Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I'm glad to see you mention the fact that the SRB/Shuttle are not "man-rated". Heck, was the original Atlas or Redstone "man-rated"? The Titan?

Let's see...put somebody on the Delta. Launch it. If they survive, it's man-rated. Sounds about what they probably did for the Atlas and Redstone, no?

Posted by Fred Kiesche at September 13, 2004 09:14 AM

Redstone, Atlas and Titan II all did have man-rated versions, by the standards of the day, and these were the vehicles used for Mercury and Gemini. They (and the Saturn) are the only vehicles that NASA has ever built that were man rated.

I've discussed this in the past.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 13, 2004 09:22 AM

What height can an SRB reach on its own (yes, there's no guidance or payload, how far will the fuel get you)? $24 million a pop tested and fueled... How much does 'use of the launch facility' and, well, running Kennedy cost for the launch?

Posted by Al at September 13, 2004 09:34 AM

I've said this before but here goes, were the Nina ,the Pinta and the Santa Maria, the Mayflower, etc. on to ad nauseum, MAN RATED. Well, yes to a certain extent they were. How about any other of a thousand ships whose names are lost in antiquity, that DID NOT make it to the New World. Supposedly they were MAN RATED. But they still sank or broke up in storms. People died, people always die for the sake of exploration.

I doubt that the original seven astronauts, or any since, wondered about the survivability of their chosen profession, first. The original seven and many after, were combat rated pilots, and/or test pilots.

Just like the sailors who discovered the American Continents, and the passengers/pioneers/colonists who came later, sailing on those creaking wooden ships, those people who ventured to the New World KNEW the risks.

Many of us would gladly leave our AC, cable vision and warm homes to go into space, knowing the risks. Why then do people who have no willingness or want to do these things to set up seemingly too many silly rules.

Safety should be taken into account while exploration is going on. No ne should climb Mt. Everst with out a rope and warm clothes, but I have my doubts about a society that places safety first and discovery second.

I repeat and some have seen me say this before, my wish is that someone will dsicover that the best Mars colonists will be 50ish, ex-military, now fat guys, with some engineering/survival skills, and his wife of similar skills.

Posted by Steve at September 13, 2004 09:59 AM

I've said this before but here goes, were the Nina ,the Pinta and the Santa Maria, the Mayflower, etc. on to ad nauseum, MAN RATED. Well, yes to a certain extent they were.

No, they weren't. "Man rating" is a very specific term, that applies only to launch systems (and perhaps only to NASA launch systems), not ships, planes, trains or automobiles. It does not mean "safe to carry people."

It is also probably a useless phrase at this point in space history, but many people who don't understand it continue to use it, and thereby muddle the issues of launch safety.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 13, 2004 10:05 AM

I believe that Titan 3M was man-rated as well to be used for the MOL program. I.E. it had the FODS hardware although only one launch was ever conducted.

Posted by Rob Conley at September 13, 2004 10:46 AM

"Man-rating" has included other things besides an escape system. It is not really reliability per se, but how that reliability is achieved. There are some types of failures that are acceptable for an unmanned system that are not acceptable for a manned system, such as a failure in the flight control system that results in the vehicle tumbling end over end. A good escape system can compensate for much of this, but not everything.

One thing I find puzzling about this proposed use of the SRB is the claim that it will be pulling 20 g's at burnout. Wouldn't 20 g's kill the passengers? If so, then the rocket is going to have to be down-rated so that it does not produce such brutal acceleration.

Posted by at September 13, 2004 11:31 AM

Rand makes the point that an SRB could not be shut down, putting an escaping capsule in the position of being chased by the SRB. However, a thrust termination system could be easily (sic) built into an SRB launcher. IIRC this was not included on the shuttle SRBs because there was no way to guarantee that the shuttle would survive the resulting aerodynamic instability. However, if the launch system is composed of a capsule with a launch escape system on top of an SRB, shutting down the SRB by means of, say, blowing the nozzle off the SRB seems to be (relatively) trivial.

Posted by John Beadles at September 13, 2004 01:22 PM

Yes, one can put a thrust termination system on an SRB, but that's a major modification to the design, and has to be factored into the development cost.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 13, 2004 01:27 PM

> “I was thinking, ‘What is one of the most cost-effective, safest pieces of hardware
> that we have to use as a lower stage?’” Horowitz recalled. “I said, ‘Hey, what
> about a solid rocket booster?’”

