NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) project will cost about $40 billion from now to 2030 and will produce a chemical rocket about 1000 times more expensive to launch than a SpaceX BFR. SLS will start inferior to the SpaceX Falcon Heavy and then will be years later than a superior SpaceX BFR. SLS funds would be better spent on making a vastly superior Turbo rocket.
There is a 104 page presentation on the Turbo rocket.
John Bucknell created the pre-conceptual design for the SpaceX Raptor engine which will be used for the SpaceX BFR. John Bucknell says the nuclear turbo rocket technology and his designs are ready for development. The air-breathing nuclear thermal rocket will enable 7 times more payload fraction to be delivered to low-earth orbit and it will have 6 times the ISP (rocket fuel efficiency) as chemical rockets. The rocket will have two to three times the speed and performance of chemical rockets for missions outside of the atmosphere.
Instead of spending tons of money for an inferior performance to SpaceX BFR, the shift should be developing a superior follow up the SpaceX BFR.
SLS has already cost about $15 billion (2011-2018)
SLS will cost another $10 billion to get to a possible first launch (2019-2021)
SLS will cost another $30 billion from 2022-2030
SLS will be obsolete before it flies.
Nuclear thermal technology is ready
There was also Project Timberwind which was funded for $139 million from 1987 through 1991. The proposed rocket was later expanded into a larger design after the project was transferred to the Air Force Space Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (SNTP) program. Advances in high-temperature metals, computer modeling and nuclear engineering in general resulted in designs with dramatically improved performance. Whereas the NERVA engine was projected to weigh about 6803 kg, the final SNTP offered just over 1/3 the thrust from an engine of only 1650 kg, while further improving the specific impulse from 930 to 1000 seconds.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
No there was and still is immense support for net neutrality — no one wants their internet throttled or cut off surreptitiously as a marketing ploy. Truth in advertising its all net neutrality was ever about, it never had anything to do with the Fairness Doctrine, which in any case dated from 1949, not the 90’s. You lie (or show your general ignorance) to claim it does, and yes, brushing your teeth helps prevent decay — people have known that for thousands of years.
No there was and still is immense support for net neutrality — no one wants their internet throttled or cut off surreptitiously as a marketing ploy. Truth in advertising its all net neutrality was ever about it never had anything to do with the Fairness Doctrine which in any case dated from 1949 not the 90’s. You lie (or show your general ignorance) to claim it does and yes brushing your teeth helps prevent decay — people have known that for thousands of years.
The issue is not “Flaming Anuses” as you put it, but what kind of contamination you have when you have a vehicle loss. And its also not just the rocket plume, which in terms of Global Warming (GW) is an insignificant addition, its the total environmental impact of the system, birth to death (life cycle). However, much of that has already been calculated and the GW impact per watt of a HTPWR is far smaller than coal and natural gas, so I’d assume its the same for a rocket. However, of a NTTR blows up and makes a large area uninhabitable for decades or centuries (See Fukushima & Chernobyl if you don’t think this can happen), then you need to rethink the approach (See the Flying Crowbar. It was canceled for the same reason).
The issue is not Flaming Anuses”” as you put it”” but what kind of contamination you have when you have a vehicle loss. And its also not just the rocket plume which in terms of Global Warming (GW) is an insignificant addition its the total environmental impact of the system birth to death (life cycle). However much of that has already been calculated and the GW impact per watt of a HTPWR is far smaller than coal and natural gas so I’d assume its the same for a rocket. However of a NTTR blows up and makes a large area uninhabitable for decades or centuries (See Fukushima & Chernobyl if you don’t think this can happen)”” then you need to rethink the approach (See the Flying Crowbar. It was canceled for the same reason).”””
