SpaceShipOne

[BJ_M]

great series -- that guy was the only man to ever break the sound barrier without a craft .... i am really suprised he lived -- as they had no idea what would happen (he did get frostbite i seem to recall)

[Doramius]

Hello,

Do a little more in-depth study of the moon and start building on it. See if we can use Moon materials to make things. Then we have a quick-stop at the moon before we head to Mars.

(not to get political here but just a quick reference):
That was what the president (of the US) suggested. Building a base on the moon before going to Mars. Not a bad idea. Get a supply drop and prep in 0G to get going. Than blast off in space. Or have the actuall ship in space so the inital boost wouldn't need to be so big. Then have landers like the lunar landers so the bulk of the ship won't have to be fuel.

Kevin

Now that's what I'm talking about. It's said that it only takes 1/10th the fuel to break away from the pull of the moon's gravity the same way NASA tries to break away from the earth's gravity. SPace Ship One is already in the air before it shoots off into space, and it too already uses 1/4 the amount of fuel in a NASA rocket. Just makes sense.

[MOVIEGEEK]

The only problem is you will still have to transport the fuel to the moon...there's no water(H2 or O2) on the moon let alone benzene,kerosene,etc.I'm for space exploration but we humans are too fragile and require too many resources for long travel.

[Doramius]

What we do is transport items to the moon, via the way of Space Ship One does. We can create an artificial station on the moon (bio-dome) and create food and other such supplies there. There would be very little more that would be required and more spce could be reserved for fuel this way.

[Browncoat]

MOVIEGEEK Posted: Oct 05, 2004 17:16

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The only problem is you will still have to transport the fuel to the moon...there's no water(H2 or O2) on the moon

The 1998 Nasa probe "lunar explorer" detected Hydrogen at the poles and popular theory suggests there is water trapped in the lunar regolith.

[vitualis]

Yes, but creating the moon base itself would be a MASSIVE engineering feat considering we have to bring all the construction materials there with us.

Not to mention that the moon is VERY far away compared to Earth orbit, and realistically, at present we no longer have the means to transport humans to the moon anymore (let alone enough cargo to even start building a base).

Before we can build a moon base, we need a large space station capable of manufacturing. Co-ordinating and lauching materials from space to the moon is much simpler and more cost effective than from the Earth to the moon everytime. Considering the debacle that is the ISS, I don't think we'll be there any time soon.

Regards.

[Browncoat]

vitualis Posted: Oct 06, 2004 02:44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, but creating the moon base itself would be a MASSIVE engineering feat considering we have to bring all the construction materials there with us.

It would be a massive engineering undertaking but most of the raw materials are already there. Hydrogen, Water and Rock which could easily be made into bricks and cement aggregate.

I think it could be done but its probably going to come down once again to the private sector who are willing to take bigger risks.

[vitualis]

Firstly, the amount of water that is on the moon is limited. It probably exists, but not in abundance. I would counter that GATHERING water on the moon and the infrastructure to do so is as big an engineering project as building the moon base.

Secondly, hydrogen is NOT in abundance, except possibly trapped as hydrates in rock. Extractable, yes, but again, doing so at the rate and efficiency required to be useful is a BIG undertaking as well...

As for rocks... Turning rocks into suitable building material is a complex process. It should be noted that metals are scarce on the lunar surface and there is certainly no project I know of that has researched any efficient way of extracting metals out of lunar rock. Again, not to mention that a method of doing so reliably and efficiently is the key. I would again argue that setting up the lunar infrastructure to creating building materials on the moon is as big an understaking as building the moon base itself.

Long before a moon base can be built (and the private sector will only do so if they can do it safely and economically unlike the public sector where funds can be allocated for the sake of research and exploration), there needs to be a sustainable and economical private sector orbiting space station. This in itself would cost billions upon billions to build at present. A low cost reliable orbital cargo transport would make this construction task cheaper, but this does not yet exist and nor is it likely to exist for a while yet.

SpaceShipOne is at present unreliable. This may be addressed quickly, but it may not. The Shuttle has been around for decades and it is "relatively" reliable. However, if a consumer passenger airline had the safety track record of the Shuttle, it would be quickly shut down.

Regards.

[Browncoat]

Heya Vitualis,

I did start my previous post by saying that I agreed it would be a massive engineering undertaking..

