Space Ship One and the X-Prise

"Tkalbfus1" wrote in message
...
In a sence they have. By making a moon base the first priority.
Manned Mars exploration has been pushed so far ahead I doubt I will ever
see it.
(I am 37)

So am I. I suppose I can expect to live to be 72 on average, hopefully
longer
than that, but for a conservative estimate, lets say that I live to be 72
years
old, that's 35 more years or about the year 2040.

Dang, I am 73 years old and by your estimate I have been
dead for a year.

It could be from clean living, but more likely from good genetics
since my mother died at the age of 90 and my father at 89.

I still hope to be around to see something good happen, although
2040 would mean I had lasted to 110.

Mike Walsh

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 14:54:34 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Mike
Walsh" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

The goverment should get out of that business. "The role of the
Goverment in space should not be to go to Mars, but to make it
possible for National Geographic to go to Mars."

Dang.

I *knew* I should have copyrighted that.

I doubt that National Geographic would make it on
my subscription money.

Or did you mean that the Government should fund
National Geographic to go to Mars.

No. I meant that NASA should make it possible for them to fund their
own expedition (by reducing the costs and developing the technology),
just as they fund their expeditions to other locations.

On 2004-10-05, Mike Walsh wrote:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 22:27:33 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

That said, government can get down to the business of exploring the
Solar System.

The goverment should get out of that business. "The role of the
Goverment in space should not be to go to Mars, but to make it
possible for National Geographic to go to Mars."

Dang.

I *knew* I should have copyrighted that.

I doubt that National Geographic would make it on
my subscription money.

Or did you mean that the Government should fund
National Geographic to go to Mars.

Or just give them a ride.

I think the idea is for the NGS - who aren't badly off, admittedly - to
be able to go on your subscription money.

In other words: the goal of the government should be to support the
research, support the infrastructure, the odd targeted tax-break, &c
&c... so that a situation arises where the NGS can drop a couple of
hundred million on the table at LockMartBoeingEADS-Energia Bespoke
Orbital Logistics Solutions and go to Mars on the strength of that.

As it stands, the NGS - or any similar organisation with the same amount
of cash - can commercially organise an expedition to pretty much
anywhere on Earth, with some possible political exceptions. It's an
interesting way to define a goal, and it's one I rather like.

--
-Andrew Gray

"Andrew Gray" wrote in message
. ..
On 2004-10-05, Mike Walsh wrote:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 22:27:33 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

That said, government can get down to the business of exploring the
Solar System.

The goverment should get out of that business. "The role of the
Goverment in space should not be to go to Mars, but to make it
possible for National Geographic to go to Mars."

Dang.

I *knew* I should have copyrighted that.

I doubt that National Geographic would make it on
my subscription money.

Or did you mean that the Government should fund
National Geographic to go to Mars.

Or just give them a ride.

I think the idea is for the NGS - who aren't badly off, admittedly - to
be able to go on your subscription money.

In other words: the goal of the government should be to support the
research, support the infrastructure, the odd targeted tax-break, &c
&c... so that a situation arises where the NGS can drop a couple of
hundred million on the table at LockMartBoeingEADS-Energia Bespoke
Orbital Logistics Solutions and go to Mars on the strength of that.

As it stands, the NGS - or any similar organisation with the same amount
of cash - can commercially organise an expedition to pretty much
anywhere on Earth, with some possible political exceptions. It's an
interesting way to define a goal, and it's one I rather like.

--
-Andrew Gray


I don't believe that the National Geographic Society has anything
near a couple of hundred million to drop on anyone's table.

And a couple of hundred million won't get any manned expedition
anywhere near Mars.

Although a faster, better, cheaper program of that type can dig
you a deep Martian hole with today's technology.

Mike Walsh

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 20:52:25 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Mike
Walsh" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


As it stands, the NGS - or any similar organisation with the same amount
of cash - can commercially organise an expedition to pretty much
anywhere on Earth, with some possible political exceptions. It's an
interesting way to define a goal, and it's one I rather like.

--
-Andrew Gray


I don't believe that the National Geographic Society has anything
near a couple of hundred million to drop on anyone's table.

Not now, no.

And a couple of hundred million won't get any manned expedition
anywhere near Mars.

Not now, no.

That's the point--NASA's (or more generally, the nation's) goal should
be to make at least the latter possible.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 20:52:25 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Mike
Walsh" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


As it stands, the NGS - or any similar organisation with the same
amount
of cash - can commercially organise an expedition to pretty much
anywhere on Earth, with some possible political exceptions. It's an
interesting way to define a goal, and it's one I rather like.

--
-Andrew Gray


I don't believe that the National Geographic Society has anything
near a couple of hundred million to drop on anyone's table.

Not now, no.

And a couple of hundred million won't get any manned expedition
anywhere near Mars.

Not now, no.

That's the point--NASA's (or more generally, the nation's) goal should
be to make at least the latter possible.

No objection to that although right now it is a long term
goal.

If Richard Branson has correctly judged the market for
space tourism flights to approximately X-Prize altitudes and
time durations then I believe it would change the economic
environment for further developments leading to
private commercial orbital manned flights.

Then I would once again be wrong on some previous
comments.

I don't believe it is "a done deal" but at least with
Branson's proposal and projected financing I can see
a path I was not sure existed before.

Mike Walsh

(Tkalbfus1) wrote in message ...
Go up a few threads earlier than this one:
"Robert Bigelow to announce ..."

Your proposal isn't raising the bar as much as Bigelow's. Perhaps this
is a more realistic short term goal.

