I’ve read your papers with great interest.
They demonstrate exactly the kind of really innovative thinking that is needed… but is apparently rarely found in established civil servant discussions.
I say “established” in recognition of NASA’s virgin work on Apollo.
Without Von Braun and many others, NASA has fallen on typical government intellectual hard times.
Responding to your specific proposals … you clearly recognize that SPS is hung up on the launch cost barrier.
My friend Phil Chapman has suggested that Brayton Cycle devices can be more efficient in power to mass than solar panels, and perhaps more durable.
It seems worth examining, and Phil is a very technically sound person.
Your suggestion of equatorial launch seems driven by the use of the space elevator elements, but geosynch SPS location also drives to using equatorial launches.
As you’ve seen in other e-mails, I’ve advocated equatorial launch sites from high mountain peaks to gain perhaps 10,000 ft. or higher starts … seems sort of obvious!
(I’ve not inventoried Earth’s equatorial or near equatorial mountains yet!)
The other factor that I think will help SSTO is large size … larger than Saturn V.
That’s because many elements do not grow when the rocket does, or at least not proportionately.
Because modern materials will allow such a monster without exceeding Saturn V mass, the existing crawler design, that was, I believe inherited from S-V can continue to be used … perhaps the only old hardware or design that I advise using.
It also helps assure a greater return from the larger cargo capacity that comes with the larger rocket.
Another possibility is to allow the SSTO to deliver its cargo to LEO with almost expended propellants … and refuel it from Lunar water, with sufficient delta V capability to return for a vertical landing, having used the ample propellants to penetrate the atmosphere during return.
There were some studies done decades ago in using the flame sheath of a tail first penetration to reduce re-entry heating, as the combustion products are cooler than the penetrated atmosphere.
All this can free the SSTO from the tyranny of the .92 mass fraction dictated by available engine Isp.
And finally, I think the metallurgical challenges posed by an adjustable throat diameter to optimize expansion ratio for altitude compensation can be overcome.
Combining these ideas should allow creation of the SPS SSTO delivery vehicle that will break the cost barrier… and not just for SPS, but for Luna and Mars colonization … especially with the addition of even a partial Space Elevator!
Bill

PS: I’ve not thought this through … but your rockets will not really fly straight up in inertial space.
They must enter a less than the required orbital velocity arc to dock at the elevator lower terminus.
That, of course, is an advantage of the elevator … and most of the necessary orbit rate is imposed on the rocket by the Earth before lift off.

You, of course, raise the right issues.
My first response is, yes, the bigger the rocket, the easier it will be to achieve SSTO.
You know the argument:
Many things do not get proportionately bigger when the rocket does … crew size and accommodations .. many electronics … cargo handling gear, etc.
And, of course, payload gets bigger even as a fixed fraction of GTOW.
I recall (with nostalgia) Max Hunter’s decrying of the “standing army” servicing philosophy of NASA … except for the lunar return mission that demonstrated repeated operations with a zero on-site support crew!
Your concern for funding is, I think a product of all your experience with government funded programs.
Just as in our current discussions with Buzz and others, it is not the lifetime efficiency/cost effectiveness that is your first consideration.
It is the up front costs.
That’s  because you are thinking  of Congressional appropriations, and the cost of getting the thing built.
We should get out of that mind set and think in terms of return on investment.
If we do that, it is the recurring costs that will determine profits.
If those figures are promising, non-recurring costs become just a question of how long it will require to amortize them.
Think in terms of, e.g. petroleum pipe lines.
They dwarf the cost of the largest rocket we can imagine, but the ROI is such that they play no part in the decision to build them.
So what stands in the way of the necessarily very large SSTO/VTOL cargo rocket is a credible business plan for sustained operations to Luna that will return a profit to the builders and operators.
Now that’s where NASA and the “gov’mint” can play a really constructive part.
If they will just guarantee an annual ROI of say, 10% on government cargoes alone for at least a decade, the system is, ipso facto, a commercial success, guaranteed to at least break even.
The return on any other service provided to, for example, other than US Gov. customers will be gravy.
I know, there’s more to it than that, but my argument illustrates the change in thinking I’m attempting to inject into the discussion.
What do you say?

