You are not logged in.
It is a good program.
A stronger shell and good containment will be less of a bother. LH2 is light, so extra weight can go into containment.
I was thinking, with California so anti-nuke--why not put all of Americas future reactors in a handful of nuclear friendly states. Alabama could break down sea water en masse and ship it to hydrogen states.
I think Penn and Tellear advocated 200 new plants. If I had them all in Alabama, we might get laser propulsion to work after all.
We have Bowns Ferry up and running, and a new 3 billion Krupp steel plant on the way.
If only we could get our rails fixed for SRBs....
At the exploration briefing update 7 Jun 2007, Jeff Hanley said the marginal cost of the Ares V will be $200-300 million.
Same cost as Delta IV with 5-6 times the payload.
Sea Dragon is the way to go. With President Hillary--there won't be any sub orders. But a Sea Dragon SPS combo would give Electric Boat orders.
We just have to tell here than EELVs are made in Alabama--a red state, and that Sea Dragon Ares V are Blue state rockets...
The solids would have to go side by side in two pair-as in Energiya's Zenit strap-ons.
Lets hope for Ariane M.
An asteroid bola dragging a tether tail. This tail snags an object traveling at speed on the ocean surface, and gets "wrapped" into orbit to prevent a sudden jerk.
I have been wondering about cutting asteroids up with cables as in the Kursk, and lowering one half of such a bola to the surface to do asteroid mining on the ground...the other segments chutes/ballutes down, then floats and the tether goes to a tug and is dragged to shore--ballute still inflated.
A molten asteroid can have a bomb inside to blow it into a bubble. The sphere can be filled with fluid and used for SPS in orbit around the sun--or to discharge Jupiter's field for power...
This is why I wish LockMart had just used RD-170, not the half-strength RD-180.
An RD-170 would give us an American Zenit (but with better fit and finish) and solids around that would give us an LV resembling a scaled up Delta II.
After all, you probably tell your kids "God made you" but you omit the lengthy biological process that goes into that because she isn't ready to take in that level of info about said process.
As below, so above.
I think one reason many folks have a problem with evolution is that folks still remember the warm pond model, where things just kind of happened--and scientists were just trading in one miracle for another. Add that to the fact that many skeptics are libertariansd who cheer Kit vs Doveer, (and then try to destrry public education) leaves people with the idea of the scientist as the puffy shirt wearing member of some old hellfire club who looks down on hardworking people of faith (who believe in fairness) with disdain.
Eden as it were (even as metaphor) was a break from Darwin. I think people want a little intel design in gov't at least, and not social darwinism. R-7 worked for spaceflight, and the alt.spacers have toys---but I digress.
Survival of the fittest just rubs folks the wrong way--and we are better than random nature.
I think evolution would work better if someone besides Darwin had championed it--and if it had come with the discovery of smokers on the sea floor.
Imagine this setting. Old mystics talk about spontaneous generation. You point out that is a bit too fast (the salmander just jumped out of the log) But you say they aren't too far off the mark.
The smokers are the alembics of the deep--the flasks of nature as hermes trismegistis-to the technocrat, they are cracking stations, fractionating towers, to the believer, they are the engines of Creation.
This active chemosynthesis model is easier to take than a warm pond where things just happen.
Life as natures industrial byproduct.
One theory I have on my mind...I remember seeing an early photograph of the Xenia Ohio F-5 tornado. It had two suction vortices in a double helix formation, and in a lter fram, one of these even had a small suction twin to the side.
This all reminded me of DNA, RNA unwrapping, etc.
Here is my model. Tou have a string of organics in an up draft and DNA formation by mechanical means from vortices coming out from an updraft. If the smoker is shaped a certain way, vortex formation could be enhanced. You simulate such a model in a lab, then scan it.
When the Europa cryobot finds smokers, it scans for one with such vortex forming geography, and single that one out for closer inspection.
Thoughts?
If we were to find a small black hole in space, surround it with a sphere, and at small sprays of water, the micro accretion disk might be compact enough to fuse...
I want a giant slab of this to sweep through orbital debris.
Boron buckyballs might be wiser...
I'm still Bullish on Sea Dragon, and here is a nice way to fuel it from Sea Water.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums … 22&start=1
http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/Flo … r_999.html
LH2 carrying LNG ships could fuel off it as well.
It would be nice to have.
MattBlak at nasaspaceflight likes his Ares Nova. Current diamenter ET with RD-180s and kerosene. Existing solids.
it's great size is an asset. Small toy landers a very hard to throttle, and will land hard and break their legs.
Small craft can get out from under you quickly, and weight distribution is such that if one weld on one side is heavier than another--look out.
Well said.
I'm not big on top-mount spaceplanes.
Dennis Cardoza and other House Dems are trying to kill Manned spaceflight.
Time for some hate mail.
He needs to go...away.
Ares V is getting a bit bigger. See it fly next week on Science Channel.
Falcon cleared for the Cape.
The single core Atlas V can (with enough solids) launch 20 tons---but that may be pushing it.
I am really doubting Delta IVs ability to do anything but sit on the pad.
I had a hard time believing that Nasa would do such a study..
[url=http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19910014907_1991014907.pdf]Feasibility Analysis of Cislunar Flight Using the
Shuttle Orbiter[/url]Davy A. Haynes, Space Exploration, Langley Research
Hampton, Virginia, Initiative Office CenterJune 1991
The vehicle would utilize the orbiter's main engines and would have a fully-fueled external tank, which will have been carried into orbit by the Shuttle and then refueled at Space Station Freedom by Shuttle-C tankers.
The results of the analysis indicate that the Shuttle orbiter would be a poor vehicle for payload delivery missions to lunar orbit. The maximum payload to a circular 100 km lunar orbit is only about 3.2 mt.
Why such a small amount of payload when a shuttle cargo bay would normally yield in excess of 17 mt? While 10 Shuttle C to refuel the ET is crazy...
LOL! So that's where Homer Hickam got his idea!
Energiya would have done a better job. Just omit the orbiter!
I remember seeing some wide, dish-shaped aerobrake disks to be launched by Shuttle-C.
One place where side payload mount beats in-line is in launcing oddly shaped outsized payloads that do not lend themselves to being top mount.
Energiya could launch a wide disk to aerobrake--but be left in space. The actual modules would be launched by other Energiya shots.
Heavy Lift is gaining followers.
Discovery and the Science Channel Will have new shows based on VSE and will show pictures of Ares V, which has grown of late:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5086
http://starshipmodeler.net/cgi-bin/phpB … hp?t=47784