Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
11:52 pm
May 20, 2012
Offline
Cronos17 said
Actually, the million tons makes much more sense as the Empire State Building weighs 365,000 tons and is much smaller than the Enterprise. Which means that we are likely to go way over-budget on the launch costs alone. Meaning we either scale back or look for a technical miracle.
That probably isn't the best way to estimate it. For one, the Empire state building uses materials that are at upwards of 7x as dense. It's average density is likely at least twice that of the Enterprise. Plus it seems that the volume of the enterprise will probably work out to be roughly the same, or an order of magnitude higher or low (not the 3 orders higher mentioned in my error). Although, I couldn't find the numbers for the total volume outlined out the site itself, nor does the mass spreadsheet focuses on mass not volume, so can't really get it from there either.
Feel free to review the hull mass spreadsheet on this page: http://www.buildtheenterprise……/cost-mass. If your assumption is right, then there should be a gross underestimation of the mass somewhere in that document. Either something is missing, wasn't converted correctly, or there is an inaccuracy. Recommend http://www.wolframalpha.com to verify the conversions.
3:38 am
May 25, 2012
Offline
UEFRepresentative1 said
ok MH, so my pronounciation of "Sabot" is really crappy and you are right about it. i live in the south and thats just how i always heard it never really looked it up until now. and the heium filled sabot was just and spitball addition to someone elses ideal not something i was serious about. ANYWAYS. my ideal for a railgun type facility like i posted on the first page is still pretty good. launch a container into low orbit via. maglev/railgun facility once there it is retrieved and its contents used to build the enterprise and it can either be sent back down and more materials put in it or its materials can be used in the construction as well. the balloon ideal doesn't really seem all that great to me. i dont really know the science behind how it would be used but it seems like a really inneficient or clumsy method to me. Not really sure why but it just seems like a bad way to do things. am i alone in that thinking?
I tend to agree about the balloon idea (it is probably not feasable), but if others want to pursue the option, I don't mind trying to help come up with possible solutions to some of the problems… or ways to make it just a little more suitable. Besides, even if it is not useful for building the Enterpirse, it would probably be useful for other endeavours (probably not space related) that might help provide financial backing to support BTE.
The rail-gun idea is potentially useful for lunar construction operations (Arthur C Clark had written the idea into one of his books… I think it was in his 'Medusa' series). I think it would be rather problematic for use from Earth… the effects of friction, and the necessary extra energy to overcome it being a major issue here.
3:40 am
May 25, 2012
Offline
Tjcares said
I saw some time ago a rocket droped from a B-52 it was said in years to come it could take a couple of tons to orbit cheap. That isn't for this project though.A big arse blimp 300 meters long with some wing and motors to drive it real high and a rocket with an SRB on it now that could work real quick. The problem there is what happens to the airship when you let go of that much weight how high will it go? You could vent the helium and as you are coming down refill the bag from storage tanks. A risky manver.
No need to vent (the somewhat endangered) supply of helium… we just need to compress it.
10:09 pm
June 19, 2012
Offline
Found the numbers. The mass of the ship on the cost/mass page contradicts the mass of the ship as stated in the ship specification. The figures in the specifications are the right ones. This should really be fixed before someone else gets confused.
At 185 million pounds given today's launch costs the Enterprise will cost 2 trillion on the launch costs alone. We need either to scale back or find a technical miracle. The, initial, launch loop might do the trick if it lives up to Wikipedia's billing.
3:03 am
May 28, 2012
Offline
Just out of curriosity.
What alternative Fuel options do we have that are currently being explored?
All of the options we are talking about are great bubut relying on any one of them could be detrimental to the success of the Launch of Enterprise.
8:57 am
May 17, 2012
Offline
Just spotted an article on Engadget http://www.engadget.com/2012/0…..e-vehicle/
about Virgin Galactic launching 500pound payloads into LEO from LauncherOne.
I'm not suggesting that we put the ship up in a million tiny pieces, but could be useful for any prototypes.
