|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Boeing To Study Liquid Fly Back Shuttle Boosters For NASA"
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Boeing To Study Liquid Fly Back Shuttle Boosters For NASA"
kT wrote:
I'm just trying to get my launcher version of the DC-3 era flown for the very first time, the infamous 'Delta V' - a ground started 5 meter cryogenic SSME core in a SSTO or liquid hydrocarbon booster assisted stage and a half to orbit. Don't quit that day job just yet, Thomas. :-) Jim Davis |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Boeing To Study Liquid Fly Back Shuttle Boosters For NASA"
On Nov 25, 12:48 pm, kT wrote:
wrote: So you tell me how a ground launched cryogenic SSME powered SSTO is going to compete with a kerosene powered conventional TSTO launcher. The kerosene powered conventional TSTO launcher wins out since the SSTO has a non viable business case |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Boeing To Study Liquid Fly Back Shuttle Boosters For NASA"
Big enough LRBs could manage to accomplish LEO, especially if their
inert mass (including whatever payload) isn't much over the 10% mark. Think of using nearly 100% composites and of otherwise a few super alloys. These massive LRBs themselves could even have a three of those strap- on SRBs if necessary. The primary/core rocket itself might have to remain as conventional LH2/LOx format. -- Brad Guth kT wrote: BradGuth wrote: On Nov 24, 4:23 pm, kT wrote: BradGuth wrote: On Nov 24, 1:16 pm, BradGuth wrote: Why not use "fly back" LRBs instead of those absolutely pathetic SRBs to start with? We could even sell off a few passenger seats, possibly even incorporate one seat for a human pilot that'll fly each of those spendy boosters back to the local tarmac. We thought of that already, you could put a passenger on both of the shuttle SRBs too, what a ride that would be. You'd definitely want to bail out of that one somewhere along the way. However, if those pathetic SRBs were replaced with the far better LRBs, as then landing such fully reusable LRBs at the local tarmac seems quite doable. That too would be quite a ride. I don't see why sub orbital space tourism couldn't be incorporated into the liquid flyback boosters for those who want to plonk down a quarter million for a chance to die in a fiery explosion just for a few minutes of zero gee ballistic flight. But that is far off in the distant future. I'm just trying to get my launcher version of the DC-3 era flown for the very first time, the infamous 'Delta V' - a ground started 5 meter cryogenic SSME core in a SSTO or liquid hydrocarbon booster assisted stage and a half to orbit. Quite frankly, any American that does *NOT* want to fly out the post shuttle retirement SSMEs in this manner, is out of their ****ing mind. Really, that it is incumbent upon myself to do this is pretty pathetic. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Boeing To Study Liquid Fly Back Shuttle Boosters For NASA"
Jim Davis wrote:
kT wrote: I'm just trying to get my launcher version of the DC-3 era flown for the very first time, the infamous 'Delta V' - a ground started 5 meter cryogenic SSME core in a SSTO or liquid hydrocarbon booster assisted stage and a half to orbit. Don't quit that day job just yet, Thomas. :-) Somebody has to do it. Why me, I ask, every freakin day. Jim Davis |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Boeing To Study Liquid Fly Back Shuttle Boosters For NASA"
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Boeing To Study Liquid Fly Back Shuttle Boosters For NASA"
BradGuth wrote:
Big enough LRBs could manage to accomplish LEO, especially if their inert mass (including whatever payload) isn't much over the 10% mark. Think of using nearly 100% composites and of otherwise a few super alloys. These massive LRBs themselves could even have a three of those strap- on SRBs if necessary. The primary/core rocket itself might have to remain as conventional LH2/LOx format. That's a lotta burnt toast. kT wrote: BradGuth wrote: On Nov 24, 4:23 pm, kT wrote: BradGuth wrote: On Nov 24, 1:16 pm, BradGuth wrote: Why not use "fly back" LRBs instead of those absolutely pathetic SRBs to start with? We could even sell off a few passenger seats, possibly even incorporate one seat for a human pilot that'll fly each of those spendy boosters back to the local tarmac. We thought of that already, you could put a passenger on both of the shuttle SRBs too, what a ride that would be. You'd definitely want to bail out of that one somewhere along the way. However, if those pathetic SRBs were replaced with the far better LRBs, as then landing such fully reusable LRBs at the local tarmac seems quite doable. That too would be quite a ride. I don't see why sub orbital space tourism couldn't be incorporated into the liquid flyback boosters for those who want to plonk down a quarter million for a chance to die in a fiery explosion just for a few minutes of zero gee ballistic flight. But that is far off in the distant future. I'm just trying to get my launcher version of the DC-3 era flown for the very first time, the infamous 'Delta V' - a ground started 5 meter cryogenic SSME core in a SSTO or liquid hydrocarbon booster assisted stage and a half to orbit. Quite frankly, any American that does *NOT* want to fly out the post shuttle retirement SSMEs in this manner, is out of their ****ing mind. Really, that it is incumbent upon myself to do this is pretty pathetic. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Boeing To Study Liquid Fly Back Shuttle Boosters For NASA"
