Re: Lunar Space Elevator simply isn't for everyone

William Mook,
Thanks for all those interesting and useful rocket-science numbers, and
even a touch of prosay on behalf of actually accomplishing LL-1 and
usage of the LSE alternative. It makes you almost human, up until the
point that you have to continually support the insane mindset and
actions of our resident warlord(GW Bush) and otherwise keep insisting
by way of your mindset of infomercial-science that we've walked on the
moon.

How are you measuring cost?
Negative cost since there gold in them thar hills, as in He3 that's
actually worth a hell of a lot more than gold, plus a few hundred other
benefits I could think of.

What is your ultimate goal?
The ultimate goal is still the LSE along with the 256 megatonne CM/ISS,
the moon dirt depot in the sky that's worth having because it's
entirely doable as is.

You obviously still don't have a clue as to the greater positive worth
of utilizing LL-1, or especially that of the LSE-CM/ISS, but then
you'll have to support whatever it is that you believe in (or else),
which excludes the truth as to what we should have been accomplishing
as of more than a decade ago, if not from the very get-go since the
task of accomplishing LL-1 via the Saturn-V would have been absolutely
impressive, entirely doable and absolutely proof-positive believable to
boot.

To travel from Earth's surface to LEO requres that you accelerate an
object to about 7 km/sec. When you add in gravity losses and air drag
losses during ascent, of 2 km/sec, you need a vehicle capable of at
least 9 km/sec.
So what? We've had all of that capability as of prior to the Saturn
series, and now we have the efficient Ariane 5 ECA as looking extremely
good at getting 12t to GSO at better than 66:1, and that should go past
the 18t mark with merely replacing those inefficient SRBs with LRBs of
h2o2/c3h4o, making the ratio 44:1, and perhaps we're talking as good as
36:1 if the core stage were also of h2o2/c3h4o.

Are you saying that our extremely inert massive Saturn-V did not have
"the right stuff" of what was needed?

Unlike those bogus Apollo missions, we're not having to zoom any of
this tonnage past LL-1 or even having to get there any too fast, just
for gently coasting the payload into the mutual nullification zone, so
that damn little if any retrothrust is necessary. We're talking about
parallel parking, not per say going to the moon and back, and thus
nearly 100% efficient by way of using the least fuel/payload and
thereby being of the least inert liftoff mass.

The task of getting substantial tonnage into LL-1 should have the
rather significant advantage of a two-body if not a three-body
alignment, of using the considerable Earth, sun plus moon advantage,
not to mention having tidal forces on the side of most efficiently
getting a great deal of tonnage efficiently to LL-1 because, if need be
this effort can take all of 29.5 days and there's nothing that has to
return home or thereby having the negative impact of demanding spare
tonnage of rocket energy and the associated machinery for
retro-thrusting itself into such a gentle halo form of station-keeping
management of this interactive gravity-well orbit. Thus it's pretty
much all usable payload that gets deposited into the LL-1 zone.

Basically, once you get into LEO, a single chemical kick stage can be
used to bring you to any of these points in cislunar space. So, going
from LEO to LL1 doesn't do a whole lot for you.
What the freaking sam hell are you talking about this time?
"going from LEO to LL1 doesn't do a whole lot for you" means exactly
what the hell is with your naysayism kicking in again?
I've never really considered it because its obvious to me that LL1
is pretty much useless.
As I've said before, "its obvious to me" that your dumbfounded
naysayism is pretty much stuck in that very brown-nosed and status quo
or bust rut, and therefore "pretty much useless". If you only intend
to think in such negative terms, in which case we'll need to furth
discuss those NASA/Apollo missions once again, or I suppose we could go
back to living in caves.

Obviously if taking the fullest advantage of a much longer/extended
shot of using Earth itself, plus the sun and moon alignments as for the
gravity boosted exit velocity gain of getting the most tonnage with the
least applied energy as headed for parking at LL-1 is going to involve
some form of an initial elliptical LEO, with a second and perhaps a
third burn plus a few course corrections along the way towards parking
that first 10t sucker at LL-1.

We can double the payload per trip with a space station at LL1 equipped
with a tether to the surface - if we use chemical rockets, which is
worthwhile. We change the payload by less than 2% with a laser
rocket.
I believe you're somewhat underestimating the greater potential and
subsequent worth of not having to utilize those fly-by-rocket landers
that'll need to get invented plus R&D created and proof-tested in the
first place. However, I'll have to get back to a few other points,
along with having a few more questions, that is once I get my three
dyslexic brain cells up to snuff on what you've contributed.

I do otherwise appreciate those notions on "fusion propulsion", however
that's for another day and another time or perhaps other planet besides
Earth, such as whenever we're not too busy at pillaging and raping the
likes of mother Earth while exterminating every other Muslim in sight
for the blood-sport of taking their oil, that's likely going to have to
burn itself out before the civil wars we've caused get down to any
viable dull roar (too bad they don't have the likes of Saddam kicking
butts, since that's pretty much exactly what it took in the past).
-
Brad Guth

.

Quantcast