I have thought this out as best I can Ron. Taking into account all the factors I am aware of concerning human space flight, I have a flow chart in mind of what will solve our problem and what will not. Simplistic? Yes. I am just giving all of this my best shot.

The Nuclear Pulse Propulsion concept is not a question of possibly working- in my opinion it is simply the only thing that will work. So there is no discussion really; either we use it and go or we do not and stay. Stan Ulam understood this back in 1945. There is no other source of power that is usable- nuclear rockets melt when the ISP gets about double that of chemical rockets. Pulse is all there is. That is the first box in the flow chart.

As for my fear of clusters; it is just too many engines. Too many little hot rods. All those turbopumps and gymbals and all that plumbing is cheap and nasty. If three of those one million pound thrust engines get mounted then the falcon 9 heavy will be a far better vehicle. I am biased toward Sidemount of course. You know why I think we need an HLV.

“And SpaceX and their 27 engine monstrosity that will probably never fly.”

SpaceX has already tested and flown their Falcon 9, and Falcon 9 Heavy is just three of their core boosters connected together. Delta IV Heavy uses this configuration, and the Russians will be using up to 7 core boosters on their Angara rockets.

I know you have this N-1 fear, but that was an all-in-one design, and back in the days when welding was still an art, and not a verifiable science. For some reason your fear of engine clusters doesn’t seem to translate over to the SD-HLV Sidemount – not biased are we?

“All the research has already been done…”

In product development you have an R&D phase, which is of course Research and Development.

Research may draw on studies done over long periods of time, and sometimes in areas that were not directly related to what they thought they would be used on.

The development part is where you take the research and apply it to a specific application – make a product or service out of it. This means real life testing, and making real hardware to verify that the theory translates to fact.

Lots of research has been done on various forms of nuclear propulsion, but no real development. For your nuclear pulse research, not only does it need to get funding to transition into the development phase, but there is a whole political minefield that it has to go through to get everyone to agree that we should be shipping nuclear bombs to space.

Technically the idea could work, but politically I don’t see it happening. Have you got the support of your Senators and Congressman? If they can seriously say “that idea is worth putting my political butt on the line”, then maybe it will happen. Until then, it won’t.

Regardless of the merits, there is no money. Maybe someday, maybe not.”

You disappoint me Ron.
All the research has already been done- hundreds of billions of dollars of it done over the last half century by the DOD. It is all classified but a couple things have been let slip- like the term Casaba Howitzer. Google it. The NASA guy writing the papers knows more than he can say about this. He is the won who specified the test missions with conventional explosives.

And as for people talking as much as they like-that goes for ULA and their fuel depots and lunar missions as well. And SpaceX and their 27 engine monstrosity that will probably never fly. Regardless of your comments, the money has already been spent, we have enough bombs sitting around to go anywhere we want- and someday sometimes turns out to be tomorrow.

The N1 second stage, or Block B, was powered by 8 NK-15V engines that used LOX / Kerosene as propelants. It used in-line tanks that were nearly spherical – something I don’t recall seeing on any other large launch vehicle than the N1.

The Proton first stage, is power by 6 RD-253 engines (or its derivitive teh RD-275) that use NTO / UDMH as propelants. It also uses a distinct tank configuration with the NTO stored in a large center tank and the UDMH stored in six smaller tanks mounted around the circumfrence of the NTO tank. These fule tanks are sometimes mistaken for strap on rockets, which they are not.

The two stages really have nothing to do with each other. The only overlap between the N1 and Proton is that the fith stage of the N1, or Block D, was reused as the fourth stage, or Block DM, on some Proton Ks. The Block DM is also used on as the thrid stage on some Zenits.

All of this is verifiable from public domain sights like astronautix.com, russianspaceweb.com, and Wikipedia.

If past history is anything to go by, by the time everyone has finished kicking around with the NHLV. It probably won’t be Shuttle derived. (Like Ares!) It probably won’t be affordable. (Like Ares!) And it probably won’t be put into service. (Like Ares!)
The Shuttle was a makeshift solution to lack of funding and a failure of Vision. The current course Congress has set upon NASA repeats the mistake.
I am also of the opinion that the ONLY reason Congress wants a 75tn HLV is because those peski Russkis are on course with their Angara:
http://spaceplex.com/2010/07/18/russia-to-start-testing-new-angara-rocket-in-2013/
The new ‘socialist’ rocket must be bigger and better than the new ‘communist’ one. However you will note both RKA and ESA are contemplating a ‘cheap’ CCB capable of clustering: 1:3:5:7! SpaceX’s real competitors in the global launch market. One hopes that they too add the promise of reusability into the mix.

> You do know that oxygen candles are supposed to burn ==

Burn, yes. Explode adn blaze across a module into the far wall (and cut the crew off from the lifeboat), no.
And the whole issue of a fire in space station is really bad! And the whole polution of the atmosphere thing.

> and that Gerry’s account, shall we say, was a little hysterical. ==

Didn’t seem hysterical to me – and generally NASA goes to pains to dump Astronauts who are hysterical by nature.

> The Russians are a little more stoical.==

Fatalistic is a better term.

>== At no time was the Station in danger of “blowing up”.

You have a uncontrolled fire, in a space capsule, from a fractured oxygen candel. Explosion (or rupturing of the pressure vessel) was a potential result.

Spektr was launched June 1, 1995
Docking Module: November 15, 1995
Priroda Module: April 26, 1996
Incident: June 25, 1997
New?
“Comment is free, but facts are sacred.”
C.P. Scott.

>> 7 foot long by 4 in diameter is really spacious for a 2 man tandem aircraft.”

> You have to think a little deeper about the differences between
> traveling in space and flying below 12,000 ft… like a
> pressurized (i.e. bulky) space suit that has an attached environmental
> system.

Actually I was thinking of fighter planes (or Gemini), where they do wear some pressure like suits, but given its a emergency lifeboat, you’d have to assume folks don’t have enough time to suit up.

>Ever watch a spacewalk off the ISS? Try fitting just one person in a
> spacesuit into that 7×4′ closet.

You don’t wear EVA suits in spaceships.

> You and your wife need to put on lots of bulky winter
> clothes (ski jackets, sweaters, boots, etc.), put a packed
> day pack on, ==

Sounds like a normal winter driving day – except my wifes SUV is much smaller.

> and then try and get into a phone booth =

Nit ,but this is big enough to fit the full phonebooth in it?
>== for 12 hours to simulate the CRV decent profile, ==

Why assume a 12 hour descent profile? It is a emergency craft – you should pick it up a bit.