On Nov 24, 1:16 pm, BradGuth wrote:
Why not use "fly back" LRBs instead of those absolutely pathetic SRBs to start with? -- Brad Guth gaetanomarano wrote: . I've UPDATED my "Ares-1 can't fly" article... http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/012arescantfly.html ...with an interesting thing found on the web: Two years ago, when I've FIRST remarked on a Space forum the problem of the lack of a "safe lift-off abort mode" in the upcoming Ares-1, I was (literally) submerged by lots of critics and insults, but, now, surfing the web, I've found and SAVED (a "disliked" web page can disappear overnight...) a very interesting June 12, 1997 Boeing's News Release titled "Boeing To Study Liquid Fly Back Shuttle Boosters For NASA"... http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...se.970612.html ...where the Boeing LFBB Program Director Ira Victer said that... "LFBB will use liquid propellants and will be fully throttleable and capable of safe shutdown. SRBs, which use a solid propellant, cannot be turned off once ignited... "The result is a booster system [the LFBB] more tolerant of engine failure and less likely to require mission aborts," Victer said. "In addition, hazardous booster operations in NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Vehicle Assembly Building are eliminated, since LFBB fueling operations would occur on the launch pad, much the way the Shuttle's external tank is loaded today". Then, in this ten-years-old document, BOEING (clearly) seems agree with me... However, I'm not against the SRBs used as 1st stage of a rocket for manned launches... my only concern is that, this solution, needs many safety, structure and acceleration tests made NOW (not in 2009+) then, BEFORE any "final decision" about the Ares-1. . Hey Google, the Moonrovers Prize was MY idea!!! http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/008moonprize.html . I do not know. Being totally ignorant my guess is that the strategic political negotiations that designed the overall top level sysetem picked SRBs for some irrelevent reason like the ecological engineers paid the time travelers to send back one desperate man to help guarantee SRBs were delivering the toxic waste necessary to rain down upon the atlantics preventing ghastly algae blooms that in the original universe exterminated us. I understand Proxmire got a secret medal honor, the only one ever awarded to a civilian. See he did not really beat us (the greenSpace faction now conspiring at Wikipedia.org while avoiding homework at wikiversity.org by playing with Lunar Boom Town grid enabled components) back in the 70s and 80s and then savor our despair of the 90s, it was tragic what he had to do to an entire generation of gifted americans recovering from vietnam, but that is what hero's. Make the tough calls and survive with the REMFs and the executives even though they would rather be the dead astronauts denied manual flight controls riding in the cargo bay with all options exhausted .... ah the cheese subsidies Proxmire would have refused if only he had the option to trade places. ~~~~ evaluate for script potential for political character assassination at fantasy football halftime .... success criteria ??? What enormous nanopayment could we steal from the soon to be collaping real life football leagues? Will it get us enough fantasy antimatter to power the dial in heisenberg uncertainty breaker put in place to prove Americans could free themselves of this tyrannny anytime they choose thereby diffusing the rebellion against the to corrupt unconstitutional powers that be? ~~~~ |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Boeing To Study Liquid Fly Back Shuttle Boosters For NASA"
On Nov 25, 7:15 pm, kT wrote:
BradGuth wrote: Big enough LRBs could manage to accomplish LEO, especially if their inert mass (including whatever payload) isn't much over the 10% mark. Think of using nearly 100% composites and of otherwise a few super alloys. These massive LRBs themselves could even have a three of those strap- on SRBs if necessary. The primary/core rocket itself might have to remain as conventional LH2/LOx format. That's a lotta burnt toast. But our NASA is really good at making such spendy "burnt toast" (as well as w/crew), so they might as well sell off those first stage LRBs or SRB seats just for the hell of it. BTW, it takes more fly-by-rocket energy and much less inert mass than any Saturn V in order to get nearly 50 tonnes so quickly into orbiting our moon. But of course you and most others of this infowar/ infomercial community of such all-knowing wizards must already have known at least that much. -- Brad Guth |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Boeing To Study Liquid Fly Back Shuttle Boosters For NASA"
