| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Space Forum » Super-heavy lift reusable launcher...
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| ... |
 Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 5:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Imagine a hydrogen oxygen rocket engine with an exit nozzle diameter
of 17 meters in diameter, 36 meters long and produces a thrust of
53,300 tonnes with a specific impulse of 450 seconds.
Now imagine a three stage rocket built around this engine.
The first stage
Consists of a truncated cone that has a base diameter of 196.96 meters
and a ring of 36 engines around the base - exhausting into a zero
height aerospike engine arrangement - that doubles as a re-entry heat
sheild. The vehicle has 316 support legs around the base to form its
own self supporting platform. These legs are equipped with powered
wheels that allow the vehicle to move on the ground after landing and
before take off. The legs also have powered anchors, reusable hold
down clamps. The stage length is 154.88 meters. The stage masses
217,415 metric tons empty and carries 136,164 metric tons of hydrogen
in a single spherical tank 154.88 meters in diameter. At the base of
the cone, above the 36 engines are 8 smaller oxygen tanks each 27.76 m
in diameter, together they carry 816,988 metric tons of liquid
oxygen. Total stage weight is 1,225,567 metric tons. All 36 engines
produce nearly 2 million tons at lift off.
The second stage
Consists of a smaller truncated cone that has a base diameter 112.81
meters. It is equipped with a ring of six engines around the base -
exhausting into a zero height aerospike engine - that also doubles as
a re-entry shield. The vehicles has 36 support legs around the base
to form its own inter-stage connection during lift-off and landing
gear during vertical touchdown. The legs are powered and can also
operate as anchors as above. The stage length is 88.71 meters. The
empty stage masses 50,993 metric tons and carries 25,582 metric tons
of hydrogen in a single spherical tank that is 88.71 meters in
diameter. At the base of the cone, above the 6 engines are 8 smaller
oxygen tanks each a sphere 15.90 meters in diameter. Altogether the 8
tanks carry a total oxygen load of 153,495 metric tons. Total stage
weight is 230,070 metric tons.
The third stage
Consists of a smaller truncated cone that has a base diameter of 64.61
meters. It is equipped with a single engine at its base - exhausting
at the center of a heat sheild that is equipped with a door. Smaller
vernier engines surround the heat sheild for vehicle recovery. There
are 6 support leges around the base to form its own inter-stage
connection during lift off and operate as landing gear during vertical
touchdown. The legs are powered and can also operate as anchors. The
stage length is 50.81 meters. The empty stage masses 9,580 metric
tons and carries 4,806 metric tons of hydrogen in a single spherical
tank 50.81 meters in diameter. 28,839 metric tons of oxygen are
carried in 8 tanks each 9.11 meters in diameter. Total stage weight
is 43,225 metric tons.
Payload fairing
The payload fairing rides atop the third stage, and ispart of it. It
consists of 6 clamshell type doors that open 20 degrees and are self
powered and have a powered clamping mechanism. The fairing base sits
atop the third stage and is 37 meters in diameter and has an overall
length of 91.94 meters. It is cylindrical from the base for its first
23.78 meters. It then tapers at a half angle of 15.75 degrees until
it comes to a point another 68.16 meters above the top of the
cylinder. Total volume within the fairing 50,000 cubic meters. Total
payload capacity 10,000 metric tons.
Piloted option
Around the base of the payload fariing is a 37 meter diameter torus
that is 3 meters in diameter - this 116 meter long ring is equipped to
carry a crew of up to 35 - although the vehicle is capable of
unpiloted operations. 90 tele-operated humaniform robots are attached
throughout the fairing volume to allow operators in the pressurized
zone access to the cargo and spacecraft. These robots may also be
teleoperated from the ground.
Notes on Cost:
Fighter aircraft and spacecraft range in prices from $5 million to $10
million per ton. Transport aircraft range in prices from $1 million
to $1.8 million per ton. Cargo ships cost $1,500 to $2,000 per ton.
The variation in cost has to do primarily with non-recurring
engineering charges, scale of production, and volume produced - to a
smaller degree the sort of environment and the nature of the materials
used play a part. On the scale we're discussing here - it should be
possible to achieve $2,000 per ton for structure cost, and $20 per ton
propellant cost. This means each vehicle can be built for $664
million - the payload costs $20 million - and recurring cost per
flight is $48 million.
