transfer orbit is quite
significant. It is not so simple a procedure as just
aiming for it and shooting it. Constant course
corrections and adjustments are needed due to external
factors affecting the trajectory. Should you miss
Jupiter, the waste material would go back to where it
came from, such is the nature of an orbit. There is a
reason why all of our probes going out that far have
needed a nuclear reactor.
If you want a layman's view of some of the issues with
putting something into a transfer orbit, look at
Robert Zubrin's book "A Case for Mars" in which he
goes through a scenario for doing what you are
suggesting with Mars as an example though instead of
Jupiter. But it will give you a better insight into
the powers you need.
>
> On second 08:03:16 AM critique I've greatly
> underestimated cost for
> putting the people into orbit. Using the space
> shuttle for a massive
> emigration perhaps we could cram 30 passengers in
> with no allowance
> for luggage/cargo. Also perhaps we could bring the
> cost per launch
> down by a factor of 20 with the great no. of
> launches req'd.
> $500million / 20 / 30 still gives $830,000 per
> person to orbit.
>
> Also on the vast amount of labor req'd in space we
> cannot afford to
> pay emigrants high salaries. They are going to be
> more like religious
> missionaries who commit themselves to serve a few
> years at a bare
> subsistance compensation.
>
> Bottom line is that US Space shuttle fits
> beautifully for a few hundred
> launches (~10 years) with reuse of external tanks to
> bring back water
> from asteroids. After that a replacement like
> Savage's "Byfrost
> Bridge" will be needed (ref. "The Millennial
> Project"). So cheer up!
>
> Hallelujah - Praise Space Settlers ! ! !
>
The shuttle was pushing it trying to make the 5
launches per year required for the ISS. The problem
is, they are getting older and older by the day and
require more and more mantainence in between each
launch. Case in point are the recent woes which
grounded the entire fleet. So a predicted 10 launches
per year I would not count on for the shuttle.
As far as cramming the shuttle with 30 people plus
crew, disregarding even the obvious safety
considerations this brings up, there is just not
enough room in the cargo bay to fit that many people
in a configuration capable of all of them withstanding
the g forces that are experienced during a shuttle
launch. I would suggest going to nasa's website and
pouring over all the data on the shuttle which they
provide. I would then suggest taking just the cargo
bay and making a 3-d model of it and trying to put in
a seating configuration that can hold 30 people. A
quick web search brought the specs for STS-92 launched
in 2000 which has the STS manual detailing its
subsystems you should be aware of:
http://www.shuttlepresskit.com/STS-92/scom.htm
NASA also has a website dedicated to the shuttle which
gives all the specs you can want. You should be able
to goto their website and pull up the url with ease.
Ryan Z
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More