Rec.Aviation.Homebuilt.Spacecraft?

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

I figure there is enough expertise in this group to successfully tackle
this challenge...

Now all it takes is money!


http://blogs.abcnews.com/scienceandsociety/2007/12/moon-20.html


The latest version of the X Prize is backed by Google: $20 million to
the first private enterprise that can land a robotic rover on the lunar
surface, send back images and data, and travel at least 500 meters--with
more rewards if it can find artifacts from the early days of lunar
exploration, when only the U.S. and Soviet governments could afford to
send probes.

The Apollo landings and the probes that preceded them were, to the X
Prize managers, "Moon 1.0"--done by Cold War powers in an expensive
rush, with no long-term plan to stay and mine the moon for whatever it
had to offer. Now comes Moon 2.0.

"The Google Lunar X PRIZE is an unprecedented international competition
that will challenge and inspire engineers and entrepreneurs from around
the world to develop low-cost methods of robotic space exploration." say
the backers.

They now have their first applicant: an operation called Odyssey Moon,
founded by Robert Richards, an entrepreneur who's also founded the
International Space University in France.

[Jim Logajan]

cavelamb himself > wrote:
> I figure there is enough expertise in this group to successfully tackle
> this challenge...
>
> Now all it takes is money!
>
>
> http://blogs.abcnews.com/scienceandsociety/2007/12/moon-20.html
>
>
> The latest version of the X Prize is backed by Google: $20 million to
> the first private enterprise that can land a robotic rover on the lunar
> surface,

Um - has any private enterprise even gotten into orbit yet? I mean jeepers,
how many _nations_ have even managed to get an artificial satellite into
orbit - never mind get one to the moon? What gives with announcing prizes
that no one is likely to be able to collect on?

[Darrel Toepfer]

Jim Logajan > wrote:
> cavelamb himself > wrote:

>> I figure there is enough expertise in this group to successfully
>> tackle this challenge...
>>
>> Now all it takes is money!
>>
>> http://blogs.abcnews.com/scienceandsociety/2007/12/moon-20.html
>>
>> The latest version of the X Prize is backed by Google: $20 million to
>> the first private enterprise that can land a robotic rover on the
>> lunar surface,
>
> Um - has any private enterprise even gotten into orbit yet? I mean
> jeepers, how many _nations_ have even managed to get an artificial
> satellite into orbit - never mind get one to the moon? What gives with
> announcing prizes that no one is likely to be able to collect on?

Its a shame the original lunar rovers didn't have any type of remote
control. I'm sure the batteries are shot by now anywayz.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_lrv.html

Would be kinda n33t to hack the old school abandoned stuff, Harry Broderick
style: http://imdb.com/title/tt0079847 http://imdb.com/title/tt0078681

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Darrel Toepfer wrote:
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
>>cavelamb himself > wrote:
>
>
>>>I figure there is enough expertise in this group to successfully
>>>tackle this challenge...
>>>
>>>Now all it takes is money!
>>>
>>>http://blogs.abcnews.com/scienceandsociety/2007/12/moon-20.html
>>>
>>>The latest version of the X Prize is backed by Google: $20 million to
>>>the first private enterprise that can land a robotic rover on the
>>>lunar surface,
>>
>>Um - has any private enterprise even gotten into orbit yet? I mean
>>jeepers, how many _nations_ have even managed to get an artificial
>>satellite into orbit - never mind get one to the moon? What gives with
>>announcing prizes that no one is likely to be able to collect on?
>
>
> Its a shame the original lunar rovers didn't have any type of remote
> control. I'm sure the batteries are shot by now anywayz.
> http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_lrv.html
>
> Would be kinda n33t to hack the old school abandoned stuff, Harry Broderick
> style: http://imdb.com/title/tt0079847 http://imdb.com/title/tt0078681


Was that the one where they used a cement truck drum for the ship's hull?

[Darrel Toepfer]

cavelamb himself > wrote:

> Was that the one where they used a cement truck drum for the ship's
> hull?

I don't remember that, I thought he'd gotten scrap Apollo stuff from the
government...

