A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Some proposals for low cost heavy lift launchers.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 23rd 11, 07:14 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.history
Robert Clark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,150
Default Some proposals for low cost heavy lift launchers.

On Feb 3, 2:46*am, Robert Clark wrote:
*The key point is that you have significantly better leeway in your
options and choices with relatively low financial risk.


*Another option for a manned launcher. In this report Boeing proposes
heavy lift launchers using existing components:

Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles with Existing Propulsion Systems.
Benjamin Donahue, Lee Brady, Mike Farkas, Shelley LeRoy, Neal Graham
Boeing Phantom Works,Huntsville, AL 35824
Doug Blue
Boeing Space Exploration,Huntington Beach, CA 92605http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/AIAA-2010-2370-65...

*One of the proposals is of a manned launcher for the Orion capsule
using a shuttle ET propellant tank and four RS-68 engines. This does
not use an upper stage but is not a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle
because the final push to orbit is made by the onboard thrusters on
the Orion spacecraft.
*However, it is interesting in this report comparison is made to the S-
IVB upper stage on the Apollo rocket. I was reminded of a suggestion
of Gary Hudson that the S-IVB would be single-stage-to-orbit with
significant payload if it used the high efficiency SSME rather than
the J-2 engine:

A Single-Stage-to-Orbit Thought Experiment.
Gary C Hudsonhttp://www.spacefuture.com/archive/a_single_stage_to_orbit_thought_ex...

*In Hudson's proposal the vehicle could lift 10,360 lbs, 4,710 kg.
This would be just enough to carry the crewed version of the
Dragon
spacecraft
without cargo.


The point of the matter is that if you use highly weight optimized
structures and high efficiency engines at the same time then what you
wind up with will be a SSTO capable stage. The Ariane 5 core stage is
another weight optimized structure using common bulkhead design for
its propellant tanks. The Ariane 5 core stage will also become SSTO if
using high efficiency SSME's instead of the Vulcain engines.
The specifications of the Ariane 5 are given he

Ariane 5 Data Sheet.
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/ariane5.html

The Ariane 5 generic "G" version could be lofted by a single SSME.
It's gross mass is listed as 170 mT, and the propellant mass as 158
mT, for a dry mass of 12 mT. The Vulcain engine is listed on this page
as weighing 1,700 kg:

Vulcain - Specifications.
http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedat...in_specs.shtml

Switching to a heavier SSME engine would add 1.4 mT to the vehicle dry
mass, so to 13.4 mT for the dry mass. Using a 425s average Isp again
for the SSME, this would allow a 6,000 kg payload:

425*9.8ln(1 + 158/(13.4+6)) = 9,218 m/s.

We wish to use this for a man-rated vehicle though. The Ariane 5 was
originally intended to be man-rated using the Hermes spaceplane to
carry crew. However, it's not certain the degree this was followed-
through when the Hermes was canceled.
As with the Ares I upper stage, there are means to increase the
payload capacity. Subcooled densification allows 10% greater
propellant to be carried, so then 10% greater mass can be lofted to
orbit. This brings the total lofted weight from 19.4 mT to 21.3 mT.
This extra weight can go to extra payload, so from 6 mT to about 8 mT
in payload.
The Ariane 5 uses an aluminum alloy, but not the aluminum-lithium
alloy being used now for the lightest weight designs. Switching to
aluminum-lithium allows approx. 10% weight saving over the previous
aluminum alloy. The structural mass sans the SSME engine is 10.3 mT,
so about 1 mT would be saved that could go to extra payload.
I also mentioned before the new research that suggests 10% to 20% can
be saved in structural mass because of overly conservative design now
used. This would be another 1 mT that could be saved off the dry
weight. These weight savings could go to extra payload, bringing the
payload capacity to 10 mT.
ESA appears to be amenable to adapting the Ariane 5 core stage for
other uses, considering its agreement with ATK to use it for an upper
stage. So NASA or a private company should be able to make an
agreement with the ESA to use it for this purpose, based on getting
sufficient financing. In this regard, to get a prototype done at low
cost I suggest using the RD-0120 russian analogue of the SSME's. These
are in mothballs and probably can be obtained at greatly reduced
price. As a point of comparison the NK-33 was mothballed by the
russians and Aerojet was able to buy 36 of them for only $1.1 million
each(!) Aerojets version of the NK-33 is now on track to be used by
Orbital Sciences on their Taurus II launcher.
Then the Ariane 5 core version of this SSTO has the advantage over the
Ares I upper stage and S-IVB versions in being already built and in
current use. It also has now the capability when powered by an SSME or
RD-0120 to launch a SpaceX Dragon sized spacecraft to orbit without
having to use special fuel densifying or lightweighting methods.
NASA has said they want to support commercial space. Support for this
launcher would allow for a small, relatively low cost launcher that
would permit independent private companies to launch their own manned,
or cargo flights to space.



