NASA changing opinion on the Direct HLV launcher.

On Oct 15, 5:57*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article c77eb576-c0cb-4e67-83bd-6a088aae7d08
@i5g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, says...



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

I have proposed a privately funded $12 billion program - $7 billion
for the launcher, $5 billion for the satellite - to place a satellite
that beams 10,000 MW to Earth. *At $0.05 per kWh the satellite is
worth over $75 billion the day its switched on.

You've proposed napkin drawings with nothing to support them.

Jeff
You and most others of your kind haven't even provided a used blank
napkin, so look who's talking. At least Mook’s research has
technological advancement potential, whereas your mainstream of Big
Energy and politically correct denial, naysay and obfuscation offers
us squat.

How many decades have you GOPs and ZNRs had to get it right? (starting
bogus wars and impossible nation building that’s corrupt to begin with
doesn’t count)

~ BG

In article 2b9a6739-6f1a-4f66-bfde-1434341152b9
@b19g2000prj.googlegroups.com, says...

On Oct 15, 5:57*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article c77eb576-c0cb-4e67-83bd-6a088aae7d08
@i5g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, says...



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

I have proposed a privately funded $12 billion program - $7 billion
for the launcher, $5 billion for the satellite - to place a satellite
that beams 10,000 MW to Earth. *At $0.05 per kWh the satellite is
worth over $75 billion the day its switched on.

You've proposed napkin drawings with nothing to support them.

Jeff
You and most others of your kind haven't even provided a used blank
napkin, so look who's talking.

I'm of the opinion that the free market should determine what launch
vehicles live and die. Unfortunately for Mook, he's got a chicken and
egg problem with his launch vehicle and his proposed market.

At least Mook?s research has
technological advancement potential, whereas your mainstream of Big
Energy and politically correct denial, naysay and obfuscation offers
us squat.

Hope is not a substitute for sound engineering practices. There is zero
room for error in Mook's "design". It does not incorporate intact abort
modes into the design. There are far too many criticality-1 type
systems which are needed to support his Rube Goldberg flight profile.

And that is on top of the absolutely huge set of research and
development projects needed for his "design".

Jeff
--
42

There is absolutely no real basis to say there is zero tolerance for
error in the operation of my parallel staged launcher built around the
External Tank as a common core. Anyone who says that hasn't really
analyzed the situation properly or fairly. The fact is there are many
recovery paths possible during an abort - depending on the nature of
the abort.

Consider that during ascent

(1) altitude is gained;
(2) speed is gained;
(3) propellant is depleted;

The four first stage boosters for example could almost glide back to
the launch center without tow-plane assist following stage
separation. An abort before first-stage separation would very likely
result in recovery of all undamaged flight elements.

An abort after first stage separation would result in recovery of the
four first stage elements which have separated by this time. Early in
the second stage ascent surviving elements would have sufficient
propellant to separate and fly to safety under their own power. Late
in the second stage ascent sequence the surviving elements would have
sufficient momentum to fly to safety. Similarly after second stage
separation the two second stage elements would be safely recovered.
Early in the third stage ascent there is sufficient propellant to fly
to safety (and this is the reason for the eighth recovery tow plane)
Late in the third stage ascent there is sufficient momentum to fly to
safety.

I have followed good engineering design practice in my ET derived
RLV. There is nothing I've said that suggests otherwise.

A market for clean abundant low cost reliable energy exists.

The ability to organize large amounts of money to acquire important
resources exists.

As for energy;

In the State of Florida alone there will be a 10,000 MW shortfall in
generation by 2015. I am in negotiation today with prospective buyers
for this energy, buyers who have an incentive to keep significant
number of space workers active following the end of Ares and Shuttle
programs. I have identified pension funds and others who have an
interest in buying the revenue stream at the discounts indicated, once
electrons and dollars are flowing. I am also in connection with
Venture Capitalists who are seeking to structure a program that
provides the returns they demand for the risks they're being asked to
take.

As for acquisitions;

Since Boeing and Lockheed both hold significant space faring assets,
and since Boeing and Lockheed have significant money losses in some
very well defined divisions where space faring assets are held. So,
money can be made by restructuring those companies for greater
profitability and selling off the more profitable divisions while
retaining the space faring divisions. Since a make/buy strategic
analysis in this case favors 'make' over 'buy' (we would be buying
essentially the entire output of Boeing and Lockheed for these
products) it makes sense to buy the company on this basis.