One thing though, dont write off human ingenuity. Where there is a will there is a way. We've come a long way in the last hundred years or so and I see big things on the horizon.

As for SpaceShipOne being unreliable.. here is where I must disagree. To be able to turn around and repeat the X-Prize goal in just 4 days is remarkable and surely must be testament to some good measure of reliability. I recall reading that Scaled Composites plans on repeating the flights every week over and over again to demonstrate the reliability you claim it doesnt have. We shall see.

[vitualis]

Nothing would please me more than affordable space exploration and travel (for me!) in my lifetime. However, I feel that unless we develop techniques for human immortality, it will probably not happen.

As for SpaceShipOne, I remember reading of the first flight where there was a serious and unexplained control anomaly. Luckily, nothing went catastrophically wrong.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996490

excerpt... Monday's flight was smooth compared to SpaceShipOne’s flight on 29 September, when the craft spun about 29 times as it soared spaceward, alarming flight controllers.

Regards.

[flaninacupboard]

the anomaly -may- have been pilot error, as they swapped pilots for the second run.

I would also point out that -despite- the problem the craft was bought back under control and still completed it's flight safely. not sure a 747 could do the same after 29 barrel rolls :LOL:

[vitualis]

Look at the above link. The anomaly may have been a whole lot of things. The problem is that they don't know why it happened.

It would be analogous to test driving a new car and for no apparent reason it does a few 360s. Chances are in a test situation nothing will go "seriously" wrong either but if you don't know why it happened, I would consider that a serious reliability problem.

Regards.

[Browncoat]

Have you watched the video of the first X_Prize flight? You can see clearly that the first roll imparts some gravitational forces on the pilot but the subsequent 28 rolls are in zero G and the pilot is taking photos and sight seeing.. clearly not all the bothered.

Anyhow read what Burt Rutan has to say about the rolling motions. They are well and truly on top of their game.

http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/041001_Burt_clarifies_rolling_motions.htm

[Doramius]

The barrel rolls for an aero-vehicle is more closely related to having your wheels spin uncontrollably on a small patch of ice while driving through a large open and empty parking lot. Being that it the only private ship and the air traffic is monitored, I'm sure if the anomaly happens again, they will be able to determine what caused it. Another thing is, It's better to build the moon base first. Scientists and construction engineer's already know it's easier to design and build a sturdy object on a flat and solid surface. It's more expensive to build the floating space station. The building materials will have to be created on earth first and brought to the moon. We do not lack the ability to land on the moon and we have plenty of resources to do so. THey still have 3 complete Saturn Rockets that are basically, just polished in storage along with quite a few lunar landers. In fact the last 2 moon missions placed 2 platforms that future lunar landers can dock and launch from, unlike the first with Eagle. The lunar rover is still on the moon with a fully charged solar battery too. Another interesting tidbit is, the shuttle could land on the moon and be able to break the gravity force with it's own thrusters, and return to earth. It would only need boosters to leave earth. However, the shuttle would need a full refuel in order to leave the moon and return to earth. I think it's totally possible and in a fairly reasonable time, but I think that it's a few years away due to lack of people and NASA trying to initiate the development. Russia put MIR into orbit, and not the US. US was working on Freedom, but that kindda fell through (no pun intended).

[vitualis]

Another thing is, It's better to build the moon base first. Scientists and construction engineer's already know it's easier to design and build a sturdy object on a flat and solid surface. It's more expensive to build the floating space station. The building materials will have to be created on earth first and brought to the moon. We do not lack the ability to land on the moon and we have plenty of resources to do so. THey still have 3 complete Saturn Rockets that are basically, just polished in storage along with quite a few lunar landers.

To suggest that we can use the Saturn V rockets to go back to the moon is actually quite ridiculous. Yes, it is possible but with technology that is 4 decades out-of-date. It is conceivable that we could return to the moon on technology based on the Saturn V but not without significant adaptations and upgrades... if anything, to the SAFETY of the Saturn V.

Furthermore, the Saturn V could only lift a very small payload to the moon. It would take tons of construction material/parts to make a sustainable base. Sustainability is the key. Trips to the moon are a big undertaking while sending supplies to a low orbit station is not (i.e., ISS and Mir). The moon base MUST be much more self sufficient than an orbiting station to be safe.

