It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Heavy Boosters

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2004 @ 03:29 PM
link   
With the initiative announced by Bush to return to the Moon and then on to Mars with manned missions I am curious to find out what we would use for heavy lift booster.

With the mothballing of the Apollo program we lost the jigs to easily build Saturn booster.

The Delta V booster has had many failures.

Shuttle solid fuel boosters used to enhance lift have dangers associated with seals.

So do we start from scratch ?, do we borrow and improve on some of the russian boosters.

Seem that we're going to have to spend alot of money just to get to where we were 30 years ago.

Anybody got any info on what might be laying on the shelf
more or less ready to build.




posted on Jan, 11 2004 @ 03:34 PM
link   
nucler power will be a big part of it for shure. dont
no about lift off but it could be the same.hope nothing
goes rong,we all have a trace of radeashon in us
from the testing of nucler bombs ive read.



posted on Jan, 11 2004 @ 03:37 PM
link   
As good as the Saturn was with modern materials a much lighter and powerful booster could be engineered.



posted on Jan, 11 2004 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
As good as the Saturn was with modern materials a much lighter and powerful booster could be engineered.


Yes I agree that with modern engines, pumps, controls along with materials improvments we could have made a major improvment in performance - it was very short sighted to scrap jigs and tooling because we cannot replicate without a heavy reinvestment in infrastructure.



posted on Jan, 11 2004 @ 04:11 PM
link   
I am pretty sure we will need some kind of new booster, not heavier. But this manned moon base is quite cool, IMO. Can't wait for that, can't wait. As for heavier boosters, I think the government has a new technology, that will go public before the missions to Mars begin. This is all speculation, of course, though.

-wD



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 03:17 PM
link   
what would that be? anti grav?



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 03:58 PM
link   
I can bet that Bush is going to resurect the Venturestar
(x-33 if I remember right) and if he doesn't I'm sure that the linear aerospice engines will come in action this time.



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 04:12 PM
link   
If the technology exists, (and I think it does) I just don't see anti-gravity coming out of the "black" anytime soon.

2 reasons...
1. To keep the technology out of the hands of possible adversaries -
(explanation: if they know it is indeed possible and someone else has done it, then their researchers will turn all their resources in that direction, and they will crack the code eventually too - thus nullifying any "edge" the US military industry may have over a potential adversary)

2. Any research you do on this technology and it becomes evident that there would be too many theoretical off-shoot technologies that could put WMD's in the hands of more irresponsible people than the folks who have them now.



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by vorazechul
I can bet that Bush is going to resurect the Venturestar
(x-33 if I remember right) and if he doesn't I'm sure that the linear aerospice engines will come in action this time.

That's almost a done deal....
NASA cancelled the X-33 program - but Rumsfeld had a bridge fund created that would keep the space plane from getting totally abandoned to the end of 2001. After that the USAF probably got ahold of it and continued development although that is opinion and I have no reference links to provide.

Now I have read somewhere recently that the space plane project that Bush is now advocating will most likely be the resurected X-33... (I can try to find a link if you're interested)
Which they will not need to pull out of mothballs, but rather just move back into the NASA fold from the USAF.



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 04:44 PM
link   


That's almost a done deal....


so I have almost won my bet



But I would really like to read more

PS: and about your u2u ...I willtry to get a bit more familiar with the theme so I can give you a proper opinion (that could take a while)



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 05:23 PM
link   
No expensive boosters are necessary. We have craft that can make the trip in minutes.

ANTI GRAVITY CRAFT



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 10:48 AM
link   
I also hope they resurrect the x 33 because we still use old rocket tech and linear spike engine is much more advanced.



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 10:57 AM
link   
It looks to me like they will start over but I see a lot of new ideas to draw from such as new ideas for initial lifts eg. even balloons for example or piggyback on aircraft etc.

Otherwise I see all new solid fuel rockets with computer control to prevent problems that have occurred in past.

Propulsion can be fuel cells, or nuclear now.

As noted by other posters here, materials, design and computer tech as well as controls dwarfs the initial ventures to the moon in complexity and in some cases even reliability.

Plus, I see a strong role for the private sector this time around vs the first endeavours.

Now on the subject of anti-grav, we do not have true anti-grav tech despite what Dr. Boylan suggests because if we did, then we would have true time travel capability also. We do have gravatic disruptor technology though.

Time travel is and has been explored in many other avenues even as Remote viewing.



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 02:15 PM
link   
militairy version by lockheedmartin of the x33

www.lockheedmartin.com...

attention in pdf format

look at page 11 of 54

[Edited on 13-1-2004 by MarkLuitzen]



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
militairy version by lockheedmartin of the x33
www.lockheedmartin.com...

I checked it out....
ya know those tiles sure are ugly on that illustration....
sigh...



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 02:32 PM
link   
x 33 is stil a current project .. because boeing site ...
www.boeing.com...



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
linear spike engine is much more advanced.

Well it's still based on old rocket technology. The traditional bell-shaped nozzles get inefficient at higher altitudes, the linear spike engine is much more efficient, even at high altitudes.



but for a mission to mars, the X-33 is way too small.

Does anyone know if the new Boeing Delta IV Heavy can do the job? It is designed to lift up to 13,130 kg (28,950 lb).
www.air-attack.com...



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 03:02 PM
link   
is it good for earth too moon misions? for people and for materials?



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
is it good for earth too moon misions? for people and for materials?

I dunno, that's why I asked it. I'm not really into space vehicles and stuff like that.
What I do know is that the Appollo was the biggest rocket ever build...

Anyone?



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 04:03 PM
link   
saturnes 5 boosters where used for the apollo project. but the rusian energia boosters are powerfull as well



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join