> The reason they don’t need refueling is because there isn’t a commercial
> option. They have to send up the entire life cycle of an instrument without
> ever having a reservicing option.

Well given the new sats don’t NEED fuel (using low or no reaction mass attitude control systems, as well as electronics that last for decades) and are likely to be abandoned as obsolete before they were out – this could really limit your potential market?

> ==
> Once there is international launch capability to service fuel
> stations .. some .. not all .. but some delta-v problems go away.
> Just like a string of gas stations does on earth.
That might be better if your selling sat recovery or tug services then service adn repair. Put up a new sat and bring the old one down to be landed and refurbished – or scrapped out away from a voluble orbit slot.

>> “I’m amazed more of the alt.space folks arn’t looking at any of
>> the more advanced launch concepts the big guys published info
>> on over the decades. But those big aero folks probably still remember then.”
> Do you mean the “N” word?
Na, that’s out of the reach of the alt.space companies; but things like StarRaker, biamese, some of the air force lifting body small shuttle studies, etc. Rocket ramjet hybrid motors (I’ve seen hobbeists do simple ones) which could double the average ISP to orbit. (700 ish seconds with LOx/Kerosene?!!!) These were doable 40-50 years ago with the materials and systems on the shelf then – it certainly is within the range of a SpaceX or something. In stead everybody is copying old Titans (except Blue Origin which is taking years to replicate McDonnell Douglas’ DC-X work that took them months.).
> ==
> I would like to see a trimodel nuclear system developed. Power
> or thrusters and station keeping, main propulsion and main power all
> in one package. In the 200m to 300 plus range. So any ship that is
> designed has some real choices.

I’m waiting for the Polywell or focus fusion research projects to develop to some engines. Looks like they’ll announce the reactors are producing positive power this year or next. That should shake more then just space up.

Bussard was talking about electrotherman steam rockets with ISP so high your reaction mass fraction to orbit, of water, would be about that of a airliners take off fractino in jet fuel!

I’m runing somenumbers and it looks like you could land ore from space with a RLV frieghter that would give a frieght cost per ton similar to oil tanker cost per ton to ship oil back from the mid east. Oh, when deadheading up for another load you can carry thousands of tons of cargo effectivly for free.

The reason they don’t need refueling is because there isn’t a commercial option. They have to send up the entire life cycle of an instrument without ever having a reservicing option.

If they can swap out transponders, circuit boards, computers, advanced optics, solar repair they could just as easier do a fuel pod, saving weight for launching it and or added capability that has to be sacrifed for fuel and not included.

Once there is international launch capability to service fuel stations .. some .. not all .. but some delta-v problems go away. Just like a string of gas stations does on earth.

“I’m amazed more of the alt.space folks arn’t looking at any of the more advanced launch concepts the big guys published info on over the decades. But those big aero folks probably still remember then.”

Do you mean the “N” word?

I would like to see a trimodel nuclear system developed. Power for thrusters and station keeping, main propulsion and main power all in one package. In the 200m to 300 plus range. So any ship that is designed has some real choices.

>>> “The successful flight I am waiting for is a “for profit” flight. ==

>> There have been lots of commercial for profit launchs over
>> the decades. Thats nothing new. What knew thing will insight
>> investors.”

> I was refering to commercial for profit human access to
> space launches. Yes we did see some for profit launches .. at
> the start of the commercial satellite period. And what did a
> few successful commercial for profit flights of satellites usher in?

Well obviously more then a few commercial sat launches.

Ok, though. A fully commercial (not Russian torist) flight to orbit could get folks to beleave space is possible.

> I believe once Bigelow is up and running, ‘LEO2GEO’
> ships capable of satellite repair, refueling, upgrading
> will be in our future. If satallites start being built on a
> common bus with swapable, modular systems, satellites
> will have a both a longer life and a more productive one.

