IntenseDebate - GaryChurch

14 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: The ... · 0 replies · +1 points

Combining a cargo and crew vehicle was the key mistake. It was one of the reasons apollo was so expensive and why tried to separate the two functions in Cx. Going cheap by combining the two functions is a mistake that keeps being repeated. There is no cheap.

14 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: The ... · 1 reply · +1 points

I do not think that would have stopped the military from doing it; it would have been a top secret operation. I am not sure what you mean by "live" plutonium. It was hot and that is about all there is to say about it.

15 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: The ... · 1 reply · +2 points

" reasons why NASA can manage a better HLV? "

Because even the Falcon 9 "heavy" is not heavy. Heavy Lift is generally considered 100 tons (not metric). The Shuttle Derived Sidemount cargo vehicle is the best last hope of human spaceflight. We can stop human flights for several years- as we have done before- but letting our Heavy lift Infrastructure go extinct is forever. The shuttle hardware, minus the orbiter which was always the big problem, is the most powerful and evolved heavy lift we will see for a very very long time. We cannot let this unique asset disappear.

There is no substitute for a heavy lift vehicle with hydrogen upper stages.

15 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Maki... · 0 replies · +1 points

Whatever you say.

15 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: A ch... · 0 replies · +1 points

OK Fred, I guess that is fair. I cannot argue with your post.

15 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Rebu... · 0 replies · +2 points

Well, unfortunately there is the agent provacateur scenario; a nation or organization wanting to start a war but not taking the blame. Give the country they wreck with their EMP bomb evidence that a certain country did it and cover their own tracks to protect themselves.

15 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Spac... · 0 replies · +1 points

The article was not written very clearly- the plastic does not protect- it mitigates. There is less secondary spray than from aluminum and the secondary is of smaller particles. Layers of plastic with water as shielding mean the heavy nuclei and secondaries are "soaked up" and thus several thousand tons of plastic and water will (I am guessing) provide a sea level radiation environment. I doubt anyone has done any serious research on this because several thousand tons of shielding seems impossible for a spacecraft. But using a "wet workshop", by using this plastic as an upper stage, and getting the water off world, and by using nuclear propulsion, it is not impossible. So the sad truth may not be so sad. I am very curious how much of this shielding would be required but I have not found anything yet.

15 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Spac... · 0 replies · +1 points

I am not talking about "reasonable amounts" of shielding. This is the problem, because of the difficulties of lifting material out of earths gravity well and the inadequacy of chemical propulsion, "reasonable amounts" of shielding are of course going to be inadequate.

But reasonable does not make the problem go away and nuclear propulsion and getting water for shielding off world redefine "reasonable."

15 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Rebu... · 1 reply · +1 points

But the point was Joe, an anonymous attack would not allow us that option, unless we just decide to destroy every country on earth- which the boomer fleet could probably do.

15 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: A ne... · 0 replies · +1 points

Cheer up man, anything could happen.
I was pretty down about it after the space policy was released. But I snapped out it.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with GaryChurch

People I'm following

GaryChurch