Surely this was intended as a joke, and the Mars Society audience completely missed the punchline.

Posted by at September 13, 2004 01:29 PM

Anonymous wrote:

My guess:

This is the burnout acceleration of an unladen SRB. Adding mass to the SRB, in the form of an upper stage, will reduce the terminal acceleration.

An fully-fueled SRB has a mass of about 590 metric tons. At burnout, it's down to only 87 tons. To a first approximation, you could add a 500-ton upper stage to an SRB, keep the SRB more or less the way it is, and provide acceptable acceleration for passengers.

Posted by John Ladasky at September 13, 2004 01:43 PM

What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen SRB?
(beat)
American or ESA?

WAAAAAUUUGHH!

(sorry, couldn't resist, though I probably should have)

Posted by Scott at September 13, 2004 02:56 PM

Is that unladen SRB carrying a Coconut perchance?!?

Posted by Mike Puckett at September 13, 2004 05:06 PM

Yes , yes you should have

Posted by hefty at September 13, 2004 05:08 PM

Hmmm...

What about the SpaceX Falcon V? I've read an interview where Elon Musk claims the Falcon V will be man rated. And at only 12 million a shot for a Falcon V, you could launch a lot of missions for the 100 million price of a single modified SRB.

Posted by Brad at September 13, 2004 05:28 PM

Why one 1960's technology J-2?

Why not two RS-60's? Would give you engine out capability for the second stage would it not?

I am sure lugging the extra engine would cause some parasitic weight loss but the J-2 has an ISP Vaccum of 421 sec.

The RS-60 has an ISP of 470 sec so that should help make up for it and give and engine out capability.

Posted by Mike Puckett at September 13, 2004 05:57 PM

Explain to a lowly undergraduate enlisted puke like myself why a solid rocket booster costs more than a liquid fuel roclet of comperable payload with all its attendant turbopumps, balloon tanks, staging and general mechanical Goddardesqe stuff.

I realize that the SRB is rather more complicated than a bottle rocket but it should be of simpler construction than the FalconV, especially if it is designed as an expendable with no need for the O-Ring dissasembly system. Getting cheaper access to orbit would be a (baby)step in the right direction at least.

Posted by Ken Talton at September 13, 2004 06:14 PM

Keeping in mind we are talking about projections with the Falcon V ...

The Falcon is a more reusable design. The shell of the Shuttle RSRBs can be reused, they say, about 20 times, but they to be rebuilt, the fuel recast inside, and heavily tested.

The Falcon V is to use RL-10s - extremely reliable engines. Presumably, the entire system is designed to minimize the man hours needed to put the rocket back on the launchpad.

It doesn't hurt that the Falcon V has better ISP, can be stopped and restarted in flight, and uses more environmentally friendly fuel, but that's all secondary.

Fly it often, fly it cheap.

Posted by VR at September 13, 2004 07:23 PM

Ken,

> Explain to a lowly undergraduate enlisted puke
> like myself why a solid rocket booster costs
> more than a liquid fuel roclet of comperable
> payload with all its attendant turbopumps,
> balloon tanks, staging and general mechanical
> Goddardesqe stuff.
>
> I realize that the SRB is rather more
> complicated than a bottle rocket but it
> should be of simpler construction than the
> FalconV, especially if it is designed as an
> expendable with no need for the O-Ring
> dissasembly system. Getting cheaper access
> to orbit would be a (baby)step in the right
> direction at least.

There's several reasons. First off, an SRB all
by itself can't produce enough delta-V to
actually make orbit on its own. Second off, it
is a lot harder to steer a solid rocket than a
liquid (the seals and such needed to make a
steerable nozzle for a solid are much more
difficult to design and build than the steering
for a liquid). Third off, loading propellant
into a liquid fueled rocket vehicle is a simple
fluid transfer, loading a solid rocket motor is
a manufacturing process. One that requires large
machinery that isn't used much and has a tendancy
every once in a while to go kaboom and flatten the
factory. Not to mention the fact that the whole
rocket has the disadvantage of being a combustion
chamber and a pressure fed fuel tank.....it all
adds up quite a bit. After talking to a friend of
mine who worked at Thiokol, I've been disabused of
any notion that solids are cheap, safe, or easy.

~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at September 13, 2004 07:32 PM

The current four segment RSRM has flown over 150 times since Challenger without a single failure.

