Community > Forum > Official Micro-Space Forum > News Updates

News Updates

Posted by: rpspeck - Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:03 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 27 posts ] 
News Updates 
Author Message
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:46 am
Hello, rpspeck,

just this moment and reading your post I recognized that I can use your numbers as well as those listed by Armadillo Aerospace/John Carmack in my calculations in the Financial Barriers section.

Regarding the russian price to ISS I would be interested which way you get the $ 20 mio because the number is interesting. My personal informations up to now are that $ 20 mio is the price per passenger while the flight in total is said to cost $ 65 mio. Of these $ 30 mio to $ 40 mio seem to be the Soyuz-rocket according to www-astronautix.com - applying the said $ 65 mio this would mean that the Soyuz-capsule costs $ 25 mio. So the price of the Soyuz-capsule is close to what you estimate required for getting to the lunar surface and back. I didn't look for the numbers I myself calculated in the Financial Barriers section - but they may be assisting you. I will calculate new numbers soon that will be systematically calculated.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

Corrected/enahnced


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:34 am
Posts: 450
Post $20 Million to walk on the Moon   Posted on: Sat Nov 04, 2006 9:33 pm
Ekkehard,

My figures first assume that my lander system, with its 50 pound empty weight, will be used for lunar descent and ascent. A vehicle carrying 300 pounds of high performance rocket fuel, as this one can, is well known to be able to land more than 300 pounds on the Moon, or lift a similar mass to Low Lunar Orbit. For ascent, this leaves 250 pounds for the adventurer in his/her pressure suit, which is ample.

One question, posed in this forum, is whether any sane individual would be willing to take off from the Moon with little more than a pressure suit and “bicycle frameâ€


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Sun Jan 14, 2007 9:09 am
Hello, rpspeck,

Thank You Very Much for the informations I was asking for.

I in between applied them but recognized that my question turns out to have been incomplete.

Do I understand correct that both landers will return into the lunar orbit - that one carrying the astronaut as well as that one carrying the propellant to refuel that first lander? I can imagine that very well because I am imagining that the second lander would return without any payload.

The other informations I forgot to ask for may be data you consider to be too sensible to make them public. If that's the case then of course it will be no problem if you don't post them.

The questions are:

What propellant do you apply that the H2O2 will oxydize to?
What is the average density of the two? I am asking because I use this ratio to calculate a volume.

I am considering the engine separatedly from the other components of vehicles and landers. I am speculating that the engine weighs a bit more than 10 kg - is that right or far too few or far too much? What would be the correct number?

How thick are the walls of the four tanks? I speculated 5 millimeters - this together with the diameter of four inch resulted in a length per tank of a bit more than eight meters. This is sounding a bit long to me.

Sorry if this list of questions is sounding a bit unfriendly - this isn't intended and merely is a result of my personal doubts regarding the result of my speculations.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:34 am
Posts: 450
Post Affordable Cost for Lunar Surface?   Posted on: Tue Jan 16, 2007 8:44 pm
Hi, Ekke,

My plan is for the used lander to remain on the Moon. You are right, only an extra fifty pounds of fuel would be needed to bring one back to orbit, but I don’t have a use for it, so this would be money and payload wasted.

My basic situation is planning to land on the Moon (and Mars), while launch cost to orbit is still high (in the next few years). With cost to orbit near $18,000 per kg (equal to the price of Gold), very few things are worth reusing if that requires extra fuel mass in orbit. This argues strongly for expendable rather than reusable systems.

Production aerospace hardware falls in a narrow cost range, per kg. The basic Cessna 172 flight trainer listed recently at $220/kg and the Airbus A320 to A380, as well as 737 and 747, all were priced close to $500/kg. The Cessna price increases when fully IFR equipped, and it also reflects the benefit of larger (cumulative) production volume. This leaves a slim difference for high performance and greater sophistication. This reality of course demolishes dreams of large “Scale Benefitsâ€


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:34 am
Posts: 450
Post Entrespace Interplanetary Co-op   Posted on: Mon Jan 29, 2007 6:47 pm
Micro-Space, and its nonprofit affiliate, Entrespace, are looking for qualified volunteers to review the “Entrespace Interplanetary Co-opâ€


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Austin, Texas
Post    Posted on: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:46 pm
According to this chart which I found at http://www.pma.caltech.edu/~chirata/deltav.html , it takes 600 m/s additional velocity from Earth escape to reach mars.
But I assume that is an average. It varies dramatically from year to year due to the rather eccentric orbit of Mars. It might be as low as 385 at favorable times.
:Image


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:34 am
Posts: 450
Post    Posted on: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:08 pm
Thanks for the reference. The 0.6 number (and 0.9 return number) may include a provision for the orbital plane change maneuver, which is a significant addition for most oposition dates.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:34 am
Posts: 450
Post See Entrespace Interplanetary Co-op" topic for discussi   Posted on: Sat Feb 03, 2007 12:58 am
Please address discussion on this effort to the new “Entrespace Interplanetary Co-opâ€


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:34 am
Posts: 450
Post MARS: Only the Names are Unknown   Posted on: Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:01 pm
Micro-Space has identified and mastered all the technologies required for a human expedition to Mars. The “Micro-Space/Entrespace Interplanetary Co-opâ€


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:34 am
Posts: 450
Post "Mars Team One" Announced   Posted on: Sun Jun 03, 2007 11:16 pm
NEWS from Micro-Space: Mars Team One.

