NASA Drops Requirement For Methane Engine From CEV

Michael Gallagher wrote:
On 12 Jan 2006 19:44:03 -0800, "Bob Haller" wrote:

This is just the first cut, we can watch as the program started with
good ideas shrinks to just a LEO manned and unmanned craft.

all the rest will be lost... no moon, no mars... no nothing...

Like what happened when the Shuttle was propsed as the building block
for a Moon/Mars architecture that was never built?

Possibly.

But nothing is carved in stone. The Congress that decided that there
was no point in more flights to the Moon once we'd beat the Russians
is not the Congress we have today.

It seems likely that the Congress we have today won't be the Congress
we will have at year's end either. The purse strings are more likely
to
tighten with a split-party Congress.

- Ed Kyle

On 14 Jan 2006 09:52:32 -0800, "ed kyle" wrote:

It seems likely that the Congress we have today won't be the Congress
we will have at year's end either.

Maybe, but in recent years the Democrats have demonstrated a
spectacular inability to capitalize on Republican missteps. It seems
just as likely that voters will, as usual, vote for the incumbent,
which will favor the Republicans.

Brian

Oh, I also notice the requirement has now dropped to 4 people to get to
the moon. Apollo had 3.

AFAIK, the requirement has always been for 4 people to the Moon, Mars
is where they wanted 6,
also I think for crew rotation to ISS was baseline 3, with an option
for 6, I think?

Just $0.02

Space Cadet

John Doe wrote:
In the end, NASA will end up with nothing more than a glorified Soyuz to
get to the station and no serious cargo uplift to/from the station.

But who ever expected anything else? Congress was never likely to fund
expensive moon and mars trips.

Mark

Space Cadet wrote:
Oh, I also notice the requirement has now dropped to 4 people to get to
the moon. Apollo had 3.

AFAIK, the requirement has always been for 4 people to the Moon, Mars
is where they wanted 6,
also I think for crew rotation to ISS was baseline 3, with an option
for 6, I think?

Just $0.02

Space Cadet

I think NASA's being wise by keeping the required number of people
small for the first version. Griffen's probably trying to avoid the
excessive requirements that led to the monster that shuttle is, so he's
sticking to the minimum that will allow a lunar mission in the fastest
possible timeframe, while not riding the missions on the knife edge of
disaster (as Apollo's LEM's pretty much had to to get two guys down and
back up.)

tom

Bob Haller; This is just the first cut, we can watch as the
program started with good ideas shrinks to just a LEO manned
and unmanned craft.

all the rest will be lost... no moon, no mars... no nothing...

They can't manage to do much better than LEO. Perhaps at best GSO for
the robotic deployments (too damn lethal for humans), but that's about
it unless they plan upon getting serious about the sorts of required
rocket energy that it's going to take for accomplishing the degree of
multi-tonnage for those translunar missions, and hopefully
accommodating a speedy return to Earth before banked bone marrow
transplants become necessary.

I'm thinking all they'll need to accomplish is a massive deployment
into the LL-1/ME-L1 zone.

As of lately, my having further taken a shine to the considerations
upon using the rather substantial LRB(liquid rocket booster) potential
via h2o2/c3h4o is getting downright testy;

I was simply wondering about the petrochemical and other industrial
class of suppliers for such specific items as h2o2 and c3h4o, as to why
all the Usenet topic banishment as well as other internet
taboo/need-to-know with regard to the bulk availability and of course
the end-user cost per tonne is an even bigger secret.

For good measure, I'd also like to learn about the required energy that
it takes in order to produce the likes of h2o2 and c3h4o by the tonnage
or per kg. By way of realizing and tus appreciating the amount of
auxiliary energy the process takes, one can thereby estimate what
potential the 25 kw/m2 footprint of green/renewable energy can manage
to produce. It seems if taking 50% of this green/renewable 2.5 TW
capability is 1.25 TW of absolutely clean energy, that you'd think
could be wisely diverted into the continuous productions of h2o2/c3h4o,
thereby making rockets as well as the Internal Rocket Rotary Combustion
(IRRC) Engine even better off than reliance upon the original
h2o2/c12h26.

At first I hadn't realized exactly how Jewish owned and operated these
petrochemical and biochemical establishments were, as for their having
dated all the way back as prior to their collaboration with the Third
Reich, and as of today being every bit as Skull and Bones entitled as
they can get. Perhaps this is why it depends entirely upon whom you
are and/or of what your social/political/religious mindset supports, as
being the criteria as to how much you'll get to pay, or even if you can
obtain a drop.

Perhaps the likes of yourself, or the all-knowing Art Deco or even
rocket-wizard William Mook (aka Mr. nukes in space) can manage to
explain upon all of this hocus pocus, as to the need-to-know about the
bulk price/cost of h2o2 and c3h4o?

Otherwise, I might as well be asking the expertise of Howard Stern or
even a pro-Jewish Rush Limbaugh can be a whole lot more informative
then the usual disinformation collective of Usenet individuals that
continually claim to know all there is to know, but otherwise having no
brown-nosed intensions of their ever sharing squat, especially
off-limits if that'll help others than their own kind. Of course,
other than the obvious cult followings of such individuuals, I'm not
exactly certain of what "their own kind" represents, whereas it usualy
means that even if you agree with these folks, no matters what you're
dead wrong by default, and that's simply because it wasn't their topic
or focus of interest to start off with (I actually know of lots of
otherwise nice folks that are that way, so much so that it must be the
status quo norm).
-
Brad Guth

On 14 Jan 2006 09:52:32 -0800, in a place far, far away, "ed kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

But nothing is carved in stone. The Congress that decided that there
was no point in more flights to the Moon once we'd beat the Russians
is not the Congress we have today.

It seems likely that the Congress we have today won't be the Congress
we will have at year's end either.

Not to me. I doubt if there will be much change. Districts are far
too gerrymandered, even if the public fantasizes that Dems would be
better than Republicans.