Folks here have suggested that nuclear propulsion is
easier than oxygen generation systems whcih extract
oxygen from water or silicates.
As you may be aware, their is someone at NASA that did an SBIR about four years ago on Exotic Propulsion. I also highly recommend contacting that persons in that field, if you have not aready. His SBIR work is very significant in all this. If I get a chance, I will contact him and another rocket person I now, and ask them if they will join in on this subject. Ha, cfrjlr@... did you get my mail?
Sorry for the typos, everyone, hit send not check
Why cant we use solid boosters. When you get up to o
gravity what use is all that power, your in space now.
use solar power from then on. keep it simple. thanks .
Beachcop51503
> Sorry for the typos, everyone, hit send not check
>
> Joe
>
> >As you may be aware, their is someone at NASA that
> did an SBIR about four years ago on Exotic
> Propulsion. I also highly recommend contacting that
> persons in that field, if you have not aready. His
> SBIR work is very significant in all this. If I get
> a chance, I will contact him and another rocket
> person I now, and ask them if they will join in on
> this subject. Ha, cfrjlr@... did you get my mail?
> >
> >Joe Russo
> >
> >>
> >>Folks here have suggested that nuclear propulsion
> is
> >>easier than oxygen generation systems whcih
> extract
> >>oxygen from water or silicates.
> >>
> >>I would point out that nuclear rockets are
> presently vaporware. That means a significant
> capital cost will be involved to qualify and debug
> them. The capital cost of nuclear rockets might be
> about the same as the capital cost of getting oxygen
> extraction plants working.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >--
> >
> >Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and
> great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of
> buying online with Shop@...
> >
> >Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account
> >
> --
>
> Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and
> great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of
> buying online with Shop@...
>
> Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account
>
< as for solid rocket motors. they can be used in a
lot of applications. even keeping gasses down. also
they are a proven method. over and over again. if you
want to keep cost down , why cant we use boosters. let
me know what you think. I have sonme booster
expierence from NASA , Thanks from the beachcop51503.
>
> Folks here have suggested that nuclear propulsion is
> easier than oxygen generation systems whcih extract
> oxygen from water or silicates.
>
> I would point out that nuclear rockets are presently vaporware.
That means a significant capital cost will be involved to qualify and
debug them. The capital cost of nuclear rockets might be about the
same as the capital cost of getting oxygen extraction plants working.
vaporware and would require a much larger significant capital cost to
qualify and debug.
king_rodent (putting the eek in geek)
>
> The infrastructure to mine either lunar or asteroidal water is also
> vaporware and would require a much larger significant capital cost to
> qualify and debug.
>
I really do not know, and it is certainly not obvious.
Does anybody have any numbers either way ?
It would be nice to have numbers broken down by
recurring cost and non-recurring cost.
Has anybody actually tried to do some proper quantitative
cost analysis for the two alternatives ?
Cheers,
Charles R.
Dan,
delete as much as possible.
> Why cant we use solid boosters. When you get up to o
> gravity what use is all that power, your in space now.
> use solar power from then on. keep it simple. thanks .
> Beachcop51503
I agree. Chemical rockets, e.g. solids, are well proven
and quite adequate for getting us to LEO. Nukes might
give a cost reduction, but most folks here agree that
they are too dangerous to use in Earth's atmosphere.
The discussions of nukes versus oxygen really relates to operations in Earth orbit and beyond, not for
initial launch.
> In a message dated Tue, 20 Nov 2001 1:58:53 AM Eastern Standard
Time, king_rodent@... writes:
>
> > The infrastructure to mine either lunar or asteroidal water is
also
> > vaporware and would require a much larger significant capital
cost to
> > qualify and debug.
> >
> Maybe, maybe not.
>
> I really do not know, and it is certainly not obvious.
>
> Does anybody have any numbers either way ?
>
> It would be nice to have numbers broken down by
> recurring cost and non-recurring cost.
>
> Has anybody actually tried to do some proper quantitative
> cost analysis for the two alternatives ?
equivelant to a manned Mars shot. Ballpark costs are going to be in
the tens of billions of dollars... minimum. A Nuclear Thermal Rocket
design, test and validation would be an order of magnitude cheeper, a
few billion dollars at the most.
king_rodent (putting the eek in geek)
>
> A manned lunar or asteroidal water mineing mission would be cost
> equivelant to a manned Mars shot. Ballpark costs are going to be in
> the tens of billions of dollars... minimum.
capabilities and technology (including Delta-IV, Shuttle, and/or Soyuz
launches) are about $2 billion. Both the Artemis project (a few years
back) and a recent NASA Johnson plan came up with pretty similar
numbers. Now we'd probably really want to do something more substantial
than just land some people for a few days, but that's the rough base
price. Tens of billions is a significant over-estimate, though I'm sure
NASA could find a way to spend that much if that was the budget...
Arthur Smith (apsmith@...
>
> A manned lunar or asteroidal water mineing mission would be cost
> equivelant to a manned Mars shot. Ballpark costs are going to be in
> the tens of billions of dollars... minimum. A Nuclear
continuous human presence simply for this purpose.
=======
Thermal Rocket
> design, test and validation would be an order of magnitude cheeper, a
> few billion dollars at the most.
>
Missions to Mars (manned or unamnned) are generally more expensive than missions to the Moon or NEO asteroids.