P
pmn1
Guest
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zza.html<br /><br />100-150MW from a 100 ton satellite seems quite good particularly if you can do it in one go....<br /><br /><font color="orange">The Mega-Module Path To Space Exploration Or: How To Use An HLV<br /><br />An engineering concept shows NASA's new heavy lift and crew launch vehicles. View size compared to Apollo, shuttle. Credit: NASA. <br />by John K. Strickland, Jr.<br />Houston TX (SPX) Oct 06, 2005<br />Ever since the abrupt demise of the Saturn V rocket system at the end of the Apollo era, engineers and space advocates have dreamed of what they could do with a booster of similar capacity.<br />The recent correct decision by Griffin and his team to go for the largest available booster which can be created at a reasonable cost, will now allow us to make big plans for the first time in 35 years. This article focuses on how to exploit the wide variety of large payloads which an truly large HLV makes possible.<br /><br />Replacing the shuttle orbiter and external tank with a second stage based on the ET itself will provide greatly increased flexibility and capability. The only capability lost is that of returning large payloads, and this capability has been used only a few times to advantage.<br /><br />The extreme annual cost of maintaining the shuttle system could have paid for duplicating these payloads many times over. The ability to launch payloads of 100 or more tons with a payload shroud diameter of over 27 feet far outweighs that loss. Using a "hammerhead" type shroud could allow payloads of at least 30 feet across.<br /><br />There are several obvious reasons for wanting a large booster, (beyond just the ability to launch a bigger payload), such as avoiding multiple launches and the massive complications and delays that would accompany them.<br /><br />However, one kind of multiple launch system deserves a second look. Most of the potential problems</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>