Re: Bigelow launch vehicle mistake

In article <1141720527.888114.41110@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<ianparker2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Why is a rumored, almost certainly extremely expensive, and possibly
poorly working, military system relevant?

It is relevant from a variety of viewpoints. The first and most obvious
point is that NASA, the Pentagon and the space establishment are
wasting an incredible amount of money on duplication...

Even assuming Blackstar exists, if it's an expensive "hangar queen", then
trying to build reliable, inexpensive launch systems is not "duplication".
(Which is not to say that NASA et al haven't wasted a lot of money, but it
would be waste even if Blackstar doesn't exist.)

Indeed, the existence of such a troublesome, disappointing vehicle would
help explain why NASA et al seem so skeptical about cheap responsive
launch. "DoD tried that, and it didn't work very well."

The second point is that Blackstar has solved many of the technical
problems...

Maybe, and maybe not. See above. Blackstar's lack of visible effect on
DoD operations and plans would be more easily explained if the sexy new
technology turned out to be a maintenance nightmare. (Anyone who knows
the history of rocket-fuel research can't help but think about maintenance
when the words "boron" and "gel" are used in the same sentence.)

Note that the wing sections are light and heat resistant. I read an
article in the Sunday Times... carbon carbon and carbon ceramic brakes.
This is clearly the material out of which you can make an orbiter.

Maybe, and maybe not. The leading-edge panel on Columbia, which shattered
when the foam hit it, was carbon-carbon. Light and heat-resistant, okay;
but robust and durable? That matters too.

One can
produce a design on paper but it cannot fly without Blackstar input.

Depends on what sort of design one produces.

My paper design is a ram/turbojet cluster taking you to Mach 4
separating. Rockets placed in a scramjet tube would work with variable
amounts of oxygen, stociiometic of couse in a vacuum.

Learning more about propulsion engineering might be useful. (Hint: rocket
engines typically do not perform best when run stoichiometric.)
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast