New Mars Forums

Xprize contest team that has a simular looking rocket.
http://www.xprize.org/teams/american_acceleration.php

We have talked about every thing but the manned portion of the rocket. As every one has noted it is fairly easy to design something to lift materials or other items to almost anywhere that we would want.
Man is the problem that still needs a real solution when it comes to space flight.
We could say use a capsule like; Big gemini or apollo, a small lifting body as in lockheeds concept art or from some of the x series vehicles and some would continue to say a plane format is the way to go.
We need this part of the solution today in order to retire the shuttle to only cargo mode and completion of the ISS.
I still believe that the wieght of this issue needs to be resolved by Nasa's current rocket vendors and not be issueing more contracts for what is already known to be of need.

Last I knew aerodynamics has to due with surface area and angles relative to direction. Hence the more surface area the more drag.

'Beagle 3' looks to American ride
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3926253.stm

But even if they do not get to do another follow up mission to the failed attempt. The European Space Agency is planning its own lander mission, called ExoMars, to look for traces of life on the Red Planet. This might also launch in 2009.

I could not help but notice the simularities to the Space Launch Initiative's vehicle and this one.

SLI Explores Flyback Booster Possibilities

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-02u.html

It is to bad that some programs have been cancelled that could have been the solution to the delma that we are in.

India To Launch Recoverable Spacecraft In 2005
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/india-04l.html

The intent of my thread was to give a cost based analysis as to what should be the avenue of choice. What should be the cheaper heavy lift launcher developement and manufacturing cost to create infrastructure for the future. Based on the current rockets as models for what not to do.

Large protoype design cost and over runs

Cost over runs to solidly consistant manufacturing of expendable rocket designs

Cost over runs for refurbishment of re-usable craft designs

Operations launch cost

Workfare when staff is not really working but is idle

Questions for those that know more about the Lockheed and of Boeing rockets.
Does either launch there own rockets for profit?
What is there work staff base for carrying on these facets of infrastruture? 

From earlier in another thread using the RD-170 versus the F1 of the Saturn is a good choice for a first stage engine.

This sort of sound like a Saturn 1 or V re-du derivative only modernized for a business model using what is a close match for the old specification.

The problem is that America lost it's only manned vehicle it still has others for cargo thou they like even the Russians do have there limitations as well.
Thank full yes for the Russian manned ride but angry at not paying to continue these rides is a mistake. The amount of money barely pays for the building of such rockets how could this do any harm militarily.
These are our Partners for the ISS we should not treat them any differently than what we would want to be treated. Lets be fair to each other on this accord.

The intent of my other thread, Rocket Business model for shuttle delta IV atlasV, and others good or bad was to give a cost based analysis as to what should be the avenue of choice. What should be the cheaper heavy lift launcher developement and manufacturing cost to create infrastructure for the future. Based on the current rockets as models for what not to do.

Large protoype design cost and over runs

Cost over runs to solidly consistant manufacturing of expendable rocket designs

Cost over runs for refurbishment of re-usable craft designs

Operations launch cost

Workfare when staff is not really working but is idle

Questions for those that know more about the Lockheed and of Boeing rockets.
Does either launch there own rockets for profit?
What is there work staff base for carrying on these facets of infrastruture?

Our biggest problem with teraforming is not for lack of ideas or for the places to actually make changes to. But is more of a down to earth funding issue. One enormous expense and one not easily justified to thoughs that do not believe that man should be in space.
We need that frontiering spirit again in the hearts and mind of all before we can get enough backing to correct the funding issues. Or we need to find ways to lower the cost of doing space. This may mean changing the way of doing business when it comes to Nasa and it's contractors. The big guy's need to start trying to lower cost for there products and that would allow for more to be purchased.

The case for shuttle-derived heavy lift
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/208/1

Some would laugh at the attempt by the Privately Funded Falcon-1 Rocket Nears First Flight but I for see this as a step to get Nasa and the big guy's to start thinking of ways to lower cost access to space.

http://space.com/spacenews/businessmonday_040816.html