Man-rated? Its a problem since this thing might need an 8 or 10 gee escape tower for the crew.

But add a J-2 or 2 RL-60s on top of a five segment RSRM and you can send cargo-only to LEO for less than $1000 per pound. Especially if you go 100% disposable and make it out of composites or plastics. A 3 percent increase in the current 85% mass ratio adds 38.4K to the upper stage.

A 90/10 mass ratio for a 5 segment SRB adds 80,000 pounds ADDITIONAL to the 2nd stage payload mass. A non-man rated 5 segment disposable plastic SRB with the right LH2/LOX upper stage might very well be able to place 120,000 pounds into LEO for less than $80 million dollars.

Maybe that is worse than the RLVs we all dream about (but those only exist as vaporware) but far, far better than the Delta IV or Atlas V EELV that seems to lead the political race right now.

Develop a light small crew taxi (EELV or Falcon V or RLV) and send pre-built big ships up on SRBs.

Posted by Bill White at September 13, 2004 07:46 PM

Jon,
that's my leading theory of what happened in NK - a missile fuel plant evaporated. (It's in the same region as their missile facility supposedly).

Do you have a breakdown of which portions are the most expensive? Casting should be pricey, analysis should be costly... but _how_ costly?

Posted by Al at September 13, 2004 07:51 PM

Ken Talton, in answer to your question --

For lovely details see http://www.spacex.com

The short answer to your question is threefold

1)In all fairness, the modified SRB setup has greater payload than the Falcon V. The Falcon V is equivalent to the old Titan II, so only a Gemini sized manned spacecraft could be lofted to orbit. (but to my mind that is a GOOD thing, not enough time here to go into why)

2)The modified SRB will not be a single stage solid rocket, but a two stage rocket with the upper stage using liquid fuel. So the SRB is just as complicated as the Falcon V.

3)From the beginning the Falcon V has been designed as an attempt to achieve low flight costs, using all the modern technology, operational planning and engineering tricks SpaceX can come up with. On the other hand the SRB was designed to milk the taxpayers.

note to VR

The Falcon V uses SpaceX engines in both stages. Only the proposed upgrade of the Falcon V might use RL-10 engines (and just for the upper stage).

Posted by Brad at September 13, 2004 08:03 PM

PS - - To cover the basics, the cost of the current 4 segment SRB is conclusively documented by the current NASA contract. $2.4 billion buys 70 SRBs.

Posted by Bill White at September 13, 2004 08:05 PM

Bill White

If you must have an SRB Heavy Lift Vehicle with a clean sheet design upper stage, why stop at a J-2 engine? Why not use a Nuclear Thermal Rocket for the second stage? Now that would be some HLV!

And think of the money you could save, since the same upper stage could do double duty as a reusable Orbital Transfer Vehicle. The manned program is going to need NTR for the OTV anyway. By using it for your SRB upper stage you could combine development costs of the HLV with the OTV.

Think about it, if the HLV is going to put a OTV into orbit anyway, does it make any sense to not use the OTV in suborbital flight, but still use it later in LEO? Why not make the most of the NTR advantage?

Posted by Brad at September 13, 2004 08:23 PM

> he current four segment RSRM has flown over 150 times since Challenger without a single failure.

"Since Challenger."

Eh-yep.

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

> Man-rated? Its a problem since this thing might need an 8 or 10 gee escape tower for the crew.

And armor-plated kidneys, to withstand the vibrations from the SRB. It's bad enough with the Shuttle orbiter, and that's isolated from the SRBs by the external tank. The CEV, on the other hand, would be in the "optimally bad" location.

> But add a J-2 or 2 RL-60s on top of a five segment RSRM

Just "add a J-2"?

They aren't available at K-Mart. You're talking about unobtainium. Someone would have to develop them.

Posted by Edward Wright at September 13, 2004 09:25 PM

Korea? Wasn't no missile factory, they were building a dam and there just happened to be a missile factory in the way, so to save time...

Posted by Fred Kiesche at September 13, 2004 10:31 PM

If you must have an SRB Heavy Lift Vehicle with a clean sheet design upper stage, why stop at a J-2 engine? Why not use a Nuclear Thermal Rocket for the second stage? Now that would be some HLV!

Fine by me. A cis-lunar nuclear tug is one of my most coveted wish-list items.

By the way, I favor different systems for crew and cargo. A rugged robust RLV for crew and ultra cheap disposable for bulk cargo. Don't carry clean socks and MREs to LEO in your Rolls Royce spaceplane.

= = =

J-2 engines? Scott Horowitz says there are 10 or 12 still in existence, but as others have pointed out, the RL-60 might be a better choice. Even the RL-10 might work.

Challenger? Okay, including Challenger the SRB has a 99.5% success rate with over 200 uses. Name any other rocket system with over 100 uses with a 99% success rate.

Posted by Bill White at September 14, 2004 07:12 AM

Rand writes (in the main article):

Taylor Dinerman agrees with me that we need space transports, and argues that the military should be figuring out ways to encourage their development, which could make CEVs on expendables expensively superfluous.

Didn't Taylor Dinerman also write that the prospects for such an RLV being funded are not very good? Either by DOD or the private sector?

But if such an RLV is developed, shouldn't we use the cheapest option in the interim?

A Thiokol SRB booster plus RL-60s appears considerably less expensive than the Delta or Atlas alternatives on a per pound to LEO basis.

Posted by Bill White at September 14, 2004 09:29 AM

Didn't Taylor Dinerman also write that the prospects for such an RLV being funded are not very good? Either by DOD or the private sector?

Not that I know of.

A Thiokol SRB booster plus RL-60s appears considerably less expensive than the Delta or Atlas alternatives on a per pound to LEO basis.

It doesn't "appear" that way to me. It won't until I see a full description of life cycle costs.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 14, 2004 09:34 AM

This is a bit off-topic, but could Rand or someone else explain to me why the fact that an SRB can't be shut down after ignition is a problem? Why can't the SRBs simply be "cut loose" if needed, let them fly away from the orbiter, and then simply shut down the liquid-fueled engines?

I'm sure there's a good answer to this, I've just never heard it. Thanks.

Posted by dangermouse at September 14, 2004 02:22 PM

Taylor Dinerman wrote:

The chances of such an RLV emerging from the normal DoD procurement process within the next fifteen to twenty years are almost nil. Since NASA is not going to do it that leaves the private sector: Elon Musk, Burt Rutan, Jim Benson, and a few people like them. Which opens up this question: can a suborbital vehicle, such as SpaceShipOne, be the basis for something that will actually get into orbit? Say, SpaceShipFifteen?

Not from DoD and not from NASA, right?

Private sector? Dinerman appears to say this is a very open question. Can SpaceShipOne evolve into a genuine RLV? Where will the money come from?

RLVs are going to be needed by the US government at sometime within the next twenty years, if not by the military then by NASA. With tight resources, the government is going to have to look at innovative ways to nurture this strategic industry.

Government? Innovative? Since when? How does the VSE help the RLV development process?

* * *

RLVs are going to be needed by the US government at sometime within the next twenty years, if not by the military then by NASA. With tight resources, the government is going to have to look at innovative ways to nurture this strategic industry. Keeping a balance between the “beans and bullets” needs of the troops in Iraq , Afghanistan, and elsewhere, and the urgent need to maintain America’s military technological supremacy is not going to be easy. However, that’s their job, and that is one of the things they will be judged on.

This reads to me as saying RLVs are of vital importance yet our ability to actually fund and accomplish their development is very much in question.

Posted by Bill White at September 14, 2004 02:24 PM

Private sector? Dinerman appears to say this is a very open question.

"Open question" != "prospects not very good."

How does the VSE help the RLV development process?

This was explained to you in a previous thread. I tire of repeating myself.

This reads to me as saying RLVs are of vital importance yet our ability to actually fund and accomplish their development is very much in question.

It doesn't read that way to me. All it says to me is to not expect the government to directly fund them (just as well, since it would probably turn out as disastrously as Shuttle and X-33/34).

Let me guess--you're the "glass-half-empty sort"?

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 14, 2004 03:14 PM

If the SRBs aren't shut down, the structure holding them to the stack is such that they can't be easily or cleanly separated, because attachment point in compression as they drive it forward.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 14, 2004 03:16 PM

John Beadles wrote:
>However, a thrust termination system could be
>easily (sic) built into an SRB launcher. IIRC
>this was not included on the shuttle SRBs
>because there was no way to guarantee that the
>shuttle would survive the resulting aerodynamic
>instability.

