I seem to remember an accident involving a high-speed train in Germany. The train was equipped with composite "tires" fitted to the wheels. They were not properly x-rayed over time. That and some damage to the track speled disaster.

It may be a good idea to have some x-ray equipment on your cabs to scan the interface and the ribbon itself for defects.

You've sold me.

The notion of a jacket makes a world of sense. It is always best to have some margin. I don't think it would be "overbuilding" to have it share some of the load of the CNTs within as a back up.

People who bring up valid technical criticism or questions are answered as best as the board members can handle.

I have seen no evidence of that as per below...

  But multiple board members seem to think that your posts are offensive and not constructive.  Yes, we know you think Heavy Lift is the greatest thing since sliced bread.  Go bang your drum somewhere else, though.  These forums are dedicated to the space elevator, not heavy lift rockets.

It is precisely that narrow mindedness that will hobble your efforts, as per my analogy at bottom.

 You've expressed your belief that heavy lift is important to building the SE, and people replied to your post, which is fine.

Thank you.

 But by turning just about every single post into harping about heavy lift...

If you have been paying attention, I posted links on asteroids that may be easily captured for future, larger space elevators, and have suggested resources and contacts.(Norm Nixon and his freedom concept--perhaps the builders of the TROLL platform...)

 There was a somewhat off topic thread--that I did not start by the way-- about follow-ons to SS1, where I suggested that Rutan influence the construction of large transport planes to replace the C-5 Galaxy. In this way, such transport aircraft would be built by major contractors, leaving Rutan free to focus more upon the next space vehicle, conserving his own resources.

This suggestion was moved--for some reason-- to Fighting Words, when the bulk of the piece had nothing at all to do with heavy-lift--and directly related to the subject at hand.

All this comes down to logistics. It is not so much the space elevator you want to build for its own sake--but what it gives you. I am no different.

All I ask is that you remember similar discussions in the past when it came to air transport of fuel--in a debate very similar to this one.

In WWII, certain leaders wanted to base B-29 bombers in Asia. Most of what they concerned themselves with--narrow-mindedly--was an airbridge, and how to best fly fuel "over the hump" to support airbases there. Read EELV construction of space elevators.

When outsiders--NAVY-types, suggested that bases be built on islands and fuel supplied by SHIPS (the HLLVs of the time)--they got the same flak from the flyboys then that I am getting now.

"How does this arguement relate to the needs of our skybridge?"

The island hopping campaign was bloody--as are my posts in certain ways.

But we saw which tactic won. One ship could carry far more fuel to air-bases than could be flown in, along routes that were littered with the remains of crashed planes--which was how you knew you were still on course.

So we can stay the course with the airbridge (EELV construction of SEs) or we can follow the naval model I suggest.

The space elevator of the day would be, say, a magical train bridge from the mainland to the islands. One that could only be built--if at all--with the use of large ships--not airplanes.

Where to begin...

The publiusr arguments are full of logic flaws. I'm not going to get into a list of them,

 How about I list yours then?


They include the "ad hominem" and "argument from authority" genres:

Hu Davis and Buzz Aldrin aren't authorities then?

"So adequate lift capability has nothing to do with space elevator construction?" Nobody said that except you! Nobody implied it.

All I have heard is how "irelevant" it is to space elevator discussion.


The problem is that nobody wants to argue, nor do we want to be continuously proselytized on the heavy lift topic. Especially when you don't even have your facts straight about that.

I have my facts straight--you are in error--as proved below.

1. Get a book on basic logic and then read it (you better read it twice)
2. Educate yourself about Buran and what it's lift might have been had the project been successful. It's capacity would have been 30 tons of payload, not 100 tons.

The first is exactly the same kind of personal attacks you have so wrongly accused me of. I have educated myself on Buran--where you obviously have not--otherwise you would have known--had you been paying attention--that Buran, unlike our Columbia style orbiters--is just one of many payloads of the modular Energiya launch system I advocate.

This due to the fact that the hydrogen engines are not on the orbiter--but under the ET--making Energia its own rocket! So it could carry orbiters with, 30 tons of payload--OR BE SWAPPED OUT WITH 100 TON PODS, LIKE THE ENERGIYA GTK OR POLYUS!

http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/e/enerlvs.gif
(Perfect for a space elevator)

www.k26.com/buran

I know a bit more about Energiya/Buran than you do--enough to know that its kerosene strap-ons are the basis for the Sea Launch vehicle, Zenit--and the half-strength version of its engine--the RD-180--is used on Atlas V.

5. You don't need to demand to be removed, YOU CAN DO IT YOURSELF

On the other hand--I thought I'd stay and correct your mistakes.

Enough.

