I believe the responsibility to supply hard numbers comes from the flexible path advocates. Cryo transfer in space has never been done because it is a nightmare.
HLV’s were and are the solution but private space wants nothing to do with them because.…..I am not going to keep explaining it over and over. You can read my past comments and essays. I have found that most space clown wannabes just want to endlessly post their B.S. and I will not play that game anymore. (And I did not call you a space clown Brandon- I am still waiting for that apology).

It would certainly help if you include some hard numbers substantiating why should this be infeasible. What is the boiloff rate during storage and transfer, why is it too much etc..

You call me a troll again and we will not be friends anymore. Don’t be a jerk. Disprove anything I am exposing with facts (besides the dollar sign babble paragraphs that others try to pass off as fact) and then you will not be the troll.
At this point you are just advertising like the rest of the space clown informercial crew and do not belong on this blog anymore than Mad Otto the conspiracy nut.

Don’t misunderstand me, I really hope I am wrong on this. I would be thrilled to be proven wrong on this. I am just trying to be realistic. Reusable does not mean “gas and go” as it sounds like some people think. It just means lower hardware costs, which are just a part of the total picture.

http://www.manta.com/g/mt48pfr/gary-church

I took a look at the client list for this “consultant” and every American space launch company except for SpaceX is there.

http://www.avmgt.com/AMA/AMA_Clients.html

Are you trolling all of the discussion boards because they wouldn’t give you money to leave them alone? It sounds like Valador’s actions when SpaceX wouldn’t give them $1M to go away.

I agree completely; the 5 segment SRB, SSME, Boeing RS-68, and the J-2X are ready for heavy lift missions BEO.

The junk being peddled by SpaceX to carry blow up tents into LEO as billionaut bordellos are not what anyone would wish for (except billionauts wanting an LEO bordello and those wanting to get paid for pandering to the obscene spending habits of the ultra-rich).

.

I did not “hear” it. I read it. Both the Dragon and Boeing CST-100 are using these “dual purpose” systems for abort and station raising. The problem is they sacrifice all the excellent acelleration capability of the traditional solid fuel escape tower- which gets expended before the critical last phase of the burn where every pound counts.
Private space sycophants complain that the solid fuel tower has too much pwer and could injure the crew. Ridiculous. Much like the arguments they use when saying kerosene is actually a superior propellant compared to Liquid Hydrogen. Ridiculous.
Brandon, these people are peddling B.S. to the public trying to cash in.

I wrote my articles with sources cited (water and bombs) and plenty of expose on private space; you want me to do it all over again on this comment thread?

” If, however you want to “regurgitate anti-capitalist propaganda” and insult anyone who disagrees with you, then I will ignore you.”

Well, let’s not ignore each other. I did not call you a space clown wannabe. You said I called you that which is basically insulting me.
Apology?
Now, IF.….you are serious about being open to new ideas, then write an article on a single issue we can debate. I will answer the article with my own. And write my own that you can then answer. This way people will read our discourse and we do not have to fill up our own comment sections and allow others a voice.

To sum up my whole opinion of private space in points, I guess I would have to say that it is a scam because;
1. The only profit as such to be had is “billionaut bordellos” in LEO. The “X” is space X is a lie. LEO is not space exploration and it is misrepresenting itself as such.
2. Space Stations are a dead end and the inferior lift vehicles being hyped cannot support any BEO activity. Their whole house of cards falls with orbital depots and transfer. Which is just a smokescreen to allow tax dollars to flow into their tourist business.
3. The U.S. spends vast treasure on the DOD and most of this is simply corporate greed. We have the most powerful launch hardware on earth and are not using it. Why? Not enough profit in space- spaceships have to work, unlike so many cold war toys that generate immense profit without doing anything except sitting there after rigged sham tests.

Private space is a sideshow, a distraction, a smokescreen, and a scam.
It is the worst thing that has ever happened to space exploration.

I am doing research on doing exactly this, starting with basic industrial processes. I am involved with the Mars Foundation and may be able to get some industry backing. If anyone is doing the same thing or wants to collaborate, please contact me. There is a link to my Linkedin profile on my bio page.

On reusability, the problem is that a rocket is not comparable to a car or airplane. You can not just “refuel it and go”. Take a look at the Spacex website and they show everything that is involved in preparing a Falcon 9 for launch. The transportation and assembly is not trivial, and it will need to be repeated for each launch. Before that happens, it will need to be recovered from the landing site and put through a thorough inspection and overhaul. I would expect this to cost at least a few million. Additionally, the expected service life would only be 5 to 10 flights. I think Spacex is only claiming a service life for the Dragon of 10 fights, and that is a fairly simple and robust piece of hardware. Then look at the videos of their reusable rocket in operation. The landing gear, heat shield and extra fuel will add weight and reduce payload. I do not doubt that it can be done and it may greatly reduce launch costs, but to expect an order of magnitude reduction in costs is far too optimistic.