[[email protected]]

On Dec 12, 7:37 pm, cavelamb himself > wrote:
> I figure there is enough expertise in this group to successfully tackle
> this challenge...
>
> Now all it takes is money!
>
> http://blogs.abcnews.com/scienceandsociety/2007/12/moon-20.html

I'm in, but -- like most of us -- all I have to offer is time, some
knowledge, and enthusiasm beyond reason.

(I found the Mercury and Gemini information on line, but there never
are any dimensioned drawings of them. How do modelbuilders do it?
Does NASA sell the plans?)

[Harry K]

On Dec 12, 6:07 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> cavelamb himself > wrote:
> > I figure there is enough expertise in this group to successfully tackle
> > this challenge...
>
> > Now all it takes is money!
>
> >http://blogs.abcnews.com/scienceandsociety/2007/12/moon-20.html
>
> > The latest version of the X Prize is backed by Google: $20 million to
> > the first private enterprise that can land a robotic rover on the lunar
> > surface,
>
> Um - has any private enterprise even gotten into orbit yet? I mean jeepers,
> how many _nations_ have even managed to get an artificial satellite into
> orbit - never mind get one to the moon? What gives with announcing prizes
> that no one is likely to be able to collect on?

Or a prize where the effort to win it will cost nearly as much, if not
more, than the prize?

Harry K

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Harry K wrote:
> On Dec 12, 6:07 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
>>cavelamb himself > wrote:
>>
>>>I figure there is enough expertise in this group to successfully tackle
>>>this challenge...
>>
>>>Now all it takes is money!
>>
>>>http://blogs.abcnews.com/scienceandsociety/2007/12/moon-20.html
>>
>>>The latest version of the X Prize is backed by Google: $20 million to
>>>the first private enterprise that can land a robotic rover on the lunar
>>>surface,
>>
>>Um - has any private enterprise even gotten into orbit yet? I mean jeepers,
>>how many _nations_ have even managed to get an artificial satellite into
>>orbit - never mind get one to the moon? What gives with announcing prizes
>>that no one is likely to be able to collect on?
>
>
> Or a prize where the effort to win it will cost nearly as much, if not
> more, than the prize?
>
> Harry K

Rutan's crew won the $20 million prize with SpaceShip One.
It cost $40 million.


They seem to think it was worth it...


Richard

[Al G[_1_]]

> wrote in message
...
> On Dec 12, 7:37 pm, cavelamb himself > wrote:
>> I figure there is enough expertise in this group to successfully tackle
>> this challenge...
>>
>> Now all it takes is money!
>>
>> http://blogs.abcnews.com/scienceandsociety/2007/12/moon-20.html
>
> I'm in, but -- like most of us -- all I have to offer is time, some
> knowledge, and enthusiasm beyond reason.
>
> (I found the Mercury and Gemini information on line, but there never
> are any dimensioned drawings of them. How do modelbuilders do it?
> Does NASA sell the plans?)

How long do you figure it would take for a committee of homebuilders
with a supply of muzzleloader to build and fly a spacecraft? Hell, how long
would it take to decide on a spacecraft?

We could send out little packages of parts/rivets/glue to millions of
Usenet folks, and have them all sent back for final assembly, kinda like
Boeing is doing.

We could simulate sending parts to some people.

We would need a referee, but it would be fun to watch.

Al G

[Darrel Toepfer]

cavelamb himself > wrote:

> Rutan's crew won the $20 million prize with SpaceShip One.
> It cost $40 million.
>
> They seem to think it was worth it...

$1.2m per multisecond zero g space tourist, I think they'll eventually make
money...

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "DT" == Darrel Toepfer > writes:

DT> cavelamb himself > wrote:
>> Rutan's crew won the $20 million prize with SpaceShip One. It
>> cost $40 million.
>>
>> They seem to think it was worth it...

DT> $1.2m per multisecond zero g space tourist, I think they'll
DT> eventually make money...

If Rutan doesn't kill them first.