To answer a question asked me--would heavy-lift get us under $100-$200 per kilogram? Yes--if you use this:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/searagon.htm

Don't laugh--the father of the original Atlas proposed Sea Dragon. Bill Sprague of American Astronautics supports it, as does John London--author of LEO ON THE CHEAP--and cheap access to space is the topic of this thread--not space elevators themselves--at least here.

John London is at NASA Marshall, and advocates large, simple non-winged pressure fed designs. Such a craft would be perfect for space elevator construction--especially if the mass of the cable is greater than previously thought.

http://www.dunnspace.com/leo_on_the_cheap.htm

Shuttle-derived HLLVs, with hydrogen RS-68s from Rocketdyne under a LockMart tank--are being pushed--especially by the folks in Michold who build ETs--who know their heads would be cut off by EELV/capsule launches. Such a design keeps all the contractors in the loop and keeps jobs where they are.

This Shuttle-derived HLLV would be an "American Energiya."

 Sea Dragon is larger--but simpler, and some interest has been generated in that design.

****************************************************

As far as winged designs go--some of you may be familiar with these designs:

http://utenti.lycos.it/paoloulivi/misc.html

http://utenti.lycos.it/paoloulivi/gerkules.jpg

http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/winged.htm

The second webpage of these two shows a craft that is a double-boom design--basically an AN-225 version of the twin fuselage C-5A first considered as a shuttle orbiter transport. The "Herkules" looks bigger than it is due to thin fuselages connected by a canard/wing at the nose. The wings are AN-225 wings.

If any of you are in contact with Rutan you might suggest this general design to him, seeing that some wish to replace the C-5 before too long. Boeing wants the semi-WIGE, Spruce-Goose-like PELICAN--but a twin boom design that could be used for both military transport and a first stage booster might be an easier sell.

The new, bigger, White Knight craft that Rutan wants to build will be rather more limited in multi-role missions. As much as he may want to keep everything in-house--he may have to compromise, especially if Branson wanders off--seeing how distracted he is by shiny objects.

The key is to influence someone else to pay for a transport--where all he and Allen would have to spring for is the spaceplane. If he or others can do that--they will be ahead of the curve. Boeing is hurt right now, with charges of theft (Satchell/Alexio/Druyen, etc) and probably wants your tax-dollars to pay for another ho-hum twinjet (7E7).

If you guys could convince Rutan to talk to McCain--who is rather disgusted with Boeing right now--to apply pressure (otherwise they lose the tanker contract)--you will find Boeing to be more tractable to his 'suggestions.'

Rutan may not like sleeping with the Gov't--but he must be made to understand realpolitic. Private initiative can only go so far in this modern world of ours (sigh)--so Rutan will have to learn to manipulate events in the manner of the ruthless, Stalinist Soviet Chief Designers using the old Russian tactic of "What is mine--is mine...but what is yours is negotiable."

He has to make his interests also those of others. SpaceDev may be his biggest rival--with a center of envelope X-34 design that uses the same powerplant. The Falcon rocket of Musk is once again having technical problems. I wonder if it is the turbopumps again. This is why London--and others, like pressure feds.

A SpaceDev type dropped from a large transport would be a real spaceship, and perhaps the best hope for private winged craft--if the larger companies can be pressured into making a large transport that can also serve the needs of spaceflight.

How was that an insult? Why is support for heavy lift "fanatical" but support for 22,500 mile structures is not?

You support the notion of space elevators--which most would scoff at--so you must have some passion for the subject. All I ask is you respect the role of heavy-lift (and the engine out ability it offers) as well.

 "But you do seem to be under the assumption that heavy lift MUST come first for any chance of an SE to succeed. That is not correct."

How do you know that it is not correct? That is a rather premature surmise.

...not your dream/crusade for heavy lift... And that isn't insulting language?

We can't manufacture the material on Earth yet, let alone in space.

?


My point above is that if you are waiting to do on Earth what may  only be done in space thru large scale--you may be waiting a long time.

********************************************

Let me try an analogy. Take the American experience with railroads. By the time rails were used--you already had destinations to be linked that were established with the heavy-lift of the time--that being sailing ships.

Once you had a Gold Rush and ports and other destinations built by wagon trains and other methods of transport--did the rails have a chance. Then you had the industrial northeast to be linked with the Cotton Belt--to the Breadbasket and the West Coast. The mega-project that was the railway system came later.


Now contrast this with Soviet railways that were built as a means of exploration first--what you had were huge rails linking one iced-in port to the next--from one reindeer town to the next. This is akin to the "let's neglect lift capability and try the space elevator with existing boosters" arguement you are making now.