There was no support for net neutrality either yet they created it out of whole cloth and attempted to implement it. Truth in advertising? You really believe it was about advertising? Keeping tooth paste companies from claiming their paste stops tooth decay? heh. You are right though it was about truth and who determines what truth is. I’ve determined you know this and have spoken a falsity, you are banned from the internet. As to your last point, do you not remember Fairness Doctrine of the 90’s. That was sold as balance in the name of truth and fairness but of course it was handing the media the tools to censor in the manner shown today with Joe Scarborough being the “conservative” point of view.
There was no support for net neutrality either yet they created it out of whole cloth and attempted to implement it. Truth in advertising? You really believe it was about advertising? Keeping tooth paste companies from claiming their paste stops tooth decay? heh. You are right though it was about truth and who determines what truth is. I’ve determined you know this and have spoken a falsity you are banned from the internet. As to your last point do you not remember Fairness Doctrine of the 90’s. That was sold as balance in the name of truth and fairness but of course it was handing the media the tools to censor in the manner shown today with Joe Scarborough being the conservative”” point of view.”””
I agree. The IDEA behind the SLS isn’t a bad one – but there does come a point where you’ve got to aggressively bend the metal, build the thing and get that sucker into the air. Which doesn’t seem to be happening with the SLS. Bureaucratic inertia, a culture that puts ‘you can’t fail’ before everything else, insufficient funding to keep up with the design changes that are shoved upon the build team by the ‘safety’ folks, or a simple low-balling the priority of this particular mission… doesn’t really matter. It’s long past the time this should have been on the pad and a fire lit under it.
I agree. The IDEA behind the SLS isn’t a bad one – but there does come a point where you’ve got to aggressively bend the metal build the thing and get that sucker into the air.Which doesn’t seem to be happening with the SLS. Bureaucratic inertia a culture that puts ‘you can’t fail’ before everything else insufficient funding to keep up with the design changes that are shoved upon the build team by the ‘safety’ folks or a simple low-balling the priority of this particular mission… doesn’t really matter. It’s long past the time this should have been on the pad and a fire lit under it.
I agree – we need to dump the SLS. It’s turned into a jobs program, not a viable means to get to orbit. However – nuclear? Nope, no way the rabid environmentalists would EVER allow it. Those flaming anuses simply don’t understand that if they actually want to cut CO2 instead of making passive-aggressive controlling attempts to shove us back to a pre-electrical age, nuclear power’s the key to keeping the lights on, their food fresh, and their iPads powered up and the internet going.
I agree – we need to dump the SLS. It’s turned into a jobs program not a viable means to get to orbit.However – nuclear? Nope no way the rabid environmentalists would EVER allow it. Those flaming anuses simply don’t understand that if they actually want to cut CO2 instead of making passive-aggressive controlling attempts to shove us back to a pre-electrical age nuclear power’s the key to keeping the lights on their food fresh and their iPads powered up and the internet going.
So now we’re forced to sign in via Google, Facebook or Twitter? This sucks. That “sucks” is ‘85% likely to be perceived as “toxic”‘, sucks even more. And now “Vuukle” has access to Twitter info. Brian, if you’re trying to destroy what has been a wonderful comment section, then … well done.
So now we’re forced to sign in via Google Facebook or Twitter? This sucks.That sucks”” is ’85{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} likely to be perceived as “”””toxic””””‘”””” sucks even more.And now “”””Vuukle”””” has access to Twitter info.Brian”” if you’re trying to destroy what has been a wonderful comment section”” then … well done.”””
This would mean at $7 million the Spacex BFR launch 150 tons would have less than a $50 per kilogram launch cost ($23 per pound). ” https://staging-nextbigfuture.kinsta.com/2017/10/spacex-bfr-to-be-lower-cost-than-falcon-1-at-7-million-per-launch.html Why build a rocket costing more?
This would mean at $7 million the Spacex BFR launch 150 tons would have less than a $50 per kilogram launch cost ($23 per pound). “”https://staging-nextbigfuture.kinsta.com/2017/10/spacex-bfr-to-be-lower-cost-than-falcon-1-at-7-million-per-launch.htmlWhy build a rocket costing more?”””
