Re: Water Fuel Rocket Science


Brad Guth wrote:
tomcat,
But you still have absolutely no proven fly-by-rocket method of even
getting onto that nasty sucker, and your DNA is not going to take all
that kindly to getting so TBI or perhaps just physically run through
and through by a passing speck of sand that's getting attracted towards
the moon while just as easily doing 30+ km/s.

Other than sticking exclusively to the exposed bedrock of mostly dark
basalts, exactly how do you even safely walk upon such a deep layer of
such salty powder that's bone dry and having never been compacted or
otherwise compressed except for your sinking footprints?
-
Brad Guth



The only way to have a 'proven' fly-by-rocket is to make one and fly
it. That is why I have advocated building a SSTP (Single Stage To the
Planets). The engines (SSMEs), tanks, computers, general design, are
all accomplished facts thanks to the STS Space Shuttle.

As I explained previously, radiation can be beat by boring into the
side of a rill. That should put 100 plus feet of Moon soil over the
head of the astronauts. It will also protect against all but the
biggest of meteors. Fortunately, those cataclysmic encounters occur
very infrequently -- thousands of years apart.

I accept the Apollo landings as just that. We landed on the Moon back
in 1969. It is, therefore, proven that we can walk on the Moon and
even drive Moon buggies.

It is understandable that, back in the 70's, when people were very
forward looking that SSTO's were lacking some essentials. Most plans,
back then, called for aluminum skin, computers were in their infancy,
hydrogen/oxygen engines were 'exotic', and hypersonic velocity was not
well understood with questions still existing about shockwaves and air
friction temperatures. Plans were cancelled for SSTO's because of a
lack of funding. With hindsight, this was probably a reasonable move
by the bankers.

Today, what few problems remain can be overcome. The biggest problems
are fuel volume and quantity. I have estimated that 14 minutes of fuel
can be placed on a SSTO using traditional hydrogen/oxygen engines
giving the vehicle a .5 thrust to weight at takeoff. That yields 7
minutes prior to thrust to weight becoming 1:1. That should put the
SSTO at about 30 miles of altitude and mach 5. With thrust to weight
going to 2:1 and higher orbit should be achieved in no more than 4
additional minutes. This leaves 3 minutes of retrofire fuel onboard
for the deorbit burn.

By the way, the Shuttle does a 10 second deorbit burn, so 3 minutes is
a lot of fuel.

Add a couple of SRB (Solid Rocket Boosters) used as RATO (Rocket
Assisted TakeOff) units and the waverider should be capable of SSTP.
Refueling on the Moon should make planetary trips very fuel capable
with plenty for VTOL (Vertical TakeOff and Landing) landings.

Note that I haven't even used 'slush' tanks figures or 'atomic'
hydrogen figures here. They would be an enormous welcome addition
making the entire thing a 'piece of cake'.

The time is right. Whatever country decides to do it will win the
Space Race.

I hope with the estimates above I have explained why 'water' on the
Moon is so improtant. The use of electrolysis, as H2-PV NOW has
suggested, would make for a hydrogen and oxygen refueling station with
1/6 Earth's gravity -- an easy VTOL landing for a nearly dry weight
spaceship.


tomcat

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How Rockets Differ From Jets
    ... >>you really need the cryogenic fuel for cooling purposes. ... >>You have to rid the hull of heat build up. ... > stock in slush LH2/LO2? ... > He3 from the moon should certainly make this all worth while. ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: National Space Intelligence Center proposed
    ... the unavoidable dead/inert weight of fuel that can't be burned) + Fat ... Remember that each of those SSMEs is putting out compensating thrust ... Keep in mind, as well, that returning from the Moon will require a lot ... : version could be built. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: The Cold Equations
    ... > "It's not part of the %92 of GLOW that is fuel burned during ascent to ... > tanks slightly oversized, since these big tanks would be impossible to ... > Face it "tomcat" and to all others that still believe in the tooth ... > fairy, we never went to the moon, as your very ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: Space Shuttle Grounding....depressing....
    ... >>>from Earth, so basically at some point they will need to build orbiting ... >>>ship yards where deep space vessels can be assembled. ... >>>a moon base would be needed for that. ... where they'll manufacture fuel for the return ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)
  • Re: NASA Rushing To Mars As Per Bushs Policy
    ... Spacecraft assembled and provisioned on the moon could ... the moon is home to abundant resources. ... rocket fuel or breathable air. ... NASA has no plans to assemble or provision any spacecraft there. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Loading