starship-design: Remove

["Viren Shah" <voshah@worldnet.att.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: <KellySt@aol.com>
To: <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: starship-design: AsterAnts


>
> In a message dated 3/27/02 4:14:38 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes:
>
> >
> >> I have this vague memory that a lot of the water they use on shuttle
> >> flights is produced as by the fuel cells they use to generate
> >> power.  So
> >> in a sense they may be getting their water for free; the
> >> money was spent
> >> on launching the fuel.
> >>
> >> Note that the per-pound launch costs quoted for payload are typically
> >> calculated by dividing the cost of flying an entire shuttle mission by
> >> the weight of the payload.  Water carried for crew use _isn't_ payload
> >> and therefore won't have much effect on the payload launch cost.
> >>
> >> The cost per pound to put the entire shuttle in orbit is quite a bit
> >> less than the payload launch cost; the payload is only a
> >> fraction of the
> >> entire shuttle weight.
> >
> >
> >This is all true, but the fact remains that there is a cost for the
water.
> >Even though it is a byproduct, the hydrazine costs something and the fuel
> >to
> >launch the hydrazine still costs something. If it wasn't for this
fortuitous
> >circumstance, they WOULD have to launch water regularly.
>
> They don't use the fuel cell derived water to stock the station.
>
> And the fuel cells arn't fueled by hydrazine.  They use hydrogen and
oxegen.
>
> If the water was the result of the fuel cells they would be fre, since no
> extra fuel would be lifted for water production, so their would be no
extra
> cost.
>
>
>
> >
> >If one is going to assume an increased presence of people in orbit, then
> >water will become an issue. The SSTS will not provide enough for a full
> >ISS
> >crew complement (if we ever get there). ===
>
> Ah, were there already.  :(
>
> At this point were more likely to shut ISS down as expand it past 3
crewman.
>
>
> >==The AsterAnts concept is assuming
> >that on orbit manufacturing will happen, and therefore there will be more
> >people up there, so we will need not only materials for the manufacturing
> >operations, but also water for the people. In this respect, water was
> >actually considered almost a byproduct of the mining operation. (Here we
> >go
> >again, we are getting something for free... .)
>
> Given the water would need to be gotten from other places, and with other
> equipment, as the other material - it wouldn't be byproduct.
>
>
>
>
> >
> >To reiterate and expand upon the reason I posted the concept in the first
> >place, an Explorer class ship will need materials such as fuel when it
> >reaches its' destination. It isn't practical to send out (or carry) lots
> >of
> >big mining ships, but if we had AsterAnts bringing lots of small rocks
> >back
> >to a central site for processing, that makes a lot more sense. We get
> >metals, fuel, and even water, from an autonomous craft that doesn't even
> >consume any fuel itself. Pretty slick.
> >
> >Lee
>
> Ah, the ants will need fuel, and likely you'll need more mass of small
ships
> to bring back as much minned material then if you used big minning ships.
> Thats why mines go for huge equipment.
>
> Also the fuel would be metal (Lithium - 6 ) for the Explorers and their
> support craft.
>
> Kelly
>