I guess I'm the only one on the planet that thinks Rutan is more
blowhard than substance. Sure, he can one-off stuff that looks sexy
and advanced. But try delivering a reliable production aircraft or
spacecraft...he can't do it. His spacecraft, as I recall, damn near
went out of control on one or two of the three launches. Only by luck
and skill did they not kill the pilot. It's my fervent hope that the
FAA will examine the hell out of their commercial spacecraft venture.

I admit I dislike him for another reason. Everytime I see him on the
TV he's dissing NASA and similar government programs. I grew up
through the 1960's when NASA and others in government were laying the
foundation of technology we all enjoy today, including this forum,
Usenet/Internet. It's not their fault that the Republican
"government-sux" crowd has taken over for 25 years and ruined morale
and budgets.
--
The fascist state is the corporate state.
~ Benito Mussolini

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Bob Fry > wrote:

> >>>>> "DT" == Darrel Toepfer > writes:
>
> DT> cavelamb himself > wrote:
> >> Rutan's crew won the $20 million prize with SpaceShip One. It
> >> cost $40 million.
> >>
> >> They seem to think it was worth it...
>
> DT> $1.2m per multisecond zero g space tourist, I think they'll
> DT> eventually make money...
>
> If Rutan doesn't kill them first.
>
> I guess I'm the only one on the planet that thinks Rutan is more
> blowhard than substance. Sure, he can one-off stuff that looks sexy
> and advanced. But try delivering a reliable production aircraft or
> spacecraft...he can't do it. His spacecraft, as I recall, damn near
> went out of control on one or two of the three launches. Only by luck
> and skill did they not kill the pilot. It's my fervent hope that the
> FAA will examine the hell out of their commercial spacecraft venture.
>
> I admit I dislike him for another reason. Everytime I see him on the
> TV he's dissing NASA and similar government programs. I grew up
> through the 1960's when NASA and others in government were laying the
> foundation of technology we all enjoy today, including this forum,
> Usenet/Internet. It's not their fault that the Republican
> "government-sux" crowd has taken over for 25 years and ruined morale
> and budgets.

NASA hasn't done all that well no matter what party has been calling the
shots since the early 1970s, it's not nothing whatsoever to do with "the
Republican 'government-sux' crowd".

And Rutan (along with a host of others) is quite correct in stating that
NASA has become badly risk-averse bureaucracy that seems more interested
in its own maintenance than in doing really new things, particularly in
regard to manned spaceflight.

Which is a crying shame, but pretty hard to seriously dispute. That
zero-risk culture means that things are highly unlikely to change, too.

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Bob Fry wrote:
>>>>>> "DT" == Darrel Toepfer > writes:
>
> DT> cavelamb himself > wrote:
> >> Rutan's crew won the $20 million prize with SpaceShip One. It
> >> cost $40 million.
> >>
> >> They seem to think it was worth it...
>
> DT> $1.2m per multisecond zero g space tourist, I think they'll
> DT> eventually make money...
>
> If Rutan doesn't kill them first.
>
> I guess I'm the only one on the planet that thinks Rutan is more
> blowhard than substance. Sure, he can one-off stuff that looks sexy
> and advanced. But try delivering a reliable production aircraft or
> spacecraft...he can't do it. His spacecraft, as I recall, damn near
> went out of control on one or two of the three launches. Only by luck
> and skill did they not kill the pilot. It's my fervent hope that the
> FAA will examine the hell out of their commercial spacecraft venture.

He's always been a prototype guy. That's what he is good at.


>
> I admit I dislike him for another reason. Everytime I see him on the
> TV he's dissing NASA and similar government programs. I grew up
> through the 1960's when NASA and others in government were laying the
> foundation of technology we all enjoy today, including this forum,
> Usenet/Internet. It's not their fault that the Republican
> "government-sux" crowd has taken over for 25 years and ruined morale
> and budgets.


I grew up in the 60s as well and thought until well into my 20's that
they were the perfect government organization because at the time they
were. They aren't anymore. They are just another federal agency. It is
sad but it is true. You could take the same bunch of people that are in
charge of any random US agency and move them to NASA and you wouldn't
see the least bit of difference in operation.

