Re: Size of the proposed "new" space vehicle?

"tomcat" <jlavine@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1128377003.416445.242400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For whatever reason NASA is taking a step backwards. They don't have
> to.
>
> Waveriders are now a proven technology. The Space Shuttle is a
> waverider. Nanotube cloth with the strength of steel, and 600 times
> lighter besides, exists. Atomic hydrogen rocket fuel with 5X thrust
> exists. The SSME (Space Shuttle Main Engine) exists.
>
> And, no matter what the option, any returning space vehicle has to
> either retrofire equal to the returning velocity -- an extremely fuel
> consuming option -- or a heat shield of some kind must be affixed to
> the hull of the vehicle, regardless of whether it is a capsule -- or a
> waverider.
>
> Today, a waverider spaceplane is possible and practical. Free
> Enterprise knows this and though the construction of a spaceplane will
> be expensive, I believe that Free Enterprise will build one.
>

I'm not convinced you know much more about these subjects than the buzzwords
you're tossing about. Characterizing the shuttle as a waverider is quite a
stretch. The nanotube cloth will be cool someday, but not quite yet. I
agree it looks very promising. The atomic hydrogen approach, something I've
worked with a little, has it's own problems and is more likely better suited
to "NERVA"-like Nuclear or Inductive Reactance motors. But since neither
exists today, there's a lot of work to be done. Free Enterprise by itself
could make any of these work individually, but it takes a National effort
(or a really really long time) to integrate it. It could be done by Free
Enterprise, but free isn't really free--if you know what I mean.


.