You are not logged in.
I agree, the hype over spaceshipone is a bit over done. It only needed 1300 m/s de;lta v and yet it was almost 66% fuel by weight. With good liquid fuel rockets only 25-30% would need to be fuel. Yet people don't seem to understand that suborbital is with a capital SUB.
Good points.
I'm not a big fan of spaceplanes and assembly myself. We produce a lot of spars and jack-up rigs. People just have this mental block when it comes to going the next step in LVs. Orion was too big. Sea Dragon isn't.
Only over water...
Peer review is only as good as the peers. The catastophists had a devil of a time with the uniformitarianists.
Even sounds like a denomination...
The fujiwara effect with two hurricanes has been seen here.
It just kills me how he could really help spaceflight--but doesn't.
I also want to see the stump of Apollo 11's descent stage as a dais for all three of the first men to the moon--three statues in Bronze, not just of Buzz and Neil.
If that is true we might get it on a CaLV. Maybe so, maybe not.
Sea Dragon may not be over kill in that folks would want NSWR ignition as far away as possible. Sea Dragon really isn't that big compared to Spars, Troll, etc.
It is probably the biggest rocket we could use--and would not need a pad.
The reason I have an interest is that the same building process would get support columns mass produced for a future Bering Strait Bridge, and large metal tubes would find use perhaps as alternative energy (wave action) booms. I'm pro-nuclear myself--but if we can siphon money from future alt. energy schemes--why not get 90% of a big rocket production line out of it at the same time.
I simply want to see the size of LVs increase--while keeping them simple.
Sprague's Arcturus concept would still be pressure-fed--but have some turbopumps for other purposes--and use all hydrogen.
My scheme is that a very heavy NSWR would be made using shipyard construction. It would be placed atop Sea Dragon. That LV fires normally, and the NSWR ignites.
Later Sea Dragons launch pure water to orbit--with the empty tanks used at station modules. The nuclear salts themselves would then be launched atop CaLV, or perhaps even UR-500 Proton--well away from anti-nukes.
Heavy duty replacement nozzles would be cones launched atop Sea Dragon--as that LV's noscecone.
Remember--NSWR is a constant fission reaction--a steady nuclear explosion if you will. You had better have a rugged nozzle for that.
Sea Dragon isn't really that big compared to the Neptune Spar.
Drawing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dragon_%28Rocket%29
Some HLLV links here:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=33414&page=3
All it takes is the wrong piece of dirt...and its Kursk city johnson with that HTP
I admire Elon and his placing money in hardware. The logistics of island launch is just eating him alive though.
Meanwhile, Warren Buffet blows all his money on Gates Foundation. It'll all be eaten up as handouts. Gates made his money from computers--and they stem in part from the advances from Apollo. As far as I'm concerned--I'd hit Gates and Buffet (retroactively) with a 90% tax and cede it to NASA.
If they want to give money away--give it to the best and brightest HERE--not in some hole--the charitable equiv.of the Iraq War.
Good for her! Now if we had more DEMS and GOP-ers like her.
To reiterate my plan
+Use expendable ESAS to explore major locations of interest and select a base site (2-3 years, 4-9 flights)
+Build a base for a four-man crew with radiation shelter, ISRU plant, and tank farm
+Import ~15MT of Hydrogen with standard cargo LSAM anually to produce 100MT of propellant
+Modify the expendable LSAM for reuseable use, delete acent stage, and send only with decent fuel
+Use LSAM or Hopper-dedicated varient for multiple hops between sites of interest or for setting up telescopes, mining operations, or "multi-hop" fuel depots
+Use LSAM with Lunar Oxygen for return to orbit and rendezvous with CEV
+Long-term with better Hydrogen supplies, a more refined LSAM varient would return to the surface plus ferry cargo to the surface from orbit
=An efficient, affordable, sensible, and scaleable way to explore the Moon
That does seem reasonable. Plus--the tankage of expendable landers would hold propellant to be manufactured there, and would serve as a solid base for any inflatable structures that could be placed atop the descent stage once the ascent stage has departed.
I saw that.
Nice links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dragon_%28Rocket%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_De … ch_Vehicle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_1
Almost over:
http://www.aero.org/conferences/sclv/
Misc:
http://www.efluids.com/efluids/pages/j_ … d_rock.htm
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/CASS_home.html
OT
R.E. Gold, 'SHIELD: a comprehensive earth protection architecture', Advanced Space Research, vol 28, 2001, pp1149-158
Glad to see Aerojet getting some action.
Such a tank can be used to handle liquids in space--and is good for firm attachment points.
A 100 ton dry stage station in orbit around the Earth could be one payload for CaLV--with a 20 ton lunar station atop a wet stage that can be opened up for living area would be about the same size. It would need re-boosting--but if it were in the same orbit as CEV--it might make a nice shelter if things go wrong. This is one reason I have no problems with cyclers coming at a later point as a supply point--as long as stand-alone missions are headed in the same direction should problems arise.
You can't use a plain old water tank for an NSWR though, if you did that it would blow up and vaporize the ship and the fuel station. An NSWR fuel tank is comprised of long narrow tubes of a neutron absorbant material stacked side-by-side. If not, the Uranium would go critical, and kaboom.
SeaDragon doesn't need large amounts of water, it needs large amounts of Hydrogen and Oxygen. SeaDragon's upper stage engine would also be far too powerful to fire in space.
I don't know that it would be too powerful. The NSWR payload itself will be in the form of tubes as you say--and will thus be a substantial payload--and this is perfect for Sea Dragon. An NSWR needs to be overbuilt to handle the heat as a heat sink, for shielding, etc. Therefore the rugged construction methods for the conventional Sea Dragon will also serve for the dedicated NSWR 1st and second stages. NSWR itself will fire in orbit.
Nice links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dragon_%28Rocket%29
An NSWR fueling station station needs to be kept in a higher orbit to be safe--warranting larger LVs.
Almost over:
http://www.aero.org/conferences/sclv/
Misc:
http://www.efluids.com/efluids/pages/j_ … d_rock.htm
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/CASS_home.html
OT
R.E. Gold, 'SHIELD: a comprehensive earth protection architecture', Advanced Space Research, vol 28, 2001, pp1149-158
Good link.
(Ariane X nonsense ignored)
why NASA can build a bigger rocket with its ready available hardware while ESA can't?
There is an unfair bias against big boosters on the part of those who oppose new LV development.
We were considered unresponsive.
Tustin really wanted to tear the places down and produce something to add to their tax base. Cities have to think about budgets like that, so it is understandable.
Meanwhile people fall all over themselves to build domed stadiums and sports arenas.
Sad.
Let's just get CaLV built by writing letters to Congress and talk about how to use it later.
Pork threatens NASA plans; Congress pet projects take $3 billion from budget
Instead, NASA will pay for:
Construction or renovation of dozens of museums, planetariums and science labs for colleges.
Computers, classrooms and lab space for colleges and schools across the U.S.
A Web site and laboratory for the Gulf of Maine Aquarium.
A sprawling headquarters building for a nonprofit research group in West Virginia created by U.S. Rep. Alan Mollohan. The Democrat is now subject of a broader congressional ethics probe.
These are not Nasa responsibilities.....
Agreed.
EELVs took at big hit according to Space News recently.