| User | Post |
|
7:35 am
November 19, 2009
|
Logan
| | |
| Member | posts 6 | |
|
|
I know we've started this discussion at least once, but I wanted to make a space for us to recap and figure some things out. Eventually we're going to need a permanent physical location to work out of, whether it be a warehouse/office building or what have you. And depending on that location may determine some of the laws governing CSTART. So… where are we gonna go? What kind of building would Reddit like? etc.
I think what had been mentioned was someplace in South West United States? I think that's where I'd like to go. Land about an hour East of LA Where it's a little flatter and more desert-like is relatively cheap, but still within a relatively short distance of a major metropolitan area.
|
|
|
9:39 am
November 19, 2009
|
josh
| | |
| Member | posts 11 | |
|
|
i think on this issue nasa has it right 2 major locations launch in south east us Floridia that way when you launch if a unforseen abort or explosion would not risk civilian lives so really any eastern seaboard state would work but i feel that weather will play a major role in this issue and tempature as well to cold can be a problem. wind and severity of storms and frequency of storms.
i hope this helps (first post yay!)
|
|
|
4:56 pm
November 19, 2009
|
Logan
| | |
| Member | posts 6 | |
|
|
Well I guess if they launch with the rotation of the Earth that it would require an Eastern Seaboard location. How expensive are plots of land? Also, how much would we need? A few acres for assembly and a warehouse? How likely is our craft to explode? As far as I'm aware there aren't exactly a lot of desert salt flat locations in that area so there might be a lot of deforestation required.
|
|
|
5:23 pm
November 19, 2009
|
gerbal
| | North Carolina | |
| Member | posts 12 | |
|
|
Unless we are located at somewhere like a salt flat suited to testing, testing will require a great deal of travle no matter what. We should strive to locate our headquarters/workshop somewhere near as many project members as possible.
When we approach launch ready, we probably end up (unless we can bring in sufficient funds to build our own) to one of the several government or private launch facilities.
In any case, that scenario is atleast several years away. In the mean time we need a physical location in which to do small scale fabs and tests.
|
|
|
9:21 pm
November 19, 2009
|
Rocket-To-The-Moon
| | Altus, Oklahoma, USA | |
| Member | posts 685 | |
|
|
gerbal said:
In the mean time we need a physical location in which to do small scale fabs and tests.
I think that we can have multiple locations that are spread across the country (and World) where teams can meet to work on their projects. This also helps to tie different workgroups together. All of these locations will be privately owned because we won't have the money to buy property. I'm sure that someone will know a farmer who would let them use an old shed to work in. The booster assembly team will have to be located where the launch complex will be at so that we don't have to worry about transporting rockets by truck. There is no way that we will be allowed to fly over populated land so this would have to be on the east coast, preferably as far south as possible.
|
Main Workgroups: Propulsion & Spacecraft Engineering
|
|
|
9:42 am
November 20, 2009
|
josh
| | |
| Member | posts 11 | |
|
|
i like rockets ideas the launch will definitely have to be as south east as possible maybe south Georgia or the keys we could possibly use one of the abandoned pads @ Kennedy space center also when they switch over to the new control room maybe we could use the old one for mission control.
multiple work locations would be great but i think we really need some sponsorship here or partnership with a company already in works on these type issues. with out funding it will be hard to make a quality product and localized in one area not only that but we also are going to have to test motors in the desert what kind of system are we using a lox? i know for a fact we have a liquid oxygen burntable and its not cheap. i think money will be a serious issue.
(hey check this out )
http://www.ukrocketman.com/index.shtml
|
|
|
11:02 am
November 20, 2009
|
brmj
| | Rochester, New York, United States | |
| Member | posts 402 | |
|
|
"what kind of system are we using a lox?"
I think the most common thing I've been hearing people advocate is a solid fueled booster. I personally favor either a liquid fueled design that burns some hydrocarbon with fuming nitric acid as the oxidizer or a hybrid design with nitrous oxide or fuming nitric acid as the oxidizer.
|
Main work groups: Propulsion (booster), Spacecraft Engineering, Computer Systems, Navigation and Guidance (software)
|
|
|
12:37 pm
November 20, 2009
|
josh
| | |
| Member | posts 11 | |
|
|
could you explain why you prefer those methods? sorry i am very interested in propulsion methods….