Government will fail to control space because there is no support for that in the majority of the American public. Net neutrality had nothing to do with government controlling the net. It had to do with making truth in advertising enforceable. The laughable thing about what you claim is, that net neutrality would make leftist run social media providers stop censoring conservatives unless they said openly in their terms of service they would do so.
Government will fail to control space because there is no support for that in the majority of the American public.Net neutrality had nothing to do with government controlling the net. It had to do with making truth in advertising enforceable. The laughable thing about what you claim is that net neutrality would make leftist run social media providers stop censoring conservatives unless they said openly in their terms of service they would do so.
stup1d
stup1d
There will come a point when the government takes over any private space company or when such companies become indistinguishable from the government much like 95% of the news media and Democrat government. Space is too important not to control and strangle with regulation like the attempt to control the internet with net neutrality. Which btw will eventually be successful either by regulation or as with news media, voluntarily. Witness how Google, FB, Twitter, etc., are just beginning their censoring and purging of non-leftist thought, it’s not going to get better.
There will come a point when the government takes over any private space company or when such companies become indistinguishable from the government much like 95{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the news media and Democrat government. Space is too important not to control and strangle with regulation like the attempt to control the internet with net neutrality. Which btw will eventually be successful either by regulation or as with news media voluntarily. Witness how Google FB Twitter etc. are just beginning their censoring and purging of non-leftist thought it’s not going to get better.
This is under the mistaken assumption that those planning SLS do it for having a viable, efficient, affordable space launcher for furthering human use and presence on space. No, they don’t. SLS is a pork spreading jobs program. The more jobs and the more pork spent, the better. Also, it assumes the political and public forces keeping the safe and viable nuclear energy from saving the planet from CO2 emissions, would somehow muster the will to allow a flying nuke for the purpose stated above. No, they won’t. If we want to have innovative solutions applied to create space launchers for the purpose stated above, we will have to rely on innovative companies and entrepreneurs working around these limitations of government spending and political will.
This is under the mistaken assumption that those planning SLS do it for having a viable efficient affordable space launcher for furthering human use and presence on space.No they don’t. SLS is a pork spreading jobs program. The more jobs and the more pork spent the better.Also it assumes the political and public forces keeping the safe and viable nuclear energy from saving the planet from CO2 emissions would somehow muster the will to allow a flying nuke for the purpose stated above.No they won’t. If we want to have innovative solutions applied to create space launchers for the purpose stated above we will have to rely on innovative companies and entrepreneurs working around these limitations of government spending and political will.
A nuclear rocket will never fly because there’s too much perceived risk to the public and environment. Do you really think that the political and legal apparatus that prevents any meaningful progress in nuclear power production will allow a nuclear rocket to blast off into the atmosphere?!?
A nuclear rocket will never fly because there’s too much perceived risk to the public and environment. Do you really think that the political and legal apparatus that prevents any meaningful progress in nuclear power production will allow a nuclear rocket to blast off into the atmosphere?!?
Yeah someon shuld tell that to US gow.
Yeah someon shuld tell that to US gow.
To check with NASA, slap a Space Force sticker on that bad boy.
To check with NASA slap a Space Force sticker on that bad boy.
Look, there’s a reason NASA’s SLS isn’t an on time version of the BFR. And that reason would stop a NASA nuclear turbo rocket from being a success, too. Long before they were flying it, somebody in private industry would beat them to it, or come up with some other cheaper system.
Look there’s a reason NASA’s SLS isn’t an on time version of the BFR. And that reason would stop a NASA nuclear turbo rocket from being a success too.Long before they were flying it somebody in private industry would beat them to it or come up with some other cheaper system.