Bob Clark

  #2  
Old February 23rd 11, 07:32 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.history
Robert Clark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,150
Default Some proposals for low cost heavy lift launchers.

On Feb 23, 1:14*pm, Robert Clark wrote:
On Feb 3, 2:46*am, Robert Clark wrote:



*The key point is that you have significantly better leeway in your
options and choices with relatively low financial risk.


*Another option for a manned launcher. In this report Boeing proposes
heavy lift launchers using existing components:


Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles with Existing Propulsion Systems.
Benjamin Donahue, Lee Brady, Mike Farkas, Shelley LeRoy, Neal Graham
Boeing Phantom Works,Huntsville, AL 35824
Doug Blue
Boeing Space Exploration,Huntington Beach, CA 92605http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/AIAA-2010-2370-65...


*One of the proposals is of a manned launcher for the Orion capsule
using a shuttle ET propellant tank and four RS-68 engines. This does
not use an upper stage but is not a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle
because the final push to orbit is made by the onboard thrusters on
the Orion spacecraft.
*However, it is interesting in this report comparison is made to the S-
IVB upper stage on the Apollo rocket. I was reminded of a suggestion
of Gary Hudson that the S-IVB would be single-stage-to-orbit with
significant payload if it used the high efficiency SSME rather than
the J-2 engine:


A Single-Stage-to-Orbit Thought Experiment.
Gary C Hudsonhttp://www.spacefuture.com/archive/a_single_stage_to_orbit_thought_ex...


*In Hudson's proposal the vehicle could lift 10,360 lbs, 4,710 kg.
This would be just enough to carry the crewed version of the
Dragon
spacecraft
without cargo.


*The point of the matter is that if you use highly weight optimized
structures and high efficiency engines at the same time then what you
wind up with will be a SSTO capable stage. The Ariane 5 core stage is
another weight optimized structure using common bulkhead design for
its propellant tanks. The Ariane 5 core stage will also become SSTO if
using high efficiency SSME's instead of the Vulcain engines...


In these examples of using the SSME engine on existing stages to turn
them into SSTO's, I was using the trajectory averaged Isp value for
the SSME that Gary Hudson uses he

A Single-Stage-to-Orbit Thought Experiment.
Gary C Hudson
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/a...periment.shtml

Note that a trajectory averaged Isp is always higher than just the
midpoint value between the sea level and vacuum values because the
rocket spends most of the time at high altitude, where the Isp is
close to the vacuum value.
However, I myself have not seen this actually computed. I have not
even seen it stated anywhere else except in this calculation by
Hudson. It should not be hard to do this calculation. You would need
to know the value of the thrust over the flight of the shuttle. I'm
sure this exists somewhere, possibly in graphical form. For instance
it's presented here for the thrust of the SRB's:

Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster.
3.1 Ignition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_S...oster#Ignition

You could also get a fairly good approximation to this trajectory
averaged Isp by knowing the altitude over the time of the flight and
using the formula for how the thrust for a rocket varies with ambient
air pressure.
Anyone know where the thrust or altitude profile for the shuttle is
given over the flight of the vehicle?


Bob Clark

  #3  
Old February 25th 11, 07:14 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.history
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Some proposals for low cost heavy lift launchers.

On Feb 23, 10:32*am, Robert Clark wrote:
On Feb 23, 1:14*pm, Robert Clark wrote:



On Feb 3, 2:46*am, Robert Clark wrote:


*The key point is that you have significantly better leeway in your
options and choices with relatively low financial risk.


