You are not logged in.
Now for some lava tubes...
They have a 20 ton to LEO craft on the table.
Not enough rocket.
IRIS & Iran's Emerging Space Program
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/iris.htm
DPRK program
http://www.astronautix.com/country/kornorth.htm
Malaysia Launches First Space Center
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=39614
Frightening.
I view the Alt.spacers as dangerous to the cause of spaceflight.
Space News has some interviews at the end of their papers. One from Steve Cook. One from Doug Cook.
Here is another source ATK Joins Team Building Rocketplane Kistler’s K-1 Rocket
ATK held a similar supporting role on Andrews COTS team, which was a finalist for NASA funding but did not make the final cut.
While ATK’s initial cash investment is less than the $10 million Orbital Sciences had pledged to bring to the table,
Dittemore said ATK also has agreed to make an initial cash investment of $2.5 million in Rocketplane Kistler to help finance the restart of the K-1 program.
Rocketplane Kistler has exceeded its first round financing goals by 10 percent, raising over $45 million since NASA awarded the company $207 million in September under the COTS program.
Interesting.
Tacking landing legs to the propellant tanks was asking for trouble.
They should have been on wide legs with shocks. The throttle control wasn't fine enough--so it came down hard.
Small craft can get away from you really fast.
Another use for flywheels. Power storage and art-G
So much for the lie of EELVs being cheaper.
I started a new thread "Big Dumb Boosters" to try and get at the tactic of one-way cargo trips to the Moon, which might enable single-stage direct ascent launchings, coasting to Lunar orbit, and intact landings on the Moon--as expeditions to the Moon were envisaged prior to today's computer-automated remote-presence-monitored capability. Can they be built be lightweight enough? Will single engines be sufficient? How large and heavy the vehicle at launch? Tune in....
Finally some love for larger LVs.
Pardon my asking, but what is a RENE engine?
Example (not perfect)
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/gnom.htm
Martin calculated in 1962 that the use of their Rocket Engine Nozzle Ejector system on the first stage of an orbital launcher would reduce total vehicle lift-off mass by 56% for the same net payload
Rocket Engine Nozzle Ejector (cone following an engine)
No but it is good if that universe he helps is ours.
I wonder about universe 'sets' where time travel twins off not just one bubble--but many more involving the tampering.
None of the EELV rockets have what it takes to carry a capsule large enough to seat four plus the fuel needed to return from Lunar orbit back to Earth. "Direct" is both a misnomer and frankly a cop-out, it sacrifices real heavy lift, Saturn-V class heavy lift, for dinky waterd-down kinda-sorrta heavy lift because the Direct advocates fear having to actually develop new rockets. .
I understand. I want Ares V myself. Something along the lines of an HLLV.
Someone should remind the incoming Congress that EELVs are red state rockets, and Ares V (with Michold) is a Blue state rocket.
Something to remember when writing your (new) Congressman.
Its about capability and throw-weight.
That is fun too.
I don't know that he is a shuttle hugger, in that there is no orbiter.
I think he sees Ares I as just another EELV rocket we don't need, and I also think that Ares I may be a stumbling block to Ares V--and not so much a help.
I have a bad feeling that Griffin might get Ares I done--with a backlash against manned spaceflight killing the CaLV support.
Direct is a means of getting engines under the ET as quickly as we can, so that we will be farther down the road to getting a true HLLV than if we build a dedicated upper stage for Ares I CLV--and wind up getting bogged down on that. Perhaps he can get Direct under contract before the big Congress switch. Probably not.
I am of two minds on the matter myself--and really want to see that big Ares V.
But the Direct method is better than having three EELV class rockets and no HLLVs. That might be the road we are heading down.
I hope I'm wrong.
Here is an idea for you. Start a campaign calling for Energiya (or Angara 100) to be launched--using oil rubles.
Griffin is forced into COTS to keep the mouths of the alt.spacers shut.
That or a five cent sucker--whichever is cheaper.
He is having to do a little of Goldin's too-thin-spreading just to get support.
We will see.
I agree. But we need a space Rickover/Billy Mitchell who will do battle with Navy folks who think we are still in Jutland and fighter jocks who think we are still in MiG Alley.
I like the tone myself. He just needs to cut NAVY and Air Force funds and boot it to LV development for armored space assets.
Newt would wreck NASA--or put Griffin out and put some Goldin type hack back in--to give money to space start ups--and we would still have nothing.
He has gone against VSE--so he has a no vote from me. He is one of these kinds of folks that goes to an Ayn Rand website with power coming from TVA--while typing how we don't need gov't--when driving on the public Interstate system.
We need pro-NASA people.
Now if Griffins foes would just go the way of Proxmire.
I'm just worried we we get so bogged down with CEV/Stick that HLLV will have no chance--and we go from 100 ton orbiters in LEO to Capsules in LEO and never get out of Earth Moon.
Rocket tests planned for NASA’s moonship
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14699227/
NASA hopes to test first stage of Ares 1 rocket April 2009
I hope I live to see it launch.
Interesting.
Back on topic:
There is little practical difference, they both have much the same capabilities. Zubrin's rocket calls for four SSME engines in a side-mounted pod plus the single-segment ASRM boosters. The upper stage on Zubrin's rocket calls for a single SSME class engine too. The NASA Ares-V uses upgraded five-segment versions of the Shuttle boosters and uses five RS-68 engines on the bottom of a wider 10m tank. The upper stage uses a single less powerful J-2X engine.
Neither rocket is really powerful enough without nuclear engines to go directly to Mars.
And now we have this option:
http://www.directlauncher.com/
The point is to get some engines under an ET as quickly as possible.
Direct (in metal) as a reality is better than a superior Ares V that only exists on paper.