New Mars Forums

Robert makes good sense.

We have become our own worst enemy--and the anti-space people like Matt Drudge and other love it.

it's time to support Mike Griffin and quit backbiting him.

I can't get that link to work.

Kliper:
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/re … nshut.html
http://www.space.com/news/050824_clipper.html
China kliper
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/china-05zzzzzzf.html

I keep hearing rumors about five meter upper stages for Proton, Ariane...

Any images of the Parom tug from www.spacenews.ru ?

Prometheus was to be a nuclear electric contraption--look at the cover of the recent Ad Astra mag.

There was some talk in Infinate Energy about Un-matter--not quite anti-matter because the neutron was regular matter somehow.

Doubt it.

Nuclear airplane:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000918.html

Delta II is the sacrifice.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/421/1
http://www.xprizenews.org/index.php?p=1059

I still think it would be best for rocket tubes. A cheap way to apply solar panels in space. I don't think it is elevator material yet.

No getting away from the rocket.

Some advancements--but they will still need big rockets to put up the material 

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003330.html LOOK!
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/6/4/20
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nanotech-05zzzg.html
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/pu … 5spac.html
www.elevator2010.org/site/index.html
www.liftport.com
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_ar … h=nanotech
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/erthboom.htm
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/inde … topic=2763

Now--I still think we are a long way from SE--but this will certainly be a useful product.

Very cheap Solar Cells--Graetzel Cells could be a possibility.

This all chemical booster would be a rival to Orion:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/mllv.htm
http://www.up-ship.com/apr/contents.htm

More on pressure-feds--the Big Dumb Booster approach
http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/truax.htm

A more modest option--which also needs no pads.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/exclibur.htm

Similar:
http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/e … _sum.shtml

Misc.
http://www.xprizenews.org/index.php?p=1059

That is where we disagree. The big tanks make perfect sense due to volume. The infatable designs cannot resist thrust and are good only when stationary--this ET hulls can--if done in the orginal wet-stage Skylab style--make for better exploration platform. Just One ET would give astronauts a lot of living area--and the ET could be surrounded in an inflatable structure--therefore any astronaut that would go to the outside of the tank would still be under the blanket if you will--eliminating the hazard of his floating away.

This way--if budgets are reduced even more--we still have one good sized cycler segment--even if ferry craft sent to service them are cramped EELV-launched craft.

I like a sturdy Sea Dragon hull even more--but that is another thread.

You wouldn't need very many for a durable station. In the era of Kansei, Three Gorges, the Burj Dubai skyscraper--and Troll--it is actually modest--and simpler to build than most ships. MLLV would carry more--but would have cost more.

Sea Dragon used cheaper shipbuilding tech at least.

That is a good link!

here are some you might like
www.badastronomy.com
www.starshipmodeler.net

You know that makes me happy. Griffin has won this round.

But a blood sacrifice must be made:

Delta II became a crutch--being a lot like fiber to keep you regular. It was not even based on an ICBM but on an IRBM. You have a Pershing/Jupiter/Scud class Thor that was just stretched--and it still puts two tons less in orbit than 50 yr. old R-7. HLLV is the battered womens shelter--it means a new way of life--but a better way of life. Delta II is the familiar guy in the wife-beater shirt. He fastens you up in a small, cramped space--he limits where you can go and what you can do.

But it looks like the cops have finally shown up:

http://www.space.com/spacenews/050704_b … onday.html

Excerpt

Griffin said he told Lord that NASA would be willing to switch to the medium-lift variants of the EELVs to loft its science spacecraft “provided that there is not an undue financial penalty for NASA.”

That might spell the end of Boeing’s smaller but highly reliable Delta 2 rocket, which has served as NASA’s primary workhorse for the past decade or more. That vehicle is no longer in the Air Force’s plans.

Griffin called a switch to EELV “the most nascent of plans” noting that NASA still has about a dozen Delta 2 launches under contract.

A Defense Department official, who asked not to be identified by name, confirmed that Griffin and Lord had reached a tentative agreement on Delta 2 and said that the Air Force is not likely to stand in the way of NASA developing shuttle-derived launchers.

Bad Boys, Bad Boys--whatcha gonna do...

More on the Death of Delta II:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/421/1

"Above all for the people at the Pentagon, this “ceasefire” means encouraging NASA to give up on its traditional favorite, the Delta 2, in favor of the more expensive and capable EELVs. For many deep space missions this would mean more and better instrument packages and more propellant, which could in turn mean better overall scientific return on investment. Smaller missions could still be flown on Orbital Sciences Corporation’s Taurus or Pegasus launchers or on SpaceX’s Falcon 1 and 5, but the Delta 2, which has been the space agency’s workhorse, will be put out to pasture."

Don't get mad...the latest Mars mission will ride Atlas Centaur--the first NASA probe to use that rocket since 1978. If you will recall--they were able to put extra propellant in MRO due to greater lift capability.

I'd love to have the Delta II tooling so I could stomp on it and throw it in the river.

The author of the linked to article did botch it once:

"If they decided to build a SDLV with a side-mounted pod that fits where the shuttle orbiter is now attached, they could have something operational much sooner and with a lot less investment, but only the “stick” would give them the long-term very heavy-lift capacity they will need to economically lift the equipment needed for a permanent Moon base. "

The in line HLLV is Magnum/Ares whatever. The LEO-only CEV-atop-SRB is the stick--not HLLV.

Some nice work on HLLV and the stick is seen here if you scroll down:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1055

One drawing doesn't make sense:
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/cev.16.jpg

There the aft interstage is behind the SSME. It looks to me like the aft interstage would be behind the aft skirt--with the narrow end tapering into the thrust structure with the SSME coming last.

Oh well--maybe it's supposed to be a shroud. We need better art from Frassanito & Asc.

cool:
http://www.lunadude.com/images-pfolio/l_ashuttle-02.jpg
http://www.lunadude.com/images-pfolio/l … huttle.jpg

http://www.marscenter.it/eng/veicolicapsulesoyuz.htm
Nice link:
http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/TableOfContents.cfm

Some Discovery pics

http://www.up-ship.com/apr/extras/STS114/STS114.htm

Subject: [Inside KSC] Re: In-Line Payload Cradle idea for lifting 6 Shuttle payloads at once
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/inside_ks … oncept.jpg

As for the Delta II, it looks as if we won't be lighting-up to many more of those 100's lengths Thors with the nice white filter on top. Each of these cancer sticks just add up to give you the Goldin Era Stagnation tumors that turn malignant really fast.

Griffin's HLLV therapy is just what the Doctor ordered.