New Mars Forums

Kliper and the Euros will keep Russia busy for awhile. Energiya has new leadership. Neither Semyonov or Kotev are there anymore.

The R-7 pad in Kourou is a bit behind schedule, however.

According to Mark Wade there is at least a possibility than even an Iranian missile could have a cryogenic upper stage.

Now RAND is trying to kill HLLV:
http://xprizenews.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=15503#15503
scroll on down.

There are three HLLV programs being looked at:

In French
http://forums.futura-sciences.com/thread25593.html

1.) The Euro-HLLV (100 tons to orbit--not 41 as I thought before)
http://www.marssociety.de/emc/proceedings/Ferra.pdf

2.) The American SDV/HLLV also known as Ares, Magnum, BMDO Launcher, etc.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1040
http://www.safesimplesoon.com/heavylift … vylift.htm (click on charts and visit the media center)

3.) And the Angara 100.
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara100.html
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/tks_followon.html

Most likely...ATK's shuttle derived heavy-lifter

Least likely...Angara 100

Dark Horse...Ariane M

Three choices for Heavy-Lift:
Ares, Ariane-M and Angara 100 The AAA of the future.

At least people are talking about more adequate rockets.
http://www.flatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a … 007/news02

I don't see EELV launched habs being anything other than less roomy than HLLV launched vehicles with wider diameters for larger rigid or inflatable structures.

don't have a Delta IV that can launch 40 tons either right now revenger. Atlas V wide-body like angara beats that without solids.

That the SRB cannot be shut down wasn't the problem with Challenger. The fact it survived speaks to how rugged it is. Beats having a single RS-68 with no engine out having a Delta IV come straight back down on the pad.

I side with Griff--not with EELV huggers.

Hopefully we are getting away from the "all motorhead/home repair' crud on what are supposed to be educational channels.

Put Jesse James on Speed(vision)--and the TLC home repair/makeover crap on HGTV or E!

"The "AltSpace" options for CEV are really a joke... the Kistler rocket is still a half-finished jumble of parts and here they are betting on it already."

We agree on that at least.

Your hostility is disgusting. You first challenged me on the Lockheed book thinking it didn't exist--automatically thinking me making things up--while blindly following Boeing's BS.

And so what if Griffin wishes to preserve architecture--he preserves support for spaceflight. If you want an HLLV as you claim--you are going to need all the help and support you can get.

If it makes you feel better--some at Marshall would still like clean sheet.

"Are you accusing Boeing of lying about the possible upgrade path for Delta-IV?"

The burden of proof is on them to show that their claims are do-able--or serious and supported. They have failed to prove that Delta IV can put 20 tons in LEO--let alone 28.

"You, Publiusr, have done nothing at all, NOTHING, to contradict the Boeing figures other then to express..."

...what NASA Administrator Griffin said about SDV HLLV's:

" It's not quite up to where Saturn V was - but it's close - and it's there. So, I will not give that up lightly and, in fact, can't responsibly do so because, it seems to me, any other solution for getting a hundred metric tons to orbit is going to be more expensive than utilizing efficiently what we, NASA, already own."

Are you calling him a lie-teller? Or are you smarter than him now too? You never answer that. Maybe you are too much the coward.

"In fact, you pointing out that Delta is thrust limited, Delta should get a big performance increase with just a modest extra push, just like you said."

I never said any such thing you a$$. That Deltas is thrust limited only strengthens my point and Griffin's --not yours.

The burden of proof is on you to show that those Boeing "improvements" are not just viewgraph fantasies and Powerpoint deceptions.

"Ooh, there you go again Publiusr with the arm waving, your journal article isn't even addressing the issue. You just searched for the term in the title and slapped up a reference, didn't you?"

No I most certainly did not. I have had that paper around for many years--it just took me awhile to find it.

"...it wouldn't matter what orientation the orbiter is in. No practical difference."

So why did that article get written, smart mouth?

Answer me that.

To keep the debate alive:

NASAWATCH has a link to this article which is of interest:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.h … ml?id=1020

'Griffin replied: "I think it is probably a good thing for the EELV side of the launch industry. I think that the Air Force - and the companies themselves have come to the ... we have to start facing facts. There is not enough commercial traffic for EELV to sustain two - and there is not enough military traffic to sustain two. The original hope behind EELV was that there would be .. that if the government undertook the development of these new birds that between commercial traffic and military traffic you'd have enough to sustain two. I thank that it is recognized that that's just not there - at least not at present. So, if there is a certain amount of collapse of that business venture into one - and then letting the joint venture pick the right vehicle for the right flight - I think that's great. I think that would be a problem if that were the only launch option available to the nation. The President's space policy directs the DoD and NASA to work together to advance architectures for space flight. With a preference- but not a requirement - for EELV. The reason for the preference is obvious because you've already got developed systems." '

Here is the capper:

"...Now our requirements are going to be in the range of several tens of metric tons for the new Crew Exploration Vehicle and notionally 100 metric tons for heavy life requirements for return to the Moon. Those are the requirements. I personally don't care how they get met. NASA needs to be more than just about getting up the first hundred miles. We've spent far too long trying to overcome that problem. So, as NASA Administrator today, I already own a heavy lifter. That heavy lifter is the Space Shuttle stack - it currently carries the Orbiter. So every time I launch, I launch 100 metric tons into low orbit which, of course, is what we need for returning to the moon. So as I have said often, tongue in cheek, from the point of view of the cargo, the shuttle is a payload shroud - a rather heavy one. But the intrinsic capability of the stack is quite impressive. It's not quite up to where Saturn V was - but it's close - and it's there. So, I will not give that up lightly and, in fact, can't responsibly do so because, it seems to me, any other solution for getting a hundred metric tons to orbit is going to be more expensive than utilizing efficiently what we, NASA, already own."