what about trying to get VASHMIR drive system for testing they are putting it up in like a year and a half vashmir would drastically reduce time and fuel which would allow for more payload and it could be used for the lem because it can only fire in a vacuum maybe like a lox launch with a orbital seperation and then use the vashmir for travel to the moon, a moon decent and a moon launch? this would allow for not only drastic fuel cuts decreasing travel time and may stop the problem with chem launched from the moon,
just a few thoughts
|
|
|
1:04 pm
November 20, 2009
|
Rocket-To-The-Moon
| | Altus, Oklahoma, USA | |
| Member | posts 685 | |
|
|
The only place where I can see that VASMR would fit into our current plan would be for the Lunar Lander's trip to the Moon. I'm not really sure if there would be any benefit though.
|
Main Workgroups: Propulsion & Spacecraft Engineering
|
|
|
1:16 pm
November 20, 2009
|
brmj
| | Rochester, New York, United States | |
| Member | posts 402 | |
|
|
josh said:
could you explain why you prefer those methods? sorry i am very interested in propulsion methods….
what about trying to get VASHMIR drive system for testing they are putting it up in like a year and a half vashmir would drastically reduce time and fuel which would allow for more payload and it could be used for the lem because it can only fire in a vacuum maybe like a lox launch with a orbital seperation and then use the vashmir for travel to the moon, a moon decent and a moon launch? this would allow for not only drastic fuel cuts decreasing travel time and may stop the problem with chem launched from the moon,
just a few thoughts
I prefer those methods for the booster because large, solid fueled rocket engines are a dangerous and difficult thing to make and liquid fueled designs that use cryogenic fuels are, at best, an overly complex pain in the ass. A hybrid rocket is almost as simple as a solid fueled one, but safer and throttelable, while the particular liquid fueled design I have advocated is only slightly more complex than that.
For the SM engine, I don't think anyone has seriously suggested anything other than some form of liquid fueled design with hypergolic propellents. That is because hypergolic proppelents make it more reliable and simple, and we need something throtellable. An SM engine that runs on hydrogen and oxygen might be nice for future missions, though. If our SM design or a derivative there of could serve as a "bus" to move large things on a low energy transfer orbit, it could help enable future large-scale moon missions, and being able to refuel it with fuel that could be produced there would be really useful for some of those scenerios.
I don't think VASMR really has a place in this particular mission type thus far, but it would be great for interplanitary missions latter on.
|
Main work groups: Propulsion (booster), Spacecraft Engineering, Computer Systems, Navigation and Guidance (software)
|
|
|
1:41 pm
November 20, 2009
|
Rocket-To-The-Moon
| | Altus, Oklahoma, USA | |
| Member | posts 685 | |
|
|
brmj said: A hybrid rocket is almost as simple as a solid fueled one, but safer and throttelable, while the particular liquid fueled design I have advocated is only slightly more complex than that.
I haven't really don't too much reading on the hybrid rocket until now (shame on me). It looks like a good solution.
|
Main Workgroups: Propulsion & Spacecraft Engineering
|
|
|
10:42 pm
November 21, 2009
|
first fatman in space!
| | Florida | |
| Member | posts 5 | |
|
|
maybe i am just speculating here but i thought that the original lm could never test the engine before it was to fire off due to the chemicals in the booster that it tore the engine apart and would have to be rebuilt before it could be used again wouldn't the Vashmir be resuable and it uses a lot less fuel?
wouldn't this be a perfect scenario for it? plus it fuel efficancy is way better than any chem motor known ? therefor using less fuel and allowing more cargo?
sorry if i am way off base here propulsion is not my bag (at least not yet) this site has got me curious in a lot of new stuff
|
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not only because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too." JFK speech to Rice University 9/12/62
|
|
|
7:25 am
November 22, 2009
|
Rocket-To-The-Moon
| | Altus, Oklahoma, USA | |
| Member | posts 685 | |
|
|
Post edited 1:26 pm – November 22, 2009 by Rocket-To-The-Moon
The problem is that VASIMR can only produce a tiny amount of thrust. It is extremely efficient (SI of 5000s), but that is only really good for taking things on a long journey. We would definitely need a chemical rocket for the descent to the Moon.
|
Main Workgroups: Propulsion & Spacecraft Engineering
|
|
|
12:53 pm
November 23, 2009
|
josh
| | |
| Member | posts 11 | |
|
|
ahhh ok well sorry for going off topic
|
|
Login 
Register 
Search 
Home
Topic RSS 
