LSAM

Alex Terrell wrote:
Jim Kingdon wrote:
http://www.airandspacemagazine.com/A...6/AM/soap.html

An interesting article. There are a bunch of things mentioned, such
as being more spacious than the Apollo lunar module, "have more mass
and volume to play with", etc, which seem potentially worrying. And
some things, like the decision about computers or pilots handling
touching down, which seem like they have arguments on both sides.

Nothing about the "sacred" architecture being completely screwed up.




What NASA really needs is a monster launcher. Whether waverider or not
they need to be able to put a million poujnds in orbit in a single
launch. Once that kind of throw weight is available they won't be
pinching pounds to the point of absurdity.


tomcat

On 17 Apr 2006 09:18:43 -0700, in a place far, far away, "tomcat"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

What NASA really needs is a monster launcher. Whether waverider or not
they need to be able to put a million poujnds in orbit in a single
launch.

No, what NASA needs is cheap launch.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 17 Apr 2006 09:18:43 -0700, in a place far, far away, "tomcat"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

What NASA really needs is a monster launcher. Whether waverider or not
they need to be able to put a million poujnds in orbit in a single
launch.

No, what NASA needs is cheap launch.



No, what NASA needs is a monster launcher. Outer Space pays. Putting
satellites into orbit is now Big Business. The rest of Outer Space
will soon follow. He-3 at 3 billion dollars a ton is laying around on
the Moon.

Once NASA proves it can do whatever is wanted or required, the bucks --
Trillion of Dollars -- will be ready and waiting. So, stop trying to
do things on the cheap and start doing things right.

What NASA needs is a Monster Launcher.


tomcat

Rand Simberg wrote:

What NASA really needs is a monster launcher. Whether waverider or not
they need to be able to put a million poujnds in orbit in a single
launch.

Sea Dragon. That's a bit of overkill though.

A fundamental unit of modern cryogenic launch capability is seven SSMEs.

That's 100 t of payload, cryogenic tankage and engines to LEO,
using 1000 t of hydrogen oxygen fuel, with an effective exhaust
velocity of 4500 m/s (in vacuum) to a velocity of 10,000 m/s,
which represents a momentum of 1 Billion I (a GI - or GigaFritz)

The 100 t may be roughly split into 25 t of payload, 25 t of engines
and 50 t of retrofittable cryogenic tankage and the residual fuel.

The SSMEs need to be eventually returned to Earth, but the RL-10s
and RL-60s and upper stages can in orbit as far as I'm concerned.

If we can't colonize space like this, then it simply can't be done.

No, what NASA needs is cheap launch.

No, what we need is less expensive more cleverly designed reusable and
retrofittable heavy lift and manned cryogenic launch capability.

Cheap launch almost invariably fails to reach orbit.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Brad Guth ) wrote:
: Right, ALL of your ideas are on paper and not one of the is at the
: prototype stage. Again, in Brad Guth-world I won the DARPA Grand Challenge
: 20 years ago!
: So, it's true that you and your kind have no such fly-by-rocket
: landers, as in not way back in the 60's, not ever since and there's
: only lots of stuff that on paper that needs to get R&D.

Yeah, all those trinkets in the Air and Space Museum are just life size
models of nothing that ever flew.

: Being critical of your "emperor has no clothes" science should be greeted
: with open arms, welcoming the feedback. The fact that your defend your
: crap as you do is another indication that what you're doing is not true
: science.
: So, it's true that you and your kind are deathly afraid of the truth
: and nothing but the truth. At least my science is stuck with having to
: remain as based entirely upon the regular laws of physics, and upon the
: hard-science that others have accumulated, and of course it's
: influenced upon my having given a fair and balance degree of
: observationology along with humanly deductive reasoning that's
: obviously forbidden in your pagan Skull and Bones cult, that's every
: bit as much Third Reich as you can possibly get without actually being
: Hitler, or something much worse.

You're afraid of anyone poking holes in your paper mache science. Guess
what, that ain't science no matter HOW you view politics. Politics has
NOTHING to do with true science. NOTHING!!!

: Nope. The hammer and the feather, Brad. Did you ever see that expirement
: from the moon?
: Saw that, but I guess that instead I'd also gone a few too many times
: to the movies where the same and actually much better illusions were
: performed, and they didn't even have a large vacuum chamber to work
: within. Besides, without a fly-by-rocket lander, there's no possible
: way of pulling that off as being situated upon the moon that's nearly a
: surface of a dark coal/carbon-soot coated environment that's in places
: tens of meters deep in such fluffy moon-dust that's highly
: electrostatic and otherwise downright nasty. Obviously you're sticking
: with utilizing the conditional laws of physics in order to support your
: pagan and extremely bigoted (aka Third Reich) mindset.

Actually, it would be easier to fly to the moon and do the experiment
rather than try and trick someone with it on earth. IOW, why bother to do
the experiment, if it wasn't about simply dropping two objects?

: Stalk and bash? No, poking holes in your science is what folks do with
: science. If I can poke holes in it, then its wrong.
: But you're nothing but a certified born-again pagan bigot that's every
: bit as incest brown-nosed as they come. So what exactly are you and of
: your naysay mindset actually worth?

