Are politicians averse to leaving LEO?

On 20 Jan, 19:21, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:11:20 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

What I want from you (and fred) is quite simple.

Who cares what you want from me (and fred)? *Why should we respond to
a netloon?

I have given you my ideas. OK you do not like them. What are yours? I
want :-

1) Cheap access to LEO.

High flight rates of reusable vehicles.

2) An AFFORDABLE way to Mars and possible space colonies.

Cheap access to LEO.

In the absence of that SHUT UP.

Sorry, not likely to happen.

You have absolutely nothing to contribute. You have more or less said
so yourself. You claim you have but you don't.


- Ian Parker

I did NOT ask you to approve of what I had to say. All I wanted to
know was what you had to say. You don't have to bring me into it if
you don't want to. I just asked a question. If you said that to Obama
or Gen. Gration the plug would be pulled, and rightly.


- Ian Parker

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:57:42 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

I did NOT ask you to approve of what I had to say. All I wanted to
know was what you had to say. You don't have to bring me into it if
you don't want to. I just asked a question. If you said that to Obama
or Gen. Gration the plug would be pulled, and rightly.

Who are you talking to now, and what are you talking about, you loon?
Why are you so stupidly incapable of retaining context?

On 20 Jan, 20:29, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:57:42 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

I did NOT ask you to approve of what I had to say. All I wanted to
know was what you had to say. You don't have to bring me into it if
you don't want to. I just asked a question. If you said that to Obama
or Gen. Gration the plug would be pulled, and rightly.

Who are you talking to now, and what are you talking about, you loon?
Why are you so stupidly incapable of retaining context?

A reusable vechle has been proped masny times. The point is there have
been classified programs like Blackstar and Aurora. The question for
me is why has the military abandoned them?


- Ian Parker

Jeff Findley wrote:
As far as I know, nuclear thermal rocket engines are very different than
space based nuclear reactors used to create electricity. Still, the
Russians have flown nuclear reactors and have ground tested a nuclear rocket
engine.

RD-0140
Russian Nuclear Rocket Engine Design for Mars Exploration
http://qhxb.lib.tsinghua.edu.cn/mywe...e3/252-260.pdf

Good stuff.


Here's info on the one that would work both as a nuclear thermal engine
at high power, and drive a turbogenerator at low power:
http://www.friends-partners.org/part...s/sovermal.htm

Pat

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 20 Jan, 16:12, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
: On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 06:36:12 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
: Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
: in such a way as to indicate that:
:
: snip much rambling lunacy from Ian
:
: Nor do I see any progressive action in this newsgroup either. *I admit
: that I too, may do personal attacks. *Like that little randy guy, for
: instance. *But mostly I stick pretty near topic, and my topic is *space
: settlements.*
:
: Well, if being incapable of capitalizing or properly spelling my name
: (assuming that you are attempting to refer to me) constitutes a
: "personal attack," you're not very good at it, Martha.
:
: I agree with you entirely about him.
:
: That's because you're both paranoid conspiracy theorists.
:
:What I want from you (and fred) is quite simple.
:
:I have given you my ideas. OK you do not like them. What are yours? I
:want :-
:

People in hell want ice water. You don't get to dictate what the
discussion must be of.

:
:1) Cheap access to LEO.
:
:2) An AFFORDABLE way to Mars and possible space colonies.
:
:In the absence of that SHUT UP.
:

Kiss my ass. After that, you can feel free to perform some
anatomically unlikely act with yourself, you stupid ****.

I don't recall anyone electing you God-Emperor of sci.space.

We will post about what we want when we want to. And that will no
doubt continue to include calling your more moronic ideas precisely
what they are.

Now **** off...

--
"There's nothing wrong with you that reincarnation won't cure."
-- Jack E. Leonard

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 20 Jan, 19:21, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
: On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:11:20 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
: Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
: in such a way as to indicate that:
:
: What I want from you (and fred) is quite simple.
:
: Who cares what you want from me (and fred)? *Why should we respond to
: a netloon?
:
: I have given you my ideas. OK you do not like them. What are yours? I
: want :-
:
: 1) Cheap access to LEO.
:
: High flight rates of reusable vehicles.
:
: 2) An AFFORDABLE way to Mars and possible space colonies.
:
: Cheap access to LEO.
:
: In the absence of that SHUT UP.
:
: Sorry, not likely to happen.
:
:You have absolutely nothing to contribute. You have more or less said
:so yourself. You claim you have but you don't.
:

Despite the low quality of much of what Rand posts, he still has much,
much more to add than the negative worth of your contributions.

--
"He missed an invaluable opportunity to hold his tongue."
-- Andrew Lang

"Ian Parker" wrote in message
...
A reusable vechle has been proped masny times. The point is there have
been classified programs like Blackstar and Aurora. The question for
me is why has the military abandoned them?

Reusables only make sense at high flight rates. There is no viable military
mission which would require such a flight rate. That's one reason why X-20
was canned, no credible mission that couldn't be done by unmanned
satellites.

Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...


Jeff Findley wrote:
As far as I know, nuclear thermal rocket engines are very different than
space based nuclear reactors used to create electricity. Still, the
Russians have flown nuclear reactors and have ground tested a nuclear
rocket engine.

RD-0140
Russian Nuclear Rocket Engine Design for Mars Exploration
http://qhxb.lib.tsinghua.edu.cn/mywe...e3/252-260.pdf

Good stuff.


Here's info on the one that would work both as a nuclear thermal engine at
high power, and drive a turbogenerator at low power:
http://www.friends-partners.org/part...s/sovermal.htm

Sweet. The perfect Mars mission engine/power plant. :-)

Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson

On 21 Jan, 16:48, "Jeff Findley" wrote:
"Ian Parker" wrote in message

...

A reusable vechle has been proped masny times. The point is there have
been classified programs like Blackstar and Aurora. The question for
me is why has the military abandoned them?

Reusables only make sense at high flight rates. *There is no viable military
mission which would require such a flight rate. *That's one reason why X-20
was canned, no credible mission that couldn't be done by unmanned
satellites.

In fact for really low cost there are quite a few missions. Figure
this OBL knows when the satellite is coming over and acts accordingle.
If a satellite could be popped up quickly he would not then know.

Something complete different. The Chinese have deployed an ASAT
weapon. One answer is to step up the launch rate.

The military also want to vary thier orbits. It would be useful to
rendez vous with a spy satellite and load in more fuel. There are a
whole host of misions for the X-20 - it it works.

It could well be that such things as the Predator have reduced the
need for space. However there are no Predator flights over N Korea.
There is diplomatic pressure too from Pakistan. You can fly in space
without diplomatic consequences which you can't do with Predators.

Clearly without seeing the secret papers one can never be 100% certain
what the exact reasons for cancellation were, but I suspect that cost
were rising and capability falling. I don't know 100% though.

Question is how much of this is known to NASA and to space agencies
round the world. I suspect NASA at some level has seen the documents.
Other space agencies (eg. ESA) suspect but don't know 100%.


- Ian Parker