A Falcon 9 rocket launch generates just short of 1 million Lbs of CO2. However, if everyone kept their car’s tires properly inflated, it would save around 14.5 million Metric tons of CO2/year. This works out to 29,000 F9 launches, so the actual GW potential from a few dozen launches per year is absurdly small compared to reductions from simple solutions so GW from rocket launches not an issue, nuclear contamination could be.
FWIW, I’m a pro-nuclear rabid environmentalist. We exist, but unfortunately, it seems, in small numbers.
A Falcon 9 rocket launch generates just short of 1 million Lbs of CO2. However if everyone kept their car’s tires properly inflated it would save around 14.5 million Metric tons of CO2/year. This works out to 29000 F9 launches so the actual GW potential from a few dozen launches per year is absurdly small compared to reductions from simple solutions so GW from rocket launches not an issue nuclear contamination could be.
FWIW I’m a pro-nuclear rabid environmentalist. We exist but unfortunately it seems in small numbers.
You have presented no evidence, and can not and will not, that it was about anything other than truth in advertising. You particularly will not present any evidence it ever had anything to do with the government “controlling the internet”, because all it was about was truth in advertising–that bandwidth providers could not preferentially provide bandwidth to the traffic of packets where they had ownership to the intellectual property rights of the data in the packet, or a business entanglement with the owners of the same. It never had anything to do with or was ever like the Fairness Doctrine, which you firstly brought up falsely as having anything to do with the ’90’s. The internet and radio are nothing alike besides. And why are you going on about the FD and any remaining rules from it, when it has nothing to with Net Neutrality, you just imagine it does? There are many laws dealing with truth in advertising, but none quite so specific as the net neutrality regulation prohibiting throttling. Now a lawsuit could be brought to the same effect, but because the net neutrality rule has been pulled, those lawsuits are likely to be quashed as being against public policy. Why would I apologize for nothing? You are a liar or ignorant, or both in some measure as seen here.
Saying there is immense support doesn’t mean there was or is immense support. It is you who believes it had to do with advertising and apparently still want to pretend so, not me. In fact it’s the exact opposite from my point so I don’t feel the need to defend what I didn’t say. Nice try though or is it a comprehension problem. To avoid your confusion I never said NN was derived from the FD but they are similar in that both were sold as being about truth and fairness. Some really gullible people believe it, as do some who think NN is about advertising, as if there are no existing laws covering the subject. Yes the FD comes from late 40’s era and was “stopped” in the late 80’s BUT .. plz read the following ” Corollary rules Two corollary rules of the doctrine, the personal attack rule and the “political editorial” rule, remained in practice until 2000. The “personal attack” rule applied whenever a person (or small group) was subject to a personal attack during a broadcast. Stations had to notify such persons (or groups) within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said and offer the opportunity to respond on-the-air. The “political editorial” rule applied when a station broadcast editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulated that the unendorsed candidates be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond.[26] ” This was very much the thing in the 90’s when the Clinton’s were being outed as the crooks, cons, and criminals they were/are by Rush. There was a long period where there was a renewed attempt to apply these two FD remnants across media, especially targeting conservative radio (essentially, at that time, Rush), and less so to TV. You can apologize for calling me a liar or ignorant depending on which finally settled on. Don’t be shy I’ll accept it, I promise.
There should be research done on a variable area scoop aircraft that could fly into orbit using hybrid jet/rocket engines and staged fuel tanks. Using atmospheric oxidizer and aerodynamic lift from a good scoop design would allow achieving very high altitude before initiating final acceleration to orbital velocity thus avoiding some losses due to air friction. A wide delta shape would facilitate the variable scoop capability by increasing the craft’s angle of attack as atmospheric density decreases. This would render almost the entire underside area for scoop use. The engines would have to swivel so that the thrust vector would remain parallel to the trajectory. Flat fuel tanks could be mounted on the top side (or inside) of the delta shape to facilitate jettison. Returning from orbit might consist of aligning the delta nearly perpendicular to the line of motion and let the thin atmosphere slow the ship down. Lower angles would allow the de-acceleration to proceed more slowly, perhaps slowly enough so that refractory wing edges would not be needed and the craft could just be flown home. In all probability the chemically fueled version of this design would not have a very high payload fraction but every thing about the design would be re-usable, even the fuel tanks given some parachutes.
