Indeed I've learned again from the posts here. The Buran had some
good ideas, it appears, and they did run out of money. Of course,
look at what is happening to the US space program... Shuttle flight
cutbacks, ISS cutbacks (in spite of agreements we signed with our
international partners). We should double our space budget, IMHO,
and maybe take some of that from the bloated pentagon budget.

Russian space tech did come up with a series of Salyuts and MIR,
and their life support systems on Zarya (?)module are helping the ISS
crew breathe today. The Progress freighters were a nice touch, fully
automated resupply craft (better than our modules that need a
Shuttle). I was just making a point in my previous post, that the US
at least did field a different, partly-reusable space transport
system beginning in 1981 that no other nation was able to match. OK,
enough of the drum-beating nationalism. Today, we all have to work
together.

I would take the aformentioned $100 million and put it into a
new, novel launch system. Better, yet, we need to build a space
elevator. if we can string telephone cables across 3,000 miles of
ocean, then surely, surely we can string one from here to LEO.
Someone will do it, only a matter of time.

FYI, check out the latest Discover magazine for a great article on
X-prize contenders!

Since $100 million will only buy you half of a production 747, it might
not be quite enough to develop a new launch vehicle. For example, the
USAF is developing a new fighter. Development costs are expected to be
$200 billion (that's with a B).

On a space elevator, if it's fixed at the ground the center of mass must
be a geosynchronous orbit (40,000 km up) for the cable to stay attached
the same point on the ground. There are proposals for shorter rotating
tethers that grab payload from a rocket at it's high-point -- but the
hand-off looks very difficult. In any case, although tether based
launched systems are worth research (IMHO), they are a very long, risky
road away from operation.

On Wednesday, June 5, 2002, at 02:57 PM, gardener1_98 wrote:

> I would take the aformentioned $100 million and put it into a
> new, novel launch system. Better, yet, we need to build a space
> elevator. if we can string telephone cables across 3,000 miles of
> ocean, then surely, surely we can string one from here to LEO.
> Someone will do it, only a matter of time.
>

Space tourism could be our ticket to the stars. Save your pennies,
suborbital flights for $100,000 may start in 2005! See
http://www.spaceadventures.com/suborbital for details.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

forget the production 747 for $180m , thats a USA product and WAY to
expensive to be talking when we are trying to bootstrap a system. ONLY by
dealing with Ruskie techies and Indian techies and perhaps some Chinese
manufaturers can we get something going.

Besides, when i talk of civil aircraft I'm talking spare parts and such
scavenged from them.

For a little side project Im working on I need a couple of 737 to move cargo
and people... I have found perfectly usable used ones for under $10 million,
even under $5m a piece...granted the engines are too noisy to meet USA sound
levels for internal USA flights, but I can fly in and out of USA gateways
legally regardless of sound levels :-)

were looking for cheap, good way to get space borne....dealing with USA
contractors for the most part aint the way to do it. TOO expensive and
bloated and slow. You need pioneers again, fresh creative folks that dont
think throwing money is the solution to everything. Again i give you the
NASA space pen vs. the Ruskies space pencil :-)

Now we have gotten something tangible; the Ruskies have a shuttle thats
doable and under utilized for now. We can do neighbor hood lotteries for $10
buck a ticket to pay for it all and move actual seats. We know the Ruskies
are open to enterprise-marketing of their Space vehicles....

What else do we need? we're done!

Have someone talk to Bush and allow the ruskies to take off the MIRV's from
the ICBM's but still use the boosters to cluster around the Ruskie shuttle;
recycle the rockets, found money.

Theres what, like 20,000 boosters to dis assemble? How many launches can we
get from those? Say 20 boosters (to ensure they are goig to lite-up :-)
per launch thats 1000 launches and at 12 launches per year, shoot were set
for 80 years which hopefully some other system to orbit will be developed
(sky hook, etc.)

any questions?

We're making plans for a space pad anyways with the island project...so I'll
be more than happy to host the launches. Where we are we have no hurricanes,
so that will help a bit :-) and we are around 8' above equator which will
help get up to speed for equitorial track.

I'm searching the web now for possible convenioence store locations for
lottery sales.

At last something doable instead of musing over minions :-P

Both the US and the USSR have programs to use old ICBMs as small payload
launchers. ICBMs are designed to be sub-orbital with relatively small
payloads so putting tourists into space with them probably isn't an
option. The Buran route seems the most promising for a relatively cheap
weekend in space at high risk.

On Wednesday, June 5, 2002, at 06:20 PM, panamabob wrote:

> Have someone talk to Bush and allow the ruskies to take off the MIRV's
> from
> the ICBM's but still use the boosters to cluster around the Ruskie
> shuttle;
> recycle the rockets, found money.

The materials in one asteroid (the largest ) are sufficient to make
orbital space colonies with ~500 times the surface area of the Earth in
usable real estate. See http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/
for details.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

I'm sorry , I had heard that the US was insisting on destroying the Ruskie
boosters (no not from a movie :-)

Yes generally suborbital as far as fuel source, but lickity fast as far as
speed...The ruskies ended up with more payload in their orbital because they
got no engine in it :-) The extra space and weight saved helps with
payload. Plus they are talking of stretching it just like Boeng stretches
Jets (like the 747 heavy) to get more cargo, pax space without having to
dedo the whole design and certification process, (long and hard) .

So the ruskies answer was to bundle together as many boosters as needed to
lift payload and attain LEO or geo sync. depending on mission.

Since you can already buy a ticket for a sub orbital ride on a high flying
military jet (100,000 ft ?) the deal would be for actual orbit capability.

Perhaps staging them like the Delta rocket was designed for could lower the
drag of a "fat" rocket made up of rings af boosters surrounding the shuttle.

Lets get on to selling lottery tickets. :-)

bob
SLF