"Boeing To Study Liquid Fly Back Shuttle Boosters For NASA"

wrote:
On Nov 24, 6:29 pm, kT wrote:
wrote:

1. So you've got the inside knowledge, eh? I don't want to launch
Dragons,
I want to enhance the payload capacity of my SSTO hydrogen core with
their boosters. Consider my hydrogen core as my 'payload'. Get it?

2. SpaceX is in the business of launching payloads, right?

1. Informed customer and spacex policy

2. Correct, but not in the business of helping competitors. They want
all the business and not be a supplier.

So you tell me how a ground launched cryogenic SSME powered SSTO is
going to compete with a kerosene powered conventional TSTO launcher.

I'm not competing with them at all, I'm opening up the market for them.
In a single launch, I will hand them all the business they can handle.

I'm not competing with them, I'm cooperating with them, in an entirely
different launch vehicle niche. I'm helping them, because I'm sure they
aren't going to be stuck in the small launch vehicle niche forever, and
right now, there is no market besides NASA. Bigelow and SpaceX need me.

I am perfectly ok with my COTS proposal. I admit, I was a little rushed
to get my ESAS finished in 2 years and the proposal finished in a month,
but what you see is what you get, and right now all I see are the SSMEs.

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

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

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.

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

wrote:

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

No, the conventional kerosene powered TSTO launcher (and we all know we
are talking about the SpaceX Falcon 9) wins out on *COSTS* alone, the
business cases for the cryogenic ground started SSME powered SSTO is
entirely different from a Falcon 9, and complementary, as I demonstrate.

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.

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? ~~~~

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

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