*Another option for a manned launcher. In this report Boeing proposes
heavy lift launchers using existing components:


Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles with Existing Propulsion Systems.
Benjamin Donahue, Lee Brady, Mike Farkas, Shelley LeRoy, Neal Graham
Boeing Phantom Works,Huntsville, AL 35824
Doug Blue
Boeing Space Exploration,Huntington Beach, CA 92605http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/AIAA-2010-2370-65...


*One of the proposals is of a manned launcher for the Orion capsule
using a shuttle ET propellant tank and four RS-68 engines. This does
not use an upper stage but is not a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle
because the final push to orbit is made by the onboard thrusters on
the Orion spacecraft.
*However, it is interesting in this report comparison is made to the S-
IVB upper stage on the Apollo rocket. I was reminded of a suggestion
of Gary Hudson that the S-IVB would be single-stage-to-orbit with
significant payload if it used the high efficiency SSME rather than
the J-2 engine:


A Single-Stage-to-Orbit Thought Experiment.
Gary C Hudsonhttp://www.spacefuture.com/archive/a_single_stage_to_orbit_thought_ex...


*In Hudson's proposal the vehicle could lift 10,360 lbs, 4,710 kg.
This would be just enough to carry the crewed version of the
Dragon
spacecraft
without cargo.


*The point of the matter is that if you use highly weight optimized
structures and high efficiency engines at the same time then what you
wind up with will be a SSTO capable stage. The Ariane 5 core stage is
another weight optimized structure using common bulkhead design for
its propellant tanks. The Ariane 5 core stage will also become SSTO if
using high efficiency SSME's instead of the Vulcain engines...


*In these examples of using the SSME engine on existing stages to turn
them into SSTO's, I was using the trajectory averaged Isp value for
the SSME that Gary Hudson uses he

A Single-Stage-to-Orbit Thought Experiment.
Gary C Hudsonhttp://www.spacefuture.com/archive/a_single_stage_to_orbit_thought_ex...

*Note that a trajectory averaged Isp is always higher than just the
midpoint value between the sea level and vacuum values because the
rocket spends most of the time at high altitude, where the Isp is
close to the vacuum value.
*However, I myself have not seen this actually computed. I have not
even seen it stated anywhere else except in this calculation by
Hudson. It should not be hard to do this calculation. You would need
to know the value of the thrust over the flight of the shuttle. I'm
sure this exists somewhere, possibly in graphical form. For instance
it's presented here for the thrust of the SRB's:

Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster.
3.1 Ignitionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Solid_Rocket_Booster#Ignition

*You could also get a fairly good approximation to this trajectory
averaged Isp by knowing the altitude over the time of the flight and
using the formula for how the thrust for a rocket varies with ambient
air pressure.
*Anyone know where the thrust or altitude profile for the shuttle is
given over the flight of the vehicle?

* Bob Clark


Using HTP and a little something of high-energy hydrocarbon density is
perhaps the one and only SSTO option that isn't going to be too
volumetric bulky to start with. Even reusable liquid boosters should
not be excluded.

Solidified pure hydrogen doesn't exist, and apparently fusion is not
an option.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
  #4  
Old March 4th 11, 04:48 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.history
Robert Clark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,150
Default Some proposals for low cost heavy lift launchers.

On Feb 23, 1:14*pm, Robert Clark wrote:
*The point of the matter is that if you use highly weight optimized
structures and high efficiency engines at the same time then what you
wind up with will be a SSTO capable stage. The Ariane 5 core stage is
another weight optimized structure using common bulkhead design for
its propellant tanks. The Ariane 5 core stage will also become SSTO if
using high efficiency SSME's instead of the Vulcain engines.
The specifications of the Ariane 5 are given he

Ariane 5 Data Sheet.http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/ariane5.html

The Ariane 5 generic "G" version could be lofted by a single SSME.
It's gross mass is listed as 170 mT, and the propellant mass as 158
mT, for a dry mass of 12 mT. The Vulcain engine is listed on this page
as weighing 1,700 kg:

Vulcain - Specifications.http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedat...in_specs.shtml

Switching to a heavier SSME engine would add 1.4 mT to the vehicle dry
mass, so to 13.4 mT for the dry mass. Using a 425s average Isp again
for the SSME, this would allow a 6,000 kg payload:

425*9.8ln(1 + 158/(13.4+6)) = 9,218 m/s.

