Skip to comments.
The Cold Equations Of Spaceflight
Space Daily.com ^
| 9/9/05
| Jeffrey F. Bell
Posted on 09/09/2005 5:26:35 AM PDT by nuke rocketeer
In the past month, we have been blessed with numerous leaks from NASA of various study documents relating to the new boosters that will be needed to carry out the new manned moon program. I've been monitoring the large volume of Web chatter about these plans, and have noticed a disturbing theme therein. Many Space Cadets are expressing dissatisfaction with these leaked NASA plans. They say that the Shuttle-derived boosters are too primitive, too expensive to develop, too expensive to operate, and not inspiring enough. They can't understand why we will be returning to the Moon with rockets and space capsules that look like minor variations of those used in the Apollo program 40 years ago.
(Excerpt) Read more at spacedaily.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: exploration; nasa; rockets; shuttle; space
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-131 next last
The best explanation of why the DC-X, NASP, and VentureStar died and why we are going back to the future.
To: nuke rocketeer
Has anyone figured out how they are going to get through the Van Allen Radiation belt alive?
To: nuke rocketeer
Let private enterprise do it. They're already doing brilliantly in near space.
3
posted on
09/09/2005 5:31:50 AM PDT
by
RoadTest
(For Heaven's Sake)
To: nuke rocketeer
We can't even keep the insulating foam from coming off of the shuttle's external fuel tank. Space technology will advance ONLY when it become profitable and private industry starts paying more of the bills.
To: nuke rocketeer
5
posted on
09/09/2005 5:33:40 AM PDT
by
Dark Skies
("The only way to find yourself is in the fires of sorrow." -- Oswald Chambers)
To: nuke rocketeer
Can't find enough dilithium crystals?...........or melange......
6
posted on
09/09/2005 5:41:46 AM PDT
by
Red Badger
(United States Marine Corps.....An army of WON!...........)
To: nuke rocketeer
So the problem seems to be that of being able to carry enough fuel. Which has to be of the conventional kind.
I can't imagine nuclear power driving a space ship and especially a manned one. The mass of fat-nucleus atoms needed to shield it would render it literally impossible.
7
posted on
09/09/2005 5:45:26 AM PDT
by
The Red Zone
(Florida, the sun-shame state, and Illinois the chicken injun.)
To: nuke rocketeer
You mean I'm stuck here???
8
posted on
09/09/2005 5:46:15 AM PDT
by
HarleyD
(I live in my own little world because I enjoy the company.)
To: nuke rocketeer
The best explanation of why the DC-X, NASP, and VentureStar died and why we are going back to the future. I fully agree, but try telling some other Freepers that Burt Rutan does not have the ability to reach orbit, and given his budget never will, and you will need asbestos underwear.
9
posted on
09/09/2005 5:50:55 AM PDT
by
Yo-Yo
To: nuke rocketeer
The approach that seems to make the most sense to me is using a progressive rail gun built into an equatorial mountain slope, to shoot a vehicle into space. Thus allowing a theoretical 0% usage of on board fuel to attain orbit.
Entering the atmosphere already above 10,000 (half of the mass of the atmosphere) would decrease structural loading. A high energy laser could also super heat the flight path just before to lesson resistance (like lightning splitting the air). Additionally, a sabot shell could be used.
The progressive capability of a very long rail gun, could achieve required speeds without exceeding survivable G loads.
Reentry vehicles could then be made much more robust.
To: The Red Zone
An Orion could, but the Atmospheric test ban Treaty puts a legal bar to this vehicle, and the fact that it puts all kids of fallout in the atmosphere puts an ethical and environmental bar in front of it.
To: OldMagazine
The Apollo astronauts got through it alive. The key for that is to go through it quickly.
To: HarleyD
You mean I'm stuck here??? Predestination is an ugly thing, Harley.... ;-)
13
posted on
09/09/2005 6:00:55 AM PDT
by
r9etb
To: nuke rocketeer
Like Gen Honore said, if it were easy, we would have already done it. We're not stuck on stupid.
14
posted on
09/09/2005 6:01:10 AM PDT
by
beef
(Who Killed Kennewick Man?)
To: RoadTest
Let private enterprise do it. They're already doing brilliantly in near space. Is private enterprise somehow immune to the Cold Equations of Space? They're not.
And they're also not immune to the Cold Equations of Return on Investment. Aside from the fabulously profitable comsat market, private enterprise hasn't got much incentive to go into space right now.
15
posted on
09/09/2005 6:03:05 AM PDT
by
r9etb
To: beef
Yep. Anything we do in space is going to be hard AND expensive. TANSTAAFL. I would like to see us substitute a modernized Dyna-Soar for the modernized Apollo in the new launch vehicle.
To: nuke rocketeer
Ah... dreams dashed on the hard rocks of reality.
Oh well, back to Traveller.
17
posted on
09/09/2005 6:06:57 AM PDT
by
Junior
(Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
To: nuke rocketeer
Basically an atom bomb with wings??
18
posted on
09/09/2005 6:08:53 AM PDT
by
The Red Zone
(Florida, the sun-shame state, and Illinois the chicken injun.)
To: r9etb
Would there be some way to get around this by keeping some of the propulsion system earthbound? Like a humongous slingshot or catapult?
19
posted on
09/09/2005 6:11:04 AM PDT
by
The Red Zone
(Florida, the sun-shame state, and Illinois the chicken injun.)
To: The Red Zone
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-131 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson