Suggestions for NASA?

Augustine`s resumee that the current NASA plan is screwed may not surprised
most regulars here. It will probably "repaired" by adding the often
mentioned $3 Billion to the budget. But what would you suggest for a
new NASA plan?

I would ban all big solids and go back to liquid engines. No Ares-1, put
Orion on a upgraded Atlas or Delta-Heavy. Buy it from private sector
because they have big engines off the shelve. Fast, cheap (at least cheaper
than Ares-1), flexible.

There is a need for a big launcher of at least Saturn V size. For Moon,
Mars, NEOs, large Space Telescopes and even as option for sudden requests.
So ok for Ares V. It will get a big LES what makes it enough "man rated".
But one should build a big rocket only with big engines - to avoid fate
of the N-1.

Present (well, last I saw a year ago) Ares-V payload projections demand
up to 1.3 Saturn-V capacity and may even growing. If one goes for 2 times
Saturn-V (to keep for still some grow) that may need 10 F-1 or RD-170
engines. So there is a need for further engine development. It would be
usefule to have an engine with 3 to 5 times F-1 thrust. Even a look for
a small Sea Dragon could be on the table. Just for the case a suddend
unexpected demand may rise.

A main point: All rocket parts besides the engines are less an issue today.
By present day CAE/ CAD and good safety margines its much easier to built
a big rocket than 50 years ago. A rocket 2 times the Saturn-V would for
sure be easier to design and built than the Space Shuttle. Just keep it
simple and trust in thrust.

So one should focus not on rockets but on its main part - the engines.
And keep all development to at least two competing private companies.
NASA shall only provide facilities and oversight.

It may worth to think about that Congress gives space missions to private
groups who will have a private insurance against failure and misson
delays. To keep a monetary responsibility like we have in aviation too.



## CrossPoint v3.12d R ##

wrote:
Augustine`s resumee that the current NASA plan is screwed may not surprised
most regulars here. It will probably "repaired" by adding the often
mentioned $3 Billion to the budget. But what would you suggest for a
new NASA plan?

I would ban all big solids and go back to liquid engines. No Ares-1, put
Orion on a upgraded Atlas or Delta-Heavy. Buy it from private sector
because they have big engines off the shelve. Fast, cheap (at least cheaper
than Ares-1), flexible.

There is a need for a big launcher of at least Saturn V size. For Moon,
Mars, NEOs, large Space Telescopes and even as option for sudden requests.
So ok for Ares V. It will get a big LES what makes it enough "man rated".
But one should build a big rocket only with big engines - to avoid fate
of the N-1.

Present (well, last I saw a year ago) Ares-V payload projections demand
up to 1.3 Saturn-V capacity and may even growing. If one goes for 2 times
Saturn-V (to keep for still some grow) that may need 10 F-1 or RD-170
engines. So there is a need for further engine development. It would be
usefule to have an engine with 3 to 5 times F-1 thrust. Even a look for
a small Sea Dragon could be on the table. Just for the case a suddend
unexpected demand may rise.

We did a whole study of the super Frankenstein launchers right up to
about half Sea Dragon class. I still settled on the 'Marilyn Munster'.

Small, lean, sleek, efficient, beautiful, reusable.

Best of all, feminine. It's a big mistake to name anything after males,
especially male gods and deities and vikings and stuff, trust me.

Nature, reality, scientific methods and engineering best practices
strike those things down in a hurry, usually catastrophically.

A main point: All rocket parts besides the engines are less an issue today.
By present day CAE/ CAD and good safety margines its much easier to built
a big rocket than 50 years ago. A rocket 2 times the Saturn-V would for
sure be easier to design and built than the Space Shuttle. Just keep it
simple and trust in thrust.

What is the Isp of money again? Dollar bills, specifically.

So one should focus not on rockets but on its main part - the engines.
And keep all development to at least two competing private companies.
NASA shall only provide facilities and oversight.

One word, young man, propulsion, propulsion and propulsion.

It may worth to think about that Congress gives space missions to private
groups who will have a private insurance against failure and misson
delays. To keep a monetary responsibility like we have in aviation too.

Insuring failure doesn't prevent it, but ensuring failure guarantees it.

Constellation and big ****ing rockets are guaranteed failure right now,
it's time for you BFR advocates to take a time out for a little while.

Work on your propulsion options for seven years and get back to me.

## CrossPoint v3.12d R ##

On Sep 27, 9:05*am, wrote:
Augustine`s resumee that the current NASA plan is screwed may not surprised
most regulars here. It will probably "repaired" by adding the often
mentioned $3 Billion to the budget. But what would you suggest for a
new NASA plan?

A 50/50 plan of private and/or corporate investment to go along with
the public(government/tax) funded aspects. Meaning nothing goes up or
otherwise gets R&D loot unless it's at least 50% private funded.

~ BG