We wish to use this for a man-rated vehicle though. The Ariane 5 was
originally intended to be man-rated using the Hermes spaceplane to
carry crew. However, it's not certain the degree this was followed-
through when the Hermes was canceled.
As with the Ares I upper stage, there are means to increase the
payload capacity. Subcooled densification allows 10% greater
propellant to be carried, so then 10% greater mass can be lofted to
orbit. This brings the total lofted weight from 19.4 mT to 21.3 mT.
This extra weight can go to extra payload, so from 6 mT to about 8 mT
in payload.
The Ariane 5 uses an aluminum alloy, but not the aluminum-lithium
alloy being used now for the lightest weight designs. Switching to
aluminum-lithium allows approx. 10% weight saving over the previous
aluminum alloy. The structural mass sans the SSME engine is 10.3 mT,
so about 1 mT would be saved that could go to extra payload.
I also mentioned before the new research that suggests 10% to 20% can
be saved in structural mass because of overly conservative design now
used. This would be another 1 mT that could be saved off the dry
weight. These weight savings could go to extra payload, bringing the
payload capacity to 10 mT.


The advantages of a SSTO are best utilized as a reusable vehicle.
Then you would have to subtract from this estimated payload mass the
mass needed for reentry and landing systems.
However, this SSTO could still be useful as an expendable vehicle.
Then you could have up to a 9,000 kg payload without the reentry and
landing systems. This is close to the 10,000 kg payload capacity of
the Falcon 9.
I saw this article that had an estimate for the price of an
expendable version of the SSME's:

PWR Offers Shuttle Engine Alternative.
Jul 15, 2009
By Joseph C. Anselmo
"The company also would manufacture additional engines using the
existing SSME design while beginning work on a modified design that
incorporates advances in the construction of nozzles and combustion
chambers. That would be ready to go into production within 3-4 years.
Maser estimates the modified SSME would cost two-thirds to four-fifths
of the original model - depending on the number ordered - and would be
'a little more expensive' than the company's RS-68 engine 'but in that
ballpark.'"
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...%20Alternative

Using a price of $40 million for the current SSME's this would
correspond to a price of from $26.7 to $32 million for the expendable
versions. Considering the fact the engines make up the bulk of the
cost of an expendable launcher, this expendable SSTO launcher very
well could be comparable in cost to the Falcon 9 at $50 million.


Bob Clark
  #5  
Old March 5th 11, 12:01 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.history
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 341
Default Some proposals for low cost heavy lift launchers.

In 2005 I had hoped to sell $6.25 billion worth of oil I planned to
make in the future to fund the development of a 200,000 barrel per day
production plant that used the Bergius Process to make oil from US
coal and hydrogen made from water with very low cost solar panels I
had developed. After fulfilling the contracts I would have been left
with an $85 billion asset and a supply chain to build more hydrogen
producing solar panels at very low cost, and more coal to liquid
Bergius reactors - gaining $85 billion each time one was finished.

There were some shenannigans in New York with some of the banks
involved and when that didn't work, the rules were changed about
testing procedures. As it currently stands, there is no approved test
for coal derived liquids that any futures market will accept. ASTM
hopes to have one in 2016, but that's just for Fischer-Tropsch.
Bergius isn't even considered.

In any case, until then, none of the coal-to-liquid deals like I
described can go forward. They will.

Now, had I completed the deal in 2005 I would be producing 200,000
barrels per day today, and be worth $85 billion. I would also be
churning out one of these systems every month. The world presently
uses enough oil today to need 395 of these systems. So, it would take
30 years to make a big dent - against growing demand. Oh yeah, and
oil would be trading in the $30 per barrel range.

This last piece was the killer. Because economically recoverable oil
is based on what it costs to extract versus what it brings in the
market. So, if oil is trading at $140 per barrel, there is more you
can get since you are willing to spend more. If oil is $30 per
barrel, oil wells will be shut down, and the economically recoverable
reserves of the oil companies is far smaller at $30 selling price than
at $120 selling price. So, their market capitalization, which is
based on their economically recoverable reserves, is a quadratic
function of oil price. That's why they like to see gradual oil price
rises over time - not a reversal of that trend - which a new non-oil
source brings.

