Page 2 of 2 |
[ 18 posts ] |
What might be done
Author | Message |
---|---|
Moderator ![]() ![]()
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745 Location: Hamburg, Germany ![]() |
Hello, idiom,
regarding the experimental calculations the calculations of delivering cargo are auxiliary merely: to get the prices per kg of propellant delivered. So I want(ed) to keep one and the same spreadsheet to be applicable to cargo trips as well as to normal passenger trips. So ion thrusters can't be applied at present there it seems. This has the effect that each tank/stage can be applied to nearly each kind of trip which keeps the depreciations per trip low. Economically - and thus under the aspect of NASA's budget constraints - those propulsions and tanks should be chosen that can be expected to be reused most often. This seems to speak against ion thrusters at present. But to not assume them might tend to overestimate costs - which is a safe approach making the experimental results speak even more for reusable vehciles kept in space as the better method to do permanent operations on the Moon. Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist) |
Back to top |
![]() |
Space Station Member ![]() ![]()
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 1:04 pm
Posts: 257 Location: Norway ![]() |
The concept is probably good when the distance starts increasing, but the moon is, in my opinion, too close for something intricate like this. It's just a fling away...
|
Back to top |
![]() ![]() |
Moderator ![]() ![]()
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745 Location: Hamburg, Germany ![]() |
Hello, IrquiM,
distance in km or miles don't have no effect on budgets or Economics - it are the costs to cross a distance that have effects. This indeed led a well-known german Economist to define an economic distance that is measured in units of costs. This way that planet is farther away that requires higher costs to reach it. Since those costs depend on the fuel and vehicle applied the criterion(s) need to be those I apply in the experimental calculation. And the economic distance depends on the fuel(s) applied. There up to now it turns out that the concept is much cheaper and more optimal than what NASA is planning on at present. There also was - and may be still is - serious research on it by Prof. Collins and the Japanese Rocket Society. As posted in the Financial Barriers section they got $ 200,000 for one landing trip towards the Moon and also considered cargo. ... Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist) |
Back to top |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Page 2 of 2 |
[ 18 posts ] |
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests |