nuclear thermal propulsion

Bobbert, you never had a "really good idea" in your entire life.
That's because you insist on remaining totally ignorant about pretty
much everything all the time.



look back at the archives here i have been posting about air launch
before strato launcher was concieved, posts like fred laughed and said
no way, but currently its being built

On Saturday, January 12, 2013 1:11:17 PM UTC-8, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jan 10, 4:11*pm, Nun Giver wrote:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0110103501.htm



pasted paragraph:



The Nuclear Cryogenic Propulsion Stage team is tackling a three-year project to demonstrate the viability of nuclear propulsion system technologies. A nuclear rocket engine uses a nuclear reactor to heat hydrogen to very high temperatures, which expands through a nozzle to generate thrust. Nuclear rocket engines generate higher thrust and are more than twice as efficient as conventional chemical rocket engines.



To be used for the interplanetary legs of the trip not for liftoff.



Seen as a step to more powerful technologies.............Trig



............. Trig



They could also use fusion generated thrust, such as the explosive

fusion methods created by our NIF for creating better weapons of mass

destruction, could instead be put to good rocket thrust applications.

From the "vantage point" of this era, fusion thrust should be one of
the grand goals. And there are the assorted flavors of proposed
fusion reaction.

Fear not we already have the H-bomb..................Trig

On Jan 12, 3:57*pm, Nun Giver wrote:
On Saturday, January 12, 2013 1:11:17 PM UTC-8, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jan 10, 4:11*pm, Nun Giver wrote:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0110103501.htm

pasted paragraph:

The Nuclear Cryogenic Propulsion Stage team is tackling a three-year project to demonstrate the viability of nuclear propulsion system technologies. A nuclear rocket engine uses a nuclear reactor to heat hydrogen to very high temperatures, which expands through a nozzle to generate thrust. Nuclear rocket engines generate higher thrust and are more than twice as efficient as conventional chemical rocket engines.

To be used for the interplanetary legs of the trip not for liftoff.

Seen as a step to more powerful technologies.............Trig

............. Trig

They could also use fusion generated thrust, such as the explosive

fusion methods created by our NIF for creating better weapons of mass

destruction, could instead be put to good rocket thrust applications.

From the "vantage point" of this era, fusion thrust should be one of
the grand goals. And there are the assorted flavors of proposed
fusion reaction.

Fear not we already have the H-bomb..................Trig

And William Mook has his own methods of fission and perhaps even
fusion energy alternatives that you'll have to carefully read through
some of his ongoing research in order to appreciate.

On Jan 12, 2:20*pm, bob haller wrote:
Bobbert, you never had a "really good idea" in your entire life.
That's because you insist on remaining totally ignorant about pretty
much everything all the time.

look back at the archives here i have been posting about air launch
before strato launcher was concieved, posts like fred laughed and said
no way, but currently its being built

A fully reusable first stage (mostly liquid fueled) rocket is going to
happen, because we can't afford it not to happen.

Launching a heavy upper-stage along with their 25+ tonne payload from
40,000' at better than the speed of sound, should also come to past.

On Jan 12, 10:11*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

Bobbert, you never had a "really good idea" in your entire life.
That's because you insist on remaining totally ignorant about pretty
much everything all the time.

look back at the archives here ...

Bobbert, being subjected to your ****e is more than enough pain for
most people.



... i have been posting about air launch
before strato launcher was concieved, ...

People have been talking about air launch for a long, long time.



... posts like fred laughed and said
no way, but currently its being built

Bebbert will keep lying. *He apparently cannot help it.

And no, it is NOT currently being built. *Go read their own FAQs.
They're not even fully into engineering development yet, much less
building anything. *And yet they think they can get to first flight in
3 years...

Hey, you should invest your retirement savings!

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

stratolaunches website is very out of date, the donor aircraft have
been purchased and assembly has begun, they are getting some nasa
funding

In article b3713800-67e0-4ffb-991b-4064cba05e80
@f8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, says...

this may be a good use for stratolauncher. since actual booster
ignition, of the chemical type could be far from land over the ocean

So, you'd rather replace a fixed launch at KSC or the Cape that would
have the vehicle spending a several seconds over land with the take off
of an aircraft which will spend at least several minutes over land? *I
wouldn't make that trade. *I'd want the thing away from land as quickly
as possible.

Jeff

YES, since stratolauncher will be the well understood aircraft
operations to release point and booster ignition far out over the
ocean.

There are reasons that Orbital Sciences bought a commercial aircraft and
converted it for use as a carrier aircraft. But the payload of Pegasus
is necessarily small as a result of the size of the carrier aircraft.

Stratolauncher will be the biggest carrier aircraft ever built.
Furthermore, it will be an experimental one-off aircraft and will never
be "a well understood aircraft" when compared with commercial passenger
or cargo aircraft produced in quantity and flown daily.

rather than booster igntion at KSC a launch failure could contaminate
a large portion of florida and could make it a exclusion zone.....

