Monday, September 21, 2009

ULA Makes a Good Point at the 2009 AIAA Conference

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4330793.html

It's about time some of the heavy hitters start to throw their weight around and bring to light the problems of Project Constellation. It's not just the fun issues we're dealing with on the Ares I, but the overall architecture of the program in general.

I completely agree with this article, and specifically the notion brought forward by ULA at the 2009 AIAA Conference. We don't necessarily need a heavy lift, because what are you lifting? 75% fuel just to get to LEO, that's what you're lifting. It's stupid. We need smaller, lighter, faster, better craft that are task specific and take things in parts to be assembled in space. Wasn't that the point of ISS, besides political international cooperation, to learn how to build in space?

Good job ULA for bucking the system and putting the Kool-Aid down. Your vision will become less blurry over time.

2 comments:

Norman Copeland said...

[Excerpt from article]

"The use of smaller, commercial launchers coupled with orbital depots eliminates the need for a large launch vehicle. Much is made of the need for more launches. This is perceived as a detriment. However since 75 percent of all the mass lifted to low Earth orbit is merely propellant with no intrinsic value it represents the optimal cargo for low-cost, strictly commercial launch operations''.


It seems that really the consideration for the continuation of option opinion leading to mutually acceptable working conditions is the issue of 'fuel'.

With this assumption I would clearly be stimulated to develope an angle of variable mediative assumption. I personally have chosen to consider the offered declaration that 75% percent of the rocket weight is of zero intrinsic value.

If this particular issue was addressed I believe It could resolve many non negotiable opinionists reservations about increasing social support for the option of multi stage rocket applications.

I beleive that fuel could be used as an additive to off earth based environment programmes with the use of modern cloud seeding development programmes utilising the particle distribution from engine residues to enhance cloud development.

It would continue to maintain a somewhat peripheral interest from the power and industry sector to ivesting the sort of financial clout into developing off planetary space bases utilising resources of planoid availability.

Encouraging particle generation is science for implementation, particularly if we move into the reality of terraforming. It's a very natural process and one I beleive will happen.

Continue old boys of Uncle Sam...


I'll be voting George Bush jr [if you guys haven't worked out yet that Barack Obama is one of us yet...]

[REFERENCE SPACE.COM Tariq Malik author of Cloud seeding from rocket residue article. and earlier author Clara Moscovitcz]

Marcel F. Williams said...

The Sidemount-HLV is the fastest, safest and most economical way to return to the Moon and the least disruptive of our current manned space flight infrastructure.

I think Skylab is a good example of how simply and immediately you can do things when you have a heavy lift booster and the ISS is a good example of how long and expensive it is to get things done when you don't have a heavy lift booster.