View Single Post
Old October 27 2012, 03:19 AM   #273
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Envisioning the world of 2100

publiusr wrote: View Post
Don't forget that Medaris got the Saturn IB test stand built.
I didn't forget. It's just irrelevant to what we're talking about (although it's worth mentioning that the Saturn-IB was itself derived from the Redstones).

In the other op-ed below this which lauds space privatization as a model to fix F-35, even there the writer affirms that stealthy aircraft make poor carpet bombers.
And if carpet bombing was still a valid tactic in the age of GPS-guided bombs, that would mean something.

If I were Musk, I would let the current wave of SLS-enabling contracts go on, see advances made in wider tanks, friction stir, and Dynetics attempt to make larger engines. Then I would learn from them for my MCT program so avoid duplication of effort.
Weren't you JUST talking about the advantages of in-house capability? Why in the hell would Elon Musk wait for NASA technology to produce new technical innovations when he's got his OWN rockets to learn from and experiment with new designs?

Musk learned from early rocket programs, so had a head start.
He learned a hell of a lot more from his OWN rocket program and their experiences with the Falcon 1. This isn't entry level rocket science anymore; Elon Musk is playing in the same league as NASA at this point. If anything, NASA should be learning from SpaceX.

SLS will play a part in general rocket-building
No it won't. The underlying technologies are thirty years old; anything Musk stands to learn from the SLS could be just as easily determined by studying the STS.

Again, it is shroud diameter that limits certain missions. Space based radar was a real desire. Over at nasaspaceflight.com, their EELV hack Jim lied about Space based Radar, and I caught him on it
Cool story, bro.

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
SpaceX has a REASON to develop the the Falcon Heavy
Just remember, the Marines pushed for SUSTAIN but until Falcon Heavy, they really didn't have enough payload to have something fly out and extract troops.
No version -- I repeat, no version -- of SUSTAIN involved using a spacecraft to EXTRACT troops. The concept called for the use of a suborbital spacecraft similar to SpaceShipOne or even dreamchaser as a rapid action delivery system, with troops either landing or air dropping over the target zone. The only significant variation on this was a study from 2005 which implied that small drop capsules could be used to deliver the troops via propulsive landing (kinda like the ODSTs from Halo). Every version of the concept implies extraction by conventional means, usually by helicopter.

Once again, you don't know what you're talking about.

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
The technology to make those kinds of platforms feasible is still in its infancy and maturing very VERY slowly, and this at a time when the types of adversaries that would make such a system useful have either vanished or were never in conflict with us in the first place.
Now we are talking about more limited space based systems.
No, we're talking about the ONLY space based systems that have ever been developed. None of them are even remotely feasible, and even the best of them aren't even theoretically as effective as the land/sea bast ABMs currently in service.

It's also kind of funny you name-dropping Medaris at a time like this. It was Medaris who figured out that the Saturn-I was about to be cancelled in favor of a totally hypothetical Titan kitbash being shopped around by the Air Force. That particular proposal was supported by flimsy, overly-optimistic estimates and some technical boasts so laughable they could only have been propaganda. That is exactly the dynamic right now between Falcon 9 and SLS: we know for a fact that the F9 can be evolved into a heavy lift system (the Falcon Heavy) which would more than suffice for the MPCV and anything else NASA has planned in the immediate future.

In house development made sense in the 60s when NASA was in a tight spot depending on outside providers to develop their launch systems. That has long since ceased to be an issue; outside providers now have the ONLY working launch systems in America, and have taken much of the initiative in future development of new systems. NASA is no longer the leading agency in spaceflight, and even the SLS -- IF it ever flies -- will be too little too late.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!

Last edited by Crazy Eddie; October 27 2012 at 03:56 AM.
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote