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

..

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

..

gaetanomarano wrote:

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

Ah, those were the days, weren't they. Soon I will be busy flying back
those SpaceX kerosene powered boosters to the cape, after they deliver
my SSME powered hydrogen core through the lower parts of the atmosphere.

On Nov 24, 2:09 pm, kT wrote:
Soon I will be busy flying back
those SpaceX kerosene powered boosters to the cape, after they deliver
my SSME powered hydrogen core through the lower parts of the atmosphere.

Again you don't know squat. Spacex does not supply components to
other organizations, just as they don't use other organizations
hardware. Spacex is a vertically integrated company that only raw
materials go in and finished products go out. They do everything
inhouse and keep all there hardware inhouse. They won't even look at
a backup LV for Dragon

wrote:

On Nov 24, 2:09 pm, kT wrote:
Soon I will be busy flying back
those SpaceX kerosene powered boosters to the cape, after they deliver
my SSME powered hydrogen core through the lower parts of the atmosphere.

Again you don't know squat. Spacex does not supply components to
other organizations, just as they don't use other organizations
hardware.

You mean if I approach them with cash to buy boosters, they won't
accommodate me? What happened to the customer approach?

Oh, I remember, you're with NASA.

Spacex is a vertically integrated company that only raw
materials go in and finished products go out. They do everything
inhouse and keep all there hardware inhouse. They won't even look at
a backup LV for Dragon

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?

SpaceX is in the business of launching payloads, right?

Oh, forget it, another 100,000 lb class hydrocarbon engine will be along
soon, I'm not picky. Meanwhile, I still have my achievable goals.

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.
..

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.

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

.

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

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.
--
Brad Guth

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.

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.
-- Brad Guth