Well, if you're theories are false, don't you want to know about it? Or
are you happy believing what you believe even if it's false?

: Is there something/anything of physics or science that's established
: within textbooks or science journals that's only there because of
: yourself? If so, please list.

Not at all. I have nothing to do with whether your science is correct or
not. YOU insist on dragging me into the fray about your science. If your
science is sound, then it doesn't matter if I'm a skull and bones
brown-nosing Third Reich incest clone or not, as that has absolutely
nothing with the soundness of your work.

: Yes, like the mafia protects businesses in their neighborhood.
: This I totally believe we're on the same set of tracks, of pointing
: directly at our resident warlord(GW Bush) and of those associated
: and/or having benefitted as a result, naming such for exactly the
: perverted and sicko *******s they are.

: Exactly how many BTUs/kg of Muslim blood were we expecting to extract
: from Iraq?

It depends on how much oil we get, as there is a tradeoff, IMO.

Eric

: -
: Brad Guth

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On 17 Apr 2006 09:18:43 -0700, in a place far, far away, "tomcat"
: made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
: way as to indicate that:

: What NASA really needs is a monster launcher. Whether waverider or not
: they need to be able to put a million poujnds in orbit in a single
: launch.

: No, what NASA needs is cheap launch.

Too bad, no one has one, based upon results of this day. I know, I know
we'll get it, it's being worked on, etc. But right now, CATS doesn't
exist. THAT is the reality of the situation.

Eric

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:52:58 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: What NASA really needs is a monster launcher. Whether waverider or not
: they need to be able to put a million poujnds in orbit in a single
: launch.

: No, what NASA needs is cheap launch.

Too bad, no one has one, based upon results of this day. I know, I know
we'll get it, it's being worked on, etc. But right now, CATS doesn't
exist. THAT is the reality of the situation.

Neither does a "monster launcher." What's your point?

Oh, as usual, you don't have one.

Rand Simberg wrote:

: What NASA really needs is a monster launcher. Whether waverider or not
: they need to be able to put a million poujnds in orbit in a single
: launch.

: No, what NASA needs is cheap launch.

Too bad, no one has one, based upon results of this day. I know, I know
we'll get it, it's being worked on, etc. But right now, CATS doesn't
exist. THAT is the reality of the situation.


Neither does a "monster launcher." What's your point?

Oh, as usual, you don't have one.

Notice the space between your question and your comment.

As usual, you don't give him the chance to make a point.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Brad Guth ) wrote:
: The latter didn't work for the Mars poles, remember? Bouncing balls on all
: sides DID work.
: Eric Chomko,
: Pretty pathetic (non-fly-by-rocket lander) method, especially
: considering the very latest of applied rocket-science technology, plus
: having the option of powerful reaction wheels, and otherwise of the
: extremely light mass of payload seems odd that an form of AI/robotic
: lander still isn't an option.

: Moon aerobreaking?!? With what the passing solar wind?
: If there's 14,000 and some odd km worth of a sodium rich atmosphere to
: work with, then it stands to good reason that of heavier elements must
: coexist at lower altitudes, whereas all the way down to offering a thin
: composition layer of what has to be including Radon, all of which
: should coexist as composite soup of viable elements within the final
: kilometers of what's offering a sufficient though still somewhat thin
: aerobreaking atmospheric environment.

Lunar aerobraking is crash landing as there is no atmosphere to speak of.

: Such a small JAVELIN probe needs only that of aerobreaking velocity to
: being somewhat less than 1.25 km/s for accommodating a safe implant
: (600 m/s might be too slow).

At what distance above the lunar surface?

: Of course, we always could have artificially improved upon that lunar
: atmosphere, especially if a certain asteroid can be directed into a
: lunar impact is offering a terrific method of what could create
: megatonnes if not gigatonnes worth of atmosphere.

Or the resultant dust could just go off into space.

: Landing on the moon requires your own retro rockets to brake. You ever
: play the BASIC game, "Lunar Lander"? I have the code someplace. Great
: game!
: Exactly my point of such efforts demanding "retro rockets to brake" all
: the way, plus down-range capability, and especially considering the
: lunar mascons and the fact that said lander had no such powerful
: reaction wheels, whereas you'll need absolute loads of reaction
: thruster fuel and a computer driven set of those fully modulated
: thrusters to boot. However, I don't play such silly video games.

It's not a video game! Text only, you boob!

: Got any actual proof of proto-type R&D landers?

Like Ranger and Surveyor? Yeah, tons. Images out the wazoo...

Eric

: -
: Brad Guth

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:52:58 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : What NASA really needs is a monster launcher. Whether waverider or not
: : they need to be able to put a million poujnds in orbit in a single
: : launch.
:
: : No, what NASA needs is cheap launch.
:
: Too bad, no one has one, based upon results of this day. I know, I know
: we'll get it, it's being worked on, etc. But right now, CATS doesn't
: exist. THAT is the reality of the situation.

: Neither does a "monster launcher." What's your point?

: Oh, as usual, you don't have one.

That we need to start making strides to CATS over what we've seen. SS1 a
couple of years ago and the recent SpaceX issue isn't "results" in the
manner necessary to get what you predicted within the next decade, related
to getting 1000s (your prediction) into space.

Eric