You have presented no evidence and can not and will not that it was about anything other than truth in advertising. You particularly will not present any evidence it ever had anything to do with the government controlling the internet””” because all it was about was truth in advertising–that bandwidth providers could not preferentially provide bandwidth to the traffic of packets where they had ownership to the intellectual property rights of the data in the packet or a business entanglement with the owners of the same.It never had anything to do with or was ever like the Fairness Doctrine which you firstly brought up falsely as having anything to do with the ’90’s. The internet and radio are nothing alike besides.And why are you going on about the FD and any remaining rules from it when it has nothing to with Net Neutrality you just imagine it does? There are many laws dealing with truth in advertising but none quite so specific as the net neutrality regulation prohibiting throttling. Now a lawsuit could be brought to the same effect but because the net neutrality rule has been pulled those lawsuits are likely to be quashed as being against public policy.Why would I apologize for nothing? You are a liar or ignorant”” or both in some measure as seen here.”””
Saying there is immense support doesn’t mean there was or is immense support. It is you who believes it had to do with advertising and apparently still want to pretend so not me. In fact it’s the exact opposite from my point so I don’t feel the need to defend what I didn’t say. Nice try though or is it a comprehension problem. To avoid your confusion I never said NN was derived from the FD but they are similar in that both were sold as being about truth and fairness. Some really gullible people believe it as do some who think NN is about advertising as if there are no existing laws covering the subject.Yes the FD comes from late 40’s era and was stopped”” in the late 80’s BUT .. plz read the following “””” Corollary rulesTwo corollary rules of the doctrine”””” the personal attack rule and the “”””political editorial”””” rule”””” remained in practice until 2000. The “”””personal attack”””” rule applied whenever a person (or small group) was subject to a personal attack during a broadcast. Stations had to notify such persons (or groups) within a week of the attack”””” send them transcripts of what was said and offer the opportunity to respond on-the-air. The “”””political editorial”””” rule applied when a station broadcast editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office”””” and stipulated that the unendorsed candidates be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond.[26] “”””This was very much the thing in the 90’s when the Clinton’s were being outed as the crooks”” cons and criminals they were/are by Rush. There was a long period where there was a renewed attempt to apply these two FD remnants across media especially targeting conservative radio (essentially at that time Rush) and less so to TV.You can apologize for calling me a liar or ignorant depending on which finally settled on. Don’t be shy I’ll accept it”” I promise.”””
There should be research done on a variable area scoop aircraft that could fly into orbit using hybrid jet/rocket engines and staged fuel tanks. Using atmospheric oxidizer and aerodynamic lift from a good scoop design would allow achieving very high altitude before initiating final acceleration to orbital velocity thus avoiding some losses due to air friction. A wide delta shape would facilitate the variable scoop capability by increasing the craft’s angle of attack as atmospheric density decreases. This would render almost the entire underside area for scoop use. The engines would have to swivel so that the thrust vector would remain parallel to the trajectory. Flat fuel tanks could be mounted on the top side (or inside) of the delta shape to facilitate jettison. Returning from orbit might consist of aligning the delta nearly perpendicular to the line of motion and let the thin atmosphere slow the ship down. Lower angles would allow the de-acceleration to proceed more slowly perhaps slowly enough so that refractory wing edges would not be needed and the craft could just be flown home. In all probability the chemically fueled version of this design would not have a very high payload fraction but every thing about the design would be re-usable even the fuel tanks given some parachutes.
Doesn’t matter in the end if the enviro folk complain or not. Space industrialization is happening and on a globally competitive level. If nuclear rockets work and lower costs substantially, then they will be picked up sooner rather than later. Better that a company with a solid engineering team does it first so that we end up with a cleaner more stable version to copy or export.
