Heard too much and need to vent.

Cardman writes:

You are fully welcome to suggest an alternate HLV idea, when people
around here are very good at saying "that is too hard" without
suggesting a viable plan themselves.

I don't believe HLV is needed (there is no market for the 100 ton
payloads you propose). If it were, I'd look at big, dumb boosters.
Specifically a huge, pressure fed, TSTO, one engine per stage design
using LOX and kerosene (not RP-1), built out of steel in a shipyard,
not an aerospace contractor.

I'd personally go the route of the small start-ups. Start with
sub-orbital reusable rockets and incrementally build from that
experience. X-33 was too big of a jump from DC-X. Shuttle was too
big a jump from Saturn.

I don't believe anymore that cheap access to space (minimum cost per
kg to LEO) will come in big leaps; it will come from lots of little
steps.

As you can be certain that the Shuttle's days as a HLV are numbered,
and where another one of those Shuttle disasters would see no more
Shuttle launches ever again.

I support flying shuttle only for ISS and Hubble. Beyond that, NASA
needs to think long and hard about what they can afford as a
replacement, which isn't much given today's budgets.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 20:36:05 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:30:49 +0100, in a place far, far away, Cardman
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

You can do your own sums. Sure I don't have all the facts to hand, but
I can believe this could be done cheap compared to some projects.

laughing

I'm starting to believe that there's nothing of which you're incapable
of belief...

Spoken by someone from behind the monstrous waste of the ISS I
presume. Now just what would I spend 50 billion on...

And NASA is well known to be overly expensive.

If you really want to know what is wrong with NASA, then I will only
be too happy to tell you.

As not long ago I watched all three of these Mars probe launches,
where up first was the Mars Express.

This involved like ten people in the control room, where some half
frozen Russians were busy outside on the rocket. Some quite simple
laptop computers using a Microsoft O/S monitored the launch, where
sure enough it went up first time.

Now when it came to the MER launches, then it is really quite
impressive how they can fit so many people into such a room, even if
it was a large room. Must have been clearly over a hundred of them I
guess, where they were all there for the launch.

Also the Mars Express is using standard core hardware, which is also
going to appear in their Venus Express and Mercury Express probes.

NASA's rovers while more technically interesting are bound to
remaining numbering two, even if two barely made it in the first
place.

The Mars Express was developed within record budget and time
considerations, where the MERs overran their schedule and cost 200
million dollars more.

Interestingly enough the MER launches got delayed quite a lot as well
due to one problem or another.

Cardman.

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 22:35:41 +0100, in a place far, far away, Cardman
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

You can do your own sums. Sure I don't have all the facts to hand, but
I can believe this could be done cheap compared to some projects.

laughing

I'm starting to believe that there's nothing of which you're incapable
of belief...

Spoken by someone from behind the monstrous waste of the ISS I
presume.

No, I've been opposed to the program for years.

Now just what would I spend 50 billion on...

Who cares?

*plonk*

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:30:49 +0100, in a place far, far away, Cardman
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

You can do your own sums. Sure I don't have all the facts to hand, but
I can believe this could be done cheap compared to some projects.

laughing

I'm starting to believe that there's nothing of which you're incapable
of belief...

Rand, is it possible that the person you are argueing with is Tom Abbottson?
--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 22:01:03 GMT, in a place far, far away, "johnhare"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

I'm starting to believe that there's nothing of which you're incapable
of belief...

Rand, is it possible that the person you are argueing with is Tom Abbottson?

I think you mean Tom Abbott.

No, though there are some similarities.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 20:36:05 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

I'm starting to believe that there's nothing of which you're incapable
of belief...

....Rand, he's obviously a troll. Another CT in drag yet again.
Remember the three signs of a troll:

1) Outlandish and/or offensive claims, usually delivered in a
conspiracy theory format

2) Dismissal of any and all concrete evidence that their statements,
opinions and/or theories are bogus as either being part of the
conspiracy and/or "outright lies".

3) Refusal to provide sources to back up their claims.

4) Assuming an air of supremacy and vast knowledge above those of the
group, and yet having never posted before.

....Just killfile him with the rest of the Maxson trash, and be done
with the little scumwad.


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 22:01:03 GMT, in a place far, far away, "johnhare"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

I'm starting to believe that there's nothing of which you're incapable
of belief...

Rand, is it possible that the person you are argueing with is Tom
Abbottson?

I think you mean Tom Abbott.

No, though there are some similarities.

Read it with a mental break between the t and s. It was a (failed) joke.
--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

"Cardman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 02:32:19 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

It does if you ever want to safely land it.

Would you want to land it if it had been up in space for a few years?

Umm, you're the one that said you might want to land it in an emergency.



And they have other Shuttle if one broke.

Cardman.

"Cardman" wrote in message
...

I am gambling on NASA needing to one day make another Space Station or
maybe Moon Base.

And the Shuttle-C does cost slightly less than the Shuttle to launch
for putting three times the amount of cargo in orbit at once.

Let me put it this way. That's like saying I should buy a tractor trailer
instead of a station wagon since the tractor trailer can carry more for less
money.

That's true if I can fill it. If I'm carrying 3 passengers and a couple of
backpacks, that tractor trailer becomes far too expensive to operate.



In orbit docking and
assembly allows the pieces to be much smaller than this.

Yes, but I am thinking about launch costs.

Right, but you're going about it the wrong way. The DC-3 was built before
the 747.

On 24 Jul 2003 17:19:32 -0400, jeff findley
wrote:

Cardman writes:

You are fully welcome to suggest an alternate HLV idea, when people
around here are very good at saying "that is too hard" without
suggesting a viable plan themselves.

I don't believe HLV is needed (there is no market for the 100 ton
payloads you propose).

Fine, but what about in the Shuttle payload range of the 30 ton class?

If it were, I'd look at big, dumb boosters.
Specifically a huge, pressure fed, TSTO, one engine per stage design

Not counting on an engine out then?

using LOX and kerosene (not RP-1), built out of steel in a shipyard,
not an aerospace contractor.

LOL. Has NASA ever asked for a price quote?

And I am sure those at the shipyard would point out that they could
work with the likes of aluminum as well.

I'd personally go the route of the small start-ups. Start with
sub-orbital reusable rockets and incrementally build from that
experience.

Seems going back a little too far to me, when next NASA will be trying
to develop wings and learning how to fly.

X-33 was too big of a jump from DC-X. Shuttle was too
big a jump from Saturn.

And packing everything they want into the OSP may not be such a good
idea as well, but if they can get it reliable with a quick turn around
time, then it would do great.

I don't believe anymore that cheap access to space (minimum cost per
kg to LEO) will come in big leaps; it will come from lots of little
steps.

Well I don't know if big or many are best, but at the end of the day
you have your overheads and of course mass to move.

As you can be certain that the Shuttle's days as a HLV are numbered,
and where another one of those Shuttle disasters would see no more
Shuttle launches ever again.

I support flying shuttle only for ISS and Hubble. Beyond that, NASA
needs to think long and hard about what they can afford as a
replacement, which isn't much given today's budgets.

And as I said NASA needs an end application, where launching something
in the direction of the Moon could give it one.

As to what it could do with the OSP, then I have a strong feeling that
it can do little beyond reaching the ISS and coming back again.

Cardman.