There is also the issue of very low cost hydrogen made from water and
sunlight.

That makes things worse if you're an oil company with depleting
reserves.

Why post all of this in a thread about heavy lift launchers? lol.

Because of what I had planned to do with my SECOND $85 billion.

The first $85 billion went to pay for the over-sized supply chain I
was planning. It also went to acquire strategic assets, like coal
companies and rail roads - stuff like that.

The second $85 billion went to pay for GROWTH - and to stay ahead of
the competition.

This meant that I would use the second $85 billion to acquire LMT and
BA - restructure the two companies into three or four smaller
companies, and sell controlling interest in three of those companies
and keep the fourth. These companies would be to aircraft
manufacturers, one weapons manufacturer and a spaceship manufacturer.
Since the spaceship component was a drain on the companies before
acquisition, the pieces without that drain would be worth about $8
billion to $12 billion more structured this way. This money would pay
for the transaction, and get a small return on the $85 billion you
started with.

With this money - which is more money than these companies have
received from NASA over the past 20 years -- would be used to build a
rather large heavy lift launcher built around some existing engine and
airframe technologies - to place 632 metric tons into LEO at an
incredibly low cost per flight - with highly reusable launcher
technology.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum

What would I do with this launcher?

Launch solar power satellites that beamed IR laser energy to the
terrestrial solar units that made hydrogen for the coal to liquid
processes described above.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/S...-Satellite-GEO

Why would I do that?

Because doing that would increase the amount of hydrogen produced by
these systems SEVEN (7) times! So, I need only 57 instead of 395
units to meet today's energy needs - which means I get things done in
5 years instead of 35 years.

Like I said, to remain competitive in the energy business and keep the
oil companies that produce conventional oil out of the market I have
come to dominate with my technology.

This is an exciting development! It is something that still can
happen, once we sort through the saleability of coal derived
liquids.

Even more exciting is what this means to space travel enthusiasts. A
fleet of highly reusable heavy lift launchers putting 632 tons into
LEO every week - with one unallocated launch every month - which can
be donated to the national or global space effort if not needed for
the commercial program - along with a sizeable charitable contribution
to develop payloads for it (which would be larger than the total of
all space budgets world wide) - would be a very positive development
indeed.

Of course this heavy lift launcher would also put up other commercial
systems. For example, a global wireless internet would be deployed in
very short order. Money from that asset would largely be the source
of donated dollars. The donations also are done partly in self-
interest. I have an $80 billion + asset that makes spacecraft and
rockets. It benefits me to have as many people as possible thinking
about uses for that asset and how to make it more valuable to the
human community.

Had the oil been floated in 2005 without mishap - we would be buying
up LMT/BA today. Oil would be trading at $30 per barrel range. And
likely the huge transfer of wealth out of the US banking system would
not have occurred, or been only a minor blip as wealth shifted from
the Middle East who is unhappy about US policies to the US.

By 2015 we would be back on the Moon and on our way to Mars. We would
be experimenting with solar power satellites beaming energy from the
vicinity of Sol. By 2020 we would have an outpost near Sedna and be
experimenting with sending useful energy across the solar system. At
the same time we would be using the gravity lens of the Sun as a
telescope objective and have detailed information of our cosmos on a
scale unimagined today. By 2025 we would be sending probes to nearby
stars even as we began shipping more material from the asteroids than
is mined on Earth today. By 2030 we would have remotely operated
robots operating throughout the galaxy - through a negative time delay
signal shunted through Sgr A* - as MEMS based spacecraft - powered by
laser beams from space - filled every garage on the planet - giving
first ballistic transport to everyone on Earth - and later allowing
people to live on orbit in their own space homes - and commute to
Earth. By 2040 with sufficient energy collected from the Sun, many of
those space homes would travel first acorss the solar system, and
later as technology developed, from star to star. By the 100th
anniversary of Sputnik, we would have the first cities around other
star systems.

  #6  
Old March 5th 11, 12:39 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.history
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Some proposals for low cost heavy lift launchers.

