Comments on: At last! The proverbial ‘silver bullet’ for spaceflight & enterprise in view? https://habitablezone.com/2011/06/21/at-last-the-proverbial-silver-bullet-for-spaceflight-enterprise-in-view/ Sun, 19 Apr 2026 21:38:00 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: VelociraptorBlade https://habitablezone.com/2011/06/21/at-last-the-proverbial-silver-bullet-for-spaceflight-enterprise-in-view/#comment-3060 VelociraptorBlade Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:25:31 +0000 http://habitablezone.com/?p=1883#comment-3060 That only answers the cost of the Falcon rockets; it doesn't address any of the other issues I mentioned. That only answers the cost of the Falcon rockets; it doesn’t address any of the other issues I mentioned.

]]> By: TB https://habitablezone.com/2011/06/21/at-last-the-proverbial-silver-bullet-for-spaceflight-enterprise-in-view/#comment-3002 TB Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:02:58 +0000 http://habitablezone.com/?p=1883#comment-3002 You can launch something like ten Falcon 9s for what a single Shuttle launch cost. And the Falcon 9 engines are being designed for re-use and water splashdowns. Believe me, anybody doing private spaceflight thinks of reusable systems at some point. You can launch something like ten Falcon 9s for what a single Shuttle launch cost. And the Falcon 9 engines are being designed for re-use and water splashdowns. Believe me, anybody doing private spaceflight thinks of reusable systems at some point.

]]> By: VelociraptorBlade https://habitablezone.com/2011/06/21/at-last-the-proverbial-silver-bullet-for-spaceflight-enterprise-in-view/#comment-2998 VelociraptorBlade Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:42:30 +0000 http://habitablezone.com/?p=1883#comment-2998 My counter-argument's a bit more long-winded, but I'll cut to the chase too. *Cue sound of dreams shattering* 1)The Falcon rockets are 1 use only. Stepping away from reusable spacecraft was a major step backward on NASA's part. If we want to get anywhere in space, we need to be able to have durable spacecraft on demand (and hopefully cheap) that can take extreme heat, cold and debris, and still keep it's crew alive. It's a jungle out there, and we have to be on our tows. 2)VASIMR overheats like crazy, and in a vacuum, there's no place to easily dispose of that heat. Adding a cooling system is cause for more extra weight, and any leak will doom the spacecraft. The thing will be needed to be heavily shielded to protect itself from cosmic rays, and ultra-fast debris made even MORE ultra-fast with the spacecraft's quick speed. Also, the system goes to hell in magnetic fields (Goodbye Jupiter missions - or any planet in general). We also have no idea how much the units or fuel for them will cost - and in this economy, with the US Government as deep in debts as it is, money is a major factor. Sure, it's reusable, but how often will it break down? How often will parts need to be replaced, How EASILY can they be replaced? We need links! 3)Which wavelengths? they're saying light behaves differently at wavelengths around a nanometer and that that's the wavelengths they're aiming to collect light at. by using several layers of material to trap light and mirror it around until it gets absorbed. I see a major problem here: organic materials. As with OLED's, they ARE more efficient, yes. But also as with OLED's, they'll wear down more easily, and organitech is expensive enough to replace already. Unless they develop self-repairing organitech soon, I'd hate to be on a spaceflight that wears out it's solar panels halfway throughout their trip. OK! Combining all three Idus Martiae, I see the following: A one-way money sink death trap to nowhere. I say we plan more and work on solving these issues gbefore we go anywhere further than the Moon. (Keep in mind I am not being a bully here - someone has to play Devil's Advocate in order to further progress) My counter-argument’s a bit more long-winded, but I’ll cut to the chase too. *Cue sound of dreams shattering*

1)The Falcon rockets are 1 use only. Stepping away from reusable spacecraft was a major step backward on NASA’s part. If we want to get anywhere in space, we need to be able to have durable spacecraft on demand (and hopefully cheap) that can take extreme heat, cold and debris, and still keep it’s crew alive. It’s a jungle out there, and we have to be on our tows.

2)VASIMR overheats like crazy, and in a vacuum, there’s no place to easily dispose of that heat. Adding a cooling system is cause for more extra weight, and any leak will doom the spacecraft. The thing will be needed to be heavily shielded to protect itself from cosmic rays, and ultra-fast debris made even MORE ultra-fast with the spacecraft’s quick speed. Also, the system goes to hell in magnetic fields (Goodbye Jupiter missions – or any planet in general). We also have no idea how much the units or fuel for them will cost – and in this economy, with the US Government as deep in debts as it is, money is a major factor. Sure, it’s reusable, but how often will it break down? How often will parts need to be replaced, How EASILY can they be replaced? We need links!

3)Which wavelengths? they’re saying light behaves differently at wavelengths around a nanometer and that that’s the wavelengths they’re aiming to collect light at. by using several layers of material to trap light and mirror it around until it gets absorbed. I see a major problem here: organic materials. As with OLED’s, they ARE more efficient, yes. But also as with OLED’s, they’ll wear down more easily, and organitech is expensive enough to replace already. Unless they develop self-repairing organitech soon, I’d hate to be on a spaceflight that wears out it’s solar panels halfway throughout their trip.

OK! Combining all three Idus Martiae, I see the following: A one-way money sink death trap to nowhere. I say we plan more and work on solving these issues gbefore we go anywhere further than the Moon.

(Keep in mind I am not being a bully here – someone has to play Devil’s Advocate in order to further progress)

]]>