I really don't think you could hand double the amount of money that was
spent going to the moon in the 60s (adjusted for inflation) and get man
to the moon and back today.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

> wrote in message
...
<...>
>
> (I found the Mercury and Gemini information on line, but there never
> are any dimensioned drawings of them. How do modelbuilders do it?
> Does NASA sell the plans?)

http://www.arapress.com/rotw.html

Unfortunately it is out of print at the moment...

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Gig601XLBuilder wrote:
> Bob Fry wrote:
>
>>>>>>> "DT" == Darrel Toepfer > writes:
>>
>>
>> DT> cavelamb himself > wrote:
>> >> Rutan's crew won the $20 million prize with SpaceShip One. It
>> >> cost $40 million.
>> >> >> They seem to think it was worth it...
>>
>> DT> $1.2m per multisecond zero g space tourist, I think they'll
>> DT> eventually make money...
>>
>> If Rutan doesn't kill them first.
>>
>> I guess I'm the only one on the planet that thinks Rutan is more
>> blowhard than substance. Sure, he can one-off stuff that looks sexy
>> and advanced. But try delivering a reliable production aircraft or
>> spacecraft...he can't do it. His spacecraft, as I recall, damn near
>> went out of control on one or two of the three launches. Only by luck
>> and skill did they not kill the pilot. It's my fervent hope that the
>> FAA will examine the hell out of their commercial spacecraft venture.
>
>
> He's always been a prototype guy. That's what he is good at.
>
>
>>
>> I admit I dislike him for another reason. Everytime I see him on the
>> TV he's dissing NASA and similar government programs. I grew up
>> through the 1960's when NASA and others in government were laying the
>> foundation of technology we all enjoy today, including this forum,
>> Usenet/Internet. It's not their fault that the Republican
>> "government-sux" crowd has taken over for 25 years and ruined morale
>> and budgets.
>
>
>
> I grew up in the 60s as well and thought until well into my 20's that
> they were the perfect government organization because at the time they
> were. They aren't anymore. They are just another federal agency. It is
> sad but it is true. You could take the same bunch of people that are in
> charge of any random US agency and move them to NASA and you wouldn't
> see the least bit of difference in operation.
>
> I really don't think you could hand double the amount of money that was
> spent going to the moon in the 60s (adjusted for inflation) and get man
> to the moon and back today.

I hate to, but I fully agree.

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Al G wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Dec 12, 7:37 pm, cavelamb himself > wrote:
>>
>>>I figure there is enough expertise in this group to successfully tackle
>>>this challenge...
>>>
>>>Now all it takes is money!
>>>
>>>http://blogs.abcnews.com/scienceandsociety/2007/12/moon-20.html
>>
>>I'm in, but -- like most of us -- all I have to offer is time, some
>>knowledge, and enthusiasm beyond reason.
>>
>>(I found the Mercury and Gemini information on line, but there never
>>are any dimensioned drawings of them. How do modelbuilders do it?
>>Does NASA sell the plans?)
>
>
> How long do you figure it would take for a committee of homebuilders
> with a supply of muzzleloader to build and fly a spacecraft? Hell, how long
> would it take to decide on a spacecraft?
>
> We could send out little packages of parts/rivets/glue to millions of
> Usenet folks, and have them all sent back for final assembly, kinda like
> Boeing is doing.
>
> We could simulate sending parts to some people.
>
> We would need a referee, but it would be fun to watch.
>
> Al G
>
>

Muzzleloader?

Hmmm.
Not quite LOX/Kerosene, but a obviously potent rocket fuel!

Wonder what the specific impulse would be?

AND

What handling precautions should be observed!!!




Richard


From Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_fuel

The maximum velocity that a rocket can attain in the absence of any
external forces is primarily a function of its mass ratio and its
exhaust velocity. The relationship is described by the rocket equation:
Vf = Veln(M0 / Mf).

The mass ratio is just a way to express what proportion of the rocket is
fuel when it starts accelerating. Typically, a single-stage rocket might
have a mass fraction of 90% propellant, which is a mass ratio of
1/(1-0.9) = 10. The exhaust velocity is often reported as specific impulse.

