Why aren't we in space yet?
To all,
I've created this blog to shout loudly about the insanity in which common sense has been lost pertaining space, and our inability of any world power, or private venture to make it a reality for all who wish to travel there. This is more of an open question as to why we aren't out there, when simple, safe and efficient ways have been available for almost a hundred years to get us all there as cheaply as buying a coach airline ticket. My end goal in this, is to prove or discredit a viable space-based launch system with other thinkers out there, and maybe, if we're lucky, get some wealthy interested party to devote some resources to make something viable a reality in leu of buying their next fleet of exotic sportscars, or mega-yachts. Personally, I could care less if someone takes some of these long thought out ideas and runs with them, AS LONG AS IT BECOMES A REALITY FOR US ALL. I'd even stand in line to buy the first ticket.
Here are some basic thoughts I've had over the years:
Fact: Back in the 1930's man created rigid dirigibles capable of lifting over 100 tons to practically any altitude, but space pressure suits, and sophisticated oxygen breating apparatus hadn't been invented for high alitude, so altitudes were regulated to under 14,000ft, where you could still breathe the air without an oxygen mask. Of course the zeppelins were capable of going much higher. How soon we forget.
Fact: Helium based ballons were used to put the first man in near space back in 1957, prior to Yuri Gagarin in 1961.
Fact: Helium is a noble gas, and is non-explosive or reactive with other elements unlke hydrogen.
Fact: Graf Zeppelin wanted to use non-reactive Helium in the hindenburg, but germany was boycotted from the US at the time as they were poising for war in europe. At the time, the US was one of the only sources for helium. If the hindenburg had been filled with helium, it would have been an even bigger goliath, and there wouldn't have been any disaster, and we'd already be using them to get to space in a huge way.
Fact: Helium was considered a rare resource in the early 1900's, which was the hayday of dirigibles. It's so common today, and the sources are so plentiful, Graf Zeppelin would roll in his grave if he knew. The use of hydrogen as a volitile substitute doomed dirigible development, just as it was getting interesting.
Fact: The Hindenburg, and other like derigibles were capable of carrying near a hundred passengers at a time, and had facilities like current cruiseliners have; as a matter of fact, they were considered more roomy and preferred over the luxury-liners of the day such as the queen mary. In a time when airplanes could barely manage a few hundred miles, dirigibles were carrying people non-stop from Germany to Brazil.
Fact: Dirigibles circumnavigated the globe, and even explored the north pole.
Fact: At our current technological level, we have materials like Aramid, a flame retardent cloth that is nearly bullit-proof, composites that are much stronger and lighter than aluminium, and life support systems capabable of sustaining breathable air for months on space stations. My question is why we aren't using a proven method for getting to space cheaply? I'm sure everyone wants to strap on a one-time-use multi-million dollar controlled explosion, build buy an exclusive club, light the fuse, and hope for the best. It's too much like common sense to use a 100% reuseable space vehicle that would require very little in volitile reactants, and have no need of a heat shield.
Fact: There is no reason to have to break the sound barrier to get to space, or return from it. As you get higher in the atmosphere, air becomes less dense, and the sound barrier speed becomes higher. In the upper thermosphere, a lighter than air ship can travel to escape velocity speeds without having to deal with friction or heat shielding, as there is very little air up there. All that it requires is patience to build speed slowly, versus getting to 25,000mph in less than five minutes, which is the conventional method. Does the carbonation bubbles in your coke need to travel to the speed of sound to get to the surface and make that foam?
Fact: There are methods in use today to make even lighter, stronger, more rigid composite spars and beams than the way they make them now. I've been waiting for someone to use "pre-stressed" methods on composites, like they do with concrete bridge spans. No one bright enough has come up with that one yet.
Fact: HEATED helium has even more lift capabilities than room temperature helium when they are at the same pressure. If man was capable of building heavy lift dirigibles in the 1930's capable of 100 ton loads, just think of what could be done with new lighter construction materials, computers regulating helium cell pressure, and heated helium. It's a whole lot more that the 30 year old relic deathtrap known as the space shuttle, which has a maximum lift capacity of only 17.5 tons. You want an entire space station lifted to orbit in one go? Seems mind-blowing that we have an 8 billion a year aluminium can in space, that could have been lifted nearly complete in one trip. How many billions would that have saved? Probably enough to buy a real space station build by bigelow aerospace.
Feel free to poke holes in any of this, or to add suggestions or ideas. Maybe we'll get lucky, and get someone with the resources to develop a real space program interested.