On Mar 4, 3:01*pm, wrote:
In 2005 I had hoped to sell $6.25 billion worth of oil I planned to
make in the future to fund the development of a 200,000 barrel per day
production plant that used the Bergius Process to make oil from US
coal and hydrogen made from water with very low cost solar panels I
had developed. *After fulfilling the contracts I would have been left
with an $85 billion asset and a supply chain to build more hydrogen
producing solar panels at very low cost, and more coal to liquid
Bergius reactors - gaining $85 billion each time one was finished.

There were some shenannigans in New York with some of the banks
involved and when that didn't work, the rules were changed about
testing procedures. *As it currently stands, there is no approved test
for coal derived liquids that any futures market will accept. *ASTM
hopes to have one in 2016, but that's just for Fischer-Tropsch.
Bergius isn't even considered.

In any case, until then, none of the coal-to-liquid deals like I
described can go forward. * They will.

Now, had I completed the deal in 2005 I would be producing 200,000
barrels per day today, and be worth $85 billion. *I would also be
churning out one of these systems every month. *The world presently
uses enough oil today to need 395 of these systems. *So, it would take
30 years to make a big dent - against growing demand. * Oh yeah, and
oil would be trading in the $30 per barrel range.

This last piece was the killer. *Because economically recoverable oil
is based on what it costs to extract versus what it brings in the
market. *So, if oil is trading at $140 per barrel, there is more you
can get since you are willing to spend more. *If oil is $30 per
barrel, oil wells will be shut down, and the economically recoverable
reserves of the oil companies is far smaller at $30 selling price than
at $120 selling price. *So, their market capitalization, which is
based on their economically recoverable reserves, is a quadratic
function of oil price. *That's why they like to see gradual oil price
rises over time - not a reversal of that trend - which a new non-oil
source brings.

There is also the issue of very low cost hydrogen made from water and
sunlight.

That makes things worse if you're an oil company with depleting
reserves.

Why post all of this in a thread about heavy lift launchers? *lol.

Because of what I had planned to do with my SECOND $85 billion.

The first $85 billion went to pay for the over-sized supply chain I
was planning. *It also went to acquire strategic assets, like coal
companies and rail roads - stuff like that.

The second $85 billion went to pay for GROWTH - and to stay ahead of
the competition.

This meant that I would use the second $85 billion to acquire LMT and
BA - restructure the two companies into three or four smaller
companies, and sell controlling interest in three of those companies
and keep the fourth. *These companies would be to aircraft
manufacturers, one weapons manufacturer and a spaceship manufacturer.
Since the spaceship component was a drain on the companies before
acquisition, the pieces without that drain would be worth about $8
billion to $12 billion more structured this way. *This money would pay
for the transaction, and get a small return on the $85 billion you
started with.

With this money - which is more money than these companies have
received from NASA over the past 20 years -- would be used to build a
rather large heavy lift launcher built around some existing engine and
airframe technologies - to place 632 metric tons into LEO at an
incredibly low cost per flight - with highly reusable launcher
technology.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum

What would I do with this launcher?

Launch solar power satellites that beamed IR laser energy to the
terrestrial solar units that made hydrogen for the coal to liquid
processes described above.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/S...-Satellite-GEO

Why would I do that?

Because doing that would increase the amount of hydrogen produced by
these systems SEVEN (7) times! *So, I need only 57 instead of 395
units to meet today's energy needs - which means I get things done in
5 years instead of 35 years.

Like I said, to remain competitive in the energy business and keep the
oil companies that produce conventional oil out of the market I have
come to dominate with my technology.

This is an exciting development! * It is something that still can
happen, once we sort through the saleability of coal derived
liquids.

Even more exciting is what this means to space travel enthusiasts. *A
fleet of highly reusable heavy lift launchers putting 632 tons into
LEO every week - with one unallocated launch every month - which can
be donated to the national or global space effort if not needed for
the commercial program - along with a sizeable charitable contribution
to develop payloads for it (which would be larger than the total of
all space budgets world wide) - would be a very positive development
indeed.

Of course this heavy lift launcher would also put up other commercial
systems. *For example, a global wireless internet would be deployed in
very short order. *Money from that asset would largely be the source
of donated dollars. *The donations also are done partly in self-
interest. *I have an $80 billion + asset that makes spacecraft and
rockets. *It benefits me to have as many people as possible thinking
about uses for that asset and how to make it more valuable to the
human community.

