You are thinking the X-33, and it was designed to be a scale model of the eventual craft, Venture Star.
Aerospike is just one approach, the one favored by one of the major rocket engine producers, Rocketdyne. Fundimentally, it works as an inverted rocket bell, using the outside air to contain the thrust. It is 90% as efficient as a traditional engine optimized for a particular section of the atmosphere, with the advantage that it keeps the same performance all throughout the atmospheric run.
The other major rocket engine producer, Aerojet, instead is pushing forward a rocket "afterburner, the Thrust Augmented Nozzle. Using a TAN, a traditioninal Hydrolox engine would have kerosene and oxygen injected directly to the engine bell, reducing the overall impulse while greatly improving the thrust, ideal for liftoff, while then throttling back the kerolox to the space-optimized high-isp hydrolox once out of the atmosphere, and smoothly transitioning between the two by throttling back the augmentation, keeping the performance optimized throughout the whole range of operation for what was needed.
I agree, developing the technologies first gives us far more capability. In addition, if you truely want to return to the moon, ULA, the primary rocket manufacturer in the US, has put on the table a proposal to do just that, with the existing non-shuttle lifting technology, while simultaneously reducing the cost to LEO through mass production. You can read their proposal here:
There is a huge difference between the Saturn V's heating issues and Ares V's. Saturn V used regenerative cooled engines, the engines are actively cooled by pumping cryogenic fuel around the bell nozzle. They were also the only engines involved.
Ares V, by comparison, uses Ablatively Cooled engines, to cool it off the engine nozzle ablates, wears off. Now, add to this situation three more factors. 1) the Ares V has a large 10m wide flat base, which traps air. 2) The engines on the Ares V burn fuel to run the turbopump, dumping the exhaust gasses into this wide flat base. 3) The Solid Rocket Boosters put out a ton of BTU's, which also are trapped under the big, flat base. Add the three factors together, and we are looking at an engine life measurable in seconds.
You do realize that the plans were unworkable, the designs flawed, and the very engineers for them introduced alternative designs which could be produced sooner/faster/cheaper. Look up "Ares V Base Heating Issue" sometime.
The management at NASA and the special interests behind key areas kept pushing for Constellation due to it's huge R&D budget, despite the laws of physics which stated that it would never work with the designs as/is. And Obama pulled the plug on the dead-man-walking. It was obvious 5 years ago that this would happen, which is why NASA's engineers "moonlighted" and introduced the DIRECT launch design. Here is what they proposed. It could be ready from approval to launch within 36 months, as it is based on existing technologies *and* it has already passed PDR. If it looks familiar to you space nuts, you might remember it as the Regan-era National Launch System. Now it is called Jupiter.
I think Pluto is blurry, that's the problem. It's not the telescope's fault. Pluto is blurry, and that's extra scary to me. There's a large, out-of-focus plantoid roaming the solar system. Run, he's fuzzy, get out of here
Redundancy, not being tied to any single entity, plus practicality, as each does a different job. And I'd note, there are three crew delivery systems listed, Orion Lite, Dragon, and DreamChaser. The advantages to each are dependent on what you do with them. Dragon is a stipped down capsule, quick n dirty. Orion Lite, even with the beyond LEO functions removed, is a beefier entity with the ability for longer-term functionality as well as more cargo capability. DreamChaser is a miniature space station on it's own, more PR-friendly as well with it's neo-Shuttle appearance.
While there is a lot of overlap, having this capability means if one should not pull through, we are not risking the whole program on this. The problem with previous programs is that each one became an all-for-one, like the shuttle did.
The shuttle's systems can launch as rapidly as 24 times a year. The hangup of launch times is the shuttle itself. The original plan was for an assembly-line setup, but the refurbishment of the shuttles turned out to be too time consuming. A disposable system utilizing the STS system, like the DIRECT or the original ESAS Ares V, could be flown at 18-24 times a year using the existing system, simply due to the most time consuming piece of the puzzle, the shuttle, being taken out of the picture. The Ares V Classic could lift 155mT to orbit, 24 x 155mT == a whole lotta stuff in orbit.