Another interesting tidbit is, the shuttle could land on the moon and be able to break the gravity force with it's own thrusters, and return to earth. It would only need boosters to leave earth.

But you are missing a HUGE point. The shuttle can't get to the moon. There is no launcher that can send the shuttle there. Speaking of which, the shuttle can't even reach geosynchronous orbit! ... and of course, there is absolutely no way the shuttle can LAND on the moon.

I think it's totally possible and in a fairly reasonable time, but I think that it's a few years away due to lack of people and NASA trying to initiate the development. Russia put MIR into orbit, and not the US. US was working on Freedom, but that kindda fell through (no pun intended).

A moon base is FAR FAR in the future... and personally I doubt very much with the US internal politics that it will happen. It will not be possible for the private sector to make such a huge endevour without a functional space tourism system (which would include low orbital flights and probably some sort of low orbital station, aka, "hotel"). IMHO, the future with continued manned space exploration is with China.

Regards.

[Browncoat]

With the levels of deforestation(is that a word?) we see across the globe and all industrial and automotive emissions pumping into the atmosphere every minute of every day, we need to act now!

If we as a species are to survive the inevitable and fast approaching demise of our planet then we need to be able to survive off-world (Moon, Mars or a big ass space ship).

There are probably those among you think I am alarmist but I reckon if the damage we have already done to our world is not irreversible then that point is not far off.

[yoda313]

With the levels of deforestation(is that a word?) we see across the globe and all industrial and automotive emissions pumping into the atmosphere every minute of every day, we need to act now!

If we as a species are to survive the inevitable and fast approaching demise of our planet then we need to be able to survive off-world (Moon, Mars or a big ass space ship).

There are probably those among you think I am alarmist but I reckon if the damage we have already done to our world is not irreversible then that point is not far off.

Hello,

Careful! That's getting into politics and that doesn't belong here at this site.

I think the main reason for this thread is for actual spacetravel and methods, not the reasons to do so. Just keep it light that's all.

Kevin

(sure there are problems but let's not bring up things that can lead to a political battle )

[Browncoat]

yoda313

Careful! That's getting into politics and that doesn't belong here at this site.

Dude..

Thats not politics. Those are the cold hard facts.

I think it should be well within the purview of this thread to talk about the reasons why space travel is so important.

[yoda313]

yoda313

Careful! That's getting into politics and that doesn't belong here at this site.

Dude..

Thats not politics. Those are the cold hard facts.

I think it should be well within the purview of this thread to talk about the reasons why space travel is so important.

Hello,

Fine, but I just think space is important regardless of earthly reasons. Exploration is a basic human drive. That's all. Besides, it's more fun to talk about what's out there (ie space), than whats here. They need to be dealt with but how it is borders on politics.

I hope the space travel industry helps NASA get more info on reusable technologies. That would be great for prolonging crafts used.

Kevin

[Doramius]

I agree with the fact that Saturn V Rockets are out of date, but we still have the capability to use them. We have several other launchers that eject satellites into space that carry huge payloads. The Shuttle itself can carry large payloads. We wouldn't be able to land the shuttle on the moon right away. We'd essentially have to build the platform first. The Shuttle can pull away from the moons orbit on it's own thrust and wouldn't need a launcher. It would simply thrust in an orbit and then pull out. There's where the payloads will be. You only need to create a lander that can transfer materials from the shuttle to the surface of the moon until a simple airstrip is created. I do agree that all this is a long way off, but no harm in thinking about it now. Also the trip to the moon wouldn't require a stop in between, as there is no need of it. The place where you want exploration is on physical planets. There's not a whole bunch more you can learn once you figure out that space is a huge vacuum. Again, it's easy to make a modification of the Saturn V or make a new rocket and launcher for the abilities we want to use it for. It'll be easier to build on solid surfaces, rather than in open space. In open space you do have to build something in and orbit around a planet anyway or it may move on it's own due to solar or any other type of energy that could push it. This would be fairly devastating. To put a station in earths orbit is kind of redundant when the moon is already there. It's highly doubtful the moon will fall out of orbit and crash into the earth. We've already had satellites and an attempt at a space station fall into the atmosphere and burn up.

