View Single Post
Old October 13 2012, 05:37 PM   #226
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Envisioning the world of 2100

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
Except that, unlike the SLS, Venture Star was actually a pretty good idea.
No it wasn't--and it wasn't just because of the tanks--not that hydrogen likes multi-lobed composites. LH2 likes big roomy metal tanks better. Those are heavier so it makes sense to scale them up. For SLS, it doesn't have to have a TPS. Not everyone was a fan of aerospikes or that lifting body design. The opening credits of the SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN aren't the only reason why folks are skeptical of lifting bodies. The heavy engine ramps are what demanded lightweight tanks to begin with.

First Venture Star had an internal cargo--then a hump--then external payloads and then wings attached. http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedat...star_sum.shtml
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/...ally-happened/

Some comments on X/33 from the web:

"NASA chose the Lockmart design because it was the technically most ambitious. Facepalm."

That's Dan Goldin--the Anti-Griffin for you.

"The Venture Star based on the X33 was completely out of hand anyway. They could not get the weight under control and the lifting body design sucked so they made the wings bigger and bigger with every design iteration (since they also HAD to have the crossrange for some insane reason). That added even more weight and in the end the payload module had to be in a pod that would piggiback on the actual vehicle. It was a complete mess and the much less powerful SSMEs would have made things even worse...Both the Venturestar and the X-33 have tanks so large that it is not practical to put them in an autoclave, so composite design that does not require an autoclave is required."

"Everyone was laughing about it before it got cancelled."Everything said about SLS is true for that concept. This would have made more sense http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/x/x33rock.jpg

Heck, DC-X would at least give us Mars Landing tech. Venture Star was an abomination--and that just to go to LEO only. Venture Star would also be comparable in cost to SLS--probably much more expensive. Now if you want to prove to me that private initiative is better than public efforts, then show me a private firm that will make Venture Star work. I'm waiting.


newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
If we ever plan to get serious about expanding humanity's reach into space, its to be. We need to sort of grow up and admit to ourselves that the real world isn't like Star Trek, and the people who are going to make the biggest breakthroughs colonizing the final frontier aren't going to do it for free. SOMEBODY has to pay for it. It does not have to be taxpayers (not exclusively, and eventually not at all).
Now I think that is naive on your part. The days of one guy inventing something in a back workshop are giving way to Big Science like Large Hadron, Hot fusion etc. You are one of the alt.spacers who just doesn't get it that spaceflight is more TVA than MSN


newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
The ENTIRE history of spaceflight includes less than a dozen flights by HLVs of any kind. One of those HLV flights deployed a space station whose life was cut tragically short by the lack of a mature spaceflight infrastructure in its country of origin.
That country sustained a bunch of de facto HLVs in over 100 STS launches with orbiters. It can support an SLS without the orbiter fine.

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
That history ALSO includes eight space stations whose modules, crews and supplies were launched by much smaller vehicles.
Mir is hardly something I would want to do time in.

Shuttle was hardly small. Its very mass allowed stability for construction to begin with--the dog was still wagging the tail. A small number of SLS launches and ISS would have been finished. ISS


newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
HLVs have proven useful in one and only one application: the ability to launch an extremely small expedition to the surface of the moon with a very short development schedule.

Which means that with proper development and constant STS type support, it can allow heavy Moon bases to be supported. Saturn-had it been allowed to continue--would have extended human presence beyond LEO. STS killed that. Time to go back to what works and stick with it. If reusibility and cheap access to LEO is that important--let Musk do that part.



newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
HLVs will not be part of that infrastructure.
That is premature to say at this point--and if HLV doesn't work--it will be because of naysayers who try to get it killed to get at its funding.

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
"And while the Mike Griffins of the world are happily "simplifying" spaceflight by forcing larger vehicles into production, who's going to be carrying crews and supplies to space stations in Earth Orbit?
Let Musk do that. I'm not saying Musk has no role. Musk for LEO, SLS for BEO.


newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
SPEAKING of the history of spaceflight, HLVs have a considerably lower success rate, especially in light of the Polyus fiasco and the near-failure of Skylab.
The Polyus failure had nothing to do with Energiya--that was the failure of the TKS ferry/FGB tug--like what was used to service Mir--those small modules you go on and on about, remember? The angry alligator agena was a worse failure than Skylab, but no one blamed the launch vehicle did they?


newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
Strictly speaking, EELVs have a more important place in that history than HLVs ever will.

That is what ULA is hoping for. They want to kill SLS and Falcon so they can dominate the market and keep a monopoly.

Last edited by publiusr; October 13 2012 at 05:58 PM.
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote