Alternative access to space ideas, etc.

The new issue of AIAA Houston "Horizons" is out. The three feature articles
a

---
- The Stellar-J Launch Vehicle and Commercial Space Development, by Wes
Kelly, Triton Systems - The Stellar-J is a proposed turbine/rocket-powered
HTHL first stage.
- New York to Paris. Earth to Orbit.What's the Difference?, Jim
Akkerman/Glenn Smith, Advent Launch Systems - The ALS
ocean-launched/recovered system is described.
- Next Generation Rocket Scientists in Fredericksburg - Brett Williams
describes the advanced rocketry program at Fredericksburg High School in
Texas, which aims at getting more students interested in and considering
careers in engineering.
---

See: http://www.aiaa-houston.org/newsletter

Jon Berndt
Editor, AIAA Houston "Horizons"

Quoting the editor:
" Wes Kelly, designer of a potential Earth-to-orbit workhorse called
Stellar-J (see article this issue), says: "If NASA wants to go to
Mars, it will be able to only if commercial people (not just the big
guys) know how to get to orbit, have the facilities, the contracts,
and do it routinely. Not the other way around." The point is that,
while NASA has the technical capability to go to the Moon, or Mars,
etc., it will only be able to afford to do so if there is a more
established infra-structure that it can leverage. For example, imagine
if Antarctic re-search expedition teams had to de-sign, manufacture,
and operate C-130 aircraft, helicopters, and ship transports to perform
their mission."

I shall note, for the record, that NASA and the STS has thrown 114
external tanks into the Indian Ocean that could have been taken into
orbit at no cost or loss of payload, and used as hab modules to build
all manner of space infrastructu ring space stations, LI stations,
huge extra-solar terrestrial planet finding telescopes, moon basis,
roomy interplanetary ships, mars bases, asteroid miners, you name it.
And they knew they could have done it, too, even back in the 70's, but
intentionally threw them away. This is perhaps the greatest single
waste, or more accurately, intentionally avoided investment return, of
taxpayer dollars outside of the welfare system in the 20th century.
Putting the editors antarctica example aside, imagine if, after WWII,
the Eisenhower administration decided that the DoD would, whenever it
needed to move lots of men and materiel around the US, that, rather
than building an interstate highway system infrastructure, they'd
simply bulldoze down forests and fill in swamps wherever they needed to
go, then let the newly blazen path go back to wild after each convoy
exercise.

"Mike Lorrey" wrote in news:1131056398.866727.100990
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

I shall note, for the record, that NASA and the STS has thrown 114
external tanks into the Indian Ocean

Nope, most of them went into the Pacific, after NASA switched the shuttle
ascent profile from Standard Insertion to Direct Insertion.

that could have been taken into
orbit at no cost or loss of payload,

That was true of Standard Insertion, but with the more efficient Direct
Insertion profile, there is a substantial payload penalty for carrying the
ET to orbit.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Three relatively small SMEs (say an extra 3000 kg worth) could have had
at least one of those ETs headed for our mutual
gravity-well/nullification zone. Of course that's still 3 tonnes worth
of less other payload hauling capability.

They've accomplished far less important sorts of things, such as
getting in the way of a comet, when otherwise doing a lunar impact
would have been so much better off for the exact same science and
certainly a whole lot faster results that more of the related science
could have utilized, and it certainly wouldn't have been all that
difficult to have exceeded 30 km/s worth of final impact velocity.
~

Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; WAR is WAR, thus "in war there are
no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of having to deal
with the likes of others that haven't been playing by whatever rules,
such as GW Bush.
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
"Mike Lorrey" wrote in news:1131056398.866727.100990
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

I shall note, for the record, that NASA and the STS has thrown 114
external tanks into the Indian Ocean

Nope, most of them went into the Pacific, after NASA switched the shuttle
ascent profile from Standard Insertion to Direct Insertion.

that could have been taken into
orbit at no cost or loss of payload,

That was true of Standard Insertion, but with the more efficient Direct
Insertion profile, there is a substantial payload penalty for carrying the
ET to orbit.


And Jorge politely didn't mention the danger of having multiple ETs in orbit
w/o attitude control popcorning foam all over the place.

ET re-use may have had a place, but describing it as a "intentionally
avoided investment return," is far from accurate.
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Mike Lorrey,
First of all, there are no such "alternative access to space ideas"
unless they can 100% coexist along with the mainstream status quo of
the NASA/Apollo ruse and/or sting of the century.

As you say, NASA would rather through away perfectly good technology
than allow such in any way to become utilized by someone other, even if
it's by our own kind.

The Chinese will only need to efficiently coast something of their's
into the ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet spot and then manage to hold onto that
position, as that's a far better claim than landing upon the moon and,
being situated within such an interactive zone that's upon average
roughly 60,000 km away from the highly reactive lunar deck is certainly
a whole lot safer to boot.

A purely robotic station-keeping platform of any sort that's taking up
the one and only mutual gravity-well position for establishing the
LSE-CM/ISS is a good thing to be doing for Earth-science as well as
moon-science. Too bad we're not smart enough to have accomplished this
as of four decades ago. As of lately those spare STS external tanks
could have been put to good use at such a spot that's way better off
then ES-L1.
~

Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; WAR is WAR, thus "in war there are
no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of having to deal
with the likes of others that haven't been playing by whatever rules,
such as GW Bush.
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

Mike Lorrey wrote:

Quoting the editor:

" Wes Kelly, designer of a potential Earth-to-orbit workhorse called

http://webpages.charter.net/tsiolkovsky/rocket.htm