--
Hop David

Yeah, we need to get space travel to the point where you can make a profitable
business out of it. If one can make a spaceship that can do the work of an
airplane with a similar cost structure as an airplane, then you've started a
new business that can be profitable and will attract investors. I think
creating a spaceship that can compete with an airplane would set the bar low
enough so that investor money and entreprenuership will bring us the rest of
the way to orbit. We won't be dependent of the lastest government space vehicle

When starting a new market with new technology, it is best to
*differentiate* yourself as much as possible from existing markets
which have had decades to find efficiencies and build economies of
scale. That is why CD's were first marketed for their durability and
sound quality, not as an alternative to vinyl... why air flight was
first marketed as a luxury or a way to get there quicker than
otherwise possible ... why Fedex leaned on the overnight delivery ...
etc.

They can serve the same purpose, but making a head-to-head value
comparison with a new market versus an established one is asking for
trouble.

The advantage of suborbital travel is speed, speed, speed. But,
judging from Concorde, that may not be enough. Of course, 8 hrs to
anywhere in the world is a far cry from 90 minutes to anywhere in the
world, so it's plausible. But like aircraft, space will be an
entertainment business for a while before it becomes competitive with
other markets. The key is to enable enough investment of time and
money to implement the technology and efficiencies that will break it
open. The jet engine is a good example in aviation.

What will likely happen is a couple decades of high-priced tourist
action, and at that point there will be enough money in the market to
develop scramjets to maturity. At that point, spaceships will become
competitive in a number of areas, and the whole thing will take off.

The difference between aviation and space comes with NASA -- to which
there was no analog in aviation. The timescale until the introduction
of the 727 after the first flight was about 60 years. That was 60
years of market-driven research and development. If some profit can
be proven in manned spaceflight, we already have a backlog of 50 years
of basic research and development by the government.

If the market can pick up that knowledge through hiring, cooperation,
and licensing, we could see much faster development for the space
industry. This interesting market/government dichotomy that didn't
exist in aviation in 1903 is really what differentiates the two from a
strategic standpoint. There's a much bigger base of knowledge about
spaceflight now than there was about airflight in 1903, by far. It
really becomes a question of who can implement it fastest. He who
makes the most money, no doubt.

Roga

development program.

That said, government can get down to the business of exploring the Solar
System.

No. I meant that NASA should make it possible for them to fund their
own expedition (by reducing the costs and developing the technology),
just as they fund their expeditions to other locations.



In order to develop low cost technology for going to Mars, you have to go to
Mars to test it out. That should be fairly obvious. You can test some of the
technology in low Earth orbit, but not all of it. One can do some engineering
technologies and say that in theory we have the technology to get to Mars
cheaply, but the only way to actually prove it is to actually go there.

Would you want to be the National Geographic photographer who gets in a
spacecraft with scientists telling you that "in theory this spaceship will get
you to Mars, but we haven't tested it out yet. We've deliberately refrained
from going to Mars in this vehicle so that you can be the first to plant your
flag in Martian soil, assuming of course that you get there alive. He he, and
there's that little detail of getting back to Earth, there's an Earth return
vehicle there right now, it has fuel, but we don't know if it will work. You'll
just have to find that out for yourself when you get there. He he."


Tom

In other words: the goal of the government should be to support the
research, support the infrastructure, the odd targeted tax-break, &c
&c... so that a situation arises where the NGS can drop a couple of
hundred million on the table at LockMartBoeingEADS-Energia Bespoke
Orbital Logistics Solutions and go to Mars on the strength of that.



So you want NASA to do the research and go 99% of the way to Mars and then
stop? So you'll just have to take NASA's word for it that it has cleared 99% of
the technical obstacles for getting to Mars and that you'll just have to plunk
down some money to cover the final 1%? Don't you think if NASA does that, it
will cost about 99% of what it would cost NASA to actually go there? And how do
you know that the remaining 1% isn't more formidable than what NASA says it is.
Admittedly even NASA doesn't know because it hasn't done the research yet. You
are putting NGS reporters in the position of being test pilots. Yes Even Neil
Armstrong was a test pilot, what you want is for some NGS reporter to have Neil
Armstrong's job. The technology for going to Mars requires a trip to Mars to
verify it as safe for the general public. If you don't do that, you've proven
nothing. The scientists and engineers at NASA might be lazy in their blackboard
studies, since no one from their organization is going to risk their lives on
their account, they simply to "back of the envelope" calculations and let the
NGS people sweat out the details. I think that final 1% would tend to be the
most expensive and dangerous part of the research program, because that's when
the unexpected tends to happen.

Tom

Not now, no.

That's the point--NASA's (or more generally, the nation's) goal should
be to make at least the latter possible.


Analogy: The US government sponsors an expedition to climb Mount Everest in the
1950s to see if it can be done, but the members decline to ascend the final 100
meters so as to save that for privately financed expeditions.

A Martian analogy would be if NASA were to launch a manned flyby expedition to
Mars with three astronauts onboard with a free orbital return to Earth. There
is no landing craft on the crew module and the crew module can't land on Mars.
The astronauts only look out their windows and take a few pictures. The part
about building a Manned lander is up to private enterprise.

Or NASA can actually go further and Orbit Mars and then return to Earth, or
they can descend in a lander that aborts just as it reaches the outer edge of
the Martian atmosphere, returns to the crew module and goes back to Earth.

I figure if NASA does all of that, why not just let them land on Mars?

Tom