Notes on Size:
Total mass of the empty vehicle is 331,986 metric tons. This is about
the size of a very large ocean going ship. Its total length when
fully stacked is 386.34 meters. Total mass at lift off is nearly 1.5
million tons and it burns nearly 1.2 million tons of propellant.
Operation
The first stage lights, and powers up, and the anchoring gear
releases. The stage rises at 1.3 gees. When the vehicle reaches 3.5
km/sec the stage falls away and re-enters downrange. There it
executes a powered touchdown at a downrange field. There it is partly
refueled and flown back to the launch center ballistically, in a
'bounce back' maneuver. At the launch center it re-enters, lands -
and motors over to the launch center again to be reused.
The second stage ignites and continues upward achieving a final speed
of 7.7 km per second and placing the fully loaded 53,225 metric tons
into LEO. The second stage after release of the third stage, deorbits
and re-enters so that it lands vertically in a powered touchdown near
the launch center. Once down, it motors to the 400 meter tall
assembly crane where it is placed atop the booster stage once again.
The third stage ignites and enters a GTO and rises to GEO. There it
executes a circularizing burn - and releases its payload after opening
its nose shroud. Once the payload is released and the payload
successfully deployed, the reusable kick stage, deorbits slowing to
GTO velocity, and re-enters the atmosphere and lands at the launch
center - motors over to the tower, and is placed again on the stack
after refurbishment.
Once the stack is assembled, the vehicle is then refueled and reused.
A fleet of 6 vehicles are built to deploy 52 payloads per year - with
a cycle time of 6 weeks.
* * * * |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ... |
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 6:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Now,
imagine a 200 GW laser power satellite on orbit. It has the capacity
to beam energy to the upper stage of the vehicle just described. Now
imagine that a second stage engine is equipped to receive laser energy
from space, sufficient to produce 339,556 metric tons of thrust by
heating 167 metric tons of hydrogen per second - to exhaust it at 20
km/sec.
This requires the power 33 TW of laser energy - the output of 167
power satellites.
The second stage is equipped with a stretched second stage hydrogen
tank with a 16.84 meter spacer between spherical end caps, which is
filledwith 129,644 metric tons of hydrogen in the 105.55 m long
stretched tank. the base of the second stage is the same, but has a
16.84 m long 88.71 m diameter cylinder inserted mid way through the
stage, before narrowing to a 64.61 meter at the top - with a 112.81
meter base.
This vehicle delivers 102,658 metric tons to GEO - using the same
booster and an improved upper stage.
A stretched deep space stage is attached to the top of this two stage
booster. The deep space stage is a stretched version of the third
stage which is capable of landing on the moon and returning to Earth -
with 20,000 tons of payload. The vehicle is also capable of executing
a powered touchdown on Mars and returning to Earth - again with 20,000
tons of payload.
A laser propelled version of this vehicle is capable of flying to the
asteroid belt, surveying to find rich feedstock for human industry,
and attaching laser powered rockets that use the asteroid itself as
propellant. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Alan Erskine... |
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 11:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<Willie.Mookie at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8da89bd5-ea9c-4622-9843-cd27982a08b4 at (no spam) d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Quote: Imagine a hydrogen oxygen rocket engine with an exit nozzle diameter
of 17 meters in diameter, 36 meters long and produces a thrust of
53,300 tonnes with a specific impulse of 450 seconds.
Not even if I were using drugs would I be able to imagine something so
ridiculous as this. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ... |
| Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2008 7:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 9, 12:03 pm, Ian Parker <ianpark... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On 9 Aug, 12:33, Willie.Moo... at (no spam) gmail.com wrote:
You are assuming that heavy lift is need for SSP. In fact what you
require is the phase locking of small (a few Kw) units.
Not when you look at lowest system cost. There are cost differences
when scale changes. While it is feasible to build on the scale you
speak of, it is not AS cost effective. Demonstration projects using
subscale systems - will certainly be built as you suggest.
I am not talking about a sub scale system.
I know.
Quote: Phase linking produces a
full size system.
Yes. The question then is, what is the optimal size per module?
Quote: There is one other point too. The system must be
engineered to fail soft.
Yes.
Quote: This means that we need to divide up both
solar power and computer power.