 If a large bridge across the Bering strait can be built to link Russia to an already-developed destination like the US--where we can buy oil and gas from them--then the Trans-Siberian will pay for itself once it has large, already explored/settled regions to link with to justify its costs. If anything, it may make more sense to call for such a Bering strait bridge first, with a tax on oil/gas from it to pay for a space elevator, once HLLVs loft destinations for the space elevators to link with to justify the costs of the space elevators.

Right now, with the Bush exploration initiative, heavy-lift has some support. A space elevator project would be one selling point from this and the existance of such HLLVs would, as you yourself admit.. advance the space elevator timeline considerably.


BTW It may be wise to try the individual Norm Nixon--of the super-ship Freedom that is to be a huge duty-free 'floating island' with your concept. You may be able to turn his interest to space elevators. In any event, such a structure may in fact make for a better base than an oil platform for a space elevator, due to its greater mass and stability. His super-ship Freedom was in Popular Mechanics some time ago. Has anyone thought to try to contact his project?

If nothing else, the methods for building his ship may be applicable to the base of a space elevator.

The key to any project is the combination of disparate interests. This is why the charges of this or that being irelevent are so trying to me--seeing that most of the advances we now enjoy come from non-goal-directed research.

For example--Norm Nixon may not get the funding he needs for his Freedom super-ship. You may not get the funding you need for a Space elevator.

But if you can put your heads together and have one be the base of the other, your combined efforts (for what started off as two unrelated projects) may get a result that neither of you could effect on your own.

HLLV advocacy may just be what makes Elevators possible--or Nixon's super ship--or perhaps all three together.

You open up more doors when you don't consider things irrelevant.

How was that an insult? Why is support for heavy lift "fanatical" but support for 22,500 mile structures is not?

You support the notion of space elevators--which most would scoff at--so you must have some passion on the subject. All I ask is you respect the role of heavy-lift (and the engine out ability it offers) as well.

No place in your heart for critics either? :razz:

Max Faget has died...
Will there be another like him?

I myself request to be taken off this board. if you can't handle critics without being a little man and throwing your weight around--fine.

So adequate lift capability has nothing to do with space elevator construction? You and others here have so fooled yourselves into thinking relavent topics aren't relavent that you have cast a chilling pall over those with disagreements. You are not going to be able to answer critics by trying to silence them.

You are under the assumption that a space elevator must come first so that large space structures can come later. Did it ever occur to you even for a moment that the breakthroughs you need to build the space elvator might have to be done in large scale FIRST? That large scale materials research aboard large HLLV-lofted platforms (that can perhaps 'spin' cables) may be vital to your project is far from irelevant, even if you call them so by fiat.

If you think I am tough, wait till you try to get funding from a Jeff Bell type who will ask you...

"You want to build a 22,500+ mile WHAT?"

Everything I have said here is relavent. I in fact admire the AF pro-space cadets you have on this. It is the folks over them I worry about. Just talk to Pete Worden, and see how he was ignored. I am starting to wonder if the cadets were assigned to this just as a way to keep them busy--as make work.

If you cannot handle this critic without making threats, then I myself request that I be taken off this board.

Just remember this space elevator is a mega project, and you are going to need all the help you can get.

Wrong again. With large HLLV lifted manufacturing platforms we would have been ahead of the curve in materials due to BULK research. ISS is only a failure because the limited 20-tons-at-a-time assembly in not yet completed. Heavy-Lift is and should be part of the topic for this reason alone.

I see you haven't addressed my link showing the real cost of medium lift above. Heavy-lift will be vital to Space Elevator construction, if it is to be done correctly.

Or do you think that employee of Northrup who wrote about the need for heavy-lift is incorrect as well?

Let me try this article on you then.

http://www.starbooster.com/TALAYPanel3FINAL.pdf
Hu Davis and Buzz Aldrin would like something like this. I guess they are wrong too then?

Try these sites:
http://www.starbooster.com/TALAYPanel3FINAL.pdf
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/hearing_on_space_tourism_testimony_by_buzz_aldrin.shtml

It doesn't have to be either/or. My point is that the HLLV is the best way to build that 200 ton capable space elevator. It will simply hold more tether/cable--and the greater mass of the payload will allow for lessened reboost rates. EELVs are not the way to go. It is the EELVs we don't need.

Lets say you want a Mars ship. If you try to manufature the tankage there--you will need a large facility already in orbit. A large, Shuttle Derived HLLV gives you a nice counter weight. Our orbiter as it is, could place the shuttle External Tank in orbit as a wet-stage facility:

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/geode_commercial_space_production_facility.shtml

The author was given the blessing from NASA to present recently.


