Air Force Study Points to Reusable Orbiter

On 9/22/2010 12:20 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article057e8f40-73be-4e2c-bc3e-
, says...

On Sep 21, 11:57 am, wrote:
"Newly declassified details of the analysis
behind the U.S. Air Force's decision to opt
for a next-generation Reusable Booster
System (RBS) reveal a long-term preference
for a rocket-based, combined-cycle upper-
stage orbiter over the nearer-term expendable
solution."

See:

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,220472,00.html

I have proposed a highly reusable booster system as well.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30943696/ETDHLRLV
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/S...-Satellite-GEO

Yet another thread-jacking by you? You're worse than my dog begging for
attention...

At least no one is jacking his name yet. That's next. This is the
usenet, asshole, anyone can jack a thread, a nym, a name, anything goes.

That just chafes your ass, doesn't it. Does it chafe your ass as much as
the United States Air Force using an NK-33 and/or an RD-180 to launch
their most valuable space based surveillance assets?

"the outline Pathfinder is baselined with an NK-33 liquid oxygen
(LOX)/kerosene rocket engine"

"The vehicle is outlined with a gross liftoff weight around 230,000 lb.
and will be powered by a LOX/kerosene RD-180 EELV engine."

"Another AFRL demonstration program—Hydrocarbon Boost—is developing a
large LOX/kerosene rocket engine for the full-size booster."

Oh really? I though the senate and congress was nixing that idea, which
remarkably was dictated by name and design in Obama's F.Y 2011 proposal.

Get a grip, Findley, you haven't had a single original idea here, ever.

Here's my gratuitous usenet spam since you don't have anything to offer:

http://www.lifeform.net/tsiolkovsky/Propulsion.pdf

NASA, the senate and congress just don't get it.