What I actually said is the moon is a more plausible near term goal. One of the lunar advantages is more frequent launch windows.KitemanSA wrote:"You can't do Mars cuz the launch window is too small"
I didn't say we can't do Mars.
TDPerk said there's no station keeping needed. You tell GIThruster no one is talking about thrusters. Then you talk about Hall Thrusters to do station keeping.KitemanSA wrote:That is what I said in the completion of the sentance.
From LEO to EML5 is 3.9 km/s. From LEO Trans Mars Insertion is 3.6 km/sKitemanSA wrote:Which is why I recommended parking it on L4 or L5.
This thread is about Musks' kerosene rockets. I happen to agree chemical rockets alone aren't the best solution. Momentum exchange tethers could be a game changers. But these aren't on Musk's radar (so far as I can tell).KitemanSA wrote:But this only applies if someone INSISTS on chemical rockets. Not my prefered method, but if you MUST...
The most credible and detailed propellant depot proposals I've seen come from United Launch Alliance.KitemanSA wrote:Oh, and by the way, I suspect it would be easier and cheaper with acceptable losses to just store the fuels cryogenically. But if not, and you must...
The ideal temperature for the SHEC reaction is 850 degrees Celsius, which is what the present array is designed to deliver. However, the process will separate hydrogen at temperatures as low as 400 degrees Celsius.
HopDavid wrote:What I actually said is the moon is a more plausible near term goal. One of the lunar advantages is more frequent launch windows.KitemanSA wrote:"You can't do Mars cuz the launch window is too small"
I didn't say we can't do Mars.
So far as I know, I'm the only one pointing to biannual Martian launch windows.KitemanSA wrote:Someone said that Musk wanted to send huge numbers of people to Mars.
Someone said that the launch window wouldn't support that plan.
And so far you still haven't made this case.KitemanSA wrote:Someone said that the launches into LEO could be staged over the ~two years between optimum Mars transits.
Someone said that the propellant would undergo too high a loss rate.
I said, not if it were stored as water ice.
You still haven't given any numbers for thermal cracking. Nor have you given any numbers for your seran wrap mirror positioned by 1000s of Hall Thrusters.KitemanSA wrote: After that is seems there were three or four folks talking past each other with different sets of assumptions: Electrolytic dissociation is too slow; thermal cracking could be quite fast;
No numbers.Aero wrote:Check this out.
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2 ... _Hydrogen/
The ideal temperature for the SHEC reaction is 850 degrees Celsius, which is what the present array is designed to deliver. However, the process will separate hydrogen at temperatures as low as 400 degrees Celsius.
The deposits found by Chandrayaan 1 are evidently richer than 6%. Sheets of ice two meters thick.GIThruster wrote:It would be interesting to see an apples for apples comparison of the costs to launch H2 and 02 from the Earth and the Moon. Launching from the Moon you need a large fission reactor to melt, gather and form the <6% water
if you watch the vid I posted the link to, Musk believes they can open a window for 6 months out of every 2 years. That's not terrible.HopDavid wrote: So far as I know, I'm the only one pointing to biannual Martian launch windows.
You certainly missed the development of the issue.HopDavid wrote: Sadly in this forum the argument has gone like this: "Why do stooopid ULA engineers talk about cryogenic depots? Me know mirrors and thermal water cracking million times better. Me no have to give cites or numbers. Cuz it so obvious to anyone who not stoooopid. Duh!"
I watch part four he does lightly touch on nuclear rockets and seems receptive to the questioner in the audience who brings them up. Haven't gotten to the part where he talks about launch windows to mars being 6months long every two years. That sounds like you would need something with greater deltaV than a chemcial rocket even with propellant depots for refueling.GIThruster wrote:if you watch the vid I posted the link to, Musk believes they can open a window for 6 months out of every 2 years. That's not terrible.HopDavid wrote: So far as I know, I'm the only one pointing to biannual Martian launch windows.