View Single Post
Old November 3 2012, 08:53 PM   #282
publiusr
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Envisioning the world of 2100

gturner wrote: View Post

Hey, am I a Randian if Rand Simberg asked me to be a coblogger? He makes videos with those cute little bear characters that diss the SLS. We're still not sure what they are, maybe some kind of ring-tailed panda.
Ha Ha! That's not even the best one--remember the old 21st Century Science and Technology from Lyndon LaRouche? They called him a libertarian for some reason but he wasn't. He had a WWF panda eating a human forearm!

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
...the open secret in the KSC "save those jobs!" debate is that none of the KSC workforce is really employable anywhere else because they're trained on technologies and techniques that are so woefully obsolete that nobody else in the industry still uses them.
Again, you see experience as a problem--I see it as a pro-space constituency. And pad tech is pretty much the same all over. MCT will probably enjoy the same folks.

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
SLS isn't robust, nor is it "infrastructure." It was designed to provide JOBS, not space launch capability.
Looks robust here:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/...ays-pad-stays/

The payloads are being looked at: www.space.com/18249-canada-rover-nasa-deep-space-rocket.html
http://www.space.com/18275-nasa-sls-...-missions.html
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012...6_SLS_RFI.html

To quote this site:
www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/marsconcepts2012/pdf/4098.pdf

"Greater performance leads to higher payload margins, faster trip times, and less complex payload mechanisms. SLS’s greater payload volume means that fewer deployments and on-orbit operations are required to execute missions."

Another interesting article
http://launiusr.wordpress.com/2012/1...re-expendable/

A quote from the above-described link:
"Any SSTO, and X-33 holds true to this pattern, would require breakthroughs in a number of technologies, particularly in propulsion and materials. And when designers begin work on the full-scale SSTO, they may find that available technologies limit payload size so severely that the new vehicle provides little or no cost savings compared to old launchers."

More work on circumlunar flights.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/...s-lunar-orbit/

In terms of a return to the moon, the same company Musk will be working with in terms of the stratolauncher, whose hanger is under construction as we speak:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.as...b-51937b3bad05

Looks to be expecting work on a new F-1 engine
http://www.dynetics.com/news/309

Looks familiar, what with the simplified Turbopump assembly and simple exhaust duct. Hmm.

Money from SLS is going to new engines that needed a rising tide of some type to float new kerolox engines. This F-1 is to have a "New Hot-Isostatic Press Bond Main combustion chamber" with a 12:1 Channel Wall nozzle. The LFB may even be used for an Atlas replacement. "The F-1 is not a plug and play for an RD-180 on Atlas V"--but a "dual engine booster combined with an upper stage can deliver over 30 tons to orbit--a single stick version of an EELV heavy." http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....p40-510024.xml

More on this pages 40-41 of the Oct 29, 2012 Aviation Week. Page 10 has yet another refutation to Dale Jensen's earlier hitpiece on Space X BTW

Now we understand that MCT is not supposed to be RP, but there may already be some cross over. Now, personally, I would like to see the M-1 given new life:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-1_%28rocket_engine%29 That was a previous SLS BTW--for Lunex

Now MCT looks to be private yes, but the technologies allowing for wider body cores is something Musk can benefit from with SLS paving the way for him. I wonder how much truck he has with Dynetics.

What with MCT/BFR, CZ-9 and this new LV being looked at: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/sodruzhestvo.html
--it is obvious that the wisdom of standard LV growth is finally being accepted.


newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
The Falcon wasn't even a design concept when SUSTAIN was being studied. And again, self-ferry capability has NEVER EVER been part of any of the SUSTAIN proposals.
And they were bullshitting.
That might be, but now they have a better option

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
I also like multiple providers; man-rating the Atlas or the Delta-IV Heavy is a good secondary system (I am not a huge fan of the D-IVH but it has a very good operational record and doesn't rely on Russian engines).
Let's hope new kerolox engines help with that. I want to see that new F-1 fly, SLS or no. It is just that framework that happens to be what is paying for it.


sojourner wrote: View Post
Byeman wrote: View Post

Nothing but disinformation, lies and asinine opinion.

What a fucking idiot.
Are you referring to Publiusr or Jim?
As per use of his favorite word "asinine" and his profanity, I'd say Byeman is Jim. That or someone doing excellent performance art of one of his posts.

And welcome to the board bye the way. Wave and say hello...

Last edited by publiusr; November 3 2012 at 09:36 PM.
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote