Here's a pretty good article about what's going on in that area, with a lot of discussion of NewSpace players.

Dear Fellow Scientist,

NASA's rocket technology not for real space exploration but here is one.

Sir, don't be dismayed to see how little information there is on the internet. Despite that, I hope you totally understand my need for anonymity. Assuming that the technology is as effective as I say it is, releasing it to the public in all its splendor could make the world think that a) I am off my rocker, b) that I'm completely wrong or c) just some sci-fi aficionado who's gone a bit too far.

Sad state of affairs, but hey, that's the price of true innovation right?

http://nlspropulsion.net

Regards,

The Inventor

cool website if doable, that would solve one of the biggest of my problems for my ideas since I was 10.

Here's a pretty good article about what's going on in that area, with a lot of discussion of NewSpace players.

Operationally Responsive Space may be a good angle for directing DoD funding into launch cost reductions, but the military eventually needs to be steered in another direction. Any war involving general a-sat attacks would be an orbital MAD, depriving the entire world of access to LEO, and even ORS launches would be worthless during an active Kessler Syndrome. Under such a scenario, even with the best imaginable ORS system, the military would quickly be reduced to 1950s technology--stratospheric sounding rockets and high-altitude reconnaisance aircraft. Clearly, then, ORS is not a realistic long-term strategy, and has the potential to drive an arms race virtually guaranteed to play a role in future conflicts; something we all have an interest in preventing.

But leaving aside the secondary consequences, the United States is not in a position to benefit from or win such an arms race. Regardless of how quickly we can lob something into orbit, we still have to manufacture the satellites, while the enemy only has to send up a single metal golf ball for each of our (at best) 7-figure sats. Add that to the fact that our likeliest enemy, China, is expected to have a far larger economy and military budget than the United States, and it seems that a space conflict would be rather one-sided.

Moreover, even if the United States and China never come to blows, we should remember just how many nations will be getting into the space game over coming decades. If any two of them come to blows in space, or any one of them builds and deploys sufficient a-sat capability to set off a chain reaction, the Kessler Syndrome could occur just the same. So, given that the long-term usefulness of ORS is limited, and its negative potential is high, what are the alternatives?

The only reason for ORS, and hence the basis for the consequent arms race, is to maintain existing assets--namely, military satellites. But might comparable capabilities be delivered, at least in theory, without utilizing orbit? With plausible advances in UAVs and balloons, including perhaps high-altitude flight and autonomous refueling, could similar reconnaisance and communications functions be served without satellites? Given high volume, might they not even be more robust than satellites, facing no debris hazard from destroyed units?

Even if the capability isn't comparable, and could never be so, the reasons outlined above still make it preferable to begin negotiating the global demilitarization of space. Whoever seeks to deny access to space in a conflict has the greatest advantage, so it is to everyone's mutual advantage to ensure that the motivation for doing so is minimized. I say use ORS for the next decade to improve launch costs, all the while using it as a bargaining chip, and then cash it in favor of a treaty system of some sort.

http://nlspropulsion.net

ROFLMAO!

The link above is a quote from "the inventor," BTW, followed by my response to it--not anything related to my ORS commentary.

"negotiating the global demilitarization of space"

Yes, like the Washington Naval Treaty signed with the Empire of Japan in 1922? Quite effective.

"Add that to the fact that our likeliest enemy, China, is expected to have a far larger economy and military budget than the United States, and it seems that a space conflict would be rather one-sided.
"

Oh yes, those wiley Japanese er Chinese are gonna outdo us.........mabey if the democrats sufficiently hobble our capital formation with regressive tax policies.

Brian, you wrote:

Any war involving general a-sat attacks would be an orbital MAD, depriving the entire world of access to LEO, and even ORS launches would be worthless during an active Kessler Syndrome.

I doubt that. ORS launches would have a short lifespan anyway and probably be at an altitude that the atmosphere sweeps clear in a relatively short while (ie, less than 500 km). And MAD doesn't apply here since there's no mutually assured destruction here.

Mike, you wrote:

Oh yes, those wiley Japanese er Chinese are gonna outdo us.........mabey if the democrats sufficiently hobble our capital formation with regressive tax policies.

You chose a poor analogy with the Japanese. They effectively commited economic self-mutilatiion after the 1990 recession. One shoudn't count on one's foes to do that sort of thing.

Second, China only needs to achieve a GDP per capita roughly a quarter to a third of the US (depending on the relative population of the two countries when this occurs) in order to have a similar sized economy. And it is growing more rapidly than the US.

Finally, the Democrats aren't the only ones undermining US competitiveness. The ethanol subsidy had bipartisan support, for example. And the various vague "wars" on terror, drugs, crime, etc rather than concrete threats to the US seem counterproductive.

Hi, there!..
81cf2759987abd109a56051a71b570dc