In addition, once you do 8 flights a year, the Shuttle-Derived solution costs less to operate than any other system currently in operation.
You forget that we have a gravity-assist item neatly parked into orbit around us, as well as another gravity-assist item in relatively near space. Using both the moon and venus you can do a gravity-assisted breaking system for Apophis reducing your delta-v need by an order of magnitude.
I tend to believe these patents are often times too broad, but one of the reasons why they've stuck is due to Microsoft pushing for them to be this way. If this sticks, MSFT is looking to be, in effect, shot by their own gun. The irony is not lost on me.
It's called product inertia. Customers purchased the same products they were familiar with, even if the product was not meeting their needs. Slowly, along the peripherals of this consumer group, you loose a handful, but as you loose them, your circle of customers erodes. Eventually, this slight peripheral edge-bleed becomes a torrent, unless you spot it early enough.
The big block V8 is a symtom of GM's unwillingness to address its customer base needs. If it was a specialty item, as the Mopar 426 Hemi is, it would be one thing. But GM kept putting it into products it was ill-suited for. End result, they kept slowly loosing their customer base as they migrated to companies which sold what they sought.
GM had the opportunity in the 1990's to create a true tiered product lineup, to better address the needs of their customers by hyper-focusing. Instead, it tried to be all things to all customers in all brands. The result is the mess in which GM finds itself today. Let us explore a moment.
Chevrolet remains the catchall, a bit of everything. Buick is the luxury lineup, midsize, full size, midrange SUV/Crossover. Cadillacs is the premiere lineup, full sized, large sports car, and large SUV. Pontiac is for sports enthusiasts, ranging from subcompact hyperperformance to full-sized sports cars. Saturn evolves into two markets, the hyper-efficient as well as the customizable, a combination of the low-level from Toyota w/ Scion. (low-cost cars which are customizable) Saab remains as it is, keep it a unique entity for those of the precular taste. Hummer should have focused on being the new, improved Jeep, quit the "H2, H3" bs, and instead focus on extreme utility. Chevrolet then becomes a top-to-bottom brand, pulling samples from each of the other lineups.
Why didn't this happen? Inner-company politicing prevented any one brand from differentializing itself from any other. "Buick has one, we need to have one!"
No, the amount of energy is not the issue, it is the isp. You attach an ion drive to it on the 2029 pass, and when it returns in 2039 you can have optimized the path into an insertion orbit. The key is patience, 10 years is plenty of time to direct it to the right path.
There are NASA engineers which have the solution, which can work even with a reduced budget. They call it DIRECT. Rather than sink tens of billions into R&D, they adapt the existing Space Shuttles systems into a launch vehicle. The Shuttles R&D costs were paid for decades ago. The new systems are well within the realm of "relatively simple" as far as rockets go. It could be ready within a few years, and can operate within even a reduced budget realm.
The alternative is to modify the Department of Defences EELV vehicles, Delta and Atlas, but we all know how much the DoD likes having their babies played with.
So, what you are saying is, you're too lazy or too dumb to even try.
I have been 86 year old great-grandparents learn this. I've witnessed my then 3 year old son do this. This is inherent to EVERYBODY to be able to do this. Noone is unable to do this, only unwilling.
ARM can't run x86 software, so would be nothing other than a GUI and name recognition, due to the lack of app support. Same issue Windows NT on MIPS and PowerPC had back in the day.
Slashdot Mirror
You are thinking the X-33, and it was designed to be a scale model of the eventual craft, Venture Star.
Aerospike is just one approach, the one favored by one of the major rocket engine producers, Rocketdyne. Fundimentally, it works as an inverted rocket bell, using the outside air to contain the thrust. It is 90% as efficient as a traditional engine optimized for a particular section of the atmosphere, with the advantage that it keeps the same performance all throughout the atmospheric run.