This is perfect as a "top floor" of a space elevator once given a boost.
A shuttle-derived HLLV would be able not only to carry large cables/tethers, but these simple, monolithic structures. The metal surfaces are such that equipment can be hard mounted to them--with the Trans-Hab used as a communal jump area. You don't want to be mounting structures to those inflatables, after all.

http://www.starbooster.com/TALAYPanel3FINAL.pdf

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/hearing_on_space_tourism_testimony_by_buzz_aldrin.shtml

I agree with you, Windemut. The law of physics are such that there will always be so much you can do with a rocket of a certain size. To do more--you need more.

As far as ballistic recovery is concerned, there are several who would agree with you. The father of the original ATLAS, Bob Truax, wanted large pressure-feds. Bill Sprague over at www.americanastronautics.com also wants ballistic recovery.

There are some engineers who want wings on everything. And there are those who want wings on nothing. I favor a mix. Ballistic recovery for unmanned, pressure-fed (or hybrid or pure solid) boosters, with a winged orbiter.

I know a lot of people have been told that is a bad mix, but only because out shuttle was very complex in that it had three SSMEs that were re-usable, but not very servicable. A fly-back booster may not have as much heating--but it will have a complex aft boat-tail--unless it is a hybrid.

A Buran type orbiter is rugged and simple. It only needs orbital insertion engines--not all that more powerful than on Rutan's craft. But instead of returning a large fuselage with air, it can return 20 tons of cargo. Its fuselage need not be pressurized.

I am one of the few who questions the 'don't mix crew and cargo' myth. OSP would have been $13-17 billion, as much or more than the Energiya/Buran program which gave us an HLLV and the Zenit (RD-170) kerostrap-ons that Boeing is using. Parallel-staging allows for modularity. The first stage of the Saturn V could not be used as an EELV class booster, as the Zenits were.
With two strap-ons, Energiya could launch 40 tons or so. With four--100; with six, 130-150; with eight and an in-line config--200 tons or so.

By building something underoptimised and overpowered--you have room to grow. The Titans are over-optimised and underpowerd for missions like JIMO.

Imagine if the US had built Energiya and the USSR had built Columbia.

The first shuttle launch of ours would have been a simple 100 ton payload pod--a simple skylab hull with little valuable tech--so if the first vehicle was lost--we would only lose an orbiter-mass boilerplate. Later 100 ton pods would assemble Space Station Freedom quickly, and simple Buran-style orbiters with only orbital insertion engines would allow astronauts to apply force precisely with a stable platform as large as the 100 ton pods.

This space station would have been closer to an equitorial orbit to start with.
Useful as a space elevator starting point.

Simple Buran style orbiters would leave 20 ton canisters of raw goods, retrieving them after large, 100 ton free-flyer space factories convert them into canisters of processed goods to be returned on simple, servicable orbiters. The HLLVs would also be used for moon-missions to reduce the boil-off EELV assembly would hobble us with. EELVs will place payloads no larger than the shuttle--keeping space elevator construction limited as with the 20 ton at a time ISS construction--that would have been completed by now with HLLVs.

If the orbiters were grounded--we still have the finished station and the HLLV out of the deal. We would have the Zenit strap-ons in the 80's as EELVs--had we built the Energiya system and the Soviets build the Columbia style STS.

 Flying in a heads-up fashion like Buran limits foam strikes. In line mini-spaceplanes are unsafe due to pitch loads and bending moments that will try to tear them off the top of ELVs--that are made for axial loads. This is why Dennis Smith and Dan Dumbacher wanted X-37/X-40 type vehicles inside a shroud--if you will remember your Space News articles. The original shuttle was TSTO. While that works well for suborbital craft like Rutan's, having what is in effect a winged, engine-equipped shuttle External Tank come back--even if the orbiter is simple--without cargo--is worse. You have twice the weight of wings, twice the landing gear, twice everything.

By mixing crew and cargo--but keeping the vast bulk of engines, tankage and propellant mass outside the airframe--you have a rugged orbiter scaled up big enough to be useful--but compact enough to be buildable, unlike the cryogenic hypersonic dirigible/eggshells like X-33 and SLI craft.

Energiya would have given us a modularity we could really have used. And no--it did not bankrupt the USSR, as some would have you believe. Their N-1 cost as much or more in the late 1960s-early 1970s--and the Soviet Union was actually increasing in power at that time, with larger submarines and other projects and wars (Afghanistan) that came later that truly sapped its power--like fighting Muslims in parts of the world they had no business in--if that sounds familiar.

If we had builtthe modular Energiya/Buran--and had flown it and 100 ton payload pods the 100 times we flew Columbia style orbiters--we would have space elevators TODAY.


Large scale has its support http://www.thespacereview.com/article/150/1
www.k26.com/buran