NASA changing opinion on the Direct HLV launcher.

I always find it interesting how two usenet 'enemies' who seemingly
are at opposite extremes - one the bizarro version of the other - one
claiming to work for top secret missile programs, the other promoting
life on Venus, work together to undermine a target of their negative
attention.

I said it before and have said it again- I wish both would stop
****ing in my bowl! lol. Both are useless to any rational discussion
and take up inordinate amounts of time and attention compared to what
they 'contribute'.

My External Tank derived launcher will radically reduce the cost of
space flight. It is a lower cost variation of what the USAF proposed
in 1988 with their Advanced Launch System (ALS) to implement Star Wars
cheaply. My system is lower cost because I will complete it in five
years privately, not 12 years through a collection of public
agencies. I will also benefit from work that has been completed on
the XRS-2200 and the RS-68 - which wasn't available in 1988. So, in
the end, I will do for $7 billion what USAF estimated in 1988 would
take $15 billion.

The system is imminently achievable and immediately profitable
resolving the issue our planet faces with respect to energy.

The fleet of vehicles and supply chain I will build for $12 billion
will place a 10,000 MW power satellite on orbit that is worth $80.5
billion the day it is switched on five years after program start.
2,500 similar satellites orbited in the subsequent 10 years will
eliminate fossil fuel use on this planet, and set the stage for a
powerful resurgence in our economy.

It will also set the stage for a radical expansion in the use of space
based assets and resources and the start of real off-world
development.

TRL-5 - Technology Development
TRL-7 - Technology Demonstration

The ET has flown into space
Tail sitting aircraft and spacecraft have been demonstrated
Aerospike engines have been demonstrated
Foldaway wings aboard rocket launched vehicles have been demonstrated
Inflatable heat shields have been demonstrated.
Airplane towing gliders have been demonstrated
Recovery of spacecraft by tow planes from orbit have been demonstrated
Parallel staging has been demonstrated
Feeding propellant from one parallel staged element to another has
been demonstrated.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum

I know good engineering and design practice. Those who are bad
mouthing my design if they know it haven't revealed it in their
criticisms.

People who wander into sci.space.policy and this topic wish to read
about HLV launchers - and are turned off by the sorts of bad behavior
and bizarre extremes voiced by many of those around here. Which
perhaps is their point - given the seriousness with which the USA
takes missile control.

After all, if you can orbit the Earth you can deposit a bomb anywhere
on it.

"William Mook" wrote in message
...
|I know good engineering and design practice. Those who are bad
| mouthing my design if they know it haven't revealed it in their
| criticisms.
|


You are obviously a loud-mouthed egomaniac and an idiot only interested
in getting others to agree with you.
--
*plonk*

Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, because you responded to George
Hammond the complete fruit cake, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.

Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.

There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.

This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.

You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
Update: the last clearance was 19/08/10. Some individuals have been
restored to the list.

I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file ****wits like you.

I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and **** off.

Bad mouthing me in very general terms and calling me bad names before
telling me to f-off is not practicing good engineering! lol.

If someone says for example, that wings as big as the ones I propose
cannot be inflated or cannot be scaled, if they are making a
scientific or engineering statement, would first know the size of the
wings that obviously do work, contrast them with the size of the wings
I propose - and given the ratio of the two dimensions state some
*scientific* or *physical* **reason** for their statement. And while
they're at it, explain why the conclusion of various scaling studies
done by the USAF, NASA, and various Universities is wrong and they're
right!

In article 6ac5ef54-2ba6-43e0-b7fb-56c155dc7342
@p15g2000prn.googlegroups.com, says...


But you still got noting other than the status quo that isn't working
for us. You even tossed the 100% reliable Saturn 5, as though it was
worthless.

It did its job (got the US to the moon) but was retired because it was
too big, launched too infrequently, and was too expensive to maintain
the ground infrastructure for such a vehicle. The space shuttle was
supposed to fix all those things. Unfortunately, it did not.

Jeff
--
42

In article 28310113-d909-48be-a613-e0d31aae4682
@c10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, says...

TRL-5 - Technology Development
TRL-7 - Technology Demonstration

The ET has flown into space

Not in the configuration you propose.

Tail sitting aircraft and spacecraft have been demonstrated

Aircraft yes, they were abandoned during R&D as too dangerous.
Spacecraft, no, not a vehicle which flew as a glider, was towed, then
landed vertically under its own power. This is not TRL-7 or greater.

Aerospike engines have been demonstrated

On test stands at 1/10th the thrust level you propose. This is not TRL-
7 or greater.

Foldaway wings aboard rocket launched vehicles have been demonstrated

On a much smaller scale than you propose. This is not TRL-7 or greater.

Inflatable heat shields have been demonstrated.

On a much smaller scale and they were not all completely successful.
This is not TRL-7 or greater.

Airplane towing gliders have been demonstrated

But not snagging a glider in mid flight. You say you've done this with
small aircraft, but even if this is true, the scale is far too small.
This is not TRL-7 or greater.