The other major rocket engine producer, Aerojet, instead is pushing forward a rocket "afterburner, the Thrust Augmented Nozzle. Using a TAN, a traditioninal Hydrolox engine would have kerosene and oxygen injected directly to the engine bell, reducing the overall impulse while greatly improving the thrust, ideal for liftoff, while then throttling back the kerolox to the space-optimized high-isp hydrolox once out of the atmosphere, and smoothly transitioning between the two by throttling back the augmentation, keeping the performance optimized throughout the whole range of operation for what was needed.
I agree, developing the technologies first gives us far more capability. In addition, if you truely want to return to the moon, ULA, the primary rocket manufacturer in the US, has put on the table a proposal to do just that, with the existing non-shuttle lifting technology, while simultaneously reducing the cost to LEO through mass production. You can read their proposal here:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf
There is a huge difference between the Saturn V's heating issues and Ares V's.
Saturn V used regenerative cooled engines, the engines are actively cooled by pumping cryogenic fuel around the bell nozzle. They were also the only engines involved.
Ares V, by comparison, uses Ablatively Cooled engines, to cool it off the engine nozzle ablates, wears off. Now, add to this situation three more factors. 1) the Ares V has a large 10m wide flat base, which traps air. 2) The engines on the Ares V burn fuel to run the turbopump, dumping the exhaust gasses into this wide flat base. 3) The Solid Rocket Boosters put out a ton of BTU's, which also are trapped under the big, flat base. Add the three factors together, and we are looking at an engine life measurable in seconds.
*pst* you do realize that Ares used a modified ET, yes?
You do realize, of course, that we spend more on toilet seats in the federal government than on NASA, yes?
You do realize that the plans were unworkable, the designs flawed, and the very engineers for them introduced alternative designs which could be produced sooner/faster/cheaper. Look up "Ares V Base Heating Issue" sometime.
The management at NASA and the special interests behind key areas kept pushing for Constellation due to it's huge R&D budget, despite the laws of physics which stated that it would never work with the designs as/is. And Obama pulled the plug on the dead-man-walking. It was obvious 5 years ago that this would happen, which is why NASA's engineers "moonlighted" and introduced the DIRECT launch design.
Here is what they proposed. It could be ready from approval to launch within 36 months, as it is based on existing technologies *and* it has already passed PDR. If it looks familiar to you space nuts, you might remember it as the Regan-era National Launch System. Now it is called Jupiter.
it would be funnier if his user ID was fewer numbers.
I think Pluto is blurry, that's the problem. It's not the telescope's fault. Pluto is blurry, and that's extra scary to me. There's a large, out-of-focus plantoid roaming the solar system. Run, he's fuzzy, get out of here
Redundancy, not being tied to any single entity, plus practicality, as each does a different job. And I'd note, there are three crew delivery systems listed, Orion Lite, Dragon, and DreamChaser. The advantages to each are dependent on what you do with them. Dragon is a stipped down capsule, quick n dirty. Orion Lite, even with the beyond LEO functions removed, is a beefier entity with the ability for longer-term functionality as well as more cargo capability. DreamChaser is a miniature space station on it's own, more PR-friendly as well with it's neo-Shuttle appearance.
While there is a lot of overlap, having this capability means if one should not pull through, we are not risking the whole program on this. The problem with previous programs is that each one became an all-for-one, like the shuttle did.
And also a bigger target.
I like #10 the most, has the most symbology of the bunch without being a ra-ra or bemoaning the passing of the era.
I just hope NASA gets its act together and goes DIRECT before we loose those talented ground ops staff.
The shuttle's systems can launch as rapidly as 24 times a year. The hangup of launch times is the shuttle itself. The original plan was for an assembly-line setup, but the refurbishment of the shuttles turned out to be too time consuming. A disposable system utilizing the STS system, like the DIRECT or the original ESAS Ares V, could be flown at 18-24 times a year using the existing system, simply due to the most time consuming piece of the puzzle, the shuttle, being taken out of the picture. The Ares V Classic could lift 155mT to orbit, 24 x 155mT == a whole lotta stuff in orbit.
In addition, once you do 8 flights a year, the Shuttle-Derived solution costs less to operate than any other system currently in operation.
