IntenseDebate - Charles Pooley

12 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Revi... · 0 replies · +2 points

OOPS--time for spaceshow is 4 PM EST, and 1 PM for west coast.. The Foreign Affairs article is 12 pages and is roughly, the theme of the book

12 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Revi... · 0 replies · +1 points

Like most, he thinks of the problem in terms of NASA scale--in large, collectivist, expensive forms which do not provide much excitement or a sense of partication, as the Altair and it progeny did for computer ownership.

He is to be interviewed tomorrow (at speciat time 4 pm PST) on Spaceshow.

I've read his book and the Foreign Affairs article, and plan to contact him about a new way to start exploration in a manner analogous to the PC: Microlaunchers.

This sidesteps the zero sum game of competing for funds, and creates a path to direct involvement that the present aftermath of Apollo cannot do.

12 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Not ... · 1 reply · 0 points

"So what is the killer app that will settle the Moon? Is it surviving a disaster? Is it luxury condos? Is it platinum mining?"

Microlaunchers can lead to settling the Moon, by creating a culture with hands-on experience with launching, conducting flights to near Earth asteroids, etc for many, with the microcomputer analog of launch system.

We all know what the Altair and progeny led us to. This can happen with space. Small. Incremental, not by trying to leap directly to large scale unaffordable projects few have a chance to participate in.

First build a culture, then to the Moon...

14 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Clin... · 0 replies · +1 points

15 to 20 years ago I recall a group from Southern California who went a near passing comet, and have not aged a day since then. Anybody know about this?

14 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Why ... · 3 replies · +1 points

Since Apollo and "beating the Russians" there has been no driving cause or mission to captivate, enthuse the populace, and the current situation is not likely to improve the prospects of growth in space exploration. Needed is a new paradigm, a new way to engage large numbers and grow incrementally, as happened with the microcomputer. Microlaunchers is an attempt to persue that idea. http://www.microlaunchers.com/

14 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Can ... · 0 replies · 0 points

With Microlaunchers ( http://www.microlaunchers.com/ ) I have been advocating an analog to the microcomputer and its evolution to what I type this message on. A recent Google Tech Talk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtTeG_HElNk and a presentation of a neweer, lower entry threshold http://www.microlaunchers.com/7816/L3/sa09/sa09.h... explasin this some. The present regulatory environment, costs of available components make this a candidate for just such a breakthrough

14 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Chea... · 0 replies · +1 points

The main factor in high cost of development is the culture in which it is now done since the days of Goddard. Large scale MIL specifications and civilian version of that.

This is highly "collectivist", many more people involved than needed, extensive paperwork etc. There is nothing inherently expensive about the engines themselves. They can be designed by small entities--that just has not quite happened yet, but can.

As to TSTO: engineering, physics make that the only practical way to place mass in orbit. m
SSTO requires an engine design that works well at sea level and vacuum, and places too high a mass raqtio requrement to be feasible. The booster part of a TSTO can be made recoverable, and needs only to take the upper stage to vacuum--say over 50 km altitude.

The other key requirement for starting a space industry is to begin with a small system which can involve more people with a lower "entry cost" as happened with microcomputers--ie. Microlaunchers.

14 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Chea... · 2 replies · +1 points

In 1993, in connection with a rocket project I thought of and documented an "afterburner" nozzle which is exactly the TAN. It was thought of as a way to have a brief 2-3 times thrust increase for the early part of an ascent from the ground, bny injecting propellants just downstream of the throat. The higher mass flow and temperature of the exhaust would also allow a larger exit area at sea level than otherwise posible.

It was never used, as it appeared that the engineering time, complexity did not justify the slight performance improvement. Thjings are copnstantly reinvented independently because physical requirements are in common, so similar solutions will often occur independently. Same happened with a proposed liquid nitrogen pressurizer, designed before I found the Russians had been doing it for 50 years.

14 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Chea... · 0 replies · +1 points

Such technology as nanotechnology is not needed. Good structural and cheap initial booster stages can use irrigation tubing for tanks. See the first 2 slides of a prsenntation in which a low cost project was mentioned:
http://www.microlaunchers.com/7816/L3/sa05/sa05.h...
This method is good for stages weighing up to several tons gross liftoff weight (GLOW).

IntenseDebate Comment System

Description

Connect with Charles Pooley

People I'm following

Charles Pooley