…or rather, for outer space. Dennis Wingo presents a backup plan for when ESAS collapses. It’s much better than Plan 9
I was a big Shuttle-C fan twenty years ago. Or rather, I was a Shuttle-derived fan. Shuttle-C has the problem that Dennis admits–a lack of payload volume and (more importantly, from the standpoint of building really nice space stations) a lack of payload diameter, since it’s constrained by current pad infrastructure, including the RSS (Rotating Service Structure), to fifteen feet. I preferred in-line concepts (such as Shuttle-Z) that put payload on top of the ET, which would allow twenty-two-foot-diameter, or larger, with a hammerhead configuration. Ah, good times, good times. At least in our dreams.
I’ve long thought that the time was past for such things. It doesn’t address the fundamental problem, which is the high cost of launch, and corresponding low levels of activity, something that neither ESAS, Direct, or Plan 9B address. But if we insist on such a trivial goal of sending a few astronauts to the moon a couple times a year a decade or more from now, then this plan makes more sense than what NASA’s doing. We’d probably only waste half as much money.
I’m not sure why we even need Orion, though, in this scenario. If it’s a LEO-only vehicle, why waste money to build something that competes with the private sector? I thought that the idea was to get NASA out of LEO, and force them to focus on the “beyond.”
* Admittedly, a low bar in both cases–it remains uncertain whether
or not ESAS is better than Plan 9. Actually, now that I think about it, there are similarities. ESAS is, after all, an attempt to conquer space by resurrecting Apollo from the dead.
[Update in the afternoon]
I “snear“? I didn’t know I knew how to do that…whatever it is. In fact, I’d never even heard of the word before today. Who knew that Mark was so hip (even if he doesn’t know how to read my posts)?
Loved footfall, which is where I first heard of Orion.
if the first shot is a fizzle there isn’t much of a problem. However, if the second shot fizzles…
It’s even more reliable than that. Up to half your pulses can be duds and you’d still be going up. The first non-dud gives you upward momentum and altitude; so as long as the third recovers for the second fizzling or you have sufficient altitude for a series of duds you’re ok. All the while you accelerate at under 2 g’s. Style and comfort and safety with a fantastic margin for error. There’s even a high tolerance for not placing the pulse at exactly the right point.
My understanding is that even fission bombs can be packed in materials that absorb almost all the radiation. Of course people should be concerned about radiation but they shouldn’t be irrational about it. If we limited hazards to only those below what Orion represents nobody would be able to drive or smoke. Being a non-smoker…
Does the second amendment give me the right to build Orion in my backyard? I hate that only governments get the good stuff! ;^)
Just thought of another thing, suppose only the first pulse goes off and say the airgun or whatever that’s sending out the bombs fouls up. When you hit the ground the built in suspension treats the gound as just another pulse. It might even take passengers a while to realize that something wasn’t quite right.
No, the bombs are not armed yet silly. You’re not going to blow youselves up. Well, perhaps in the movie version.