PS: I’ve Googled “Saturn V” some time back and just basked in the glory of the truly gargantuan hardware we built way back in the early ’60s.
It really is unbelievable!
But think what we can do with the materials and methods we now have available!
Graphite epoxy, and “buckeyball” composites; much much lighter and lower power requiring more reliable electronics, sintered tungsten (just know it exists … can’t quote specs) and on and on.
I’ll bet we could build a Saturn V scale launcher that would lift twice the payload SV did.
What we lack these days is a gutsy leader like Kennedy!

Hubert Davis wrote:

Yes indeed, our first priority should be the “horse”.
VTOVL SSTO is probably the simplest approach to space launch, if only we could do it - reliably!
However, it must avoid the mistakes made on the Shuttle, such as labeling major elements “re-usable” when they are not and permitting huge work forces, much of them ill-used.
Possibly correct re wings.
But you are right; it is very hard to give up on the grace and gentleness of winged landings.
Lunar Modules did not have to contend with winds.
I like mountain launch, maybe even with a modest ground-based accelerator.
Every little bit helps as we are not going to soon alter the rocket equation!
To add another small but perhaps vital aid to your concept; let’s use orbital propellant depots to refuel before entry and landing.
Now, how do we overcome the costs and risks of building a VTOVL SSTO vehicle large enough to really have both adequate payload and adequate margin?
What, btw, is your present estimate of its size, cost and schedule?
In order to work, it might have to be well beyond Saturn V size and we no longer have either Von Braun or a bottomless purse.

It is doubly valued coming from a Frenchman … a race not usually given to complimenting Americans!

==========
Written by: host
Subject: [warriors] French view

Military by Jean-Marc Liotier

American troops in Afghanistan through the eyes of a French OMLT infantryman

The US often hears echoes of worldwide hostility against the application of its foreign policy, but seldom are they reached by the voices of those who experience first hand how close we are to the USA. In spite of contextual political differences and conflicting interests that generate friction, we do share the same fundamental values - and when push comes to shove that is what really counts. Through the eyes of that French OMLT (Operational Mentoring Liaison Teams) infantryman you can see how strong the bond is on the ground. In contrast with the Americans, the French soldiers don’t seem to write much online - or maybe the proportion is the same but we just have less people deployed. Whatever the reason, this is a rare and moving testimony which is why I decided to translate it into English, so that American people can catch a glimpse of the way European soldiers see them. Not much high philosophy here, just the first hand impressions of a soldier in contact - but that only makes it more authentic.

Here is the original French article, http://omlt3-kdk3.over-blog.com/article-22935665.html

and here is my translation :

“We have shared our daily life with two US units for quite a while - they are the first and fourth companies of a prestigious infantry battalion whose name I will withhold for the sake of military secrecy. To the common man it is a unit just like any other. But we live with them and got to know them, and we henceforth know that we have the honor to live with one of the most renowned units of the US Army - one that the movies brought to the public as series showing “ordinary soldiers thrust into extraordinary events”. Who are they, those soldiers from abroad, how is their daily life, and what support do they bring to the men of our OMLT every day? Few of them belong to the Easy Company, the one the TV series focuses on. This one nowadays is named Echo Company, and it has become the support company..

They have a terribly strong American accent - from our point of view the language they speak is not even English. How many times did I have to write down what I wanted to say rather than waste precious minutes trying various pronunciations of a seemingly common word? Whatever state they are from, no two accents are alike and they even admit that in some crisis situations they have difficulties understanding each other.
Heavily built, fed at the earliest age with Gatorade, proteins and creatine (Heh. More like Waffle House and McDonalds) - they are all heads and shoulders taller than us and their muscles remind us of Rambo. Our frames are amusingly skinny to them - we are wimps, even the strongest of us - and because of that they often mistake us for Afghans.

Here we discover America as it is often depicted: their values are taken to their paroxysm, often amplified by promiscuity and the loneliness of this outpost in the middle of that Afghan valley. Honor, motherland - everything here reminds of that: the American flag floating in the wind above the outpost, just like the one on the post parcels. Even if recruits often originate from the hearth of American cities and gang territory, no one here has any goal other than to hold high and proud the star spangled banner. Each man knows he can count on the support of a whole people who provides them through the mail all that an American could miss in such a remote front-line location: books, chewing gums, razorblades, Gatorade, toothpaste etc. in such way that every man is aware of how much the American people backs him in his difficult mission. And that is a first shock to our preconceptions: the American soldier is no individualist. The team, the group, the combat team are the focus of all his attention.

