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: 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: 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
Excellent article.
For those who aren't science fiction fan, the title plays on the classic 1954 short story The Cold Equations by Tom Godwin.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson