Time to Think ‘Horizontal’ for Future Space Launches

In article 63e48a63-bc43-450c-9645-60b1c53a1b40
@v17g2000prc.googlegroups.com, says...

On Nov 30, 9:57*am, Jeff Findley wrote:

His whole design is a research topic, yet his supposed R&D budget is
not
sized appropriately.

I've offered a 50/50 deal, whereas up to 50% could be public funded,
but apparently that's still not good enough. It seems rich folks like
our Mook are seldom capable of spending any of their own loot, so
there really nothing new about any of that.

Yea, right. The public doesn't typically fund hare brained schemes like
this.

Also, the public already (partially) funded development of the EELV's
and will fully fund the development of a shuttle derived HLV (unless
congress changes its mind). They're not about to fund another expensive
launcher, even if it was a rational design, which Mook's is not.

Jeff
--
42

On Nov 30, 11:10*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 63e48a63-bc43-450c-9645-60b1c53a1b40
@v17g2000prc.googlegroups.com, says...



On Nov 30, 9:57 am, Jeff Findley wrote:

His whole design is a research topic, yet his supposed R&D budget is
not
sized appropriately.

I've offered a 50/50 deal, whereas up to 50% could be public funded,
but apparently that's still not good enough. *It seems rich folks like
our Mook are seldom capable of spending any of their own loot, so
there really nothing new about any of that.

Yea, right. *The public doesn't typically fund hare brained schemes like
this.
They funded the mutually perpetrated cold-war(s) that got us all the
way to 911 and the never ending wars plus global inflation, thus far
costing humanity trillions per decade. (that's all)


Also, the public already (partially) funded development of the EELV's
and will fully fund the development of a shuttle derived HLV (unless
congress changes its mind). *They're not about to fund another expensive
launcher, even if it was a rational design, which Mook's is not.

Jeff
--
42

Our federal government is currently worse than broke. It's on a forth
mortgage with only bogus collateral that's also mortgaged (please
don't tell China). There's no way we can afford to sustain half of
what's ongoing, much less replacing anything with better stuff.
Everything in NASA is either playing dead or behind schedule, way over
budget and likewise outdated before getting deployed.

Not that Mook has all the right answers, but at least some of his SF
stuff is technically viable and likely cheaper than most anything you
have to offer.

Personally I think we should be out-sourcing more to India, China and
even Russia. Our public-funded NASA is simply too spendy and
secretive, so for the most part we really don't know what's going on.
Of course you and most others never bother to use the all-inclusive
birth to grave cost for anything, so there's no way of knowing the
actual cost or ever fixing a damn thing.

Is anyone suggesting that you are qualified to run our DARPA or NASA?

~ BG

In article a2bf87d5-1d79-4f9e-9725-4519136273d6
@j32g2000prh.googlegroups.com, says...

Not that Mook has all the right answers, but at least some of his SF
stuff is technically viable and likely cheaper than most anything you
have to offer.

Mook has something that might work, but he's grossly underestimating
research and development costs. And yes, there are much cheaper ways of
building and flying a reusable launch vehicle than the way Mook
proposes. His proposed method of getting to orbit is feasible, but his
proposed reentry using a huge inflatable TPS, deploying wings, snagging
with a jet, towing with a jet, releasing from towing, transitioning to
vertical flight, and finally landing on a movable platform is
absolutely, positively, laughable.

This thing is essentially supposed to launch vertically and land
vertically. His crazy nose mounted TPS is not needed. Instead, perform
a rear re-entry using LH2 to cool the aerospike.

Instead of deployable wings, towing, and all that other garbage, just
perform a vertical landing using the engine (which he ultimately
proposes doing after towing anyway).

And finally, that movable landing pad idea is crazy too. What's he
saving here? The mass of landing gear to land a virtually empty tank.
Just add the landing gear and you instantly gain the ability to perform
a landing on just about any level surface. This would greatly increase
your chance of recovering the stage, should something happen to cause it
to not come down *exactly* where you want it.

Guess what? We've essentially re-invented a 1980's VTVL proposal! The
only thing different is that instead of being a SSTO, it's got multiple
stages which makes life *easier* in terms of mass fractions and the
like. That would be a more sane, cheaper to build, design than what
Mook's got.

Is anyone suggesting that you are qualified to run our DARPA or NASA?

I never asserted that I was. I have said, however, that I am more than
qualified to see that Mook's proposed reusable launch vehicle is
absolutely, positively, loony. If someone with a mere B.S. in Aerospace
Engineering can see this, what does that say to you Brad? Are you an
Aerospace Engineer? What are your qualifications for claiming that
"some of his (Mook's) SF stuff is technically viable"?

Jeff
--
42

On Dec 1, 5:54*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article a2bf87d5-1d79-4f9e-9725-4519136273d6
@j32g2000prh.googlegroups.com, says...



Not that Mook has all the right answers, but at least some of his SF
stuff is technically viable and likely cheaper than most anything you
have to offer.

Mook has something that might work, but he's grossly underestimating
research and development costs. *And yes, there are much cheaper ways of
building and flying a reusable launch vehicle than the way Mook
proposes. *His proposed method of getting to orbit is feasible, but his
proposed reentry using a huge inflatable TPS, deploying wings, snagging
with a jet, towing with a jet, releasing from towing, transitioning to
vertical flight, and finally landing on a movable platform is
absolutely, positively, laughable. *

This thing is essentially supposed to launch vertically and land
vertically. *His crazy nose mounted TPS is not needed. *Instead, perform
a rear re-entry using LH2 to cool the aerospike. *

Instead of deployable wings, towing, and all that other garbage, just
perform a vertical landing using the engine (which he ultimately
proposes doing after towing anyway). *

And finally, that movable landing pad idea is crazy too. *What's he
saving here? *The mass of landing gear to land a virtually empty tank. *
Just add the landing gear and you instantly gain the ability to perform
a landing on just about any level surface. *This would greatly increase
your chance of recovering the stage, should something happen to cause it
to not come down *exactly* where you want it.

Guess what? *We've essentially re-invented a 1980's VTVL proposal! *The
only thing different is that instead of being a SSTO, it's got multiple
stages which makes life *easier* in terms of mass fractions and the
like. *That would be a more sane, cheaper to build, design than what
Mook's got.

Is anyone suggesting that you are qualified to run our DARPA or NASA?

I never asserted that I was. *I have said, however, that I am more than
qualified to see that Mook's proposed reusable launch vehicle is
absolutely, positively, loony. *If someone with a mere B.S. in Aerospace
Engineering can see this, what does that say to you Brad? *Are you an
Aerospace Engineer? *What are your qualifications for claiming that
"some of his (Mook's) SF stuff is technically viable"? *

Jeff
--
42

Then put your supposedly better napkin drawings on the table, so that
Mook and others can cheery-pick at whatever negatives, and essentially
tear them napkins apart. Fair is fair, right?

That way decades from now we'll be even worse off. After all, there's
apparently no actual shortage of loot for anything cloak and dagger or
black ops worthy, so all we have to do is declare that those pesky
Venusian Muslims are hording and hiding WMD, because then we
(including yourself and Mook) get to spend any amounts of public loot.

I came across this one purely by accident. (wish the hell I hadn’t)

“Deep Underground Military Bases and the Black Budget”
http://www.subversiveelement.com/dulceschneider.html
A Lecture By Phil Schneider. (it was his last)
As of 1995 “The Black Budget currently consumes $1.25 trillion per
year”

Knowing our secretive and otherwise very cloak and dagger (aka Skull
and Bones) government, such hidden logistics and black ops are
probably running us close to $1.75 trillion per current year (2011),
if not greater by now. That’s only $5830 per year as taken or rather
borrowed from each of 300 million of us. No wonder we’re broke.

