en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/700345 Comments by GaryChurch http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1960/1#IDComment218871286 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. Tue, 8 Nov 2011 21:18:01 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1960/1#IDComment218871286 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1960/1#IDComment218869613 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. Tue, 8 Nov 2011 21:14:44 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1960/1#IDComment218869613 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1849/1#IDComment155796075 " 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. Tue, 24 May 2011 23:51:33 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1849/1#IDComment155796075 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1650/1#IDComment85563405 Whatever you say. Thu, 8 Jul 2010 19:15:04 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1650/1#IDComment85563405 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1660/1#IDComment85562645 OK Fred, I guess that is fair. I cannot argue with your post. Thu, 8 Jul 2010 19:13:18 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1660/1#IDComment85562645 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1656/1#IDComment85561971 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. Thu, 8 Jul 2010 19:11:28 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1656/1#IDComment85561971 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1652/1#IDComment85533466 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. Thu, 8 Jul 2010 15:53:49 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1652/1#IDComment85533466 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1652/1#IDComment85532172 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." Thu, 8 Jul 2010 15:43:14 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1652/1#IDComment85532172 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1656/1#IDComment85531411 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. Thu, 8 Jul 2010 15:37:18 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1656/1#IDComment85531411 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1659/1#IDComment85530896 Cheer up man, anything could happen. I was pretty down about it after the space policy was released. But I snapped out it. Thu, 8 Jul 2010 15:33:10 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1659/1#IDComment85530896 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1660/1#IDComment85529670 "If I was a muslim I'd wanna bomb vest-" Go away. Thu, 8 Jul 2010 15:24:12 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1660/1#IDComment85529670 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1658/1#IDComment85462827 No it is not wrong. Falcon would lift far more with a hydrogen upper stage but Musk cannot afford the technology. From Wiki: The Atlas IIAS' first SRB pair was ignited at liftoff and burned for 54 seconds. The second pair was ignited in flight when vehicle loading constraints were satisfied. Both pairs were jettisoned shortly after their respective burnouts. The first Atlas IIAS successfully launched AC-108 / Telstar 401 on 15 December 1993. Thu, 8 Jul 2010 05:48:23 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1658/1#IDComment85462827 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1658/1#IDComment85462245 The DOD used an aircraft designed for an intelligence mission- and the glide capability that made the orbiter heavy made it a spyplane. You do not want to call it that- fine. I will continue to. The "beginning" used pressure fed liquid boosters and changed several times. The monolithic design was not used for political reasons and excuses were made- as I said in my opinion. You have yours, I have mine. The FWC filament wound casings are fiberglass expendables, just like I said- to enable polar orbits. So like I said, the problem with forums is that people like you, who keep trying to call other people liars are actually the ones doing all the B.S.ing. They throw up a bunch of technical stuff (and insults) and claim what was stated was not true. But eventually they run into someone who will not let them get away with it and they are exposed. Thu, 8 Jul 2010 05:42:05 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1658/1#IDComment85462245 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1658/1#IDComment85400122 Oh, I always forget something; Hydrogen is not popular with the private space fans because it is hard to work with and is expensive. LOX is not so bad but hydrogen is really cold and leaks out of anything and is of course- very flammable. Kerosene is easy and cheap to store and transport. And cheap is what private space is all about. Hydrogen engines also require a turbopump about 10 times as powerful as pumps used for denser fuel- and this makes the engines expensive and more difficult to build. But there is no substitute- it is the most powerful fuel combination except Flourine and H2, and Flourine is a nightmare. Wed, 7 Jul 2010 23:19:11 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1658/1#IDComment85400122 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1658/1#IDComment85398686 There are certain things I have given up hope on. After understanding as much as I can of the physics involved- thermodynamics and materials- in my opinion SSTO is a no go. TSTO does work with a hydrogen upper stage as the Saturn V and shuttle heavy lift hardware. The high ISP of hydrogen is the magic that makes TSTO work well, up there in the final burn picking up speed with no drag the higher energy of hydrogen makes it more efficient than denser fuels like kerosene. But denser fuel launchers can work fairly well by using a third stage and even better with a fourth. If you have watched a modern Atlas launch this kind of what it does with several small SRBs, some lit off at launch and others higher up. Not exactly stages but they add thrust and then discard structure the same way. But nothing beats hydrogen for that last five or six thousand miles an hour; physics. That is my understanding of it anyway from what I have read from various sources. Wed, 7 Jul 2010 23:09:51 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1658/1#IDComment85398686 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1658/1#IDComment85396094 Oh, I always forget something; I forgot to mention I do not see the attraction for going to Mars. It is a gravity well and the easy resources are all in the Asteroid belt. I like Ceres for a destination. Wed, 7 Jul 2010 22:52:03 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1658/1#IDComment85396094 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1656/1#IDComment85341622 I did not read the book but I did read that the movie took so long to release because the test audiences came out unhappy and depressed. They had to add a voice over and better music to try and make it more "entertaining." It's realism makes it hard to enjoy as escapism. If I had the time I would write an article for The Space Review on it. It is, in my opinion, the best "space" movie made lately because it shows exactly why we need a space program. Deep Impact left you thinking, "yeah, we will make it." The Road leaves you thinking, "we better do something." Of course the movie never mentions what caused the earth to cloud over, but it is exactly what would happen in an impact event. Wed, 7 Jul 2010 17:21:51 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1656/1#IDComment85341622 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1659/1#IDComment85337802 A public affairs officer might see them as good, but someone interested in advancing human exploration will find out what they are really about- with a little research. They are about making a buck. Unfortunately making a buck and sending astronauts out into the solar system are incompatible goals. Private space wants to do it cheap and make a profit. We know how to move more permanently in the solar system- and there is no cheap. Wed, 7 Jul 2010 17:04:51 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1659/1#IDComment85337802 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1658/1#IDComment85336408 Well, while we are dreaming Rod, I always thought the Orbiter could have carried it's LOX in the cargo bay and used a balloon tank for H2. The nose section would have been packed full of classified gear. This would have allowed it to get into the polar orbits for the spy missions it was originally designed to perform. After achieving orbit the empty LOX storage could have been used for living and work space by moving most of the classified equipment from the forward section. Of course it would not have been that simple and it would have to have been designed that way from the start. Wed, 7 Jul 2010 16:55:13 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1658/1#IDComment85336408 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1660/1#IDComment85331007 "It doesn't matter haw many facts are presented repeated like a religious chant. Who needs destinations? We should just go Just go places. But of course you people can't see that reality" Go to LEO in cheap kerosene clusters and pour that money in investor pockets until the market dies; That is the reality. Wed, 7 Jul 2010 16:22:07 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1660/1#IDComment85331007