Author |
Message |
Space Walker
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 8:30 am Posts: 236 Location: Perth, Western Australia
|
Posted on: Thu Jun 01, 2006 1:36 am
Yep, I've ordered it. But I don't quite follow your argument about fewer launch purchases??
_________________ Beancounter from Downunder
|
Back to top |
|
|
Spaceflight Enthusiast
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 3:07 pm Posts: 3 Location: Bremerton, WA
|
Posted on: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:10 am
The ribbon will need to be launched by conventional rocket into orbit. From there, the ribbon will be deployed downward to earth as the counterweight moves out beyond GEO.
The starting plan calls for a 'starter' ribbon which we're currently estimating is going to require between 5 and 8 launches of the Falcon 9 S9 or Saturn V sized launches.
With a much larger launch payload, we can either send a wider/higher capacaty 'starter' or a little bit lower GPa material within the timeframe necessary to make it a viable commercial venture.
(btw, thanks N.S., you're purchase is appreciated.)
_________________ 10 years after everyone stops laughing. - Sir A. C. Clarke
2005 - They stopped laughing
Want to know more about the LiftPort Space Elevator? Buy our book: LiftPort: The Space Elevator: Opening Space To Everyone
|
Back to top |
|
|
Space Station Commander
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am Posts: 891
|
Posted on: Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:03 pm
beancounter wrote: Yep, I've ordered it. But I don't quite follow your argument about fewer launch purchases??
The less launches--the less assembly you have. Smaller rockets get you ISS assembly woes with DART tech.
Not a winning combo.
Build CaLV first--then Sea Dragon. Then SE. THAT is how you open up space.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Space Station Member
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2004 4:16 am Posts: 322
|
Posted on: Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:08 pm
publiusr wrote: beancounter wrote: Yep, I've ordered it. But I don't quite follow your argument about fewer launch purchases?? The less launches--the less assembly you have. Smaller rockets get you ISS assembly woes with DART tech. Not a winning combo. Build CaLV first--then Sea Dragon. Then SE. THAT is how you open up space.
DART is not the end all, be all of automated orbital redezvous. HTV and ATV will be available soon.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Space Station Commander
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am Posts: 891
|
Posted on: Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:13 pm
|
Back to top |
|
|
Launch Director
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 1:54 pm Posts: 16
|
Posted on: Sat Jun 10, 2006 8:48 pm
Actually,this maybe Araine's Next.
http://www.marssociety.de/emc/proceedings/Ferra.pdf
Gaetano appearently got the Ariane X idea (and the 3x3 Super SLV) from this.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Launch Director
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 1:54 pm Posts: 16
|
Posted on: Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:26 pm
WannabeSpaceCadet wrote: HLV, at least as big as CaLV, is needed. Personally, I think CaLV is not Heavy enough. It took a Saturn V to put just 2 men on the Moon for a couple of days at most. CaLV with about the same payload, wouldn't achieve much more in one launch, hence the CLV. To establish a useful presence, a lot more will be needed. That means many hundreds of EELV's, or dozens of HLV's.
We really need a VHLV (Very Heavy Launch Vehicle) 400+ tons.
Well, there is the Sea Dragon. Is 450 mT to LEO good enough? 
|
Back to top |
|
|
Space Station Member
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:12 am Posts: 321 Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
Posted on: Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:02 am
offsprey5 wrote: WannabeSpaceCadet wrote: HLV, at least as big as CaLV, is needed. Personally, I think CaLV is not Heavy enough. It took a Saturn V to put just 2 men on the Moon for a couple of days at most. CaLV with about the same payload, wouldn't achieve much more in one launch, hence the CLV. To establish a useful presence, a lot more will be needed. That means many hundreds of EELV's, or dozens of HLV's.
We really need a VHLV (Very Heavy Launch Vehicle) 400+ tons. Well, there is the Sea Dragon. Is 450 mT to LEO good enough? 
That is what I was hinting at.
Although my preference is a very large, 'one time' Orion. Put about 100,000 mT in orbit in one go, then use the 'empty' vehicle to cruise around the solar system, and as a work horse for big jobs like moving small ice moons.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/orietary.htm
|
Back to top |
|
|
Space Station Commander
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am Posts: 891
|
Posted on: Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:22 pm
|
Back to top |
|
|
Space Station Member
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2004 4:16 am Posts: 322
|
Posted on: Sat Jun 17, 2006 1:19 am
Us poor sane people who'd rather not see an Orion liftoff from the earth's surface. 
|
Back to top |
|
|
Space Station Member
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:12 am Posts: 321 Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
Posted on: Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:42 am
bad_astra wrote: Us poor sane people who'd rather not see an Orion liftoff from the earth's surface. 
A single, once-off launch would only increase the radioactive pollution in the Earth's atmosphere by about 1%.
But I'll settle for Sea Dragon. 
|
Back to top |
|
|
Space Station Commander
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am Posts: 891
|
Posted on: Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:33 pm
|
Back to top |
|
|
Space Station Commander
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am Posts: 891
|
Posted on: Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:34 pm
|
Back to top |
|
|
Space Station Commander
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am Posts: 891
|
Posted on: Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:39 am
|
Back to top |
|
|
Spaceflight Trainee
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:05 am Posts: 49
|
Posted on: Sat Sep 09, 2006 8:04 pm
FerrisValyn wrote: That was a bit of a cheap shot.
In anycase, the problem with that is that makes it overly dependent on the idea of a continued threat, something I think most people would have a problem with. What they are pushing is to create a new cold war with China. And that won't work, as a long term policy goal.
Griffin is going to China
|
Back to top |
|
|