World Space Organization
Terreborn
collectively striving for an expanding sustainable future for all
Human beings. With goals of initiating international cooperation
between all of Earth's space communities, the W.S.O.drives to enhance
public advocacy toward the exploration, exploitation, and peaceful
innovation gained from a Human presence in space. Standing for
sustainability through spacial development, we urge all to stand for
Mars 2020.
David Spain
http://www.worldspaceorganization.com/
Not to be confused with the World Space Patrol
http://www.tvacres.com/police_sci_fi_fireball.htm
:-)
Dave
Jonathan
"Terreborn" <kelehe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6ae485c2-611a-4e35...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> Our Vision is of a vibrant partnership of devoted global citizens
> collectively striving for an expanding sustainable future for all
> Human beings. With goals of initiating international cooperation
> between all of Earth's space communities, the W.S.O.drives to enhance
> public advocacy toward the exploration, exploitation, and peaceful
> innovation gained from a Human presence in space. Standing for
I couldn't agree more, right up to this point.
> we urge all to stand for
> Mars 2020.
Unfortunately, advocating a project which has very little public
support, provides very little direct or timely benefits to society
and is unlikely to be to completed, is the way to ...destroy....
not build a vibrant space future. By turning the public away.
Any goal needs to be maximize, not minimize, the direct benefits
and popularity with the public.
In an honest debate, which would the public choose, a temporary
shelter for a handful on Mars some forty years out, or an endless
supply of entirely clean energy that can be easily provided to any
place on earth, no matter how remote? An energy source that
promises to replace fossil fuels and solve global warming?
Perhaps two of the greatest global anxieties.
And the results are.....
Space-Based Solar Power
An opportunity for Strategic Security
2005 survey - National Space Goals
(Matula & Loveland)
4% Build a base on the Moon
6% Space Tourism
7% Search for life on other planets
7% Build a colony in space
10% Send humans to Mars
17% Deflect asteroids et
35% Solar Power Satellites
The path to a bright future in space is a goal which is a popular
and beneficial as possible. Mars is the exact opposite of that.
Right now the future of NASA, of the world, is teetering in the wind.
It's time to create a goal with the same level of thought as the
hardware. Why support a goal which will discredit NASA as
wasteful, when we could have a goal that not only inspires from
the potential, but can in fact....Save the World.
While making America the next energy "Saudi Arabia"!
Space Energy Inc Presentation
http://www.spaceenergy.com/i/flash/ted_presentation
Jonathan
s
Pat Flannery
> Not to be confused with the World Space Patrol
>
> http://www.tvacres.com/police_sci_fi_fireball.htm
I always wanted to see the far side of that mountain the launch track
ran up, where there must be around a thousand burnt-out rocket booster
units in a big rusting pile.
Review of a nifty replica XL-5 here:
http://fireballxl5.sfdaydreams.com/toys/prodentxl5.htm
I'm surprised Estes Models didn't get the rights to produce a model
rocket version of it, as the design should be stable with just a bit of
nose ballast.
Pat
Jeff Findley
"Terreborn" <kelehe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6ae485c2-611a-4e35...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
From the looks of the website, this organization looks to be very amateurish
and the political views expressed are very naive indeed.
There is no "Mars Mandate". Global funding for manned space exploration
will never again reach the levels seen during the Space Race.
Streamlining the world's manned space programs into one Mars Program also
isn't going to happen. Politically and economically, all participating
nations will have their own programs. This is especially true of the US,
Russia, and China, three of the biggest players in manned space travel.
I'll note that ESA is somewhat of an exception, but even within ESA, money
rarely crosses national boundaries. Each country funds its own piece.
Unfortunately for ESA, they have never been able to scrape up enough funding
to actually build their own fully manned space vehicle. ATV is getting
somewhat close, but still does not handle manned launch and manned landing.
And the few pictures and bullets describing how to get to Mars (the Mars
Mission page) are clear rip-offs of Zubrin's Mars Direct
(http://chapters.marssociety.org/toronto/Images/MiscEdu/MDSequence.jpg).
Pixilation of the pictures fools no one.
Right now the big fight in the US is over launch systems. It's becoming
abundantly clear that NASA can't afford to develop two new launch vehicles
(Ares I and Ares V). What could emerge is one middle of the road launch
vehicle to support a dual launch lunar mission (call it Ares Lite or
Direct's Jupiter, they're still very similar vehicles). If that fails, NASA
will likely be removed from the launch vehicle business entirely and be
forced to purchase commercial launch vehicles (there are several operational
commercial launch vehicles in the US, but they are a bit smaller than NASA
would like).
Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon
David Spain
> Right now the big fight in the US is over launch systems. It's becoming
> abundantly clear that NASA can't afford to develop two new launch vehicles
> (Ares I and Ares V). What could emerge is one middle of the road launch
> vehicle to support a dual launch lunar mission (call it Ares Lite or
> Direct's Jupiter, they're still very similar vehicles). If that fails, NASA
> will likely be removed from the launch vehicle business entirely and be
> forced to purchase commercial launch vehicles (there are several operational
> commercial launch vehicles in the US, but they are a bit smaller than NASA
> would like).
>
> Jeff
Jeff what's your take on Direct Jupiter? Is it large enough to supplant the
Ares V? And should NASA pursue it, rather than go with an enhanced Atlas or
Delta? If NASA should go to Direct Jupiter, would there be a commercial market
for this launcher that would help the taxpayers with the expense of development?
Dave
David Spain
> I always wanted to see the far side of that mountain the launch track ran up,
> where there must be around a thousand burnt-out rocket booster units in a big
> rusting pile.
I heard they made a mountain bike park out there...
