|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Could this be a model for the United States?
The United States is going to need a heavy lift launch vehicle if we
are going to undertake ambitious manned missions to the moon and beyond. I have long believed, as many do, that we should commit to developing a launch system that is fully reusable and will lower both the cost and risk associated with spaceflight. To me, putting an Apollo-style capsule on top of a Delta IV or Atlas V doesn't seem like much of a vision for the future. I just came across this, and it is exactly the type of launch system I would love to see the United States develop. What are your opinions on the merits (and drawbacks) of such a design? http://www.k26.com/buran/Info/Energi...k_booster.html |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Could this be a model for the United States?
vthokie wrote:
The United States is going to need a heavy lift launch vehicle if we are going to undertake ambitious manned missions to the moon and beyond. That's an opinion, not a fact. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Could this be a model for the United States?
"vthokie" wrote in message om... The United States is going to need a heavy lift launch vehicle if we are going to undertake ambitious manned missions to the moon and beyond. What is the basis for this assertion? Why is heavy lift *necessary*? What can't you do by launching smaller payloads and docking them together in LEO? I have long believed, as many do, that we should commit to developing a launch system that is fully reusable and will lower both the cost and risk associated with spaceflight. That was supposed to be the space shuttle. It's currently our reusable heavy lift vehicle and it's expensive to operate (half a billion to a billion dollars per flight). How will heavy lift vehicles be cheaper to operate since they fly less often and have to spread their fixed costs over fewer launches? To me, putting an Apollo-style capsule on top of a Delta IV or Atlas V doesn't seem like much of a vision for the future. Who gives a rats ass how we get to the moon and Mars, as long as we get there? I just came across this, and it is exactly the type of launch system I would love to see the United States develop. What are your opinions on the merits (and drawbacks) of such a design? http://www.k26.com/buran/Info/Energi...k_booster.html Drawbacks are its hideously expensive development costs and expensive operating costs (this thing would be huge and would require a very huge runway to land). Furthermore, it's operating mode is very similar to that of the space shuttle. Because of this, what would lead you to believe that it would be any cheaper to operate than the space shuttle? Finally, Russia abandoned Energia and their space shuttle once. They won't start working on this "Energia 2" for the same reasons that the originals were abandoned. Jeff -- Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Could this be a model for the United States?
vthokie wrote:
The United States is going to need a heavy lift launch vehicle if we are going to undertake ambitious manned missions to the moon and beyond. I don't agree. I think that for manned missions to moon and mars, a lot of fuel is needed to be launched (more than 2/3 of the weight is going to be fuel.) It seems to me that the best way to handle this is to launch the fuel separately, on multiple launches; and collect the fuel in orbit. I mean, that's pretty much what the ISS does- it's not any new tech needed to fuel up on-orbit. Smaller launches are cheaper because you get more efficient use of the R&D needed to produce the vehicle. It's much cheaper to launch 100x a small vehicle than to launch 25x a big one (within reason- if the payload is over a few hundred kilogram)- and this is irrespective of whether the vehicle is reusable or not. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Could this be a model for the United States?
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Could this be a model for the United States?
You could build a vertical maglev rail a mile high and sling objects into
space without large bulkie fuel tanks. You could also send up just fuel tanks to dock with for manuvering or use quantum nucleonic reactors for manuvering. You might need a couple of nuclear power plants to power the maglev but we've done more stupid things in the past. "vthokie" wrote in message om... The United States is going to need a heavy lift launch vehicle if we are going to undertake ambitious manned missions to the moon and beyond. I have long believed, as many do, that we should commit to developing a launch system that is fully reusable and will lower both the cost and risk associated with spaceflight. To me, putting an Apollo-style capsule on top of a Delta IV or Atlas V doesn't seem like much of a vision for the future. I just came across this, and it is exactly the type of launch system I would love to see the United States develop. What are your opinions on the merits (and drawbacks) of such a design? http://www.k26.com/buran/Info/Energi...k_booster.html --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.721 / Virus Database: 477 - Release Date: 7/16/2004 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Could this be a model for the United States?
vthokie wrote:
I just came across this, and it is exactly the type of launch system I would love to see the United States develop. What are your opinions on the merits (and drawbacks) of such a design? http://www.k26.com/buran/Info/Energi...k_booster.html What is the cost, and what is its performance? The website does not tell these two little points, but without them: How can we discuss its merits? Robert Kitzmueller |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Could this be a model for the United States?
In article ,
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) wrote: You could build a vertical maglev rail a mile high Supported by....what? A frame, stupid. Of course since building mile high frames is so trivial. And *ever* so much cheaper than building simple fuel tanks and filling them with cheap chemicals. Yeah, right. -- "Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer -- George Herbert | |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Could this be a model for the United States?
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 11:13:42 -0400, "Rodney Kelp"
wrote: A frame, stupid. Such a frame would be around four times the height of the tallest structure yet built by man. Brian |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Could this be a model for the United States?
So what's wrong with that?
Everytime somebody thinks of a way to get us going they get shot down instead of getting positive input. No wonder we have been flat on our space asses for 40 years. (not counting the **** poor shuttle program.) No moon bases, no mars space stations, not much of anything. We should have flying cars by now (Skycar).. Nope, some stupid idiot will give another stupid idiot a licence so nobody can have one. Idiots shouldn't be holding us back. "Brian Thorn" wrote in message news On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 11:13:42 -0400, "Rodney Kelp" wrote: A frame, stupid. Such a frame would be around four times the height of the tallest structure yet built by man. Brian --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/29/2004 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
the Star Wars club is growing | jjustwwondering | Policy | 61 | July 30th 04 10:05 PM |
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | Space Shuttle | 150 | July 28th 04 07:30 AM |
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | Policy | 145 | July 28th 04 07:30 AM |
Moon key to space future? | James White | Policy | 90 | January 6th 04 04:29 PM |
Talk to Congress about Commercial Human Spaceflight | Edward Wright | Policy | 16 | October 14th 03 12:20 AM |