The first stage will usually use high-density (low volume) propellants
to reduce the area exposed to atmospheric drag and because of the
lighter tankage and higher thrust/weight ratios. Thus, the Apollo-Saturn
V first stage used kerosene-liquid oxygen rather than the liquid
hydrogen-liquid oxygen used on the upper stages (hydrogen is highly
energetic per kilogram, but not per cubic metre). Similarly, the Space
Shuttle uses high-thrust, high-density SRBs for its lift-off with the
liquid hydrogen-liquid oxygen SSMEs used partly for lift-off but
primarily for orbital insertion.

There are three main types of propellants: solid, liquid, and hybrid.

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "SH" == Steve Hix > writes:

SH> NASA hasn't done all that well no matter what party has been
SH> calling the shots since the early 1970s, it's not nothing
SH> whatsoever to do with "the Republican 'government-sux' crowd".

Let me make clear I'm not going to defend the current NASA. Their
decline clearly occurred with the cutoff of the Apollo program (under
Nixon BTW though probably Congress had as much or more responsibility
for their cutback). They never really regained the competence and
prestige they had in the '60s.

SH> And Rutan (along with a host of others) is quite correct in
SH> stating that NASA has become badly risk-averse bureaucracy
SH> that seems more interested in its own maintenance than in
SH> doing really new things, particularly in regard to manned
SH> spaceflight.

Again, not defending current NASA, but the above is overly harsh. They
have achieved some very good unmanned interplanetary missions,
notwithstanding blunders betwee SI and English units. And they have
to avoid obvious risks.

My gripe with Rutan is several, but his utterly over-the-top criticism
of anything government is absurd and childish. It speaks more to his
insecurity than anything.

--
I did not know how to say goodbye. It was harder still, when I refused
to say it.
~ Native American saying

[Harry K]

On Dec 13, 1:28 pm, Gig601XLBuilder > wrote:
> Bob Fry wrote:
> >>>>>> "DT" == Darrel Toepfer > writes:
>
> > DT> cavelamb himself > wrote:
> > >> Rutan's crew won the $20 million prize with SpaceShip One. It
> > >> cost $40 million.
>
> > >> They seem to think it was worth it...
>
> > DT> $1.2m per multisecond zero g space tourist, I think they'll
> > DT> eventually make money...
>
> > If Rutan doesn't kill them first.
>
> > I guess I'm the only one on the planet that thinks Rutan is more
> > blowhard than substance. Sure, he can one-off stuff that looks sexy
> > and advanced. But try delivering a reliable production aircraft or
> > spacecraft...he can't do it. His spacecraft, as I recall, damn near
> > went out of control on one or two of the three launches. Only by luck
> > and skill did they not kill the pilot. It's my fervent hope that the
> > FAA will examine the hell out of their commercial spacecraft venture.
>
> He's always been a prototype guy. That's what he is good at.
>
>
>
> > I admit I dislike him for another reason. Everytime I see him on the
> > TV he's dissing NASA and similar government programs. I grew up
> > through the 1960's when NASA and others in government were laying the
> > foundation of technology we all enjoy today, including this forum,
> > Usenet/Internet. It's not their fault that the Republican
> > "government-sux" crowd has taken over for 25 years and ruined morale
> > and budgets.
>
> I grew up in the 60s as well and thought until well into my 20's that
> they were the perfect government organization because at the time they
> were. They aren't anymore. They are just another federal agency. It is
> sad but it is true. You could take the same bunch of people that are in
> charge of any random US agency and move them to NASA and you wouldn't
> see the least bit of difference in operation.
>
> I really don't think you could hand double the amount of money that was
> spent going to the moon in the 60s (adjusted for inflation) and get man
> to the moon and back today.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I agree but for a different reason. Back in the 60s they were given a
very dramatic goal and allowed to run with it. Tremendous risks were
taken and accepted. Try to do the same things they did back then and
they wouldn't be allowed to proceed.

