CEV to be made commercially available

"Greg D. Moore \" ) writes:
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...

So well that their operating lives rival that of PM Kim Campbell...

I'll give you a hint, the most successful discount airline has been around
about as long as she's been in politics.

As she hasn't been in politics since being painfully shown the door in
1993, whats your point ?

Your figure of merit obviously failed. Not his.

Based on your argument, no. Bankrupt airlines fly no one. See " People's
Express ".

No, but who is talking about bankrupt airlines. That's a red herring you
introduced. I'm talking about airlines that I can walk up to and buy a
ticket and fly on today.

All you've left in are your nay sayings. So, if you wish to continue
having a monologue, you don't need me for that. shrug

Try "Price of JFK-LHR round-trip ticket in constant-year dollars".

Well, by that standard, the whole modern auto industry might as well
close up shop, as no one from 1903 can afford a modern car...

Boy, do you need a history lesson. The whole point Ford proved was that
people WOULD buy a cheap enough car.

Operative word " enough ". Thats a fluid term.

Umm.. it is? Where is that word above.

In your reply.

You just added that requirement.

Ibid.

So again, you're really proving Jake's point, not refuting it.

Ibid.

It appears you don't know how to use that word correctly.

No proof offered ? Claim, as usual... fails.

But, please continue having your monologue.

Andre

Pat Flannery ) writes:
Andre Lieven wrote:

Concorde also ran into political problems - how much opposition would
there have been to a United States SST?

More to the point, how much *informed* opposition V/ informed support
would have existed ?

Luddites aren't limited to one form of expression...

I have a sneaking suspicion that if Boeing had built the 2707 SST, it
would have proved of only limited commercial viability; there was still
a huge market out there for something like the 747, and someone would
have built one, particularly after the oil crisis in the 1970s.

Oh, I have no doubt of that. While the 707 class airliners began to
democratise air travel, it took wide body aircraft, fitted with more
economical fanjet engines, to complete that process.

But, while WalMart serves the masses, there still remains a niche
market for Bloomingdale's and Tiffany's stuff, too. Perhaps such
a market could have existed in ST travel, too.

And, consider that it took a couple of generations of commercial
jet aircraft to really work out the technology. We never got a
second generation SST, as we never got a second generation shuttle,
( Note: Not Shuttle ) so its hard to say what could have come from
developing, and continuing to develop, the next generations ( Note
the plural ) of such vehicles.

Andre

"Jake McGuire" ) writes:
Andre Lieven wrote:
IOW " If you dare to disagree with me, I will call you names. "

Got it.

Not at all. I'm more concerned with increasing both my understanding
and the collective understanding of sci.space.policy than in scoring
rhetorical points. Learning new things on the internet is very useful,
arguing on the internet is about as useless of an activity as one can
imagine.

Your own behavior belies your claim. Thank you for proving my point.

None of which answers the point of relative affordability of cars
then V/ now...

If you can buy a car now, that's vastly superior to a car then, for
less money after adjusting for inflation, how does that not answer the
point about relative affordability?

Because the relative car ownership over the last 100 years belies your
claim about early 20th century " affordability ".

I'm confused. What claim did you imagine that I was making about
relative car affordability between the early 20th century and now?

I addressed your comments, right above. If you are unaware of what
you wrote, thats not my problem.

Cars are clearly much more affordable now than they were then, as is
air travel.

Due to society becoming far richer.

Both are examples of technological progress being used to
improve performance metrics other than top speed.

Oh ? Are you now claiming that 1915 cars could drive 100 MPH ?

Sheesh.

Andre

Pat Flannery wrote:



Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

If anything the Plains Indians had among the larger economies trading
with
tribes as far away as central America and New England. You know,
something
about being in the center of it all.



I don't think that was direct trade though; they'd trade with a tribe
who would trade with another tribe, who would....and soon, you'd have
materials thousands of miles from their point of origin.

They would (and still do) come from quite far away to meet in pow-wows.


Alain Fournier

"Pete Lynn" wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: "Pete Lynn" wrote:
: :
: Unless a manned space program significantly
: progresses towards commercialisation, it should not
: come off the drawing board. If that means more
: fundamental R&D is required before we can have a
: manned space program, (I do not think it is
: required), then that is where our efforts should be
: focussed.
:
: That means it won't happen.
:
:And wasting huge amounts of money designing and building space
:transports that we know will never lead to commercial success will
:happen...

You seem to assume that NASA's mission is supposed to "lead to
commercial success".

: Something like $100 million each for the first five
: LEO space transports capable of carrying at least
: one person and returning them to Earth, assuming
: they do so twenty times within six months. In a few
: years this should result in at least five CATS
: designs, a quick up scaling of the better ones and
: the initiation of a learning curve.
:
: Why fund that?
:
:Because unlike ESAS and for 0.5% of the budget this type of approach
:actually has a reasonable chance of bringing about CATS.

No, not really. What it has a 'reasonable chance' of doing is either
nothing (if venture capital doesn't see it as a reasonable
possibility) or of creating an architecture specifically aimed at
minimally meeting the requirements for the prize (which doesn't get
you 'CATS', but just another 'one-off' trick).

: It's not what we need done and there's no commercial
: driver so nobody is going to do it (it will cost more
: than the 100 million they can get).
:
:Because we need the $104 billion Apollo 2.0 done instead?

You really need to differentiate between the government and what it
ought to be doing and private concerns and what they ought to be
doing, as well as just who is funding which.

The US government spending $X on space does NOT decrease available
venture capital for space by $X. In fact, it is more likely to
increase it by some amount.

:I actually now favour 50 flight prize instead of 20, probably without
:the six month restriction. This will further build the payload market
:and ensure CATS. At 20 flights the prize could be accomplished a little
:too easily by Falcon 1 with a capsule - or similar expendable system.

Well, this is going to be the problem with your scheme. Either it's
sufficiently 'easy' that someone will accomplish it with a system that
you don't approve of or else it will be so difficult no one will try
for it.

: With such assured low cost launch capacity I would
: expect low cost payloads to be developed almost
: concurrently. This should in a couple of years lead
: to low cost space infrastructure sufficient to warrant
: sustained expansion to the Moon and Mars,
: perhaps even with NASA leading the way. Say
: moon around 2010, Mars 2015.
:
: Never happen the way you're talking about it. You
: wouldn't have your first design capable of biweekly
: LEO flights by then.
:
:Why not? Because NASA could not do it?

No, because one doesn't **** technology and venture capital sufficient
to the task over a weekend.

: I expect that Paul would be quite enthusiastic
: about a manned space program for which the
: numbers added up.
:
: It's too early for that.
:
: For NASA, yes.
:
: For anyone.
:
:I see, like NASA and in spite of some evidence to the contrary, the
:start ups are necessarily completely unable to make space pay...

You know, it would be refreshing if you would respond to what I
actually say rather than to some made up version that you want me to
have said so I fit whatever sad little stereotype you have to use for
people who disagree with you.

: So, if we follow Paul's thinking, there will never
: be any such as we will never get past the initial
: 'hump'.
:
: If the initial hump was lowered, we could get over it
: now, but NASA is not doing that, so NASA will
: not get over that hump.
:
: Then it'll never be gotten over, because folks who
: fund with venture capital are going to put it
: somewhere with a better return.
:
:Like Elon Musk, John Carmack, Paul Allen, Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson,
:Robert Bigelow, etcetera. Please wake up. The start ups may be taking
:longer than we would like but in spite of NASA they are making solid
rogress towards CATS.

And how long do you think venture capitalists are going to wait for a
return on their money?

: Current type markets, if adapted to small payload
: size, could justify getting over a small initial
: investment hump. At $100/kg, LEO resort real-
: estate would be a truly large market.
:
: Except you won't ever get a launcher capable of a big
: enough load to matter. You'll get 'lightsat' sized
: launchers.
:
:HLV chauvinism noted.

Inability to respond to what is actually said noted. If you think you
can put people up in any meaningful way on 'lightsat' cargo margins,
you are sincerely kidding yourself.

: Ok, so he's an "I hate NASA" loon rather than an "I
: hate manned spaceflight" loon. At this point in
: history, it pretty much amounts to the same thing.
:
:Right, NASA is manned space flight - noted.

Right, inability to respond to what is actually said - noted.

: The strongest supporters of space
: commercialisation seem to be the start ups - do
: they similarly strongly support ESAS?
:
: Yeah? How many start ups are planning Lunar
: colonies and a trip to Mars any time in my lifetime
: (that have any realistic chance of actually doing it)?
:
: Answer: NONE.
:
:If you had done a little research you might have noted that it is most
f them. However, unlike NASA they are being careful not to get too far
:ahead of themselves.

And their plan dates for IOC of a lunar colony are?

:Elon Musk has recently expressed this intention quite explicitly. He is
:even trying to find a way of funding a an HLV, (at an order of magnitude
:lower cost of course), specifically for this purpose. He has obviously
:looked at the proposed NASA HLV and thought that with competition like
:that, this launch market could easily be his.

Don't hold your breath waiting for that one.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Andre Lieven wrote:

But, while WalMart serves the masses, there still remains a niche
market for Bloomingdale's and Tiffany's stuff, too. Perhaps such
a market could have existed in ST travel, too.