[BJ_M]

Space Ship Two announced

The Birth of SpaceShipTwo


by Irene Mona Klotz
Mojave CA (UPI) Oct 5, 2004
The world's newest spaceship is back at its spotless hangar at the Mojave Airport, serving as a backdrop for dozens of television news shows.
The day after its flawless third flight out of the atmosphere - a mission that captured a $10-million cash prize for its owners - it was quiet. Only a handful of the thousands of guests who came to witness the flight remained in town.

Still spanking new, SpaceShipOne has fulfilled its mission, forever retiring the notion that only governments can fly people beyond the atmosphere. Spaceship creator Burt Rutan plans to send his craft to the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum in Washington, D.C., but not before it fulfills one last mission.

The offers to sell sub-orbital spaceflights to government organizations and private agencies and individuals were pouring in even before SpaceShipOne won the $10 million Ansari X Prize competition. Though Rutan and his partner - Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen - would like to make money from their investment, they have something bigger in mind: SpaceShipTwo, a commercial, passenger-carrying spaceliner.

read a lot more about it here

[MOVIEGEEK]

"IMHO, the future with continued manned space exploration is with China."

I seriously doubt that,China has only sent one manned orbiter into space.
I think the future of manned space flight is in the private sector.

[vitualis]

The Shuttle itself can carry large payloads. We wouldn't be able to land the shuttle on the moon right away. We'd essentially have to build the platform first. The Shuttle can pull away from the moons orbit on it's own thrust and wouldn't need a launcher. It would simply thrust in an orbit and then pull out. There's where the payloads will be. You only need to create a lander that can transfer materials from the shuttle to the surface of the moon until a simple airstrip is created.

I think you missed my point. There is no launcher that can send the shuttle to the moon. The shuttle with its existing launcher can only reach relatively low orbits. If we want to put a satellite into geosynchronous orbit, it generally involves putting it in the shuttle and going to low orbit and then boosters on the satellite slowly moving it to the higher orbit.

The shuttle does not have enough fuel to even reach geosynchronous orbit and it hasn't got a chance in hell in reaching the moon.

Space may be one great big vacuum, but the Earth is one great big gravity sink. It takes a LOT of energy to be able to escape Earth orbit.

In addition, an orbital space station has its advantages. Construction is somewhat more difficult but not insurmountable and there is already much work in it already (e.g., ISS). It "falling" out of orbit is not really a concern. Presumable any space station will have some degree of altitude thruster control. The difficult with a moon base is simple the distance. It is damn far to shuttle things too and from the moon.

A low orbital station is definitely the first step (e.g., ISS) but even more interesting would be a geosynchronous station. Even more interesting still, would be a station at L4/L5 (Earth-Moon) -- a large station here would make sending space probes extremely easy as you don't have to "lift off" a planetary body at all AND the station is in a stable position.

I seriously doubt that,China has only sent one manned orbiter into space. I think the future of manned space flight is in the private sector.

China has a full space program with the intention of sending a "teikonaut" to the Moon. Somehow I see China getting a man on the moon long before a private enterprise does so.

Regards.

[Doramius]

The shuttle is not trying to go into orbit around the moon or earth. The problem I see you looking at is the straight up firing of the shuttle with boosters. We have old technology that can get us to the moon. We have old technology that can carry payloads into space. We can get a ship into space without having to use booster rockets. It's not going to be hard to make something that can carry a large payload to the moon. The moon is not THAT far away. It only takes about 3 days to get into orbit of the moon and land. It only takes around 2 days to get back, and that's with common boosters instead of dropping a ship right into high altitudes. As for sending space probes, an L4/L5 station would be great for sending probes, but what else does that do? We're still going to have to send food and supplies to the crew on the floating station. It would be one massive station and take a lot longer to come up with all of the technical points to put it in place. Putting it on the moon takes a heck of a lot of time out of planning and makes it easier for construction. IMO the moon would be the better first step. A bio-dome can be created there and would be easier to grow many of the supplies, and faster, leaving minimal supplies required to be sent. It's lower gravity will make it easier than trying to launch sattelites and probes from earth. A floating space station is like creating a satellite/moon and then building on it. Why create the whole thing when you can save effort and use what already exists. I think private development is what going to cause that to happen. I think China will make it into space quite often in the future, and probably before a private enterprise, but I doubt they are going to creep up very fast, overall. It won't be very long after a private enterprise will be on the moon. A lot of China's space technology was stolen from the US as it is, and they don't seem to be working very heavily on the space effort either.

