Re: starship-design: FTL travel

[KellySt@aol.com]

In a message dated 4/16/00 12:56:00 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes:

>"L. Parker" wrote:
>> 
>> > Well lets get the ball rolling...
>> 
>> That is why I keep forwarding all those space access posts, If we don't
>get
>> started on the infrastructure, it will never happen. Low cost access
>to
>> space is the first step.
>> 
>> BTW, you should look at Delta Clipper. They killed the best possibility
>for
>> a lander for an interstellar mission. Strong, robust, land anywhere and
>> single stage to orbit....

Certainly killed the best chance for a low cost launcher in the current day.  
Which is very likely the reason NASA killed it.


>> Lee
>
>It is a good design, but better for a smaller gravity well than the
>earth.==

It was designed for a grav like Earths?

>For bootstrapping into space, I bet my $.43 for a 3 stage Reusable
>craft.
>Manned CH4,O2 plane launch to high alitude, just under mach 1. Chemical
>rocket to mach 23 isp 325,(unmmaned cargo pod). Beamed energy docking
>craft to mach 26, isp 650. Docking craft captures the cargo pod and
>places it into orbit. It also
>handles the reentry breaking on the cargo pod.The cargo pod uses simple
>winged reentry system. 
>While it looks more complex, it splits up the transport to better
>matched
>pieces, since cargo is the ticket to space travel, not people.

This would cost a fortune!  You've got three times the servicing headaches, 
plus three times the vehicle design and integratin headaches.  To lower costs 
- keep it simple, servicable, and flying a lot.

>Ben. 

Kelly