Again, you want as large a space constituency as you can get. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/341/1 If all the NASA centers were moved to Florida--folks would call NASA Florida's Pork. Even if it saved money--so there is always going to be hostility. Keeping a lot of folks employed isn't pork--its infrastructure. I'm sure sure folks think large hadron was a waste. I want non-military involvement in tech projects to employ as large a number as possible--it makes things harder to kill. Now F-35 on the other hand. Maybe I think COTS is Texas pork. You are assuming that a private HLLV is going to be cheaper than SLS. Just the winner of the sub-orbital X-prize cost more than the X-prize itself. For 100 tons to orbit, same as Block 1.5, we'll see. Right now, Old Space has a better track record of not blowing up pads.
No, it doesn't. "Old space" has blown up plenty of rockets and pads, back when they were "new" (and even not so new). And what kind of false equivalency is that X-prize cost nonsense you posted?
It was NASA money that helped Musk Wise words: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35525.msg1591078#msg1591078 Bezos can fund more on his own--it must be said. I like the New Glenn design. A very wide base/engine block. This allows a wider stance while keeping landing legs less spindly. A test: https://twitter.com/JeffBezos/status/780348452064595968/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw More on Musk's plan: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/09/29/elon-musk-wernher-von-braun-gigantism/ The author here seems a little concerned with the window size: http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=33211 See page 26 here: http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/mars_presentation.pdf We see a lot of carbon fiber and densified propellants. That seems to be the issue with the recent failure (COPV after all?) But upper-stages can be finiky things. A first stage can be more robust: A quote from the interwebs: "We've seen the results of high pressure gaseous Helium inside composite tanks. Those are eliminated in ITS. Their place will be taken by the Raptor's ability to gassify some of each propellant and reinject it into each tank to keep tank pressure positive as propellant is consumed. The composite tanks of ITS will contain low pressure densified liquid Methane and Oxygen. These are completely different things than tanks of high pressure gasses." These will be some of the largest composite tanks I've seen: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41249.msg1590681#msg1590681 http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41249.msg1590308#msg1590308 I hope everything works out. O/T NSWR revisted: http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/09/robert-zubrins-nuclear-salt-water.html Here is a chart comparing Launch vehicles: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41304.msg1592144#msg1592144
Wasn't there a capsule like idea that had a large wide bottomed capsule that could take off and enter orbit on its own without a huge rocket under it?
Ah I remembered it now. The Dragon. Wasn't that supposed to be like a capsule that could take off and land?
DC-X Big Onion was an HLLV shaped like a capsule. Now Red Dragon is supposed to land on Mars using those super-Dracos--no parachutes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dragon_(spacecraft) Viking was more conventional. It used Titan III-Es (about half the payload of the similar looking all-liquid Falcon Heavy). The Viking orbiter released the Viking lander, and you know the rest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_program#Viking_landers Now, one good thing to come out of SDI was the Clementine mission. We started using smaller craft. The Delta II rocket was inferior to Titan (let alone Falcon Heavy) so early rovers were ALL heat-shield. Nix the orbiter, and let Mars pretty much run into what amounted to a very fat, wide warhead. Remember all the talk of six or seven minutes of terror? That's what they were talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Pathfinder#Entry.2C_descent_and_landing Pathfinder, Spirit and Opp' used this system with airbags--and so did Curiosity (but with the skycrane--the next Mars rover (2020) will be similar. Falcon Heavy is to be robust enough to allow Red Dragon to get down to Mars surface with pure thrust alone, after some re-entry. Mars' atmosphere is hard to work with. You can't really ignore it--but it isn't all that dense to work with either. You either slam into it like a warhead, get deployed from an orbiter, or use the retropropulsion all the way down. The larger your rocket--the more options you have for your craft. The smaller your LV--the more violent the payload's ride. Just not enough room/mass budget for fuel. In some ways, Venus would be easier. Earthlike gravity and atmosphere (higher up--denser and hotter as you go down though) Now, On Mark Wade's site, there is a blurb about the FLEM: http://www.astronautix.com/f/flem.html Now, here--you see what looks like a simple Lunar lander, I suppose the idea here is that with a nuclear Saturn V upper stage, you wouldn't need to aerobrake at all. That looks like a simple lunar lander (LEM). I'm not sure Mark has it right in his article here. The lander would have to be a little different, or so one would think Another article on FLEM: https://www.wired.com/2014/01/to-mars-by-flyby-landing-excursion-mode-flem-1966/ Of course, these were the days when Mars was referred to as "the Moon with bad weather."
Boeing LEO http://www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytwo/spacelvs/sld043.htm Lift off thrust of 108 MN or 24 Mlbf, which is over three times that of a Saturn V first stage. The idea seems ridiculous now but not as ridiculous as... Sea Dragon was bigger of course, but not single stage. Lift off thrust of 360 MN or 60 Mlbf! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dragon_(rocket) Or using nukes for SSTO. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
I don't know that it was unworkable. It would have been quite a thing to wrangle. Kankoh Maru was a smaller version of this concept. The aerodynamics of telephone pole LVs is well known--and so folks stick with that. So it isn't just old spacers to stick with the tried and true. Goddard looked like a smaller 'Maru: http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/goddard.htm I thought the sprit of Bono would live on in Bezos. http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/03/billionaries-and-funding-moon-and-mars.html At any rate, congrats to Space X. It looks like this bird will become an exhibit. http://www.space.com/36305-spacex-reflown-stage-gift-to-cape.html http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/03/elon-musk-confident-spacex-can-achieve.html This bird was supposed to be the last expendable Falcon--but customers might want all new LVs. Now for Falcon Heavy. And I want to see this in action: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/image...1b02788abc95067bb7ef9857209547d1c3be876c4.jpg "Their new, large, Optimus Prime robot aboard the drone ship will secure the stage after landing and who knows what else? Pic attached." Space X might want to bring the second stage back. I think they did get part of the shroud/fairing back.: http://www.space.com/36296-spacex-completely-reusable-falcon-9-rocket.html Now, as per the Big Onion concept above--wide craft can have an advantage: http://www.astronautix.com/l/lenticularvehicles.html Kehlet argued that a lenticular vehicle, as a manned spacecraft launched into orbit by a conventional booster, had clear advantages over ballistic, lifting body, and winged designs. At hypersonic re-entry speeds it would undergo lower heating and require less shielding. At the same time it was more maneuverable at subsonic speeds than a winged design, and could land at sea or on land without undercarriage. The Falcon second stage? That may be a toughy. It is small--and doesn't have that much surface area. Put shielding material on something without much volume--and you face trouble. Remember, the surface area goes up by the square as internal volume goes up by the cube. Kistler was going to be a nice, fat, squat launch vehicle--a two-stage trash can. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-1_(rocket) The idea is that, the wider your LV is. the lesser the load. In other news--it looks like we have a SSTO small-sat launcher: http://www.arcaspace.com/ This uses "The Executor, a linear aerospike engine." Think X-33 but smaller. It reminds me a bit of the CAC-1: http://www.spacefuture.com/vehicles/designs.shtml#CAC1
^ I've asked this before but don't remember your answer: do you get PAID to spam all those websites or is it just forum tourettes?
That looks very exciting. I wonder if it could be scaled up and adapted to be recoverable from orbit -- basically giving something akin to VentureStar. Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for Skylon to happen.
Isn't Skylon ground launched and looks like something right out of Thunderbirds? Ground launched and then it separates at the optimum altitude?