So, organizing a program to acquire Boeing restructuring it, and
selling off the most profitable pieces for $20 billion profit, and
then doing the same at Lockheed and realizing another $14 billion gain
- allows me to acquire the needed skills to execute on this program,
and the cash to carry it out - using far less money at risk than a
direct purchase of the airframes would entail.

Using M&A to leverage risk capital;

A portion of the $34 billion earned (an estimated $12 billion) would
be used to build the launchers and satellites to deliver the power.
Once on orbit each satellite is worth $80.5 billion. Putting up just
four satellites creates an asset worth $322 billion! This entire
program would be completed in just seven years from the first $100
million invested.

Flight rates grow from 4 per year to 250 per year over 2 year period;

After the first four satellites flight rates would increase - and the
designed cycle time of seven days per vehicle achieves a launch every
35 hours, producing 250 satellites per year. 10 years after
achieving this flight rate, we will have come to dominate the world's
energy markets.

In article b389e954-fad8-4c7f-9a6f-
, says...

There is absolutely no real basis to say there is zero tolerance for
error in the operation of my parallel staged launcher built around the
External Tank as a common core. Anyone who says that hasn't really
analyzed the situation properly or fairly. The fact is there are many
recovery paths possible during an abort - depending on the nature of
the abort.

Consider that during ascent

(1) altitude is gained;
(2) speed is gained;
(3) propellant is depleted;

The four first stage boosters for example could almost glide back to
the launch center without tow-plane assist following stage
separation. An abort before first-stage separation would very likely
result in recovery of all undamaged flight elements.

An abort after first stage separation would result in recovery of the
four first stage elements which have separated by this time. Early in
the second stage ascent surviving elements would have sufficient
propellant to separate and fly to safety under their own power. Late
in the second stage ascent sequence the surviving elements would have
sufficient momentum to fly to safety. Similarly after second stage
separation the two second stage elements would be safely recovered.
Early in the third stage ascent there is sufficient propellant to fly
to safety (and this is the reason for the eighth recovery tow plane)
Late in the third stage ascent there is sufficient momentum to fly to
safety.

What about the payload? How do you recover the core when it's loaded
down with a heavy payload? If you're not recovering the payload, you
don't truly have intact abort capabilities. Customers don't like it
when payloads are lost.


Say a first stage module sustains a turbopump failure half way through
its first stage burn. Now you've got only two pump sets working. Does
this, or does this not, develop an asymmetric thrust problem on the
stage? In other words, how are the turbopumps connected to the actual
combustion chamber(s) of the aerospike engine?


You've simply not provided enough details to convince anyone that this
contraption of yours has intact abort modes built in.

Jeff
--
42

On Oct 15, 9:59*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 2b9a6739-6f1a-4f66-bfde-1434341152b9
@b19g2000prj.googlegroups.com, says...









On Oct 15, 5:57*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article c77eb576-c0cb-4e67-83bd-6a088aae7d08
@i5g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, says...

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

I have proposed a privately funded $12 billion program - $7 billion
for the launcher, $5 billion for the satellite - to place a satellite
that beams 10,000 MW to Earth. *At $0.05 per kWh the satellite is
worth over $75 billion the day its switched on.

You've proposed napkin drawings with nothing to support them.

Jeff
You and most others of your kind haven't even provided a used blank
napkin, so look who's talking. *

I'm of the opinion that the free market should determine what launch
vehicles live and die. *Unfortunately for Mook, he's got a chicken and
egg problem with his launch vehicle and his proposed market.

At least Mook?s research has
technological advancement potential, whereas your mainstream of Big
Energy and politically correct denial, naysay and obfuscation offers
us squat.

Hope is not a substitute for sound engineering practices. *There is zero
room for error in Mook's "design". *It does not incorporate intact abort
modes into the design. *There are far too many criticality-1 type
systems which are needed to support his Rube Goldberg flight profile.

And that is on top of the absolutely huge set of research and
development projects needed for his "design".

Jeff
--
42

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.

~ BG

On Oct 15, 12:14*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Oct 14, 8:04*pm, William Mook wrote:

Increasing power levels and other improvements involving gravity
lensing of laser energy around the sun, will allow these stations to
move beyond Sol to nearby stars. *The personal interstellar space
station will have arrived.