And they are impressive warriors! We have not come across bad ones, as strange at it may seem to you when you know how critical French people can be. Even if some of them are a bit on the heavy side, all of them provide us everyday with lessons in infantry know-how. Beyond the wearing of a combat kit that never seem to discomfort them (helmet strap, helmet, combat goggles, rifles etc.) the long hours of watch at the outpost never seem to annoy them in the slightest. On the one square meter wooden tower above the perimeter wall they stand the five consecutive hours in full battle rattle and night vision goggles on top, their sight unmoving in the directions of likely danger. No distractions, no pauses, they are like statues nights and days. At night, all movements are performed in the dark - only a handful of subdued red lights indicate the occasional presence of a soldier on the move. Same with the vehicles whose lights are covered - everything happens in pitch dark even filling the fuel tanks with the Japy pump.

And combat? If you have seen Rambo you have seen it all - always coming to the rescue when one of our teams gets in trouble, and always in the shortest delay. That is one of their tricks: they switch from T-shirt and sandals to combat ready in three minutes. Arriving in contact with the enemy, the way they fight is simple and disconcerting: they just charge! They disembark and assault in stride, they bomb first and ask questions later - which cuts any pussyfooting short.

(This is the main area where I’d like to comment. Anyone with a passing knowledge of Kipling knows the lines from Chant Pagan: ‘If your officer’s dead and the sergeants look white/remember it’s ruin to run from a fight./So take open order, lie down, sit tight/And wait for supports like a soldier./ This, in fact, is the basic philosophy of both British and Continental soldiers. ‘In the absence of orders, take a defensive position.’ Indeed, virtually every army in the world. The American soldier and Marine, however, are imbued from early in their training with the ethos: In the Absence of Orders: Attack! Where other forces, for good or ill, will wait for precise orders and plans to respond to an attack or any other ‘incident’, the American force will simply go, counting on firepower and SOP to carry the day.

This is one of the great strengths of the American force in combat and it is something that even our closest allies, such as the Brits and Aussies (that latter being closer by the way) find repeatedly surprising. No wonder it surprises the hell out of our enemies.)

We seldom hear any harsh word, and from 5 AM onwards the camp chores are performed in beautiful order and always with excellent spirit. A passing American helicopter stops near a stranded vehicle just to check that everything is alright; an American combat team will rush to support ours before even knowing how dangerous the mission is - from what we have been given to witness, the American soldier is a beautiful and worthy heir to those who liberated France and Europe.

To those who bestow us with the honor of sharing their combat outposts and who everyday give proof of their military excellence, to those who pay the daily tribute of America’s army’s deployment on Afghan soil, to those we owned this article, ourselves hoping that we will always remain worthy of them and to always continue hearing them say that we are all the same band of brothers”.

—————————————————————————————-

Much of this the various veterans reading will go ‘Well, duh. Of course we do our ‘camp chores’ and stand our posts in good order. There’s a reason for them and if we didn’t we’d get our heads handed to us eventually. And, yeah, we’re in shape. Makes battle easier. The more you sweat, the less you bleed.’

What is hard for most people to comprehend is that that attitude represented only the most elite units of the past. Current everyday conventional boring ‘leg infantry’ units exceed the PT levels and training levels of most Special Forces during the Vietnam War. They exceed both of those as well as IQ and educational levels of: Waffen SS, WWII Rangers, WWII Airborne and British ‘Commando’ units during WWII. Their per-unit combat-functionality is essentially unmeasurable because it has to be compared to something and there’s nothing comparable in industrial period combat history.

This group is so much better than ‘The Greatest Generation’ at war that WWII vets who really get a close look at how good these kids are stand in absolute awe.

So much of ‘The scum of the earth, enlisted for drink.’

Everyone complains about the quality of ‘the new guys.’ Don’t. The screw-ups of this modern generation are head and shoulders above the ‘high-medium’ of any past group. Including mine.

This is ‘The Greatest Generation’ of soldiers.

They may never be equaled.