New article

BWhite · 2005-04-29 16:10:06

Buzz Aldrin is also not someone I reguard as being much more space savvy then any of us, he was mainly a pilot if memory serves.
Buzz earned an Sc.D in Aerospace Engineering from MIT in 1963 or so. His papers on the topic of rendezvous earned him the nickname "Dr. Rendezvous." Since his Apollo days he's been a bit of a space visionary; his ideas about space transportation range from zany to pragmatic.

If Norman Mailer can be believed - - From: Of a Fire on the Moon - - [Buzz Aldrin] "had the reputation of being the best physicist and engineer among the astronauts" page 24

Edited By BWhite on 1114812646

publiusr · 2005-04-29 16:44:38

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.

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-29 21:10:47

"but Boeing/LockMart has and anti HLLV pro EELV bias--and their claims should also be questioned--like this 30-40 ton to LEO"

Well of course they have a preference for EELV over SDV, since they want to sell rockets... You aren't making the important distinction here, or at least not making it clear, that there is a difference between honestly holding an opinion in favor of something (good) versus telling lies to support your opinion. Are you accusing Boeing of lying about the possible upgrade path for Delta-IV?

I don't think they are. Boeing is in enough hot water about the Atlas secret bid paperwork, that they wouldn't risk lying to USAF/NASA again. Secondly, it is simply probable that Boeing can hit the performance it claims. It has a working rocket in hand that lifts about 28MT (twenty-eight, not twenty) metric (thats 1000kg) tonnes. The smaller single-barrel Delta gets about a 25% performance boost for a pair of little SRMs. Scale this by adding six of these to the Heavy, and presto, 35MT.

Swap out the antique RL-10 engines for the ML-60, and bump that up to around 40MT... the other ten are perhaps within reach of a modified RS-68 and high grade para-rich Liquid Hydrogen fuel, certainly on adding one more goody (Lithium alloy probobly) to hit the 50 line. The Shuttle ET switched to Lithium alloy easily, quickly, and cheaply, so it shouldn't be a problem for Delta either.

The reason why I don't question Boeings' numbers is because they are reasonable and make sense. You, Publiusr, have done nothing at all, NOTHING, to contradict the Boeing figures other then to express baseless, biased doubt. Not one shred of even marginally relevent fact other then the Heavy's maiden flight wasn't fully loaded to maximum, therefore its maximum capacity is "unproven!" Not a single thing. 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.

What doesn't make sense are these ideas you are going to slash the Shuttle workforce by 70%+ to make SDV competitive with Super Delta. Ain't going to happen. Or this idea that NASA is going to get buckets of money to build and HLLV right now, which also isn't happening... So, there is only one option available. Delta is also great because if the USAF buys into NASA with it, they could get a package deal, and slash costs further, since low launch rate and small-run serial production makes rockets so expensive. Its also more flexible then SDV for less-then-huge payloads.

"...there is no Heads-up heads down."

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?

...There STILL isn't any difference during liftoff, since it is almost exactly vertical during the most stressful period, so there can't be any heads up or down during this time when the damage is most likly to occur. Hence there is no practical safety difference between heads/up down for the kind of damage Columbia & Atlantis took. If you were to move the SSMEs to the ET and flew Columbia that way, the same thing would have happend.

And what about those nasty aerodynamics that you talked about? You know, those ones that have exactly nothing to do with gravity? That would be the same on Buran as on Shuttle? I bet that supersonic air imparts quite a bit more force then gravity does, and since the debries would be in the supersonic air stream... then gravity doesn't matter much, now does it? So, it wouldn't matter what orientation the orbiter is in. No practical difference.

publiusr · 2005-05-05 12:21:48

Blah blah blah....

"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.

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-05 13:46:49

"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."

Thank you Publiusr for proof that you don't, infact, have any basis for your anti-EELV stance. Repeating your same tired old screed does not an argument make... see above.

And yes, I am stating that Griffin probobly doesn't know (with good reason) if he can cull the Shuttle Army enough to make SDV fly cheaply enough. I fear that he is concerned with retaining the accursed Army more then actually picking the best option.

"That Deltas is thrust limited only strengthens my point and Griffin's --not yours."

Oh but it does, Publiusr. Do you know what "thrust limited" even means? I don't think you do... It means that a big reason why the performance for the vehicle is not better is because it lacks thrust. Hence, improving the thrust will signifigantly increase performance. Why is this difficult for you to comprihed?

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

Blah blah blah... see above post about the upgrade path being probable. Same old same old "I think Boeing tells lies."

"it just took me awhile to find it."

Ah huh. So, that is why you didn't look up the reference before hand to try and support your point? And again, the paper is about the performance advantages, and is not a rigerous analysis of the safety which is at issue.

Again, I state that there is no practical safety difference between STS or Bruan due to the engine mounting for the reasons previously stated above.

publiusr · 2005-05-05 15:01:06

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.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-07-14 11:14:16

How about we go with just the flying wing capable of orbit return? We could look at the X-38? being launched from an internal launch bay once in orbit to transfer people to a space station or an unmanned payload orbiter? Either way they use the same system to get to orbit and return to Earth.

yes I've heard people talk about this idea before

but I don't think it is possible

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-04-29 16:10:06

Re: New article

#27 2005-04-29 16:44:38

Re: New article

#28 2005-04-29 21:10:47

Re: New article

#29 2005-05-05 12:21:48

Re: New article

#30 2005-05-05 13:46:49

Re: New article

#31 2005-05-05 15:01:06

Re: New article

#32 2005-07-14 11:14:16

Re: New article

Board footer