Don’t agree here. GEO sats don’t generally need refuleing any more, though there are a lot of none GEo sats that might be good for that market. Course there are delta-v issues with getting to them from other orbits.
==
> Also, I am not saying this to move the conversation to silly,
> BUT.. I have a feeling that there were be an huge income
> stream generated by “ufos” or at least the hype about it. I
> can already see a reality show based at bigelows where the
> staunch UFO hunters boldly travel to space to give you first
> hand blah blah blah blah… about ufos. Like you see with
> ghost hunters on the sci fi channel only about ufos…. ==

ROTFL

I’m sure someone can do it.
I heard a porn film studio was trying to buy zero-G time. One analyst thought orbital sports stadiums would be highly profitable given the demand for new sports to broadcast.

Course weer going to need a serious launcher. Certainly Falcon/Dragon isn’t going to cut it. But if it gets to the point the big investors (pension funds) get into it and ok Boeing or L/M or Airbus…. We could get stuff that lookscloser to Star Wars then Falcon in acouple years. [I'm amazed more of the alt.space folks arn't looking at any of the more advanced launch concepts the big guys published info on over the decades. But those big aero folks probably still remember then.]

There have been lots of commercial for profit launchs over the decades. Thats nothing new. What knew thing will insight investors.”

I was refering to commercial for profit human access to space launches. Yes we did see some for profit launches .. at the start of the commercial satellite period. And what did a few successful commercial for profit flights of satellites usher in?

You will see the same thing as it relates to human access. Everyone will want a piece of the NEW pie.

I believe once Bigelow is up and running, ‘LEO2GEO’ ships capable of satellite repair, refueling, upgrading will be in our future. If satallites start being built on a common bus with swapable, modular systems, satellites will have a both a longer life and a more productive one.

I believe you are seeing a small inkling of interest grow from the first few astroV’s ( space vistors) and their internet efforts at bringing people along on the flight. Garriot and Simony really pushed this. The hits they got on their sites increased by going into space increasing their ad revenue. When there are literally hundreds and hundreds of personal websites about private spaceflight experiences and youtube videos and the whole thing goes viral it will gain a lot of momentum.

Also, I am not saying this to move the conversation to silly, BUT.. I have a feeling that there were be an huge income stream generated by “ufos” or at least the hype about it. I can already see a reality show based at bigelows where the staunch UFO hunters boldly travel to space to give you first hand blah blah blah blah… about ufos. Like you see with ghost hunters on the sci fi channel only about ufos…. man a show like that would get hyped to the Nth degree. Watch as the fearless ufo hunters zoom in on a possible ufo and .. everyone at the edge of their seats watching as it zooms in on ….. a frozen chunk of pee from the space station… whew that was close one .. tune in next week as we look at blah blah blah…
smiles

Once reality TV and ratings become a part of the picture AND there is actual access to space, this will take off.

Houses are paid for by folks with jobs in the area. Hence the need to develop paying jobs in the area.

> The point I would make is that if extraordinary launch vehicles and
> space infrastructure are not required, then nor are extraordinary markets. ==

To be practical, the launch vehicles need to be on the scale of effort of a similar sized commercial aircraft. These are multi billion $ programs and space has no huge market to absorb their costs.

>> “I’m not clear what light weight power source you could
>> get for your electric fan? Wouldn’t it be simpler to connect
>> the drive shaft you would have connected to the generator
>> – directly to the fan and save the weight of the electrics?”

> Lithium batteries power the fan that drives the ramjet. Rang
> is not a serious constraint and the power density is perhaps sufficient. ==

??
The rule of thumb for electric cars was that a half ton of batteries delivers about as much power as a quart of gasoline. Also the weight of electric motors alone might xeceed the weight of a seperate turbo-shat engine.

>== There is also a significant possibility of a say threefold increase
> in battery performance in the next decade.

Been hearing that from electric car folks for decades…

Given you need to carry the rocket engines anyway, using it to pump air into the Ramjet would seem better since it adds no weight.

