Off topic... People going thru school are preoccupied with the complexities of what they will experience in industry. People in industry are preoccupied with complexities of what they should have experienced in school.There is a time for everything.
Project Morpheus will probably want to sell Thorth its 19 kN methane/LOX engine for use in the lander. 10 engines should give the manned lander a good payload.
Quote from: RigelFive on 02/09/2013 06:40 pmOff topic... People going thru school are preoccupied with the complexities of what they will experience in industry. People in industry are preoccupied with complexities of what they should have experienced in school.There is a time for everything.Agreed.Anyway, to get back on topic, I'm starting to look into using large hydrolox engines for the first stage. RS-68 would be ideal, per my estimates (2900 kN of thrust at sea level, using three would provide 8700 kN of thrust, a good 22% increase in performance over using 8 H-1s). As a bonus, it may be possible to use the same engine in the second stage as well, resulting in a shorter stage).
Quote from: MattJL on 02/10/2013 12:54 amQuote from: RigelFive on 02/09/2013 06:40 pmOff topic... People going thru school are preoccupied with the complexities of what they will experience in industry. People in industry are preoccupied with complexities of what they should have experienced in school.There is a time for everything.Agreed.Anyway, to get back on topic, I'm starting to look into using large hydrolox engines for the first stage. RS-68 would be ideal, per my estimates (2900 kN of thrust at sea level, using three would provide 8700 kN of thrust, a good 22% increase in performance over using 8 H-1s). As a bonus, it may be possible to use the same engine in the second stage as well, resulting in a shorter stage).RS-68 cannot be used as a second stage engine.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25800.60
In other advancements this week, it looks like Apex will use a few RS-68s. Four per CCU, to be exact, a tremendous save in cost over using a bunch of H-1s and a J2-S with the bonus of increasing commonality between stages significantly.There's a bit to talk about with this change, so to save me repeating myself, I'll just attach my on-paper work to this post. Be forewarned: I have the handwriting of a doctor.(Apologies if updating this topic is a bit sluggish, starting algebra in the middle of the year after a comparatively easy first semester is a real brain-frier).
Quote from: MattJL on 02/13/2013 02:58 amIn other advancements this week, it looks like Apex will use a few RS-68s. Four per CCU, to be exact, a tremendous save in cost over using a bunch of H-1s and a J2-S with the bonus of increasing commonality between stages significantly.There's a bit to talk about with this change, so to save me repeating myself, I'll just attach my on-paper work to this post. Be forewarned: I have the handwriting of a doctor.(Apologies if updating this topic is a bit sluggish, starting algebra in the middle of the year after a comparatively easy first semester is a real brain-frier).Looks like you are moving faster than NASA in returning us to the moon. Great job. You are also reducing the amount of paper usage by shrinking/eliminating the logo.There is a pointy thing on top of the launch vehicle. What is this thing supposed to do interms of functionality? If you dont need it, you might be able to haul more stuff into orbit.I am going to start a thread to see if we can rewrite the articles of the Moon Treaty. We might be able to release the limitations on astronauts stuck in low earth orbit if we claim that the a New Moon Treaty was peer reviewed in public on a blog site and was considered 'open and notorious' policy. Perhaps we can get Sweden or Pago Pago to ratify it first in order to get the ball rolling.
I've always wondered about these cheap fare trips to the moon. When they say you can go to the moon for let's say $125 mil a passenger... Does that also include the cost for return to Earth?You could get the return vehicle back into LEO and run out of funds for recovery. Apollo obviously needed a Navy to recover the capsules. I though this extra cost was really to motivation behind the Space Shuttle. Reentry predictions with a variable cargo mass on return trajectory from the moon could be an absolute "HAMWEIGH".
Looks good. Recommend to start from the end and continue work backwards.How does the paraglider deploy its parachutes after reentry? This NASA demo only did a drop from relatively slow/low altitude (in an age where the space shuttle was reentering at mach 25+). Looks like the vehicle already had straps on the outside to deploy the highly intricate/complex paraglider. A direct return trajectory & reentry from the moon will make the reentry speeds significantly higher than the shuttle.I'm going to read more about that paraglider reentry config. Never saw this before (demo was done when I was in school and we didn't have the internet or NASASPACEFLIGHT.COM).Despite your refusal to comply with UN treaties, you at least have a good firm configuration to start the Thok design (which ironically occurs at the end of the mission).
If you use Valiant concept, you will not be compliant with the 1979 Moon Treaty and will likely have (by the time of the mission) invaded a territory on the lunar surface that has been purchased as extraterrestrial real estate (for $20/acre).
Quote from: RigelFive on 02/05/2013 05:57 amIf you use Valiant concept, you will not be compliant with the 1979 Moon Treaty and will likely have (by the time of the mission) invaded a territory on the lunar surface that has been purchased as extraterrestrial real estate (for $20/acre).Tuning in after a bit... You realize that the Moon Treaty has no standing legal basis here in the US of A?
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 03/01/2013 02:22 amQuote from: RigelFive on 02/05/2013 05:57 amIf you use Valiant concept, you will not be compliant with the 1979 Moon Treaty and will likely have (by the time of the mission) invaded a territory on the lunar surface that has been purchased as extraterrestrial real estate (for $20/acre).Tuning in after a bit... You realize that the Moon Treaty has no standing legal basis here in the US of A?Yeah well. In one month from now, I'll start a thread to revise it online...Current coalition of the willing:Australia, Austria, Belgium, Chile, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, and Uruguay have ratified it. France, Guatemala, India and Romania have signed but have not ratified it.According to the web media, there could be a tipping point for ratifying the Moon treaty. How about this quote:"Until the day that firm plans are made for the extraction of extraterrestrial resources by private entities, the Moon Treaty and its validity will remain in question." - The Space ReviewLink:http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2047/1So what that Space Review article says to me is, upon the mere completion of a plan.... The Moon Treaty will suddenly become valid IN THE SAME DAY! Project Thok could just be that plan!!!