Also, it's always good to see more and more business competing in this field, as it is always likely to bring greater and greater reductions in launch costs.
9:43 am
May 20, 2012
Offline
Alex R said
Just spotted an article on Engadget http://www.engadget.com/2012/0…..e-vehicle/about Virgin Galactic launching 500pound payloads into LEO from LauncherOne.
I'm not suggesting that we put the ship up in a million tiny pieces, but could be useful for any prototypes.
Also, it's always good to see more and more business competing in this field, as it is always likely to bring greater and greater reductions in launch costs.
Wonder how much the launches for that cost?
10:39 am
Why not just build it on the ground like in the star trek movie, it would be easier and cost cheaper, workers could build it faster because they will not need to be in space with limited hardware
So just build it on the ground,
11:34 am
Jack1565 said
Why not just build it on the ground like in the star trek movie, it would be easier and cost cheaper, workers could build it faster because they will not need to be in space with limited hardware
So just build it on the ground,
Launch it all in one piece? That's a lot like proposing to launch an aircraft carrier, or the Sears Tower. It's easy to do in the movies.
1:49 pm
May 25, 2012
Offline
Mark said
Why not just build it on the ground like in the star trek movie, it would be easier and cost cheaper, workers could build it faster because they will not need to be in space with limited hardware
So just build it on the ground,
Two major reasons: the structure would not survive the launch stresses (we don't have structural integrity force fields to hold the ship together, like they do in the movies)… it is questionable if it could even support its own weight; and the engines are not strong enough to lift it off the ground. Any engine that would be strong enough to lift it off the ground, given its mass and the need to lift that mass at above 1g, would have the force of a nuclear detonation (okay, three reasons).
7:06 pm
June 16, 2012
Offline
Nuclearman said
Alex R said
Just spotted an article on Engadget http://www.engadget.com/2012/0…..e-vehicle/about Virgin Galactic launching 500pound payloads into LEO from LauncherOne.
I'm not suggesting that we put the ship up in a million tiny pieces, but could be useful for any prototypes.
Also, it's always good to see more and more business competing in this field, as it is always likely to bring greater and greater reductions in launch costs.
Wonder how much the launches for that cost?
Just guessing, but a spot on Spaceship Two is 200 000 $. If Virgin is going for 50% profit, that would be about 100 000$ for a 80 kg passenger, or about 1200 $ per kg. If they have a market, and even if actually reaching orbit takes more fuel, I expect the cost would be about the same.
M Lamontagne
7:10 pm
June 16, 2012
Offline
Alex R said
Just spotted an article on Engadget http://www.engadget.com/2012/0…..e-vehicle/about Virgin Galactic launching 500pound payloads into LEO from LauncherOne.
I'm not suggesting that we put the ship up in a million tiny pieces, but could be useful for any prototypes.
Also, it's always good to see more and more business competing in this field, as it is always likely to bring greater and greater reductions in launch costs.
I thing sending the ship up in a million tiny pieces is actually a rather good idea. Means we need a space station and an assembly line up there, though.
M Lamontagne
9:22 pm
May 20, 2012
Offline
Michel Lamontagne said
Alex R said
Just spotted an article on Engadget http://www.engadget.com/2012/0…..e-vehicle/about Virgin Galactic launching 500pound payloads into LEO from LauncherOne.
I'm not suggesting that we put the ship up in a million tiny pieces, but could be useful for any prototypes.
Also, it's always good to see more and more business competing in this field, as it is always likely to bring greater and greater reductions in launch costs.
I thing sending the ship up in a million tiny pieces is actually a rather good idea. Means we need a space station and an assembly line up there, though.
M Lamontagne
Indeed, it's really of does the need to do a lot more assembly outweigh the savings of sending up smaller pieces.