This could all be accomplished well before the 100th anniversary of
the first moon landing.

Put me in charge of FEMA, DoE and DARPA, I'll make damn certain that
national security and national survival stuff like yours gets 50%
public funded and otherwise approved with all the green lights that's
necessary.

Since you refuse to be put in charge, in which case I'm your best bet.

Yeah. *Putting a loon like the Guthball in charge is your best bet,
Mookie.

That should give you some idea of just what your odds actually are on
that 'bet'.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

Your pathetic option is zilch, nothing or perhaps less than nothing.

~ BG

On Oct 15, 12:20*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Oct 15, 2:15*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
HOW MUCH IT COSTS TO CREATE REVENUE STREAM:

$12 billion total

*$5 billion vehicle development

Gross underestimate.

*$2 billion vehicle construction and operation

Gross underestimate. *Merely duplicating a Shuttle with already
existing spares cost $1.7 billion years ago, without any operational
costs included.

*$1.5 billion - satellite development

Gross underestimate. *Look at what satellites that are relatively
simple compared to what he's talking about cost to develop.

*$3.5 billion - satellite construction and operation

Gross underestimate, since you have to 'operate' the satellite 24/7.

HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE:

60 months

Preposterously short. *Look at how long it's taken every other space
launch provider to do much simpler things than he proposes.

HOW MANY SATELLITES WILL BE LAUNCHED PER YEAR?

250

snork

HOW MANY ARE NEEDED TO MEET ALL PRESENT NEED?

1,700

HOW MANY WILL BE NEEDED IN 10 YEARS ASSUMING 4% GROWTH IN DEMAND FOR
ENERGY?

2,420

WHAT IS THE VALUE OF THE SATELLITE ARRAY ONCE DEPLOYED?

$400 TRILLION!

WHAT IS THE SEPARATION OF EACH SATELLITE ON GEO?

90 km

Mookie should go look up something about geosynchronous orbital slots
and how to get them. *The ITU isn't going to give him all of
geosynchronous space, even if there were enough slots up there to
accommodate his little wet dream. *

even nuttier stuff elided

You and others of your kind should learn how to wipe your own butt,
and frequently change underwear before you stink up the whole place.

You should take your lithium and ring for the attendant.



At least Mook gives a tinkers damn to promote a viable solution ...

Mook's 'solution' isn't viable. *That's the point.



... that's
actually only one of many that he and a few others have to offer,
whereas you still got nothing to offer. *Where exactly in a national
think tank would a purely negative and/or obstructive mindset like
yours fit?

Where exactly in a national think tank do delusional lunatics fit? *

Hint: *They don't.



I happen to like his terrestrial based solar farms and all of that
cheap hydrogen plus secondary products and direct benefits. *I'd make
a few hundred million tonnes/year of HTP with some of Mook's clean and
cheap energy.

I happen to like all kinds of things that I recognize as not being in
any way connected to reality, Guthball. *That's the difference between
you and me; I know the difference between fantasy and reality and you
do not.



His putting really big stuff into orbit is just loads of Mook pie in
the sky, though not insurmountable if we put our best expertise and
resources to work on it.

And the rest of his stuff is Mookpies on the ground. *Be careful that
you don't step in any of it.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

Who cares what you think or do?

What's your track record?

~ BG

On Oct 15, 12:42*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
I have followed good engineering design practice in my ET derived
RLV. *

Horse manure. *You wouldn't know "good engineering design practice" if
it came up and bit you on the ass.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
*truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson

It's guys like yourself that made Hitler a very happy camper.

~ BG

The main engine is an aerospike design with 72 combustors located in a
ring of combustors around the main expansion surface. Each of these
combustors is built around an existing injector/combustor now in
service and contributes 33,610 lbf thrust to the total. There is a 5
degree separation between the centerline of each combustor.

There are three parallel systems of 24 combustors fed by the same pump
- located one every 15 degrees around the entire ring. Three pumps
feed three sets of 24 - offset by 5 degrees and 10 degrees
respectively from the first. Loss of a set of 24 combustors - worse
case - produce no asymmetric thrust whatever.

If the system is in a portion of flight where it is throttled back to
say 60% of its full thrust, the loss of a single pump is easily
compensated for by increasing the remaining two pumps to 90% of full
thrust.