TomSwift
I've created this blog to shout loudly about the insanity in which common sense has been lost pertaining space, and our inability of any world power, or private venture to make it a reality for all who wish to travel there. This is more of an open question as to why we aren't out there, when simple, safe and efficient ways have been available for almost a hundred years to get us all there as cheaply as buying a coach airline ticket. My end goal in this, is to prove or discredit a viable space-based launch system with other thinkers out there, and maybe, if we're lucky, get some wealthy interested party to devote some resources to make something viable a reality in leu of buying their next fleet of exotic sportscars, or mega-yachts. Personally, I could care less if someone takes some of these long thought out ideas and runs with them, AS LONG AS IT BECOMES A REALITY FOR US ALL. I'd even stand in line to buy the first ticket.
Here are some basic thoughts I've had over the years:
Fact: Back in the 1930's man created rigid dirigibles capable of lifting over 100 tons to practically any altitude, but space pressure suits, and sophisticated oxygen breating apparatus hadn't been invented for high alitude, so altitudes were regulated to under 14,000ft, where you could still breathe the air without an oxygen mask. Of course the zeppelins were capable of going much higher. How soon we forget.
Fact: Helium based ballons were used to put the first man in near space back in 1957, prior to Yuri Gagarin in 1961.
Fact: Helium is a noble gas, and is non-explosive or reactive with other elements unlke hydrogen.
Fact: Graf Zeppelin wanted to use non-reactive Helium in the hindenburg, but germany was boycotted from the US at the time as they were poising for war in europe. At the time, the US was one of the only sources for helium. If the hindenburg had been filled with helium, it would have been an even bigger goliath, and there wouldn't have been any disaster, and we'd already be using them to get to space in a huge way.
Fact: Helium was considered a rare resource in the early 1900's, which was the hayday of dirigibles. It's so common today, and the sources are so plentiful, Graf Zeppelin would roll in his grave if he knew. The use of hydrogen as a volitile substitute doomed dirigible development, just as it was getting interesting.
Fact: The Hindenburg, and other like derigibles were capable of carrying near a hundred passengers at a time, and had facilities like current cruiseliners have; as a matter of fact, they were considered more roomy and preferred over the luxury-liners of the day such as the queen mary. In a time when airplanes could barely manage a few hundred miles, dirigibles were carrying people non-stop from Germany to Brazil.
Fact: Dirigibles circumnavigated the globe, and even explored the north pole.
Fact: At our current technological level, we have materials like Aramid, a flame retardent cloth that is nearly bullit-proof, composites that are much stronger and lighter than aluminium, and life support systems capabable of sustaining breathable air for months on space stations. My question is why we aren't using a proven method for getting to space cheaply? I'm sure everyone wants to strap on a one-time-use multi-million dollar controlled explosion, build buy an exclusive club, light the fuse, and hope for the best. It's too much like common sense to use a 100% reuseable space vehicle that would require very little in volitile reactants, and have no need of a heat shield.
Fact: There is no reason to have to break the sound barrier to get to space, or return from it. As you get higher in the atmosphere, air becomes less dense, and the sound barrier speed becomes higher. In the upper thermosphere, a lighter than air ship can travel to escape velocity speeds without having to deal with friction or heat shielding, as there is very little air up there. All that it requires is patience to build speed slowly, versus getting to 25,000mph in less than five minutes, which is the conventional method. Does the carbonation bubbles in your coke need to travel to the speed of sound to get to the surface and make that foam?
Fact: There are methods in use today to make even lighter, stronger, more rigid composite spars and beams than the way they make them now. I've been waiting for someone to use "pre-stressed" methods on composites, like they do with concrete bridge spans. No one bright enough has come up with that one yet.
Fact: HEATED helium has even more lift capabilities than room temperature helium when they are at the same pressure. If man was capable of building heavy lift dirigibles in the 1930's capable of 100 ton loads, just think of what could be done with new lighter construction materials, computers regulating helium cell pressure, and heated helium. It's a whole lot more that the 30 year old relic deathtrap known as the space shuttle, which has a maximum lift capacity of only 17.5 tons. You want an entire space station lifted to orbit in one go? Seems mind-blowing that we have an 8 billion a year aluminium can in space, that could have been lifted nearly complete in one trip. How many billions would that have saved? Probably enough to buy a real space station build by bigelow aerospace.
Feel free to poke holes in any of this, or to add suggestions or ideas. Maybe we'll get lucky, and get someone with the resources to develop a real space program interested.
TomSwift
posted by TomSwift at 11:45 PM
6 comments