Had the oil been floated in 2005 without mishap - we would be buying
up LMT/BA today. *Oil would be trading at $30 per barrel range. *And
likely the huge transfer of wealth out of the US banking system would
not have occurred, or been only a minor blip as wealth shifted from
the Middle East who is unhappy about US policies to the US.

By 2015 we would be back on the Moon and on our way to Mars. *We would
be experimenting with solar power satellites beaming energy from the
vicinity of Sol. *By 2020 we would have an outpost near Sedna and be
experimenting with sending useful energy across the solar system. *At
the same time we would be using the gravity lens of the Sun as a
telescope objective and have detailed information of our cosmos on a
scale unimagined today. *By 2025 we would be sending probes to nearby
stars even as we began shipping more material from the asteroids than
is mined on Earth today. *By 2030 we would have remotely operated
robots operating throughout the galaxy - through a negative time delay
signal shunted through Sgr A* - as MEMS based spacecraft - powered by
laser beams from space - filled every garage on the planet - giving
first ballistic transport to everyone on Earth - and later allowing
people to live on orbit in their own space homes - and commute to
Earth. *By 2040 with sufficient energy collected from the Sun, many of
those space homes would travel first acorss the solar system, and
later as technology developed, from star to star. *By the 100th
anniversary of Sputnik, we would have the first cities around other
star systems.


You lack focus, not to mention team members. Even the likes of
Bigelow Aerospace has more focus and his own team of expertise besides
himself.

When is Mokenergy going to deliver its first tonne of hydrogen for
$100?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
  #7  
Old March 5th 11, 12:51 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.history
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,516
Default Some proposals for low cost heavy lift launchers.

the USA will screw around till a oil crisis kills our economy, a mid
east war that shuts down exports for 6 months is probably enough

foreigners can buy us our assets, hope the chinese treat us decently
  #8  
Old March 5th 11, 01:39 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.history
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Some proposals for low cost heavy lift launchers.

On Mar 4, 3:51*pm, " wrote:
the USA will screw around till a oil crisis kills our economy, a mid
east war that shuts down exports for 6 months is probably enough

foreigners can buy us our assets, hope the chinese treat us decently


At least it'll eliminate those spendy and time consuming reelections,
that we also can't afford. Perhaps India can run Texas and Florida,
or we can always sell Florida to Cuba and the southern half of
California to Mexico.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

  #9  
Old March 5th 11, 02:57 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.history
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,516
Default Some proposals for low cost heavy lift launchers.

On Mar 4, 7:39*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Mar 4, 3:51*pm, " wrote:

the USA will screw around till a oil crisis kills our economy, a mid
east war that shuts down exports for 6 months is probably enough


foreigners can buy us our assets, hope the chinese treat us decently


At least it'll eliminate those spendy and time consuming reelections,
that we also can't afford. *Perhaps India can run Texas and Florida,
or we can always sell Florida to Cuba and the southern half of
California to Mexico.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”


nope mexico the US and canada except for the french part will all be
rolled into one country.

this will end illegal immigration from mexico, the will be citizens of
the North American Union

hopefully this will decrease a bit of the overhead of 3 seperate
countries.

just one president one legislature and one of everything
  #10  
Old March 5th 11, 09:49 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.history
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Some proposals for low cost heavy lift launchers.

On Mar 5, 5:57*am, " wrote:
On Mar 4, 7:39*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On Mar 4, 3:51*pm, " wrote:


the USA will screw around till a oil crisis kills our economy, a mid
east war that shuts down exports for 6 months is probably enough


foreigners can buy us our assets, hope the chinese treat us decently


At least it'll eliminate those spendy and time consuming reelections,
that we also can't afford. *Perhaps India can run Texas and Florida,
or we can always sell Florida to Cuba and the southern half of
California to Mexico.


*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”


nope mexico the US and canada except for the french part will all be
rolled into one country.

this will end illegal immigration from mexico, the will be citizens of
the North American Union

hopefully this will decrease a bit of the overhead of 3 seperate
countries.

just one president one legislature and one of everything


It should cut the collective overhead by 90%, because so much is
either dysfunctional or over-lapping that it's currently far worse
than silly.

By all means, include Cuba plus a few other island nations that need
to become part of this multinational union.

How many bloody, nasty wars do you think this merger is going to take?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.