You understand about phase linking. Do you understand conjugate wave
formation and wave mixing? Nonlinear optics? In my system a pilot
beam arrives from a receiver demanding power. That beam arrives at
the laser window and creates a nonlinear optical effect. This mixes
with the power laser beam and a portion of it is directed precisely
along matched to the conjugate of the phase of the incoming beam.
This means its phase locked to the weaker pilot beam, but travelling
in the opposite direction. So, even if the pilot beam is distorted -
the power beam is predistorted at its source, to arrive at the
receiver - undistorted. If the pilot beam is interrupted for any
reason, the power beam is cut off. If the pilot beam moves, the power
beam follows.
Please note there is no electronic computing or software involved at
this point. Its all a matter of optics.
So, given this system, what we're really talking about is the optimal
window size to fabricate and launch using current technology.
Quote: The Internet is composed of a lot of
small units.
Yes, so is the nonlinear window that works with the nonlinear
reflector within the power laser's fabry-perot cell to generate
powerful and controlled conjugate beams in response to weak pilot
beams.
Quote: The Internet has never failed even if individual units
have.
Same here- except on the atomic level. Light impacts the medium by
changing its refractive index. The changing refractive index changes
the path of light. These two operate together - along with the lasing
cavity optics and the receiver optics - to create a fail safe system.
Quote: The optimal size for a transportation system is far from being clear
cut.
Until you design a representative system - such as the one I've
described.
Quote: Weight goes up as L^3 whereas strength goes up only as L^2. Large
units go better through the lower atmosphere, bur small units reenter
better.
This is one of many factors. The ability to fold thin films factors
into this.
Quote: I think we need to concentrate on $/Kg at LEO and on building an ion
drive from LEO to GEO. Plus of course material from space.
Yes. When you do that you find - what every other rocket scientist
has found since the beginning of rocket science;
1) make the launch system reusable
2) increase the flight rate
3) increase the vehicle size
That's why the Army, then the Air Force, then NASA, were building 1.5
million pound thrust engines on test stands back in 1959. The F1 and
the M1. NASA inherited this work, and built the Saturn V around it.
They were originally validating the scalaing laws for rocket engines -
to see where they might go in the future. Those early studies suggest
100 million pound thrust engines are nearly optimal for interplanetary
space operations done on a large scale.
Quote:
The size I propose here is nearly optimal to transition from chemical
launcher, to chemical/laser launcher,
Yes. I spoke with a few people about Laser Sustain Detonation
launchers a few decades ago - and others about rail gun launchers. It
makes an interesting system. On one end you have systems that are the
size of dust motes - smart smoke one researcher called them. On the
otheryou have systems that are the size of planets - these are the
optical systems proposed by Bob Forward to beam energy to interstellar
vehicles tens of light years away.
Now, what's optimal depends on the details of how you do things. In
any system that's never been done there are open issues - and
estimates of the level of work required to resolve them - and the
probability of success. Smart smoke level systems - the size of ICs
or smaller - have distinct problems in maintaining phase lock across
large populations - they're likely solvable but they're not
resolved. They're a barrier to getting the job done. But, if you
can build them, and operate them efficiently - yeah - you can use
steam cannons, rail guns or laser launch capacity to fire them off
like machine gun bullets into orbit. Are they the lowest cost way to
go? Well, you can do it more cheaply than rockets today - AT A
CERTAIN SCALE - WHEN THE PROBLEMS ARE RESOLVED. Until then, they're
fantasy. But after - they're competitive in certain conditions. I
can imagine a family having a packaged smart smoke dispenser aboard
their space station that they land on a new world and deploy it.
There are even designs I've studied that involve tiny wing shaped
solar panels forming rotors - and two counter-rotating-rotors produce
lift. Since the weight scales as the cube of dimension and the
collector area scales as the square of dimension - smaller systems
tend to have higher power to weight. So something the size of
bumblebees can fly freely through the air and hav spare power to beam
to a central collector. They all fly back to power center at the end
of the day, to resume flight in the morning. You can even dispense
with the MEMs based lasers and replace them with MEMS or nanoscale
chemical processing centers, so the free flying solar aircraft
accumulate fuel during daylight hours and dump it in a hopper at
sunset. These are all possible, but they all have open issues that
need to be resolved in order to be practical. The non-recurring level
of effort impacts their value today. Iam certain given their
advantages, they will one day be an important aspect to a solar power
economy, but they will not lead the way, or be central on Earth -
though they may be very important on the development of Mars or the
Moon - or free flying colonies - in the future.