If Stratolauncher crashes on takeoff, how would that be any better?

and even if the strato luncer carrier aircfaft failed it probably
would be a fireball like a typical rocket explosion

Don't forget the fuel and oxidizer carried on the *rocket powered
stages* slung underneath the Stratolauncher carrier aircraft. Crash
that into the ground and what do you think is going to happen?

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article c6a099b4-0934-4957-853b-51f044a3a1c5
@c16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com, says...

On Jan 11, 6:30*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

this may be a good use for stratolauncher. since actual booster
ignition, of the chemical type could be far from land over the ocean

So, you'd rather replace a fixed launch at KSC or the Cape that would
have the vehicle spending a several seconds over land with the take off
of an aircraft which will spend at least several minutes over land? *I
wouldn't make that trade. *I'd want the thing away from land as quickly
as possible.

YES, since stratolauncher will be the well understood aircraft
operations to release point and booster ignition far out over the
ocean.

In a 'one off' airplane. *How stupid are you, Bobbert?



rather than booster igntion at KSC a launch failure could contaminate
a large portion of florida and could make it a exclusion zone.....

Utter horse****.



and even if the strato luncer carrier aircfaft failed it probably
would be a fireball like a typical rocket explosion

If it fails it's going to hit the ground just like a rocket failure
will. *The difference is that it spends a lot longer over land.

oh really it will be launched in aircraft mode from the shuttle
landing strip thats very near the ocean,

You ignored the part about Stratolauncher being a one-off experimental
aircraft that will *not* be "well understood" as you originally
asserted.

The pads at KSC and the Cape are also "very near the ocean" and a launch
vehicle will clear the pad and move away from land *a lot* faster than
the biggest turbofan powered subsonic carrier aircraft ever built.

and it could be launched
without any fuel other than jet fuel and get air refuled over the
ocean far from land.......

Now you're adding in air refueling to the mix? Adding more complexity
increases the chances for failure and does nothing to address possible
failure modes which might happen between take-off of Stratolauncher and
the point where it starts flying over the ocean.

no matter what I say fred says impossible, just as a attempt to
discredit me

It's your ideas which are being discredited.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

I believe stratolauncher is a stepping stone to a affordable concorde
replacement, new your to paris in under a hour.......

only time will prove me right

: bob haller
: I believe stratolauncher is a stepping stone to a affordable concorde
: replacement, new your to paris in under a hour.......
:
: only time will prove me right

"Believe." It doesn't matter what you "believe".
And much more likely of course, time will only prove you wrong.

The point being, to be useful at all, you have to *conclude* that
this will happen, for actual *reasons*. Especially economic reasons.
Stratolauncher is vast overkill for a suborbital passenger service,
most of the relevant development will be in the suborbital stage, not
the stratolauncher component itself. It's not a "stepping stone".
It's "legacy baggage".

And especially telling is how you propose to fix the many problems
that stratolauncher currently has (limited altitude, speed, range, etc).
Your proposal is always to throw money at the problem. You don't phrase
it that way, but adding a third airframe for in-air refueling, coming
up with scramjets etc to get a higher/faster launch, and of course
stratolauncher being too large for any conventional airport... all
of these things are acts of throwing money at problems, without any
clear idea of what the solution really is. High grade handwavium.

I rather expect there will eventually be a suborbital passenger service.
But my conclusion is that the economics favor smaller more targeted
solutions rather than a side effect that just falls out of handwaving.

Originally Posted by Jeff Findley[_2_]

In article b3713800-67e0-4ffb-991b-4064cba05e80
@f8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, says...[color=blue][i]



Jeff

YES, since stratolauncher will be the well understood aircraft
operations to release point and booster ignition far out over the
ocean.

There are reasons that Orbital Sciences bought a commercial aircraft and
converted it for use as a carrier aircraft. But the payload of Pegasus
is necessarily small as a result of the size of the carrier aircraft.

Stratolauncher will be the biggest carrier aircraft ever built.
Furthermore, it will be an experimental one-off aircraft and will never
be "a well understood aircraft" when compared with commercial passenger
or cargo aircraft produced in quantity and flown daily.

rather than booster igntion at KSC a launch failure could contaminate
a large portion of florida and could make it a exclusion zone.....

If Stratolauncher crashes on takeoff, how would that be any better?

and even if the strato luncer carrier aircfaft failed it probably
would be a fireball like a typical rocket explosion

Don't forget the fuel and oxidizer carried on the *rocket powered
stages* slung underneath the Stratolauncher carrier aircraft. Crash
that into the ground and what do you think is going to happen?

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Scaled composites has a lot of experience building and designing aircraft ;
wether it is an experimental or a series aircraft , they will do like everyone else in the aviation business : conduct a flight test program to uncover
some eventual problems and fix them. Airbus and boeing , for example ,
do not expect their aircraft to crash or fall apart once they enter
regular service and generally they do not.