Sure drop the SLS … but IMO, private firms like SpaceX and Blue-Origin must pick up the turbo rocket. As for nuclear power and society revolting against it … well it just doesn’t matter. In the end, if it works, then China, Russia … hell even N.K. will start using them – how would SpaceX and Blue-Origin be competitive then? So, in the end, and again if turbo rocket is technically and economically viable, then private companies will have no choice but to pick it up. If that means they move to China or somewhere else to do their launches, so be it.
Doesn’t matter in the end if the enviro folk complain or not. Space industrialization is happening and on a globally competitive level. If nuclear rockets work and lower costs substantially then they will be picked up sooner rather than later. Better that a company with a solid engineering team does it first so that we end up with a cleaner more stable version to copy or export.
Sure drop the SLS … but IMO private firms like SpaceX and Blue-Origin must pick up the turbo rocket. As for nuclear power and society revolting against it … well it just doesn’t matter. In the end if it works then China Russia … hell even N.K. will start using them – how would SpaceX and Blue-Origin be competitive then? So in the end and again if turbo rocket is technically and economically viable then private companies will have no choice but to pick it up. If that means they move to China or somewhere else to do their launches so be it.
Thanks for all the comments. Just FWIW, the major innovation is adding a low-cost, highly reusable NON-NUCLEAR variant.
Thanks for all the comments. Just FWIW the major innovation is adding a low-cost highly reusable NON-NUCLEAR variant.
I provide material to Brian and he chooses what to post. But I’ve clarified in the description of the YouTube video.
I provide material to Brian and he chooses what to post. But I’ve clarified in the description of the YouTube video.
That hack Spudis has just published yet another way to waste a few tens of billions of dollars.
http://www.spudislunarresources.com/blog/an-architecture-for-direct-lunar-return-using-sls-and-orion/
I provide material to Brian and he chooses what to post. But I’ve clarified in the description of the YouTube video.
Thanks for all the comments. Just FWIW, the major innovation is adding a low-cost, highly reusable NON-NUCLEAR variant.
Doesn’t matter in the end if the enviro folk complain or not. Space industrialization is happening and on a globally competitive level. If nuclear rockets work and lower costs substantially, then they will be picked up sooner rather than later. Better that a company with a solid engineering team does it first so that we end up with a cleaner more stable version to copy or export.
Sure drop the SLS … but IMO, private firms like SpaceX and Blue-Origin must pick up the turbo rocket. As for nuclear power and society revolting against it … well it just doesn’t matter. In the end, if it works, then China, Russia … hell even N.K. will start using them – how would SpaceX and Blue-Origin be competitive then?
So, in the end, and again if turbo rocket is technically and economically viable, then private companies will have no choice but to pick it up. If that means they move to China or somewhere else to do their launches, so be it.
You have presented no evidence, and can not and will not, that it was about anything other than truth in advertising. You particularly will not present any evidence it ever had anything to do with the government “controlling the internet”, because all it was about was truth in advertising–that bandwidth providers could not preferentially provide bandwidth to the traffic of packets where they had ownership to the intellectual property rights of the data in the packet, or a business entanglement with the owners of the same.
It never had anything to do with or was ever like the Fairness Doctrine, which you firstly brought up falsely as having anything to do with the ’90’s. The internet and radio are nothing alike besides.
And why are you going on about the FD and any remaining rules from it, when it has nothing to with Net Neutrality, you just imagine it does? There are many laws dealing with truth in advertising, but none quite so specific as the net neutrality regulation prohibiting throttling. Now a lawsuit could be brought to the same effect, but because the net neutrality rule has been pulled, those lawsuits are likely to be quashed as being against public policy.
Why would I apologize for nothing? You are a liar or ignorant, or both in some measure as seen here.