Alright, now, we look at minature stuff - the size of ICs to Coffee
Cups or bread baskets. These things have a different launch cost -
and are most easily adapted to today's rockets. Especially using MIRV
type technology - a nice little bus to hold all the pieces in place
during ascent. This is one of the most costlyways to go.
Now, as you get larger, something the size of automobiles or bigger -
you can't use today's launchers easily, so you've got to start
thinking about BIG launchers. The bigger you go, the problems of the
smart smoke phase control go away. Lots of problems that the smaller
systems go away - to be replaced by the bigger systems. Here,you have
large collector areas, but in order to reduce costs, you have thin
films - and fold those filmsinto compact forms the size required.
When you start looking at chemical rockets - the kind we can build
today - and start asking questions about what's the optimal size -
then you are led inevitably to building bigger ships. Why do you
think there is a push to build bigger sea going vessels? bigger
airplanes? The efficiencies of scale. That's why you have 400,000
ton tanker ships that are nearly half a kilometer long plying the
seas. That is also why the cheapest way to loft things off-world will
be big ass rockets. Now there will be rail guns and laser launchers
firing pellets into space at a rapid rate - just like there are
pipelines and slurry lines - next to highways - but of all the things
we have to build - we have to ask, what do we build first to get the
biggest bang for the buck, and establish a dominant market position?
The answer is, 1.5 million ton launchers lofting 10,000 tons ot GEO
which is sufficient to loft a 200 GW powersat.
Quote: and deep space laser probes, and
laser recovery of asteroidal feedstock.
haha.. even at 200 GW per satellite - which is broken down using
conjugate optics into many many beams some as small as 10 kW - you
still have to combine 100s of satellites to do heavy lifting with
laser energy - so 200 GW satellite size WILL also operate in phase
locked mode - sharing a common pilot beam from a common receiver to
usefully combine energies to do heavy lifting.
As I said $/Kg not Kg at one go.
Right. And $/kg is the driving factor. Similarly its $/kg not $ per
launch.
Quote: You need to ask the cost of the TOTAL
weight.
Yes.
Quote: Can the weight be reduced by contributions from space?
That cannot be done until an infrastructure is established and the
weight of that infrastructure is known -
Quote: I am
not convinced you need more than 1000Kg at one go.
Why? I agree with that, and I have solid scaling calcualtions to
prove it. But what convinced you? You seem to be unaware of these
sorts of things, so I'm curious.
Quote: What's interesting is if you look at the consumption curve of each
person throughout the day and by season at each latititude in an
industrial society, and then you shift that curve by longitude and
latitutde for each person - and then sumall the component curves - to
get a global energy demand curve - you end up with something like 210
TW average power - which peaks at over 300 TW and drops to less than
100 TW - throughout the day. This means there will be 1,500
satellites of this size!! So, they'll certainly operate in a variety
of modes - including combining their outputs for space workmostly.
Harvesting asteroids, sending out space probes, sending out
interstellar probes, and so forth.
If you choose a laser you can in fact supplement terrestrial
photovoltaics from space.
Yes, if you can accurately beam laser energy to the photovoltaics
without loss. or with minimal loss. The pilot beam/power beam trick
achieves this - but there is an optimal area for that as well - with
today's optics. With tomorrows optics assuming certain advances -
receivers will get smaller, intensities higher - optimal window sizes
will fall - direct beaming to end users will be possible. All these
things will happen - but not at first.
Quote: This is quite interestin. I think you wil
find that peak demand tends to be daylight hours.
yes - for each latitude. What time of day is it where you live when
the entire earth's power demand is lowest? When it is highest?
There is such a time for each of us. Do you know what it is?
That's what I'm talking about.
Quote: Space would be very
useful in the early evening.
Laser energy generated anywhere in GEO can find its way to any point
on Earth when needed. When its early evening in Hawaii, its early
morning in India, and midnight in New York, and Noon in Sydney.
What I'm talking about is the total demand for the entire Earth and
how that varies. This is a function of distribution of population
across the Earth.