You forget that we have a gravity-assist item neatly parked into orbit around us, as well as another gravity-assist item in relatively near space. Using both the moon and venus you can do a gravity-assisted breaking system for Apophis reducing your delta-v need by an order of magnitude.
I tend to believe these patents are often times too broad, but one of the reasons why they've stuck is due to Microsoft pushing for them to be this way. If this sticks, MSFT is looking to be, in effect, shot by their own gun. The irony is not lost on me.
They did that in the 1990's. Now they run a RISC chip w/ interpreter in hardware.
It's called product inertia. Customers purchased the same products they were familiar with, even if the product was not meeting their needs. Slowly, along the peripherals of this consumer group, you loose a handful, but as you loose them, your circle of customers erodes. Eventually, this slight peripheral edge-bleed becomes a torrent, unless you spot it early enough.
The big block V8 is a symtom of GM's unwillingness to address its customer base needs. If it was a specialty item, as the Mopar 426 Hemi is, it would be one thing. But GM kept putting it into products it was ill-suited for. End result, they kept slowly loosing their customer base as they migrated to companies which sold what they sought.
GM had the opportunity in the 1990's to create a true tiered product lineup, to better address the needs of their customers by hyper-focusing. Instead, it tried to be all things to all customers in all brands. The result is the mess in which GM finds itself today. Let us explore a moment.
Chevrolet remains the catchall, a bit of everything. Buick is the luxury lineup, midsize, full size, midrange SUV/Crossover. Cadillacs is the premiere lineup, full sized, large sports car, and large SUV. Pontiac is for sports enthusiasts, ranging from subcompact hyperperformance to full-sized sports cars. Saturn evolves into two markets, the hyper-efficient as well as the customizable, a combination of the low-level from Toyota w/ Scion. (low-cost cars which are customizable) Saab remains as it is, keep it a unique entity for those of the precular taste. Hummer should have focused on being the new, improved Jeep, quit the "H2, H3" bs, and instead focus on extreme utility. Chevrolet then becomes a top-to-bottom brand, pulling samples from each of the other lineups.
Why didn't this happen? Inner-company politicing prevented any one brand from differentializing itself from any other. "Buick has one, we need to have one!"
No, the amount of energy is not the issue, it is the isp. You attach an ion drive to it on the 2029 pass, and when it returns in 2039 you can have optimized the path into an insertion orbit. The key is patience, 10 years is plenty of time to direct it to the right path.
These rocks are high in minerals which are very useful. Who'se with me, capturing this thing, and turning it into a gigantic orbiting factory?
They witnessed Microsoft's attempt to edge in on Bing! and xBox and wanted to insure themselves from Office Papal edition.
If IBM wanted a cat intelligence that badly, wouldn't it have been cheaper to go to the SPCA?
There are NASA engineers which have the solution, which can work even with a reduced budget. They call it DIRECT. Rather than sink tens of billions into R&D, they adapt the existing Space Shuttles systems into a launch vehicle. The Shuttles R&D costs were paid for decades ago. The new systems are well within the realm of "relatively simple" as far as rockets go. It could be ready within a few years, and can operate within even a reduced budget realm.
The alternative is to modify the Department of Defences EELV vehicles, Delta and Atlas, but we all know how much the DoD likes having their babies played with.
I could see it going to Fujitsu or TI, both of which could leveredge it far better than HP could, with less cross-platform competition.
So, what you are saying is, you're too lazy or too dumb to even try.
I have been 86 year old great-grandparents learn this. I've witnessed my then 3 year old son do this. This is inherent to EVERYBODY to be able to do this. Noone is unable to do this, only unwilling.
ARM can't run x86 software, so would be nothing other than a GUI and name recognition, due to the lack of app support. Same issue Windows NT on MIPS and PowerPC had back in the day.
I wonder if I should prep my resume to step up for this, but then I realize my bear is nowhere near long enough.... 8)
Really? *looks at his 45nm Phenom II chip humming along* You might want to double check your claim.
You'd have all of those issues with computers, don't forget.