Saying there is immense support doesn’t mean there was or is immense support. It is you who believes it had to do with advertising and apparently still want to pretend so, not me. In fact it’s the exact opposite from my point so I don’t feel the need to defend what I didn’t say. Nice try though or is it a comprehension problem.
To avoid your confusion I never said NN was derived from the FD but they are similar in that both were sold as being about truth and fairness. Some really gullible people believe it, as do some who think NN is about advertising, as if there are no existing laws covering the subject.
Yes the FD comes from late 40’s era and was “stopped” in the late 80’s BUT .. plz read the following
” Corollary rules
Two corollary rules of the doctrine, the personal attack rule and the “political editorial” rule, remained in practice until 2000. The “personal attack” rule applied whenever a person (or small group) was subject to a personal attack during a broadcast. Stations had to notify such persons (or groups) within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said and offer the opportunity to respond on-the-air. The “political editorial” rule applied when a station broadcast editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulated that the unendorsed candidates be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond.[26] ”
This was very much the thing in the 90’s when the Clinton’s were being outed as the crooks, cons, and criminals they were/are by Rush. There was a long period where there was a renewed attempt to apply these two FD remnants across media, especially targeting conservative radio (essentially, at that time, Rush), and less so to TV.
You can apologize for calling me a liar or ignorant depending on which finally settled on. Don’t be shy I’ll accept it, I promise.
There should be research done on a variable area scoop aircraft that could fly into orbit using hybrid jet/rocket engines and staged fuel tanks. Using atmospheric oxidizer and aerodynamic lift from a good scoop design would allow achieving very high altitude before initiating final acceleration to orbital velocity thus avoiding some losses due to air friction. A wide delta shape would facilitate the variable scoop capability by increasing the craft’s angle of attack as atmospheric density decreases. This would render almost the entire underside area for scoop use. The engines would have to swivel so that the thrust vector would remain parallel to the trajectory. Flat fuel tanks could be mounted on the top side (or inside) of the delta shape to facilitate jettison. Returning from orbit might consist of aligning the delta nearly perpendicular to the line of motion and let the thin atmosphere slow the ship down. Lower angles would allow the de-acceleration to proceed more slowly, perhaps slowly enough so that refractory wing edges would not be needed and the craft could just be flown home. In all probability the chemically fueled version of this design would not have a very high payload fraction but every thing about the design would be re-usable, even the fuel tanks given some parachutes.
A Falcon 9 rocket launch generates just short of 1 million Lbs of CO2. However, if everyone kept their car’s tires properly inflated, it would save around 14.5 million Metric tons of CO2/year. This works out to 29,000 F9 launches, so the actual GW potential from a few dozen launches per year is absurdly small compared to reductions from simple solutions so GW from rocket launches not an issue, nuclear contamination could be.
FWIW, I’m a pro-nuclear rabid environmentalist. We exist, but unfortunately, it seems, in small numbers.
No there was and still is immense support for net neutrality — no one wants their internet throttled or cut off surreptitiously as a marketing ploy. Truth in advertising its all net neutrality was ever about, it never had anything to do with the Fairness Doctrine, which in any case dated from 1949, not the 90’s. You lie (or show your general ignorance) to claim it does, and yes, brushing your teeth helps prevent decay — people have known that for thousands of years.
The issue is not “Flaming Anuses” as you put it, but what kind of contamination you have when you have a vehicle loss. And its also not just the rocket plume, which in terms of Global Warming (GW) is an insignificant addition, its the total environmental impact of the system, birth to death (life cycle). However, much of that has already been calculated and the GW impact per watt of a HTPWR is far smaller than coal and natural gas, so I’d assume its the same for a rocket. However, of a NTTR blows up and makes a large area uninhabitable for decades or centuries (See Fukushima & Chernobyl if you don’t think this can happen), then you need to rethink the approach (See the Flying Crowbar. It was canceled for the same reason).