>==
>> “The old Atlas Rockets used inflatable tanks as the primary
>> structure of the booster.== They can take great loads when presurized,
>> but service techs hated them since you could damage them
>> by just bumping them when unpressurized.”

> = An external inflatable tank made by say wrapping a Teflon bladder
> with Kevlar (no rigid matrix) might be near an order of magnitude
> lighter. I was thinking something along the lines of a capsule with
> rocket engines and inflatable external tanks. Tank mass might be
> below 1%, even at small scale and they might be structurally self supporting.

Could be. I’d drop the capsule and integrate the crew/cargo/engines into a fly back winged shuttle, and hang the inflatable tanks on them. The wings make TPS and soft landings a lot easier, and give you a structure to hold the inflatable tanks with.

The probable method of providing artificial gravity would be to use individual modules at the end of a tether around a collective hub. Yes there are some dynamic issues to worry about.

Houses are not self sufficient on Earth, utilities, taxes, etc., are paid for separately. The same might be true in space – they can afford to cost extra.

The point I would make is that if extraordinary launch vehicles and space infrastructure are not required, then nor are extraordinary markets. Space is unlikely to happen quickly without CATS, and if CATS is possible then extraordinary markets are not required.

“I’m not clear what light weight power source you could get for your electric fan? Wouldn’t it be simpler to connect the drive shaft you would have connected to the generator – directly to the fan and save the weight of the electrics?”

Lithium batteries power the fan that drives the ramjet. Range is not a serious constraint and the power density is perhaps sufficient. Maybe one needs 20% of the vehicle mass in battery, just enough to get up to ramjet speed. There is also a significant possibility of a say threefold increase in battery performance in the next decade. Further, using the ducted fan to help pump the ramjet from zero speed one could get away with a far smaller battery again. One could even get silly and uses an electric fan to pump a small ramjet which then pumped a big ramjet – turtles all the way down.

There are a couple of interesting tricks that come with such electrification, for example the ducted fan could recharge the battery once up to speed, propellant pumps could be electric, and landing (at much lighter weight) might be pure electric – recharging on the descent and eliminating the need for extra landing fuel. The large battery may also be of use while in space. There is a possibility for a much lower develop and operating cost system here that was also much more controllable/reliable/dependable – the area is interesting.

“The old Atlas Rockets used inflatable tanks as the primary structure of the booster. (Thats why the atlas that carried John Glenn into space looked so smooth) They can take great loads when presurized, but service techs hated them since you could damage them by just punping them when unpressurized.”

Yes I have heard similar things of those balloon tanks, however they were stainless steel and integrated into the structure. An external inflatable tank made by say wrapping a Teflon bladder with Kevlar (no rigid matrix) might be near an order of magnitude lighter. I was thinking something along the lines of a capsule with rocket engines and inflatable external tanks. Tank mass might be below 1%, even at small scale and they might be structurally self supporting.

it quoted Bolden as saying:

“”We need [HLV] for science, we need it for intelligence, we need for Department of Defense, and Nasa definitely needs it if we’re going to talk about sending humans beyond low-Earth orbit. So, the need for a heavy-lift launch vehicle – I don’t think there’s any disagreement on the part of anybody. ==”

Is he talking about 100+ ton (i.e. ’60′s definition) HLV, or the more current 25+ definition? I mean why the hell would yuo need a 100+ ton lifter for intel?!

> http://www.youtube.com/user/NASAtelevision#p/a/u/1/FfGo2ugcG48
>
> Sorry Jon. This recent press session with Bolden is a pretty clear
> indication that there won’t be any NASA manned exploration mission
> beyond LEO before the year 2020, and quite possibly after 2030,
> under the new Obama direction.

Certainly Lori Garvers earlier comments about beleavnig we will still see someone return to the moon withnig her lifetime, strongly siggested no actual plans to send someone to the moon in the next few decades.