Concorde did find itself a market, and at least stayed in the black in
operations if never recouping its development costs.
One of the things that made Concorde work was the small number of the
jets produced; having flown on one was a bragging point, much like
flying on a Zeppelin was in the 20's and 30's. If there had been 100
Concordes built, I think a lot of that cachet that went with flying on
one would have vanished.
In the case of the 2707, I can see a lot of things that could have gone
wrong and turned the whole program into a complete flop:
1.) Boeing had almost zero experience with supersonic aircraft, much
less Mach 3 supersonic aircraft. Lockheed or North American (or even
Convair/General Dynamics) would have been a more logical choice to build it.
The fact that the design lost the swing wings around halfway through the
design process showed that Boeing hadn't thought things through very well.
2.) By choosing to go for a Mach 3 design, Boeing pretty much limited
itself to a titanium or stainless steel structure due to the heat the
aircraft would encounter; again, this is something they had very little
experience with.
Also, would the aircraft need special fuel like the Blackbirds used?
That could be a real headache as far as commercial operations go.
3.) If the Valkyrie and Blackbirds are anything to go by, Mach 3
aircraft are very hard to develop and are very maintenance intensive to
keep in service, neither of which bodes well for development cost or
day-to-day service cost of the finished SST.
What they might have ended up with was the SST equivalent of the Space
Shuttle- an extremely expensive to develop and extremely expensive to
operate aircraft that had a real potential for catastrophic failure if
any of its systems should fail at full altitude and speed. Ticket prices
could have been so high that you'd be lucky to ever fill one up on any
flight, and empty seats are the last thing this aircraft's operating
economics needs.
I'll say this for Concorde- although I consider the plane to be
basically a failure in an economic sense: They put far more rational
thought into the concept and finished aircraft than Boeing ever did.
There may have been no way to make the idea work economically at the
time, but if it were to succeed, then Concorde was probably about the
best way to approach the problem.


And, consider that it took a couple of generations of commercial
jet aircraft to really work out the technology. We never got a
second generation SST, as we never got a second generation shuttle,
( Note: Not Shuttle ) so its hard to say what could have come from
developing, and continuing to develop, the next generations ( Note
the plural ) of such vehicles.



I think what's really needed is some major improvement in rocket
propulsion efficiency; if you can up the performance significantly, all
the other pieces fall into place.
Unfortunately, I don't have a clue how to accomplish that.

Pat

"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
"Greg D. Moore \" ) writes:
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...

So well that their operating lives rival that of PM Kim Campbell...

I'll give you a hint, the most successful discount airline has been
around
about as long as she's been in politics.

As she hasn't been in politics since being painfully shown the door in
1993, whats your point ?

That your analogy is wrong.


Your figure of merit obviously failed. Not his.

Based on your argument, no. Bankrupt airlines fly no one. See "
People's
Express ".

No, but who is talking about bankrupt airlines. That's a red herring
you
introduced. I'm talking about airlines that I can walk up to and buy a
ticket and fly on today.

All you've left in are your nay sayings. So, if you wish to continue
having a monologue, you don't need me for that. shrug


Umm, no, I left in your quotes and responded to them. I suggest you get a
new dictionary and look up the meaning of monologue.

Boy, do you need a history lesson. The whole point Ford proved was
that
people WOULD buy a cheap enough car.

Operative word " enough ". Thats a fluid term.

Umm.. it is? Where is that word above.

In your reply.

So it is. Mea culpa.


You just added that requirement.

Ibid.

So again, you're really proving Jake's point, not refuting it.

Ibid.

It appears you don't know how to use that word correctly.

No proof offered ? Claim, as usual... fails.

But, please continue having your monologue.

Actually, I find talking to my 2 yo more productive than this discussion.

So I will end the discussion here.

Andre

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

If anything the Plains Indians had among the larger economies trading
with
tribes as far away as central America and New England. You know,
something
about being in the center of it all.



I don't think that was direct trade though; they'd trade with a tribe
who would trade with another tribe, who would....and soon, you'd have
materials thousands of miles from their point of origin.


Never said it was direct trade. Simply that there was an economy and that
it spanned a continent.


Pat

Alain Fournier wrote:

I don't think that was direct trade though; they'd trade with a tribe
who would trade with another tribe, who would....and soon, you'd have
materials thousands of miles from their point of origin.


They would (and still do) come from quite far away to meet in pow-wows.


Yeah, but pre-horse, "quite far away" would probably mean 100 miles at
most. When your prime means of movement are foot and dog trellis you
move at around 3 mph tops, and that doesn't include sleep or eating,
which are going to take around half the day. So a journey of 100 miles
is going to take around 60 hours, and you can extrapolate from there. At
some point the amount of food you are going to have to carry with you
(you'll be able to supplement it some on the way via hunting and
gathering, but you wouldn't want to count on it) is going to get excessive.
After the horse arrived on the scene, maybe 300 miles at most. We had a
meeting site for tribes here in Jamestown at the junction of the James
and Pipestem rivers- I get the feeling that most of the tribes that met
here came from a radius of around 100 miles, if even that.

Pat

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

Never said it was direct trade. Simply that there was an economy and that
it spanned a continent.



It wasn't "a economy", it was a whole bunch of seperate small economies
that interacted with each other. Goods from one area passed through
several sets of hands and ended up a thousand miles away; that doesn't
mean that tribes far inland knew where the seashells had come from, or
even what a sea was- much less details of the tribe that originally
gathered them. Tribes on the coast might end up with a buffalo robe
without having a clue what a live buffalo looked like, or who the Lakota
were.

Pat