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc127/Jared5755/July%2008%20Trip/CIMG2643.jpg
> Review of a nifty replica XL-5 here:
> http://fireballxl5.sfdaydreams.com/toys/prodentxl5.htm
> I'm surprised Estes Models didn't get the rights to produce a model rocket
> version of it, as the design should be stable with just a bit of nose ballast.
>
Sure sure...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/46041486@N07/
;-)
Dave
Jeff Findley
"David Spain" <nos...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:6uvdfo2...@ws125.sysdef.com...
My take on it is that Direct's Jupiter and Ares V Lite (or Classic, whatever
you want to call it) are pretty much the same. NASA will come up with its
own name, even if what they go with is essentially the Jupiter in Direct's
V3.0 proposal. Upper management would NEVER admit to converging its
"preferred" design with Direct's preferred design.
They vary in some details, but both:
1. Seem to stick with the existing ET diameter. This reduces the
infrastructure costs associated with making it bigger, like Ares V intended.
2. Use SSME's in the first stage. This avoids the exhaust gas
recirculation issues that the RS-68's ablative nozzle could not handle and
eliminates the development of yet another engine (RS-68 regen).
3. Either one seems likely to go with the five-segment SRB, just because
development is so far along and cancelling it now would seem foolish since
it does add some performance.
4. NASA could still fly this thing without an upper stage, so it could fly
before the J-2X engine and upper stage are ready. Direct has been calling
this J-130 (two four segment SRB's with a core stage similar in capacity to
the ET with three SSME's) or J-140 (two five segment SRB's with a stretched
core stage sporting 4 SSME's). The nice thing about the J-140 is that you
could fly it with or without an upper stage without any hardware changes
(unlike Direct which had to plug one of the Jupiter's core stage engine
mounts).
Finally, I'd like to note that Direct has changed and evolved over the years
as more analysis has been done. The Direct of today (J-140, J-246, and
J-241) is very similar to Ares V Lite/Classic before it started to become
the bloated Ares V we know of today. But the difference is that today's
Ares V Lite/Classic isn't saddled with making up the performance shortfalls
of Ares I.
I really hope that Ares I is dead and won't come back from the grave ever
again. It always was a stupid way to design a manned launch vehicle.
Pat Flannery
>> I'm surprised Estes Models didn't get the rights to produce a model rocket
>> version of it, as the design should be stable with just a bit of nose ballast.
>>
>
> Sure sure...
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/46041486@N07/
I remember that episode now.
That same sort of thing was going to show up again in "Journey To The
Far Side Of The Sun".
The Andersons just loved crashing things into other things. :-)
Pat
Pat Flannery
From what little can be gleaned from the Augustine Commission report,
NASA seems to favor putting the payload and/or Orion on the side of the
ET rather than atop it like in DIRECT, so you basically end up with a
manned Shuttle C.
Pat
Brian Thorn
wrote:
> From what little can be gleaned from the Augustine Commission report,
>NASA seems to favor putting the payload and/or Orion on the side of the
>ET rather than atop it like in DIRECT, so you basically end up with a
>manned Shuttle C.
I know I wasn't the only one around here saying "Just build Shuttle-C
and get on with it" about three years ago, when SSME was dumped and
the Five Segment Accident Waiting To Happen appeared on the scene.
Three years and God alone knows how many billions of dollars later...
Brian
Jeff Findley
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:5NydnYg0WqAUqaHW...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
> From what little can be gleaned from the Augustine Commission report, NASA
> seems to favor putting the payload and/or Orion on the side of the ET
> rather than atop it like in DIRECT, so you basically end up with a manned
> Shuttle C.
I see this as a political maneuver to make "shuttle derived" launch vehicles
look bad. There are huge safety issues with putting crew on the top/side of
a side-mounted shuttle derived launch vehicle. In other words, putting the
worst of the shuttle derived vehicles up against Ares V makes Ares V look
better.
But the bottom line is that the budget is very tight (and absolutely won't
get better anytime soon) and NASA simply does not have the budget to develop
and fly *two* new launch vehicles. And if you had to choose between
developing either Ares I or Ares V-Lite, which would you choose?
The alternative is NASA "sticks to its guns" and pushes the bloated Ares V
and Congress and the Administration both say "No f-ing way" and EELV's get
the nod going forward.
It's time for NASA to choose between EELV and Ares V-Lite because anything
more expensive will be shot down as too expensive. And don't think that
can't happen. Look at how many times Space Station Freedom/ISS was forced
to be redesigned due to NASA's ballooning costs and slipping schedules.
Jeff Findley
"Brian Thorn" <btho...@suddenlink.net> wrote in message
news:9fhpj5tnekfj0ioq2...@4ax.com...
And yet there have been many studies done by NASA which show an inline
shuttle derived launch vehicle comes out ahead of the side mounted Shuttle-C
type vehicle. This is particularly true if you assume that shuttle
operations will come to an end, which they most definitely are.
This is why I have a feeling that the side-mounted Shuttle-C style vehicle
was deliberately shown as an "alternative" by NASA to the Augustine
Commission as disinformation. It's easier to point to side-mounted
Shuttle-C style vehicle, note its shortfalls, and then point to NASA's
bloated Ares V to show how they can be solved... They want you to pay no
attention to that "other" inline shuttle derived launch vehicle...
Brian Thorn
<jeff.f...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
>And yet there have been many studies done by NASA which show an inline
>shuttle derived launch vehicle comes out ahead of the side mounted Shuttle-C
>type vehicle.
Not in development costs, and that's the biggest problem we're facing.
Direct is better, but Not Shuttle-C is good enough.
Brian