Could this be a model for the United States?

Rodney Kelp wrote:

So what's wrong with that?

Nothing, except there's a reason (actually many) that no one has ever
built one, and it's not because we didn't realize we needed it to reduce
launch costs.

Rodney Kelp wrote:
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

I believe the number of operating mach 30 maglevs can be counted on the
fingers of one ear.

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 20:46:55 -0400, "Rodney Kelp"
wrote:

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.

You're the one calling people "stupid", remember, so lay off the
self-righteous claims of desiring positive input.

You might want to research your proposals before calling other people
stupid for pointing out that mankind has never even come close to
building a mile-high structure.

Brian

"Rodney Kelp" wrote in message ...
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.

Don't let those boring engineers and scientists get to you with their
"practical" objections. They are just irritated because they didn't think
of using quantum nucleonic reactors for "manuvering". ;-)

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 06:53:57 GMT, "Perplexed in Peoria"
wrote:

You could also send up just fuel
tanks to dock with for manuvering or use quantum nucleonic reactors for
manuvering.

Don't let those boring engineers and scientists get to you with their
"practical" objections. They are just irritated because they didn't think
of using quantum nucleonic reactors for "manuvering". ;-)

Damn! I just *knew* I should have picked up a couple of those quantum
nucleonic reactors while they were on sale at Walmart last week, but I
was put off by that "some invention required" warning on the label.
:-)


Brian

Rodney Kelp wrote:
So what's wrong with that?

Its simply harder (at least according to present known engineering) and
more expensive than just rockets. Hence there is no reason to do so.

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

Proposing new schemes without dong the numbers to supprt it doesn't get
us far either

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.


What is aflying car good for? Well, except for much more gruesome
pictures of car accidents...

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

We can pour billions and billions of dollars for war. We put billions on
cosmetics. Now billions on statins. Is there no change left for the space
program?

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.net...
Rodney Kelp wrote:

So what's wrong with that?

Nothing, except there's a reason (actually many) that no one has ever
built one, and it's not because we didn't realize we needed it to reduce
launch costs.


---
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

Rodney Kelp wrote:

We can pour billions and billions of dollars for war. We put billions on
cosmetics. Now billions on statins. Is there no change left for the space
program?

What does that have to do with your contention that it's easy to build a
mile-high frame?

(vthokie) wrote in message . com...
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.

Well... One surely need some sort of heavy lift launch vehicle if one
need to lift heavy stuff. And if one need to go to the moon or Mars or
somewhere farther, one need to lift a lot of stuff. Of course, you can
lift it all at once or lift several smaller pieces in several
launches.

It should be noted that Space Transportation System is already a heavy
lift launch vehicle, it can launch more cargo provided that it doesn't
need the Orbiter's engines each time it was launch. The Space
Transportation System can be modified into something like the Energia,
considering that both designs were based on the same design. The ones
who probably financed it probably are the same ones who gave the
design to the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. , the funds probably will come
from the 'private' industry.

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

Well... The idea of a fully or mostly reuseable Energia seems to be
interesting, but... the idea of bringing back an orbiter the length of
a Boeing 777 back from orbit is quite challenging.

Personally, the backbone of the Energia is its Zenit derive strapons
along with their RD-170 engines.

http://www.astronautix.com/stages/enerapon.htm

http://www.astronautix.com/stages/zenit1.htm

http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rd170.htm

http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rd171.htm

I suggest to focus on the Zenit and other launchers that used the
derivation of the RD-170 engine (like the Common Core Booster that use
the RD-180 and the Common Rocket Module that use the RD-191M), by
developing them as the core and the strapons.

http://www.sea-launch.com/

http://www.gdatp.com/products/compos...asv/atlasv.htm

http://www.ilslaunch.com/angara/

Making flyback launchers that uses the RD-170 engine and its
derivations will be a good idea too, like the StarBooster and the
Baikal, or even the originial flyback booster of the Energia-2
concept.

http://www.starbooster.com/

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/baikal.html

http://www.buran.ru/htm/41-3.htm


Now as for Energia's core.

Well... Instead of using a BIG tank with Liquid Oxygen and Liquid
Hydrogen engines, I think that it's better that they done it something
like this way:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/proct921.htm

And left out the Liquid Oxygen and Liquid Hydrogen engines for the
upper stage.

It's better to make the whole first stage consist of lots of similiar
modules clustered together.



As for skyways with skycars.

I don't agree on the opinion that the "Fifth Element" potrayed the
skyway more realistic than "Back to the Future part 2" and the Jetson.

The "Fifth Element" skyways are very chaotic because it took place in
an urban area that is dense with skyscrapers, while the skyway in
"Back to the Future part 2" and the Jetson took place in a suburban
area.

Anyway. Due the problem with skycars traffic, this is why some people
proposed that skycars should be flown with computer control instead of
human control. Since the computer can regulate the traffic and the
flying, much like on how some people proposed on that cars should be
instead driven by computers.

Computers are quite good at handling flying, and they can be made to
do almost anything, including crashing into building without any
people inside the aircraft, just like what happened in 1th Septermber
2001.

"EAC" wrote in message
m...

Computers are quite good at handling flying, and they can be made to
do almost anything, including crashing into building without any
people inside the aircraft, just like what happened in 1th Septermber
2001.

?!?

You'd almost convinced me there, until I read this part.

You're an idiot, buh-bye.

--
Terrell Miller


proudly keeping alt.music.yes all-to-**** since 1996