Harry K

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Bob Fry wrote:

>>>>>>"SH" == Steve Hix > writes:
>
>
> SH> NASA hasn't done all that well no matter what party has been
> SH> calling the shots since the early 1970s, it's not nothing
> SH> whatsoever to do with "the Republican 'government-sux' crowd".
>
> Let me make clear I'm not going to defend the current NASA. Their
> decline clearly occurred with the cutoff of the Apollo program (under
> Nixon BTW though probably Congress had as much or more responsibility
> for their cutback). They never really regained the competence and
> prestige they had in the '60s.
>
> SH> And Rutan (along with a host of others) is quite correct in
> SH> stating that NASA has become badly risk-averse bureaucracy
> SH> that seems more interested in its own maintenance than in
> SH> doing really new things, particularly in regard to manned
> SH> spaceflight.
>
> Again, not defending current NASA, but the above is overly harsh. They
> have achieved some very good unmanned interplanetary missions,
> notwithstanding blunders betwee SI and English units. And they have
> to avoid obvious risks.
>
> My gripe with Rutan is several, but his utterly over-the-top criticism
> of anything government is absurd and childish. It speaks more to his
> insecurity than anything.
>


Yeah, you got him there.

But he HAS done what he said he would do.

Maybe it's not so much insecurities and plain old fashioned
competence and pride.

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Harry K wrote:

> On Dec 13, 1:28 pm, Gig601XLBuilder > wrote:
>
>>Bob Fry wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>"DT" == Darrel Toepfer > writes:
>>
>>> DT> cavelamb himself > wrote:
>>> >> Rutan's crew won the $20 million prize with SpaceShip One. It
>>> >> cost $40 million.
>>
>>> >> They seem to think it was worth it...
>>
>>> DT> $1.2m per multisecond zero g space tourist, I think they'll
>>> DT> eventually make money...
>>
>>>If Rutan doesn't kill them first.
>>
>>>I guess I'm the only one on the planet that thinks Rutan is more
>>>blowhard than substance. Sure, he can one-off stuff that looks sexy
>>>and advanced. But try delivering a reliable production aircraft or
>>>spacecraft...he can't do it. His spacecraft, as I recall, damn near
>>>went out of control on one or two of the three launches. Only by luck
>>>and skill did they not kill the pilot. It's my fervent hope that the
>>>FAA will examine the hell out of their commercial spacecraft venture.
>>
>>He's always been a prototype guy. That's what he is good at.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>I admit I dislike him for another reason. Everytime I see him on the
>>>TV he's dissing NASA and similar government programs. I grew up
>>>through the 1960's when NASA and others in government were laying the
>>>foundation of technology we all enjoy today, including this forum,
>>>Usenet/Internet. It's not their fault that the Republican
>>>"government-sux" crowd has taken over for 25 years and ruined morale
>>>and budgets.
>>
>>I grew up in the 60s as well and thought until well into my 20's that
>>they were the perfect government organization because at the time they
>>were. They aren't anymore. They are just another federal agency. It is
>>sad but it is true. You could take the same bunch of people that are in
>>charge of any random US agency and move them to NASA and you wouldn't
>>see the least bit of difference in operation.
>>
>>I really don't think you could hand double the amount of money that was
>>spent going to the moon in the 60s (adjusted for inflation) and get man
>>to the moon and back today.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> I agree but for a different reason. Back in the 60s they were given a
> very dramatic goal and allowed to run with it. Tremendous risks were
> taken and accepted. Try to do the same things they did back then and
> they wouldn't be allowed to proceed.
>
> Harry K
>


There are calculations that tell how many men will die building a bridge
or anything big like that.

There was always the implication that we would lose a crew in space.

But had that happened they (congress) would have wrung their hands
and cried, "How tragic that we funded this", and pulled the plug.

We lost one crew on the ground and nearly lost the whole project.

I just can't fathom it...

Richard

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Harry K wrote:

>
> I agree but for a different reason. Back in the 60s they were given a
> very dramatic goal and allowed to run with it. Tremendous risks were
> taken and accepted. Try to do the same things they did back then and
> they wouldn't be allowed to proceed.
>
> Harry K
>


That is exactly the point. Who is it that is not going to allow them to
do it? The government. So the obvious solution to the problem is take
the government out of the equation.