 | | Re: Transit Time to Mars
|
| (...) Hmm, what about small unmanned craft for overnight package delivery? (FedEx in Space ;-) How much fuel is in one of those space shuttle booster rockets and how much of that is wasted getting to escape velocity? I bet if a small rocket were (...) (25 years ago, 15-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Transit Time to Mars
|
| (...) Solid fuel rockets are essentially big fireworks: ya light 'em and they burn until nothing is left. They are great bang for your buck, but they don't last long. And in your scenario, you still have to get the boosters up to the space station. (...) (25 years ago, 15-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Transit Time to Mars
|
| (...) OK, can that idea then. So, what about flour and water mixtures? :o) --Todd (25 years ago, 15-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Transit Time to Mars
|
| (...) Paper mache rockets? The delivery system burns up with the fuel it contains? __ :-O (Edvard Munch's "The Scream") -- Bruce (25 years ago, 15-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Transit Time to Mars
|
| (...) Don't forget that the space shuttle accelerates with only a few g relative to earth, so that's (a few + 1) when applied in space. And as someone mentioned, unless you have manufacturing in space, or very cheap earth -> LEO methods (which is (...) (25 years ago, 16-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Transit Time to Mars
|
| (...) Actually, you can make them burn at almost any rate you want to. It is a question of how much exposed area there is to burn at once. The SRB motors have a * shaped hole in the middle of them right from top to bottom. This produces a very large (...) (25 years ago, 16-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Transit Time to Mars
|
| (...) (Unless you believe in subspace ruptures. ;) --Todd (25 years ago, 16-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Transit Time to Mars
|
| James Powell <wx732@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> wrote in message news:FMt9In.55E@lugnet.com... (...) boosters (...) motors (...) burn (...) solid, (...) much (...) into (...) 1G (...) rocket, a (...) difference (...) Wow!..My first job was designing (...) (25 years ago, 16-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Transit Time to Mars
|
| I think the problem with long-burn-time solid fuel engines is that the nozzle heats up so much that it erodes rapidly. Typical liquid-fueled engines cool the nozzle with the fuel just before it's burned. IsThere some Space-Age (Pardon the ancient (...) (25 years ago, 16-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Transit Time to Mars
|
| (...) How do those work? and how much fallout do they leave behind, hanging in space, waiting for the next vehicle to pass through? I mean, it's not like radiation shielding isn't difficult enough already.. Anyway, what was it again, Project Orion? (...) (25 years ago, 16-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Transit Time to Mars
|
| (...) a (...) difference (...) You use Hydrogen gas as the coolant on a nuclear reactor, then vent it out the backside ('hot' as in thermally hot, not radioactive) The radiation from it is not all that intense...space is a vast area, and radiation (...) (25 years ago, 16-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Transit Time to Mars
|
| (...) Care to expand on these "USAF experiments"? Got links? Steve (25 years ago, 16-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Transit Time to Mars
|
| (...) (URL) some information on the subject in question. apparently it is not all that bad even in atm, but 250 K lbs thrust is not all that much when launching large objects, especially from a 15-20K lb + fuel motor. (It's the burn times that are (...) (25 years ago, 16-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Transit Time to Mars
|
| (...) Ah, right. What's the v on the gas? You're still using reaction mass. (...) Well yeah, but the stuff does hang there waiting for the next rocket to bump into that. That's what I was asking about. (...) Yick. To be honest. I mean, Nukyuler (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Transit Time to Mars
|
| (...) (the web page has more info, I just knew it was more effiecent than a conventional rocket...V is not the problem, it is the Specific R that is higher than with a chemical rocket (around 825 on NERVA test plant, verses about 450 for "O2H2" (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Transit Time to Mars
|
| (...) Yes, a form of carbon called Diamond would do the trick. But what do you attach to the diamond is still a problem, as it is an excelent heat conductor and would melt most materials you attach to it. Pat Justison (1.5 years until PhD in (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Transit Time to Mars
|
| (...) I have another ignorant question, relating to a half-remembered tidbit from my Chem1 class in high school, way back when the periodic table consisted of Earth, Air, Fire, and Water. I seem to remember something about diamond reverting (my (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Transit Time to Mars
|
| (...) My first true glove... But that's immaterial to the discussion. Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.pun)
| | | | | Re: Transit Time to Mars
|
| (...) Aww, Jeremy, now you're just needling him. Or am I posting to the wrong thread? James (URL) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.pun)
| | | | | Re: Transit Time to Mars
|
| (...) I'm a frayed knot. Actually, that reminds me of a long yarn someone once told me. Although it took a while, it was a rather thimble story. Jeff (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.pun)
| | | | | Re: Transit Time to Mars
|
| On Thu, 16 Dec 1999 01:59:11 GMT, James Powell uttered the following profundities... (...) Weren't these banned under one of the START treaties? I seem to recall some treaty of some description banning most types of Nuclear rockets. It could, (...) (25 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Transit Time to Mars
|
| (...) As far as I can tell, they are not banned...either the "lucifer" type, using multi nuke bombs to push you, or a constant nuke reactor type. However, the Lucifer type is -not- something I want to be on the _planet_ that they test it out on, (...) (25 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Transit Time to Mars
|
| (...) not (...) Detonating nuclear weapons in space was prohibited by the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963, which banned detonating nuclear devices in the air, in the ocean, or in space. -- jthompson@esker.com "Float on a river, forever and ever, (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Transit Time to Mars
|
| (...) Not to be nitpicky here, and I haven't bothered to look it up, but is it it possible that this treaty doesn't apply for either of the following two charmingly definitional loopholes? 1. The treaty bans weapons usage in these spheres. A drive, (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| |