On Nov 25, 11:20 pm, wrote:
On Nov 24, 1:16 pm, BradGuth wrote: Why not use "fly back" LRBs instead of those absolutely pathetic SRBs to start with? -- BradGuth gaetanomarano wrote: . I've UPDATED my "Ares-1 can't fly" article... http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/012arescantfly.html ...with an interesting thing found on the web: Two years ago, when I've FIRST remarked on a Space forum the problem of the lack of a "safe lift-off abort mode" in the upcoming Ares-1, I was (literally) submerged by lots of critics and insults, but, now, surfing the web, I've found and SAVED (a "disliked" web page can disappear overnight...) a very interesting June 12, 1997 Boeing's News Release titled "Boeing To Study Liquid Fly Back Shuttle Boosters For NASA"... http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...se.970612.html ...where the Boeing LFBB Program Director Ira Victer said that... "LFBB will use liquid propellants and will be fully throttleable and capable of safe shutdown. SRBs, which use a solid propellant, cannot be turned off once ignited... "The result is a booster system [the LFBB] more tolerant of engine failure and less likely to require mission aborts," Victer said. "In addition, hazardous booster operations in NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Vehicle Assembly Building are eliminated, since LFBB fueling operations would occur on the launch pad, much the way the Shuttle's external tank is loaded today". Then, in this ten-years-old document, BOEING (clearly) seems agree with me... However, I'm not against the SRBs used as 1st stage of a rocket for manned launches... my only concern is that, this solution, needs many safety, structure and acceleration tests made NOW (not in 2009+) then, BEFORE any "final decision" about the Ares-1. . Hey Google, the Moonrovers Prize was MY idea!!! http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/008moonprize.html . I do not know. Being totally ignorant my guess is that the strategic political negotiations that designed the overall top level sysetem picked SRBs for some irrelevent reason like the ecological engineers paid the time travelers to send back one desperate man to help guarantee SRBs were delivering the toxic waste necessary to rain down upon the atlantics preventing ghastly algae blooms that in the original universe exterminated us. I understand Proxmire got a secret medal honor, the only one ever awarded to a civilian. See he did not really beat us (the greenSpace faction now conspiring at Wikipedia.org while avoiding homework at wikiversity.org by playing with Lunar Boom Town grid enabled components) back in the 70s and 80s and then savor our despair of the 90s, it was tragic what he had to do to an entire generation of gifted americans recovering from vietnam, but that is what hero's. Make the tough calls and survive with the REMFs and the executives even though they would rather be the dead astronauts denied manual flight controls riding in the cargo bay with all options exhausted .... ah the cheese subsidies Proxmire would have refused if only he had the option to trade places. ~~~~ evaluate for script potential for political character assassination at fantasy football halftime .... success criteria ??? What enormous nanopayment could we steal from the soon to be collaping real life football leagues? Will it get us enough fantasy antimatter to power the dial in heisenberg uncertainty breaker put in place to prove Americans could free themselves of this tyrannny anytime they choose thereby diffusing the rebellion against the to corrupt unconstitutional powers that be? ~~~~ OK, apparently you're on my kind of honest mindset side of such things. What exactly can you do to help against all the "corrupt unconstitutional powers that be"? - Brad Guth |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Scientific" Dreams Of Travel To Stars Shattered: Mysterious Force Pulls Back NASA Probe In Deep Space | Sound of Trumpet | Policy | 354 | November 10th 06 01:48 AM |
PINKU'S BACK! (was "BoY GeOrgy?!?!?!,...., speaks fOr all the RAMD'sters!!!..." ( Vince the punk is back again.)) | [email protected] | Misc | 2 | September 5th 06 04:18 PM |
"VideO Madness" "WhO did yOu VOte fOr, back in the day?!?!?!..." | Colonel Jake TM | Misc | 0 | August 31st 06 05:03 PM |
Full Text PDFs of "NASA Exploration Systems (CEV) Architecture Study Final Report - Oct 05" - available online | Rusty | Policy | 0 | December 29th 05 06:53 AM |
Full Text PDFs of "NASA Exploration Systems (CEV) Architecture Study Final Report - Oct 05" - available online | Rusty | History | 0 | December 29th 05 06:53 AM |