Recovery of spacecraft by tow planes from orbit have been demonstrated

On a scale which is orders of magnitude smaller than you propose. And
in those cases, the spacecraft was descending under parachute (snagged
by a hook trailing from the tow plane), which isn't the same thing as
snagging a glider. Apples and oranges. This is not TRL-7 or greater.

Parallel staging has been demonstrated

Sure.

Feeding propellant from one parallel staged element to another has
been demonstrated.

No, not in the way you propose. One ET feeding propellant to one
orbiter through one LOX line and one LH2 line is not the same as the
more complex method you propose. This is not TRL-7 or greater.

Jeff
--
42

Fred's modification of the technology readiness levels used by NASA,
ESA, DOD, and others, based on his own personal modification of what
the standards mean over-turns the purpose of the standard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level

That is, Fred's attempt to re-write TRL ratings based on his own
personal opinion is the very things TRL was created to avoid. Stan
Sadin who originated the protocol in 1974 recognized that being overly
critical or not critical enough are both paths to higher costs and
under-performance.

Bench tests and flight tests of models recognized the importance of
doing a thing even if its at different scale.

For the past 50 years there has been a very strong effort among real
rocket scientists trying to compile experience and extract scaling
laws for rocket engines since that allows rocket designers to build
sub-scale models and use them to achieve higher readiness and greater
confidence in new designs without having to build full-scale test
systems. One of the major advantages of the aerospike engine - both
linear and annular - is the easy scalability of it using small
commonly available combustors.

The system described here;

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30943696/ETDHLRLV
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38432542/M...lement-Staging

Will be developed for $5 billion and a fleet of five launchers built
for an additional $2 billion. It will lift a power satellite massing
nearly 700 tons into space. That power satellite will produce 10,000
MW and generate $4.28 billion per year in revenue selling energy at
$0.05 per kWh. That revenue when sold to investment banks, pension
funds, and others will net $80.5 billion the day it switched on. This
money will repay early-stage venture capitalists who will then have an
opportunity to exercise the supply chain created again to build
another satellite - this time for only $3.5 billion.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/S...-Satellite-GEO

Once the launchers and launch infrastructure is in place, each element
takes seven days to process for launch again and seven elements per
launcher and seven elements processed in parallel and a total of
thirty-five elements in the fleet.

So, at peak, a continuous stream of satellites will be launched once
every 35 hours - lifting 250 satellites to orbit every year.

After 10 years 2,500 satellites will be on orbit generating 25 TW of
energy for humanity, largely displacing all other sources of energy.
The value of this collection of satellites is in excess of $400
trillion and the cost is less than $80 trillion.

Doing something on this scale heavily tilts the make-buy strategy
toward 'make' - especially given the structural inefficiencies in the
aerospace business today - as outlined by MIT's Sloan School of
Management. Since these inefficiencies impact non-space faring
activities as well as space-faring activities, this suggests a way to
proceed with a practical program today - starting with less than $100
million.

Create a SPC - Special Purpose Acquisition Company -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special...sition_company

to raise money to buy the major airframe builders in the USA -
Lockheed Martin and Boeing.

NYSE:BA $51.66 B
NYSE:LMT $25.38 B

In March 2008 when oil prices broke the $100 per barrel mark both
companies were worth only 60% of what they're worth today. In the
future, their value may be lower than it is today.

Both Companies Today:

TOTAL: $77.04 B 100%
CONTROL: $39.29 B 51%

So, $100 million organizes a SPAC - $25 million goes toward supply
chain development, strategic studies and organizational costs. $75
million goes toward 50 million shares at $1.50 each to the original
sponsors. An IPO is then organized to issue 60 million shares at
$15.00 each - raising an additional $900 million. With this much
cash, investment banks will loan up to $45 billion to fund an
acquisition that has a chance at making money.

Is this kind of money available in the market these days?

Sure!

Resource company BHP Billiton organized nearly $40 billion to buy
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Canada;

http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2010...nalysts-react/

with the idea that as incomes rise in India and China the demand for
protein will increase the demand for Potash. haha - That's it! lol.

The story for buying America's aerospace business and restructuring it
for greater efficiency is more compelling. We buy the two companies
and spin off three.

(1) Civilian aircraft and aircraft systems;
(2) Military systems;
(3) Space;

The Civilian and Military systems are quite profitable and can be made
more so with the right sort of structure in place. The Space
divisions are not profitable and cannot be made so without a program
like the one I've described. This means that all money losing
divisions are loaded into the Space division and that division is
kept. The Military and Civilian aircraft divisions are sold for about
a 50% premium over their acquisition price.

If done today this means that $39.29 billion turns into $116.33
billion. After subtracting out the banking fees and transaction cost,
along with the restructuring costs, and pay back to the sponsors, we
have over $30 billion available for the $12 billion program described
above.

The SPAC can be formed in 90 days, and within six months a push is
then made for BA and LMT. Within a year we will have a program
operating to build a commercial heavy lift launcher along with a
10,000 MW power satellite. Within six years the first power satellite
will be operational. Within sixteen years nearly all the energy used
on Earth will be produced in Space.