It seems anything disclosing information about our government is so
touchy that they actually take the time to not only read our stuff,
but they actually go into Usenet/newsgroups and screw with whatever
they like, such as removing those Google Groups gold stars that I keep
giving out to topics or replies that happen interest me.

Now my internet and newsgroup access is down to its knees, as in
stalling-out or hardly working at all, and whenever I reapply those
gold starts they simply fail to show up no matters how many times I
try to reestablish them. This time I saw it happen right before my
eye, as the page remotely refreshed all by itself, lo and behold all
of the topic rating gold stars were stripped. What the freaking puck;
them gold stars went away again. You and others will have to help
with this, by giving our topics and replies as many of them Google
Groups gold stars as you can, as otherwise our K12s will not realize
what are the best topics to read.

Perhaps WikiLeaks making it public that our cold-war era was mutually
perpetrated and every bit as bogus as Muslim WMD, as such might
actually **** off some honest hard working folks that have recently
lost most everything and otherwise having to survive on handouts and
personal sacrifice because they didn't get any government bailouts or
much less receiving COL benefits.

Meanwhile the likes of Rothschilds and Bacardi are seemingly never the
worse for wear, much less at risk of losing anything. It seems the
uppermost 0.1% are actually better off than ever, and living large.

I want to see President BHO voluntarily take a 50% pay cut, and
further imply that everyone else in our federal budget take a 25% cut
across the board (including their retirement, medical and other
benefits) as of January 01, 2011. Federal property holdings also need
to be sold off or at least getting leased to whomever can afford their
extravagant overhead. We also need to sell off spendy items like our
NIF to the highest bidder (ENRON might be better than nothing), and we
certainly need to reevaluate those spendy investments in special/black
ops like our “Deep Underground Military Bases and the Black Budget”
that’s likely worth more than $1.75 trillion by now.

Capping, wage freezing or even downsizing via attrition and retirement
simply isn’t going to cut it, because we have to unload overhead and
future liability at every conceivable level for each and every year
for at least the next decade, and especially if we’re going to
maintain our cloak and dagger underground with its black budget that
we’re not supposed to know about.

~ BG

In article c3b844f0-424b-4ea0-9ada-392fae863ce2@
32g2000yqz.googlegroups.com, says...

Then put your supposedly better napkin drawings on the table, so that
Mook and others can cheery-pick at whatever negatives, and essentially
tear them napkins apart. Fair is fair, right?

That way decades from now we'll be even worse off. After all, there's
apparently no actual shortage of loot for anything cloak and dagger or
black ops worthy, so all we have to do is declare that those pesky
Venusian Muslims are hording and hiding WMD, because then we
(including yourself and Mook) get to spend any amounts of public loot.

I came across this one purely by accident. (wish the hell I hadn?t)

?Deep Underground Military Bases and the Black Budget?
http://www.subversiveelement.com/dulceschneider.html
A Lecture By Phil Schneider. (it was his last)
As of 1995 ?The Black Budget currently consumes $1.25 trillion per
year?

Brad, you're bat $hit crazy.

Jeff
--
42

Jeff seems to think you buy rockets the way you buy automobiles. haha
- In Jeff's world you go down to your local rocket dealer kick a few
tires and fly one off the lot.

Not the case at all. The lead time is 7 years or more for a
conventional ELV buy. In this way its very similar to the 3 to 5 year
wait time for a commercial BBJ, or a 1 to 2 year wait time for a
custom built home.

Jeff mentions a load of R&D is needed. Not so. I've chosen hardware
and approaches that are ready to incorporate in a finished product
during the 3 to 5 year build.

In article 3cbc366b-7503-4580-80c9-c0698ebcc4e4
@z17g2000prz.googlegroups.com, says...

Jeff seems to think you buy rockets the way you buy automobiles. haha
- In Jeff's world you go down to your local rocket dealer kick a few
tires and fly one off the lot.

Not the case at all. The lead time is 7 years or more for a
conventional ELV buy. In this way its very similar to the 3 to 5 year
wait time for a commercial BBJ, or a 1 to 2 year wait time for a
custom built home.