[MOVIEGEEK]

10/8/2010
AP-Donald Trump,Sony Entertainment and George Lucas have plans to build a space station for tourists and MPAA/RIAA executives.People will be shuttled to and from the space station by armed escort.


:P

[vitualis]

The shuttle is not trying to go into orbit around the moon or earth. The problem I see you looking at is the straight up firing of the shuttle with boosters. We have old technology that can get us to the moon. We have old technology that can carry payloads into space. We can get a ship into space without having to use booster rockets. It's not going to be hard to make something that can carry a large payload to the moon. The moon is not THAT far away. It only takes about 3 days to get into orbit of the moon and land. It only takes around 2 days to get back, and that's with common boosters instead of dropping a ship right into high altitudes.

Yes, but you are mixing technologies which are inherently not compatible with each other.

The only way have of getting a large payload into space is via the shuttle and this "large payload" can only get to low Earth orbit. The shuttle delivery system cannot reach the moon. The huge booster rockets and fuel tank on the shuttle launch system only gets the shuttle to low Earth orbit.

The only way we can get a manned craft to the moon at present is through the Saturn V launch system and this can deliver only a VERY small payload to the moon.

The moon is VERY far away (384,000 km) compared to low earth orbit (~200 km) or even geosynchronous orbit (36,000 km).

A bio-dome can be created there and would be easier to grow many of the supplies, and faster, leaving minimal supplies required to be sent.

Bio-domes assume the existence of soil. There is no soil on the moon. Are we going to ship that up as well?? Not to mention, the one experiment to create a truly isolated biodome on Earth was still a monumental failure. We cannot assume any extra-terristrial base at present to be self-sufficient... the best we can hope for is "very efficient" in terms of waste and water recycling. And even that would require advances in many technological fronts.

It won't be very long after a private enterprise will be on the moon.

I think that you will be surprised. Getting something on the moon and not crashing is very difficult and frankly, getting a craft into orbital flight is vastly different from getting something to the moon. As for China not being very active, I would say that the amount of money and intellectual effort in the Chinese space program is still orders of magnitude greater than any private effort.

Regards.

[Browncoat]

I think we have well and truly established who amongst us posting on this thread are the optimists, realists and cynics(vitualis)

[Doramius]

I understand the crossing of technologies and that some systems are incompatible, but nobody has done anything to try and see if conversions of anything can be made, or simply create something new. That's the problem with government run operations. When Challenger failed, a new shuttle was created. They are creating another shuttle as we speak, after Columbia's fatal return. Each new shuttle has more modern equipment and features than previous shuttles. It's obvious one can be made similarly to the way Space Ship One is designed. The same can be said for a lunar landing module. We have the knowhow, the technology, and the ability.

Regarding the biodome, the moon does have sustainable soil matter for growing vegetation, though it's not very nutrient rich. The failure of the biodome was understood and Bio2 has had no problems that the first one had (considering the first was nothing but a giant greenhouse). We can move anything we want onto the moon, and take anything back. That's the beauty of it. Another thing is if there is a problem on the moon, the people can abandon it to a safe place or moon-walk to a rescue ship, to return to earth. It's a bit difficult to do that in a floating space station. If you have to evacuate, you're stuck floating if you can't make it to the other end where the escape craft may be. This is well known by Apollo 13 astronauts who had to seek refuge in their lunar module.

It is much more feesible to create something to land on the moon and create a station there than floating in space. It is also more risky (as stated by any astronaut) to dock and release with another floating craft in space, than to physically land and take off. There has never been a crash on the moon to this day and it has also been said that every landing on the moon after the first, was signifigantly easier than landing on earth. Setting a craft into orbit is very easy indeed, but again, docking and releasing is very difficult and is considered delicate and tricky(even with laser guidance).

[MOVIEGEEK]

"There has never been a crash on the moon to this day"

..of manned space craft.Russia and the US lost several unmanned probes in the 60's.

[Doramius]

"There has never been a crash on the moon to this day"

..of manned space craft.Russia and the US lost several unmanned probes in the 60's.

I don't think an unmanned space or moon station is what we have planned.

Unmanned is always trickier than anything, most especially when you're sending the craft to a place not previously visited or explored by man.