There was no support for net neutrality either yet they created it out of whole cloth and attempted to implement it. Truth in advertising? You really believe it was about advertising? Keeping tooth paste companies from claiming their paste stops tooth decay? heh. You are right though it was about truth and who determines what truth is. I’ve determined you know this and have spoken a falsity, you are banned from the internet. As to your last point, do you not remember Fairness Doctrine of the 90’s. That was sold as balance in the name of truth and fairness but of course it was handing the media the tools to censor in the manner shown today with Joe Scarborough being the “conservative” point of view.
I agree. The IDEA behind the SLS isn’t a bad one – but there does come a point where you’ve got to aggressively bend the metal, build the thing and get that sucker into the air.
Which doesn’t seem to be happening with the SLS. Bureaucratic inertia, a culture that puts ‘you can’t fail’ before everything else, insufficient funding to keep up with the design changes that are shoved upon the build team by the ‘safety’ folks, or a simple low-balling the priority of this particular mission… doesn’t really matter. It’s long past the time this should have been on the pad and a fire lit under it.
I agree – we need to dump the SLS. It’s turned into a jobs program, not a viable means to get to orbit.
However – nuclear? Nope, no way the rabid environmentalists would EVER allow it. Those flaming anuses simply don’t understand that if they actually want to cut CO2 instead of making passive-aggressive controlling attempts to shove us back to a pre-electrical age, nuclear power’s the key to keeping the lights on, their food fresh, and their iPads powered up and the internet going.
So now we’re forced to sign in via Google, Facebook or Twitter? This sucks.
That “sucks” is ‘85% likely to be perceived as “toxic”‘, sucks even more.
And now “Vuukle” has access to Twitter info.
Brian, if you’re trying to destroy what has been a wonderful comment section, then … well done.
” This would mean at $7 million the Spacex BFR launch 150 tons would have less than a $50 per kilogram launch cost ($23 per pound). ”
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/10/spacex-bfr-to-be-lower-cost-than-falcon-1-at-7-million-per-launch.html
Why build a rocket costing more?
Government will fail to control space because there is no support for that in the majority of the American public.
Net neutrality had nothing to do with government controlling the net. It had to do with making truth in advertising enforceable. The laughable thing about what you claim is, that net neutrality would make leftist run social media providers stop censoring conservatives unless they said openly in their terms of service they would do so.
stup1d
There will come a point when the government takes over any private space company or when such companies become indistinguishable from the government much like 95% of the news media and Democrat government. Space is too important not to control and strangle with regulation like the attempt to control the internet with net neutrality. Which btw will eventually be successful either by regulation or as with news media, voluntarily. Witness how Google, FB, Twitter, etc., are just beginning their censoring and purging of non-leftist thought, it’s not going to get better.
This is under the mistaken assumption that those planning SLS do it for having a viable, efficient, affordable space launcher for furthering human use and presence on space.
No, they don’t. SLS is a pork spreading jobs program. The more jobs and the more pork spent, the better.
Also, it assumes the political and public forces keeping the safe and viable nuclear energy from saving the planet from CO2 emissions, would somehow muster the will to allow a flying nuke for the purpose stated above.
No, they won’t. If we want to have innovative solutions applied to create space launchers for the purpose stated above, we will have to rely on innovative companies and entrepreneurs working around these limitations of government spending and political will.
A nuclear rocket will never fly because there’s too much perceived risk to the public and environment. Do you really think that the political and legal apparatus that prevents any meaningful progress in nuclear power production will allow a nuclear rocket to blast off into the atmosphere?!?
Yeah someon shuld tell that to US gow.
To check with NASA, slap a Space Force sticker on that bad boy.
Look, there’s a reason NASA’s SLS isn’t an on time version of the BFR. And that reason would stop a NASA nuclear turbo rocket from being a success, too.
Long before they were flying it, somebody in private industry would beat them to it, or come up with some other cheaper system.