"vthokie" wrote in message
om...
Rather than developing a new Apollo-style capsule to be launched on an
expendable rocket, I think the United States should develop a fully
reusable human-rated launch system that will significantly lower the
cost and risk associated with spaceflight.
let us know when you've got all that up and running, willya?
Anything else seems fiscally irresponsible.
it's irresponsible to finally admit that RLVs aren't economical?
Perhaps the goals stated during the ill-fated
X-33/VentureStar program were overly ambitious (reducing launch costs
by a factor of 10), but it seems to me that we should certainly be
able to do better than what's currently being proposed.
and your specific plan for doing better would be...what?
I'd love to see humans return to the moon and eventually travel to
Mars and beyond. But the first step we need to take is to develop a
safer, more cost effective means of reaching orbit.
been trying to do that for a very long time now in a wide variety of guises.
None of them worked out. Time to move on.
On-orbit assembly
of lunar or interplanetary craft will become much easier once we have
a "VentureStar" type vehicle capable of sustaining high flight rates.
the lesson that Columbia was *supposed* to have taught us is that there's no
such thing as a sustainable high launch rate for reusable spacecraft.
Also, while I'm certainly a proponent of space exploration, there are
other programs that I think might have more relevance to American
citizens, and therefore might be easier to sell. I'd love to see the
United States commit itself to developing a new, commercially viable
SST. That's something that I and every other American could actually
use!
then why did Concorde never earn out? Simple: because it was much more
difficult to operate than the initial projections (sound familiar?), and
thus the airfare was so outrageously high that very few people found it
useful. And then the market for international travel (let alone *fast*
international travel) dried up after 9/11. There's no market anymore for
SST. Hell, there's hardly a market for anything fancier than a 767 these
days.
It seems sad that 30 years ago, commercial aviation saw the dawn
of supersonic flight with the Concorde (and briefly, the Tu-144), and
now as we enter a new century, commercial supersonic flight is dead.
here's a concept I want you to think long and hard about
: not all advances
move you forward. There have been so many examples of that the last few
years you should already realize that.
Another initiative that I think would benefit citizens more than
Bush's space plan would be a national commitment to develop a high
speed rail network. America's long neglected passenger rail system
has fallen far behind the rest of the industrialized world,
but our automotive infrastructure is IIRC more advanced and widespread than
anyone else's. The Japanese didn't build high-speed trains because they're
neat, they built them because they don't have room for any more freeways.
Same thing for Europe.
Again, a little gratuitous advice: progress for progress' sake never works
out in the long run. You innovate because you have no other alternatives,
not because there's anything inherently special about new technology.
and with
the exception of Amtrak's 150 mph Acela Express in the northeast, the
United States doesn't even have any rail service that could be
considered "high speed". Numerous trains in Europe and Japan
routinely operate at up to 300 km/hr (186 mph), and speeds of greater
than 200 mph are planned. Maglev technology is likely to push speeds
to 300 mph or more! I'd certainly like to see the United States take
a leadership role in the industry.
Again: why do we need that? You can fly all the way across country in just
over four hours, and there are plenty of seats available on commercial
airliners. Except for a few bottlenecked megalopoli, we don't *need*
high-speed rail and won't for quite some time.
--
Terrell Miller
"It's one thing to burn down the **** house and another thing entirely to
install plumbing"
-PJ O'Rourke