> == The comments made about HLV were very interesting. Bolden
> was pretty clear about the need for HLV and made a point about
> the money in the budget proposal dedicated to R&D for HLV. ==

&
> 166Pete
>
> Another interesting comment Bolden made; he said he was unaware
> of anyone who did not think that there was a need for an HLV.

Has Bolden slept through the last few decades (especially durnig his years on shuttle) or is he just lieing through his teeth? NASA developed serveral non HLV based return to the moon proposals in the ’80′s and ’90′s, and certainly in the space comunity its contraversial to assume HLVs are even desirable!

>Kelly Starks:
>>Then its not going to happen.Info tech is one place space has a
>> major econoimc disadvantage, and the money is here. Thats the
>> markets you have to sell to to get the funding you need.
>> Otherwise space willnever be colonized. Its as blunt and basic as
>> that.

> The payback does not necessarily have to be on Earth, it could be
> in space. ==

It can’t, because theres no buiers that. Yes you could speculate that after a major space population of cities adn such are developed that space itself will have a market for materials, adn some of those would be bought from other space cities/colonies/platforms. But thats so far in the future adn dependant no so much else builg up a huge industrial base in space to serve Earths markets, its to speculative.

> == Long term it is reasonable to assume that space is where all the
> economic activity will be, where all the wealth will go and be
> created. The energy and resources there swamp anything on Earth,
> and so that is where the prosperity will likely be ==

Right now the raw materials and fuels come from the third world, but its the developed world where all the welth is made. No onse colonizing the arctic circle or off shore where the oil wells are benig drilled, nor the massive nidustries moving near the mines. The ultimate resource is skilled creative people. There are none in space, and its a lot simpler to bring the raw materials or robotically produced sub systems to the place where its cheaper to house and equip the personel.

==
> I am not sure that space will be at a disadvantage with regard to
> information technology, it will not necessarily be more expensive to
> live there.

It will be much more expensive to live ni space, adn info tech has no need for ore adn etc – but it does need a lot of poeople, universities, and coffee.

> == Also, a lot of research, for example, might be better
> performed in space (nuclear, GE, AI, etc. – NIMBY).

GE?

Nuclear really isn’t a problem. research is alowed, its mearly cheap power generatino of waste disposal that is politically forbidded in some nations no Earth. So its more of a way one nation will lose out to a less restrictive other nation.

>> Transport costs are only high because little is transported — and
>> the transport costs are high going up, not down.”

> Transport costs will still be reasonably high coming down compared
> to Earth based transport systems – depending a bit on whether up
> mass or down mass is dominating. Transport will still be limited to
> high value goods.

Depends no the tech yuo asume. I did some research using Bussards polywell fusion reactor powered electro thermal steam rockets, adn for a large scale craft, yuo could download ore (or oil ni the test case I worked up) for a cost per ton similar to long range oil tanker costs.

>> Space colonies would cost a lot more then $40B, and the money
>> wouldn’t stay in the colony.

> Why does it have to cost more than $40B? Space station per
> capita cost need be little greater than expensive housing on
> Earth (say 10,000kg/person at $100/kg). ==
It takes tons of stuff per person to house and shield a person ni space. Also to provide gravity you need a very big platform – at least 750 feet in diameter. And of course you need the industrial space or whatever the platforms built to support. The costs run up prety quick. Like a cruise liner no those scales runs billions to tens of billions.

> People could conceivably swap their house on Earth for one in space.

There is a liner called the residensea, which is a condominium cruse liner folks can retire to or whatever – but each small condo goes for millions I beleave — and thats using the economics of a ship on Earth.

> The money will stay in the colony if people see just cause in making
> their future there – and some will.

Again. The money has to come from somewhere to build the colony. little of the colony can be purchased or made there, so it has to pay to buy adn ship things to it from Earth. So you need to figure out what folks ni the colony — or the colony itself – can do no a continuing bases to earn enough to pay those bills.