yinzer - 3/8/2006 2:13 AMQuoteJim - 2/8/2006 9:13 PMnone that will make them any more viable in the near term. It isn't technology that is grounding the RLV, it is a business case. Find a reason to fly it more than 20 times a year and someone will build one. And built it and they will come is not a good enough reason for NASA to it. That would be a Commerce Dept jobHow much money is NASA planning to spend on the CaLV? What is the dry weight of the single largest component that will fly on it? How much propellant are they going to launch into LEO?I think that an RLV would be useful in the context of the VSE, especially at higher mission rates. Or rather, it would be useful for exploring the moon.
Jim - 2/8/2006 9:13 PMnone that will make them any more viable in the near term. It isn't technology that is grounding the RLV, it is a business case. Find a reason to fly it more than 20 times a year and someone will build one. And built it and they will come is not a good enough reason for NASA to it. That would be a Commerce Dept job
mlorrey - 3/8/2006 5:11 PMWe have higher Isp propulsion: RBCC engines show an average Isp from mach 0-24 of 1500 sec. This allows near-aircraft-level mass fractions. The NASA GTX vehicle would have demonstrated it this year if the project had not been cancelled.We have better TPS: SHARP materials (hafnium diboride and zirconium diboride) allow mach 7 flight at sea level and mach 11 flight at 100,000 ft, have radio-transparent shock waves, reduce hypersonic drag by 90%, and have a peak thermal tolerance of over 2000 C. Unfortunately, NASA cancelled the SHARP program on claims of "duplicate research", despite there being no similar public programs, and the US Gov't has reclassified most information on the materials because they are used in guide fins for MIRVs, i.e. they are a 'dual use' technology. Now, what they thought to achieve by reclassifying something that is already out of the bag is beyond me, but I'm beyond wondering at the stupidity of government, anymore.
RBCC, TBCC, and SHARP are now being used in the DARPA projects focused on hypersonic global strike capability, particularly a scramjet propelled missile. The technology is here, it is mature and proven.
The NASA VSA is nothing but corporate welfare for the defunct ICBM industry, as well as a form of disinformation, presenting the idea that Apollo is the best that the American government can achieve.
meiza - 4/8/2006 8:57 AMWhy do we need higher ISP for reusables? Use two or three stages.
aero313 - 3/8/2006 6:00 PMQuotemlorrey - 3/8/2006 5:11 PMWe have higher Isp propulsion: RBCC engines show an average Isp from mach 0-24 of 1500 sec. This allows near-aircraft-level mass fractions. The NASA GTX vehicle would have demonstrated it this year if the project had not been cancelled.We have better TPS: SHARP materials (hafnium diboride and zirconium diboride) allow mach 7 flight at sea level and mach 11 flight at 100,000 ft, have radio-transparent shock waves, reduce hypersonic drag by 90%, and have a peak thermal tolerance of over 2000 C. Unfortunately, NASA cancelled the SHARP program on claims of "duplicate research", despite there being no similar public programs, and the US Gov't has reclassified most information on the materials because they are used in guide fins for MIRVs, i.e. they are a 'dual use' technology. Now, what they thought to achieve by reclassifying something that is already out of the bag is beyond me, but I'm beyond wondering at the stupidity of government, anymore.Sorry, but these technologies are nowhere near mature enough to field an operational system in the next ten years. Should be be funding development and qualification testing of these technologies at NASA? Absolutely. Do I believe any operational system cost claims based on these technologies? Not a chance.
QuoteRBCC, TBCC, and SHARP are now being used in the DARPA projects focused on hypersonic global strike capability, particularly a scramjet propelled missile. The technology is here, it is mature and proven.And I'm still waiting to hear about even one OPERATIONAL system with flight history, full qualification data, and production cost numbers.QuoteThe NASA VSA is nothing but corporate welfare for the defunct ICBM industry, as well as a form of disinformation, presenting the idea that Apollo is the best that the American government can achieve.Boy, that shtick is really getting old. I'm guessing you firmly believe that Big Oil killed the 100 mpg Fish carburetor also. By the way, I'm involved in the DARPA FALCON program. The "hypersonic test vehicle" (don't call it a weapon system) is in technical and cost trouble. Might that be part of the source of my skepticism on these new technologies?Oh, but wait! The prime contractor is LockMart, poster child for the "defunct ICBM industry". Is this yet ANOTHER conspiracy to kill this technology?BEEP .... BEEP ... BEEPThat sound you hear is the BS detector going off.
mlorrey - 4/8/2006 2:50 PMUm, no, LockMart doesn't build ICBMs, that is Thiokol's job. LockMart's market position is to lie to NASA about its nonexistent composite multi-lobed fuel tank technology, speaking of BS.
aero313 - 4/8/2006 3:37 PMQuotemlorrey - 4/8/2006 2:50 PMUm, no, LockMart doesn't build ICBMs, that is Thiokol's job. LockMart's market position is to lie to NASA about its nonexistent composite multi-lobed fuel tank technology, speaking of BS.LockMart doesn't build ICBMs? That's pretty interesting since Martin Marietta was the prime contractor on Peacekeeper, SICBM, and Titan II; while Lockheed has been the prime contractor on Polaris, Poseidon, Trident I and Trident II - in other words, every FBM ever fielded by the US.
mlorrey - 8/8/2006 10:54 PM Quoteaero313 - 4/8/2006 3:37 PM Quotemlorrey - 4/8/2006 2:50 PM Um, no, LockMart doesn't build ICBMs, that is Thiokol's job. LockMart's market position is to lie to NASA about its nonexistent composite multi-lobed fuel tank technology, speaking of BS. LockMart doesn't build ICBMs? That's pretty interesting since Martin Marietta was the prime contractor on Peacekeeper, SICBM, and Titan II; while Lockheed has been the prime contractor on Polaris, Poseidon, Trident I and Trident II - in other words, every FBM ever fielded by the US. Who made all the solid rocket engines? Either Thiokol, or Aerojet General. The primes dealt with systems integration and guidance, and thats it.
aero313 - 4/8/2006 3:37 PM Quotemlorrey - 4/8/2006 2:50 PM Um, no, LockMart doesn't build ICBMs, that is Thiokol's job. LockMart's market position is to lie to NASA about its nonexistent composite multi-lobed fuel tank technology, speaking of BS. LockMart doesn't build ICBMs? That's pretty interesting since Martin Marietta was the prime contractor on Peacekeeper, SICBM, and Titan II; while Lockheed has been the prime contractor on Polaris, Poseidon, Trident I and Trident II - in other words, every FBM ever fielded by the US.
mlorrey - 4/8/2006 2:50 PM Um, no, LockMart doesn't build ICBMs, that is Thiokol's job. LockMart's market position is to lie to NASA about its nonexistent composite multi-lobed fuel tank technology, speaking of BS.
One of the misconceptions I pick up on this message board and many other places is equating rocket motors with launch vehicles. The rocket motors are just a component element of the full launch vehicle system, albeit a major one. Once upon a time many years ago, rocket science really was cutting-edge with real scientists blazing new technologies. By and large, that era ended in the mid-sixties, if not before. Since then it has been rocket engineering. Getting the rocket motors to work is no longer the hardest part, unless you want to do a historical re-creation (like SpaceX). Making the whole system fly is the challenge now. That is the role of the system integrator, including avionics and guidance. That's truly "IT".