And Rand wrote:
>Yes, one can put a thrust termination system on
>an SRB, but that's a major modification to the
>design, and has to be factored into the
>development cost.

I'm still reading the thread but I thought I'd point this out, (so sorry if this is a double posting :o) the SRB DOES have a 'thrust-termination system' and always has had one. It was used after the Challenger accident when the SRBs were blown up.
It wouldn't 'cost' anything :o)

Of course the fact that that is the ONLY way to stop an SRB burn....

(On a 'side' note, the development of the paraffin based hybrids has been heating up and it DOES look like scale up to SRB sized boosters is not going to be a problem...)

Randy

Posted by at September 14, 2004 03:54 PM

> Okay, including Challenger the SRB has a 99.5% success rate with over 200 uses.

Would you get on an airliner knowing that in blew up once every 200 flights?

> Name any other rocket system with over 100 uses with a 99% success rate.

XCOR type XR4A3, 558 runs.
XCOR type XR2P1, 1163 runs.

Where do people get the idea that rockets are supposed to blow up?

Posted by Edward Wright at September 14, 2004 05:20 PM

"Where do people get the idea that rockets are supposed to blow up?"

Fireworks....

Posted by Ken Talton at September 14, 2004 07:09 PM

If it's supposed to be cheap, makes one wonder why they haven't proposed this as a satellite launcher a lot earlier...

After all, if the SRB makes failure scenarios "fatal", it doesn't matter for satellites because with any kind of failure you anyway lose the precious cargo.

If the SRB first stage is a solution for anything, they are proposing it to the wrong problem.

Posted by valtteri maja at September 15, 2004 08:20 AM

It actually was proposed once, back in the eighties, in a Ben Bova novell called "Kinsman". In the novel, the USAF had a small X-37'ish vehicle called black manta with a small upper stage mounted to an SRB that launched out of Vandenburg. The idea was that it could be launched very quickly to respond to a soviet incursion on US satellites.

I have the book somewhere. IIRC it also mentioned that harsh ride up on top of an SRB.

Posted by Jon G at September 15, 2004 12:46 PM

And Rand wrote:
>Yes, one can put a thrust termination system on
>an SRB, but that's a major modification to the
>design, and has to be factored into the
>development cost.

And then Randy Wrote:
>I'm still reading the thread but I thought I'd >point this out, (so sorry if this is a double >posting :o) the SRB DOES have a 'thrust->termination system' and always has had one. It >was used after the Challenger accident when the >SRBs were blown up.
>It wouldn't 'cost' anything :o)

Duh! Of course you are right. I was focused on thrust termination of the SRBs for crew rescue purposes and missed the obvious. Thanks for pointing that out!

Posted by at September 15, 2004 03:12 PM

Note: I posted the above but missed adding my personal info. Sorry!

Posted by John Beadles at September 15, 2004 03:13 PM

John wrote:
>Note: I posted the above but missed adding my
>personal info. Sorry!

Well... we'll talk to Rand and beg for mercy... but only this once ;o)

One reason I love the idea of the Paraffin Hybrids is that you can have at least, (usually better) Solid ISP with both throttablity (is that really a word? :o) AND on/off capability.

This was exactly what AMROC was always talking about with hybrid capability, but could never show. Too bad this comes 10-15 years too late for em...

On the other hand, (insert semi-subject-change signal here)

I'm wondering why the Amateur Rocketry folks aren't all over this. I'd have suspected that a lot of the engine manufactures would have jumped at this. (Especially those that deal with hybrids)
I mean a fuel that not only is safe to ship, store and handle, but one that won't be 'limited' by any exsisting explosive regulations.
(And is pretty much safe as far as exploding anyway :o)

On the converse side I've already brought up the idea about starting a high-power rocketry engine company based on the idea and heard not a peep back from the folks. (Both at Stanford, NASA and the 'person' who is supposed to be working on commmercialization of the idea) Then again it might just be because I'm NOT a company :o)

Randy

Posted by Randy Campbell at September 15, 2004 03:42 PM

Randy,

Thanks for the paraffin hybrid tip. I had not read that before. Google found lots of interesting links.

It appears there are patents involved and therefore public discussion and/or widespread experimentation may be limited unless or until the patent holder gets funded.

Seems ideal for a low cost 100% expendable semi-SRB.