Tom and Tina Sjogren (founders and operators of the http://www.explorersweb.com.html ) have revealed their plans to embark on a private expedition to Mars by the year 2014. This was disclosed in an interview with “Outsideâ€


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:34 am
Posts: 450
Post Re: News Updates   Posted on: Thu Dec 10, 2009 3:16 pm
Micro-Space SBIR proposal, “Automatic Solar and Celestial Navigation on the Moon and Mars”, has been selected by NASA for Phase I funding. This proposal taps Micro-Space's long history of high resolution image processing and capture, used for example in our DOD automated inspection systems for aircraft HUD and HMD displays and in machine vision systems. The very low mass system proposed can also be adapted for use as a “Star Camera” in CubeSats and NanoSpacecraft including to guide planetary approach for aerobraking and atmospheric entry.

An STTR proposal, teaming with Bob Twiggs – of CubeSat fame – and his university is still pending. This proposal uses Micro-Space, electromagnetic 6DOF position sensing and force generation system to assemble and stabilize untethered small satellite formations. Professor Twiggs has previously led teams which successfully flew tethered PicoSats in orbit. The proposed orbital demonstration would clear the way for much more complex to be flown, with no necessary maneuvering fuel.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:34 am
Posts: 450
Post Re: News Updates   Posted on: Thu May 27, 2010 5:10 pm
Micro-Space Press Release: Denver, Colorado, May 27, 2010

Micro-Space is currently manifested to fly TWO tiny CubeSats "Ride Sharing" launch with EduSat, Sich-2 and other spacecraft, to be flown on a Dnepr into Sun Synchronous (near Polar) Orbit, Oct. 29, 2010. Payload Integration for this satellite group is being handled by Morehead State University, involving Dr. Ben Malphrus (Space Science Center director) and professor Bob Twiggs. Micro-Space will also be delivering two similar spacecraft to Morehead State University, and the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. Additional research systems will be added by the two universities.

The complete, four satellite "PQ-Gemini ++" mission group, in addition to validating general satellite systems, will be capable of demonstrating Micro-Space interferometric techniques to characterize orbital differences using only precision range data between ultralight spacecraft in preparation for autonomous rendezvous. Additional systems will allow the relative positions, distance and rotational alignment of the four satellites to be continuously monitored. This information is necessary for the final, docking procedures. Other developmental steps will follow, leading to ultralight Sample Return Missions on the Moon and Mars.

The tiny size of these satellites, 5 cm cubes massing 120 grams, is totally in tune with the Micro-Space strategy of radically downsizing space systems to minimize launch cost and make mission financing feasible. Even with today's high transportation cost to orbit, exploration is affordable when spacecraft are downsized from the mass of a Volkswagen to that of a lunch box. The cost effectiveness grows further when the systems are reduced to the mass of a modern cell phone! Grams or even milligrams of material from a selected spot on a planet or moon can be analyzed with great precision using modern techniques.

Micro-Space is discussing with several organizations both return sample analysis and Lunar Prospecting. The latter will be aimed at locating concentrations of extractable Lunar Gems and Minerals. High grade Titanium, rare earth metals and Helium Three (a potential Fusion Reactor Fuel) are all known to exist on the Moon. Low cost flight of concentrated ores to the Earth is feasible using Solar Powered, electromagnetic "Rail guns", and other technologies.

Propellant to complete rendezvous and docking is not allowed in this satellite cluster launch. Arrangements are being negotiated for launch next year of small Micro-Space spacecraft with propulsion systems to demonstrate the complete rendezvous and docking process as will be used with “Planetary Ascent Vehicles” carrying prospecting samples. Negotiations with this launch supplier also cover subsequent launch of our “Lunar Lander” and Lunar Transfer spacecraft, as well as the Planetary Ascent and Return vehicles.

Our corporate sponsors include “Legacy Stone Products, Inc.”, of Denver, Colorado, which has purchased an option for “The First Moon Rocks returned by Micro-Space to Earth for Architectural Use.” A small slice of this unique material can highlight the “Old World” look of classic stone with its “Space Age” reality!


Back to top
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ] 
Moderator: rpspeck
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use