5:42 pm
May 18, 2012
Offline
Europe finally will propose alternatives & private launch vehicles (at least !) :
http://news.yahoo.com/british-…..tml?_esi=1
- Reaction Engines Ltd. of Britain
- Astrium Space Transportatio
- OHB of Germany
- Abingdon, England-based Reaction Engines’ Skylon rocket
…
the British Department for Transport to modify national regulations to permit space planes to operate in British airspace. He said the European Commission has agreed to pursue similar modifications with the European Air Safety Agency
9:28 pm
April 28, 2012
Offline
I would think that typically bigger vehicles give an economies of scale that drives down costs. That's why SpaceX's biggest rocket is supposed to give the lowest cost per pound for cargo. It makes sense that it's cheaper to launch one big rocket rather then ten smaller ones. There is cost to repeating the launch cycle 10 times instead of doing it just once. And the rocket hardware should be cheaper too. For example, the big rocket may cost 5 times the cost of the smaller rocket rather than a full 10x.
I'd be surprised if the above reasoning does not hold up in practice. This is why I assumed the heavy lifter rockets could each carry a 1 million pound payload into orbit.
Another advantage of big rockets is that more components can be pre-assembled on earth. Some things are best sent up in big pieces, like main engine sections, nuclear reactor sections, major truss work, and so on. This allows the higher tech precision assembly work to be done on earth, and thorough sub-assembly testing can be done before the sub-assembly is launched into orbit.
1:34 am
July 18, 2012
Offline
Another possibility is HARP/S-HARP space cannon. The design exists, it just needs to scaled up. Build the cannon on the ground to launch say 1000 lb solid projectiles of refined metal and/or other materials to be used in the superstructure. The projectiles can be manufactured in mass and sent by train to the firing area. The projectiles are fired into a "specific" orbit. The space tug or shuttle collects the "sabots" and takes them to the space port. Once at the space port the projectiles are remelted and re-machined into the appropriate shape and sizes. Rockets would then only be used to ferry fragile or sensitive things like people and equipment.
Most Users Ever Online: 93
Currently Online:
17 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
TOng: 775
MH: 714
MARS-2015: 442
RangerEllis: 398
Michel Lamontagne: 375
Nanard: 293
Tjcares: 242
bud: 239
Grand Lunar: 223
William Archer: 189
Mitchz95: 166
Murray: 148
Hans: 131
Alex R: 103
Cronos17: 79
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 163
Members: 690
Moderators: 0
Admins: 3
Forum Stats:
Groups: 17
Forums: 243
Topics: 1216
Posts: 7011
Newest Members: Renato_SBC, highyield, ChrisDMarshall, Arideitor, tre, Sakis, LeilaShort23, darrenw, G777, EnterpriseDreamer, SileasResearch, pellpegg, adamatayoesme, ldomalakowreina, achord123w, arkemalena, lmenglekort, Brian Matthews, srerasruss, portiasdad, Pupakamaru, ifitzmiermada, caracare, macuser, Radioflyer01, bubby, parastvand, nemgiasoc, Philk, Felipe04, amandahernandez316, vahit, Toniixo, allen0300, Shadowrod, RangerEllis, Larryman, AKOkie, techy1157, rajesh, Dave, Agent Alisia, Tim, Elizabeth Jane, techpragency, sgalland, SystemEngineer, HenrikPopowski, Nightkeepr, retrodynamic, mrfujii2, JanusForbeare, william22, Scourge, seabee67, fretpick, phooodisgoood, Arock, willblake421, bill, Zabuza825, William Archer, GellanWhite, ghpicard, RAJ, coopengineer, Sassafrass, hansjoosten, apodjunkie, thefounder, [email protected], Omega Investments Ltd., Madmapper, altoeen, asmcint, Abhinaw, Markansas, chrysb, jmalitz, ThePolywellGuy, johnw9171, Zboril1, michel, Blackarrow, ajaxian515, xydelz9099, Reza_Abdinezhad, ruir, swage99, maluciezedez, onlineaobrao, affsalesstbelst, nwomenwndown, cbdavis7636, eyyouthsejerse, cheapacbra, nromeanman, eskassarabar, 外来总工程师, imeianilin
Administrators: admin (4), BTE-Dan (95), Nuclearman (1249)