ATK Thiokol still has muscle in the Pentagon--and so does Griff. But the EELV folks are getting nervous--and this does not bode well for them.

This could get ugly.

You can't tell 'revenger that--he's a know it all-- who cannot spell: "accept that your position is 'untennable' and cooled off for a while."

Zubrin might have a MarsDirect Bias--but Boeing/LockMart has and anti HLLV pro EELV bias--and their claims should also be questioned--like this 30-40 ton to LEO BS.

Revenger clamed there is no Heads-up heads down.

This proves him wrong yet again:

Shuttle Performance With A Heads-Up Ascent"

J. SPACECRAFT, Vol 25, No. 3, p.250

So there must be SOME difference after all, right smart guy?

Or else that wouldn't have been written.

Stick to sniffing beakers.

You just don't get it.

Lets play a game folks.

Suppose Mr. 'Revenger is flying below a jumbo jet shedding ice. I am flying above it. We both have slipstream--which might fling some mist and small ice particles on both of us--but he has to contend with both gravity and airflow.

Whey he is too stupid to understand this is his problem.

NASA is not stupid, for they felt that heads down allowed better comlinks in pre TDRS days.

There have been plenty of talk about the advantages of heads up flight. Just look up some of the older issues of JOURNAL OF SPACECRAFT & ROCKETS and look.

remember, Mr. Revenger all but called me a lier when I stated that VentureStar was to have external payload pods like Energiya. He put Lockheed Secret Pprojects in quotes.

Until I posted the link that proved him wrong.

To which he didn't respond.

I've held off on this to give others a chance.

On the subject of lies, I can't think of a better one than this:

"Equipped with better engines, RL-60 and RS-68R for its upper and lower stages and a six-pack of GEM-60 solid rockets for an extra kick at launch. Probobly with higher-octane liquid hydrogen too. Otherwise identical to the one that flew this year, able to lift around 50MT probobly."

Prove it.

That X-38 was blown off for OSP was no lie. Personally--I am not a fan of either--but my point in that first part was that folks at Marshall went beyond their launch vehicle mandate in dabbling with all this. Your accusation of "Russia worship" is disgusting--as is your name-calling and your poor attitude in attacking not only Zubrin whose points about HLLVs are perfectly valid--unlike your EELV worship nonsense. You have sacked Aldrin and other people who are your betters--so why don't you shut up awhile?

You questioned me on heads-up side mount for Buran--for instance--when even a three-year-olds would understand that an aircrft flying below, say, a jumbo jet shedding ice would be more likely to be struck than an aircraft flying above--with the craft below feeling both slipstream, gravity, etc.

That you don't understand that is puzzling, as is your dismissive attitude to top mounting any OSP. First we question top mount capsules on HLLVs--but before you dismissed the danger of top mount OSP. To quote David Leestma, interview in the July 1, 2002 issue of Av Week and Space (page 33):

"Top-mounting a winged vehicle, launching on an ELV doesn't come for free. It's easy to draw a picture of a winged vehicle on top of an ELV, but aerodynamically that is a very difficult task because ELVs take axial loads, but a winged vehicle could put a bending moment into it, and they don't take bending moments very well."

When I called Leestma at 1-281-483-3222 during the OSP debacle and confronted him with his own words on OSP--that he never spoke again once he found himself working for it (and was strangely quiet thereafter) he said "Who is this?"

So while you chose to question Zubrin--it is the OSP folks you should have been looking at.

I question your knowledge--esp. since the New NASA Chief seems to be more in tune with my thinking. Or perhaps you are smarter than he is.

Which I firmly doubt.

If it makes you feel in better, Revenger, there are some at Marshall who want clean-sheet--and Pratt & Whitney has changed its tune in opposing HLLV now that they have Rocketdyne. ATK's SDV approach is what is spoken about in Washington--for they realize something Zubrin understands that some of you do not:

That building a future HLLV from scratch in an era of tighter budgets after an expensive EELV program (that Zubrin is right to question) is all but impossible--especially after alienating current SDV/STS workers, and letting the big pads rot and rust. HLLV is liekly now or never, whether you think so or not.

His QQ comments are accurate, because that is what Boeing itself wants. They want 20 ton only--and you have done nothing with your BS comments to show that 50 ton EELV concepts will work--even if Boeing wanted that.

Simple math Three RS-68s per 80-100 tons is less than six-through-15.

Deal with it.