Quote: This means that there are certain times of the day that you'll have
the 33 TW available for launch for 10 minutes or so at a time. You'll
be limited to launching fewer than 6 vehicles per day - once your
system is fully use and integrated into the world's economy.
Ultimately - 100 or so of the 200 GW satellites will be permanently
dedicate to supporting space operations.- Hide quoted text -
- Ian Parker
I think we're talking past each other in many ways. I have looked at
small systems and once certain open issues are resolved they have
great potential. ITs not something we can do easily today. Larger
satellites built around inflatable optics - are far easier and cheaper
to do - and have the least time to revenue and the lowest cost ot
revenue, while ;providing very little room for competitors to do a
technological end run around you while building a powerful barrier to
entry in a variety of ways. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ... |
| Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2008 8:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
The 37 meter diameter torus at the base of the payload shroud might
also carry up to 200 tourists who would pay to ride aboard the ship as
it deployed the power satellite. They might also go on a space
walk.
Also a portion of the 90 teleoperated robots would deploy on the
powersat to provide continuing maintenance capability from the ground. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ian Parker... |
| Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2008 10:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I got 1000Kg basically by balancing probable lift capabilities. In
fact theoretically you need a lot less but 1000Kg is a fairly easy
figure to handle both from the balacing of lift and number of
elements.
Phase conjugation. If wave equation is exp(ikx)
It follows that if we emit exp(-ikx) we will get reinforcement at the
source. Hence we have to take the complex conjugate. In the case of
microwaves this is fairly simple. With light you STILL need sone
element of computation. You need to send a signal from some point to
your individual lasers and then compute the phase angle knowing the
phase angle introduced by your beat source.
Also you need to do a phase calculation for EACH laser diode. An
individual diode will only emit a few watts. Basically the size and
angular spread of an individual diode will depend on the total area
covered. This could be the size of a hemisphere of Earth giving quite
a large angle.
I think it iis important for everone to appreciate though that this is
very much a soft failing system, and that this system is intrinsically
very safe. Thinking about it I like it as there is NEVER a danger of
out of control beams.
Rand is perfectly correct in supposing that you don't need to be at
GEO. MEO is as good. LEO is not really feasible as you can't operate
at night. If you rely on conjugation you can have positions constantly
changing.
- Ian Parker |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Fred J. McCall... |
| Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2008 5:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ian Parker <ianparker2 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
:
:You are assuming that heavy lift is need for SSP. In fact what you
:require is the phase locking of small (a few Kw) units.
:
That may be what YOU require, but is anyone proposing building one
that way?
Why do I doubt it?
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Pat Flannery... |
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 8:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Alan Erskine wrote:
Quote: "Pat Flannery" <flanner at (no spam) daktel.com> wrote in message
news:oLKdnVlP3Y-oVgDVnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d at (no spam) posted.northdakotatelephone...
At least Sea Dragon got into that engine size category:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/searagon.htm
Again; imagining something and actually making it happen are two different
things.
Oh, it's easy! Some old oil drums, a little welding, some vacuum cleaner
parts, some soldering, a couple windshield washer pumps, some epoxy
cement, a old jet engine...and there you are...super rocket engine.
Good do-it-yourself project for the weekend.
Next month we'll show you how to build one of these using old radium
clock dials, a lampshade, and a surplus aircraft drop tank:
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/w/waldebar.jpg
Pat |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Alan Erskine... |
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 8:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Pat Flannery" <flanner at (no spam) daktel.com> wrote in message
news:pcKdnSzkT7joBwLVnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d at (no spam) posted.northdakotatelephone...
Quote: Oh, it's easy! Some old oil drums, a little welding, some vacuum cleaner
parts, some soldering, a couple windshield washer pumps, some epoxy
cement, a old jet engine...and there you are...super rocket engine.
Good do-it-yourself project for the weekend.
Next month we'll show you how to build one of these using old radium clock
dials, a lampshade, and a surplus aircraft drop tank:
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/w/waldebar.jpg
Pat
Regardless of everything else, that's a spectacular-looking ship (both of
them, actually). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Fred J. McCall... |
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 10:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Martha Adams" <mhada at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
:
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmccall at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:fnku94h09auua2tcnth74eusaf7ksi28ct at (no spam) 4ax.com...