I'll have to defer to the launch providers for this one. But I've also
got to ask, where is the need for quick commercial launches? Typical
payloads take years to build, so I doubt this is the issue you're trying
to make it out to be.

Jeff mentions a load of R&D is needed. Not so. I've chosen hardware
and approaches that are ready to incorporate in a finished product
during the 3 to 5 year build.

So you assert, but that doesn't make it so.

Jeff
--
42

On Dec 1, 1:56*pm, William Mook wrote:
Jeff seems to think you buy rockets the way you buy automobiles. *haha
- In Jeff's world you go down to your local rocket dealer kick a few
tires and fly one off the lot.

Not the case at all. *The lead time is 7 years or more for a
conventional ELV buy. *In this way its very similar to the 3 to 5 year
wait time for a commercial BBJ, or a 1 to 2 year wait time for a
custom built home.

Jeff mentions a load of R&D is needed. *Not so. *I've chosen hardware
and approaches that are ready to incorporate in a finished product
during the 3 to 5 year build.

Jeff thinks our government and its dozens of complex agencies can do
no wrong, that they work nicely together and seldom if ever hide,
hoard or obfuscate anything from us, and he even thinks there are no
truly insider bad guys getting in his way or the way of anyone else.
Obviously you and I know better, that our government is full of
deceptions, insider trading if you like, job and benefits protection
and information manipulation in order to suit whatever agenda or ruse/
sting that's at hand.

When you build those concentric fuel tanks and demonstrate their
superior inert mass reduction, as well as being sufficiently failsafe
and of less inert mass than other options, plus extending fuel usage
by having less boil-off, along with using proven engines that don't
have to be reinvented, whereas only then will Jeff have to accept that
Mook still has a few good ideas that are more affordable than anything
our DARPA or NASA have to offer.

Going for the X-Prize is obviously another step in the right
direction, whereas Jeff and others can only have wet dreams about such
an accomplishment.

~ BG

On Dec 1, 1:38*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article c3b844f0-424b-4ea0-9ada-392fae863ce2@
32g2000yqz.googlegroups.com, says...





Then put your supposedly better napkin drawings on the table, so that
Mook and others can cheery-pick at whatever negatives, and essentially
tear them napkins apart. *Fair is fair, right?

That way decades from now we'll be even worse off. *After all, there's
apparently no actual shortage of loot for anything cloak and dagger or
black ops worthy, so all we have to do is declare that those pesky
Venusian Muslims are hording and hiding WMD, because then we
(including yourself and Mook) get to spend any amounts of public loot.

I came across this one purely by accident. (wish the hell I hadn?t)

?Deep Underground Military Bases and the Black Budget?
*http://www.subversiveelement.com/dulceschneider.html
*A Lecture By Phil Schneider. *(it was his last)
*As of 1995 ?The Black Budget currently consumes $1.25 trillion per
year?

Brad, you're bat $hit crazy.

Jeff
--
42

Are you suggesting there's no such underground bases, black ops or
stealth groups within this great nation of ours?

Are you suggesting there's no such thing as a bad Semite?

Are you suggesting that Phil Schneider wasn't murdered by those
insiders of our government, our Skull and Bones or whacked via any of
their MIB minions?

Who do you think was put at risk by what Phil Schneider had to say?

~ BG

On Dec 2, 6:28*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Dec 1, 1:38 pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article c3b844f0-424b-4ea0-9ada-392fae863ce2@
32g2000yqz.googlegroups.com, says...

Then put your supposedly better napkin drawings on the table, so that
Mook and others can cheery-pick at whatever negatives, and essentially
tear them napkins apart. Fair is fair, right?

That way decades from now we'll be even worse off. After all, there's
apparently no actual shortage of loot for anything cloak and dagger or
black ops worthy, so all we have to do is declare that those pesky
Venusian Muslims are hording and hiding WMD, because then we
(including yourself and Mook) get to spend any amounts of public loot.