New Mars Forums

Even so--RS-68 is what we have. Perhaps RD-0120 can come later. Perhaps China will want it. As far as politics (yawn) is concerned, Obey and Frank on the Left are just as much enemies of VSE as Mike Pence is on the right. So let's vote pro-space--without regard to party differences. In this era of 50/50 votes, small comunities (The Elian Gonz crowd in Florida--the Naderites, etc. --all have a power to tilt the balence. What we must do is to put aside our differences and show that space advocates can also be a voice. If Jeb's last name wasn't Bush--his pro-space stance alone might get Florida and Ohio, state with NASA centers. If he runs away from his Woodrow Wilsion brother inhabiting the White House--his center-right pro-space platform might have him win the Presidency.

I wonder if anyone has tracked the path of the Centaurs like Chiron (or other bodies) to see if we have any perturbers to move through this region of space.

Other disasters--

Hurricane clip of last season:
http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/0 … ne-season/

Good for mining
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Corks … rhood.html

Old asteroid hit:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Possi … ctica.html

New hit:
http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/0 … meteorite/
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology … puter.html

Quark passage thru Earth--and the fourth Dim
http://www.smu.edu/newsinfo/releases/01342.html

Source?
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Quark … _Bang.html
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums … 13&start=1
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Scien … Space.html

Misc astronomy and more:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 … nemos.html
http://www.skynightly.com/reports/Astro … ghway.html
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Magne … tions.html
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Ozone … ering.html
http://www.tothtelescope.com/

InvisibilityCloak
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19951

New detector
http://www.spacemart.com/reports/Inexpe … Color.html

H2 sensor
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Revol … loped.html

3D now?
http://www.spacemart.com/reports/Samsun … ology.html

New Iron
http://www.spacemart.com/reports/Chemis … _Iron.html

That is good for the future--but for starters, I'd rather re-use water and just keep sending more per mission to build up something of a stockpile. I see LUNOX propellant schemes--maybe even LSAMS at a later date, but I would settle for a nice large soft-landed tank to keep water in and build my water supplies over time--preferably in segmented H2O tanks to cut down on micrometeoroid loss. The water will freeze the opening shut, where hydrogen by itself is a lot harder to contain. Water is dense and rather inert.

With water and tankage delivered to the moon, you can make the most of the water for heating, cooling, etc. Bulk hydrogen can come later. As other missions land nearby. I want to see the tanks on the landers filled with H2O over time. As the ascent stage leaves, the stump of the base can be turned into some sort of still as you suggest. I want to see the stumps of the landers used as roofs with inflatable antennas and habitats place on or about them.

I don't have a problem with a lunar station, so long as CEV is nearby. CEV may need to dock to the station if it has problem with life-support. It is a payload for the future of course. The more infrastructure you have, the better.

I know gene Meyers at SIG. Look, there were plans some years ago concerning passengers in the shuttle bay. He has let the Space Hotel thing slip and is more interested in large powersat demonstrators and has developed quite a few contacts. There was once a time that large numbers of folks were going to space on STS--before Columbia--so that isn't too farfetched

Bigelow seems more like a joke.

Gene is what a space start up leader should be. He wants to work with Griffin and VSE and find a payload for CaLV. That is where the alt.spacers need to focus. Let Bigelow fund a simple hollow tube for CaLV and have a simple hotel if he wants one. Perhaps that would be a good test payload for CaLV so if there is a mishap--you haven't really lost anything. Just a big tube with rooms and a soyuz dock on one end. That isn't too far-fetched.

I can't get the link to work.

I really worry about the next administration. When Zubrin called for an HLLV, McCain rolled his eyes. (not a good sign).

McCain asked about a response to china, and one of the space libertairan frauds responded by saying that we don't need "one 'socialist space program to respond to another."

So Apollo was socialist and not a sign of the strength of the free-world.

That just shows the idiocy of the space libertarians who would no doubt nix VSE--while secretly getting NASA/taxpayer funds for a plethora of Rube Goldberg schemes--none of which will ever see orbit.  McCain worries me. Too bad Jeb's last name is Bush.

Enough with the re-usability crap. Build big and simple. A recoverable engine module will just add to costs.

HLLV--not HLV is what we need.

Less assembly=greater chance of success.

CaLV should be just one of a line of larger LVs, with Rombus, Sea Dragon or Nexus coming 20 yrs afterwards. Thats how you assemble big ships--with big modules. CaLV for high value articles, Sea Dragon for propellant, tankage, etc.

I don't know if I buy that. Sounds like more Rube Goldberg nonsense to undermine greater lift capability in LVs.

What do you expect from the white-coats and pointy-heads? I'll take a soft landing for my water supplies, thank you very much.

Let me shut off his running water and have him gather hailstones to drink and see how he likes it. And imagine how hard he will huff and puff without a suit. Or how much oxygen he would burn in the attempt.

Please...

Ariane X (or Ariane M) CaLV--at least we are seeing more support of HLLVs. Maybe we can put fantasies of space elevators to bed now and finally support big, simple rockets for a change.

It certainly would be. ISS proved the folly of piecemeal 20 ton at a time assembly.

I like the Mega-module approach--the one that was bashed by that know-nothing Ed Wright of the NASCAR rocket race scheme. The mega-module approach could have had ISS done in five flights--not five hundred, so to speak.

Bigger modules and less assembly. Not smaller modules and a whole bunch of headaches.