:> Ian Parker <ianparker2 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> :On 10 Aug, 12:36, Fred J. McCall <fmcc... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :> Ian Parker <ianpark... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :On 10 Aug, 11:50, Fred J. McCall <fmcc... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :> :> Ian Parker <ianpark... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
:> :> :>
:> :> :> :On 9 Aug, 23:35, Fred J. McCall <fmcc... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :> :> :> Ian Parker <ianpark... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
:
:<snip>
:
:> In general, if William Mook is championing something, it is probably a
:> good thing to stay away from. Mr Mook has a years-long reputation for
:> wanting undoable things done.
:
:<snip>
:
:> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
:> man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
:> all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
:
: --George Bernard Shaw
:
:What?? !! Must I make a point, *here,*
:about "wanting undoable things done"? In
:sci.space.policy? ?? What is this
:newsgroup *for,* for the luvva Mike?
:
Just what it says - 'space policy'. 'Policy' isn't about setting
impossible goals.
:
:Well, I'll make my point. In my view,
:sci.space.policy is / or ought to be, a
:place where we start some "undoable" on
:its transition to "doable."
:
But Mookie's fantasies aren't going to transition to 'doable' in
anyone's lifetime who is around today.
I was around when this newsgroup was started. That ain't what it's
for. If you want that, start a new newsgroup. May I suggest
'alt.space.fantasy' or 'alt.space.wetdream'?
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ... |
| Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 10, 10:12 am, "Martha Adams" <mh... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
Quote: Willie.Moo... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9b7d2b98-aa36-49c3-a797-c24b3d9e61f4 at (no spam) 79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
In terms of size, here's an interesting chart
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3f2.html
The engines I've talking about would have a bell diameter that would
neatly cover the city bus and would be about as tall as the Millenium
Falcon. They would attach to a structure about the size of the Eiffel
Tower.
The payload could easily loft three fully loaded Saturn Vs into an
escape trajectory at the same time - not that you would actually do
that.
Stage layout and operation is very similar to this vehicle
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/rombus.htm
but larger..
===========================================
Well, well, well. There is another of those wonderfully
future oriented things "we" discarded in the late '60's
and in the '70's, so as to free up money for that war in
Vietnam. The effect of choices then upon the present
and future now, is plain to see. ...Will this list ever
end? ??
Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2008 Aug 10]- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Ran across this this morning in my research - we could have saved
$200 billion and 50,000 American lives. Spending $50 billion on
space over this period, instead of $20 billion - would have opened the
interplanetary frontier to us and transformed the world, both
politically and materially, and the US would have been the leading
force in this bold new frontier.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG7jjF6xuKM&feature=related
America wasn't really committed to the war, until the Gulf of Tonkin
attacks - which some think were a put up job - to stir up support for
the war - in August 1964.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbJLwk-bJaA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hw0F0YF6h7o&feature=related
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident
South Vietnamese President Diem when he lost support of his people -
which JFK referred to in his CBS interview in September 1963 - with
Walter Conkrite - JFK authorized the assasination the following month,
which occured on November 2, 1963.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeNv_62v6WQ&feature=related
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo_Dinh_Diem#Coup_and_assassination
LBJ was so matter of fact in his telephone conversation it does make
you wonder about the Kennedy assasinations. I want to be clear about
the dates of the assasination of Diem, because the video on You Tube
makes it seem like LBJ was behind that assasination. He wasn't. JFK
was. So, by pointing to this video, I don't want to say I buy into
the BS the maker of the video is putting out.
Yet, these are people who will stick at nothing to gain and maintain
and expand their power - despite their carefully crafted public
image. That's why they HAVE power. I think oft-times the American
people - all people - get lost in the fray - which is too damned bad -
and is the sort of common mode failure I'm talking about constantly.
True leadership seeks power certainly, but also sees that power as a
responsibility to look beyond self - which marks off poor leaders from
great ones.
Kennedy was no god certainly - yet, I do think he had a different sort
of vision than that promoted by the powers that be in the State
Department and elsewhere by folks responsible for charting our growth
as a nation - and that scared people. Did it scare them enough to
kill JFK? We don't know that - no one does really. But LBJ's matter
of factness about an assasination he didn't authorize - does make you
wonder. We certainly have the skill sets in government to do it.
. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:28 pm
|
|