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

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.

"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.

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.

On 28 Jul 2004 04:53:59 -0700, (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.

Either heavy lift or a successful low-cost reusable vehicle.

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.

It should be useful for getting Constellation up and running with
flight tests and support for ISS, but I agree that is not a long-term
solution.

Brian

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

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

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 |

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

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