Posted by at September 15, 2004 09:05 PM

Speaking of "Man-Rating" a System, the following was posted in a link at Hobby Space on NASAs new RIF (Request for Information) for private supplied space flight:
Article link for September 16:
http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/archive/RLV/2004/RLVNews2004-09.html#Sep.16.04

NASA linked to the Man-Rating rules and guidlines:
http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_8705_0002_&page_name=main

Randy

Posted by Randy Campbell at September 16, 2004 09:47 AM

The SRBs aren't exactly bleeding edge technology.

An aquaintance of mine recently interviewed for a position at KSC with the group responsible for integrating the SRBs with the ET and preparing the stack for launch. The potential position involved resolving an issue of some piece of flight electronics that was crucial to SRB operation, but needed to be completely re-engineered because there were no original plans for the electronics, spares were running out, and there was no one left who "really" understood everything that the piece of equipment was meant to do.

I like the fact that someone out there is trying out new ideas, but it seems to me like there would probably be a significant cost in bringing SRB technology up to modern standards and adapting the SRBs for individual flight. Perhaps even as much as "man-rating" an EELV.

Warren

Posted by Warren W. Thompson at September 16, 2004 01:01 PM

The Little Hercules launchers
By Kevin ,J waldroup
Little Hercules Tourist
The Medium Lift Hercules, or Little Hercules is a solid rocket booster with a second stage hydrogen fueled J2 class rocket engine that can launch 40,000 pounds into low Earth orbit. It will able to launch the new NASA spaceship I call "Clementine".
The Little Hercules will launch government spacecraft and will also launch private based craft that will launch tourist into low Earth orbit. The spacecraft will be based on what was called back in the 70's Big Gemini. The big Gemini can launch 10 tourist instead of the Soyuz 3, or the Shenzhou which can carry 4 space tourist. The Big Gemini will use a paraglider that can be guided to an airport and landed on a runway.

The Little Hercules will use Russian spacecraft like the Soyus and the Kliper while we wait for the Big Gemini to be built. It will probably take tourist to Bigelow’s inflatable space hotels, or the International Space Station, or an external tank built space hotel.

Improved Little Hercules

The class A or basic Little Hercules design have 2 stages. A solid Rocket Booster, that is fully reusable, the chemical 2nd stage is non-reusable. The basic package will be used to launch the Clementine into low Earth orbit. This basic design will also be used to launch tourist into orbit.

The class B will add 4 strap on chemical rockets that are similar to the Long March rockets used by the Chinese. We will have to use a cleaner fuel because the United States is judged by a different standard, environmentally. With the 4 strap on boosters will be increased from 40,000 lbs to approximately 48,000 to 50,000 lbs. The class C is basically a Little Hercules with 2 solid rocket boosters attached. It will be able to lift approximately 60,000 lbs. Into low Earth orbit.
The improved Little Hercules used a 5 segment solid rocket booster with an improved chemical upper stage. This should increase the payload of the Little Hercules from 40,000lbs to 50,000lbs.

CONCLUSION
Space Tourist
By using the Little Hercules for tourism it will increase the areas where you could launch the vehicle and reduce the cost. Little Hercules launch sites could be set up around the country in various locations. By spreading the launch around the country it will reduce the likelihood of the program being reduced or canceled by congress.
Improved Little Hercules
The Little Hercules is a modular design which can be configured to launch cargo, or tourist, and astronauts. It is based on the very reliable solid rocket booster that has only failed once in its entire history. However by modifying it you might have problems with the chemical upper stage. That is why I have decided to use the j2 class engine that was part of the Saturn rocket that took us to the moon. The basic Clementine will be a basic capsule design that will have an escape tower.

References
Hercules Exploration System
by Kevin J, Waldroup
http://www.projectconstellation.us/article...s/hercules.html
Soyuz Tourist Trips to the Moon?
Space News July 27
Advanced Gemini: What NASA Needs
by Mike Majeski
http://www.projectconstellation.us/article...ced-gemini.html
Inflatable POOFs
by Taylor Dinerman
Monday, July 19, 2004
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/187/1
U.S. Expendable Launch Vehicles
p18 To 22
http://planetary.org/aimformars/study-report.pdf
Hercules Exploration System
Part Two of a series on CEV design & launch concepts
http://www.projectconstellation.us/news/archives/2004/07/28/hercules_exploration_system

Posted by kevin J waldroup at November 7, 2004 07:30 PM

Post a comment