Rutan describes plans for orbital spacecraft

But the Chinese have a LOT of bikes, to go with your analogy. Craft that small
(one-man) would not have enough volume for cargo to make up the air the pilot
/tourist would use up at the hotel. No, cargo will have to have a different
vehicle, one more suitable for volume and economics.

In article , ``This is the Battle of
Epping Forest '' wrote:

Scott Lowther wrote:

Neil Halelamien wrote:

"We'd have a small cramped cabin for the orbital flight and you'd be in
it for a long time. You'd want to go to a hotel [because of that] and
for orbital tourism you'd want an altitude of 130km," says Rutan.

Yikes. You'd want higher than that, and you'd want more than one guy.

For a tourist thing but maybe his design can't get more than one guy
there. It starts with this stuff about needing more people and pretty
soon we have that damn Space Shuttle again.

Well, if it's going to take three launches the same day to get me and
two women up to the orbiting love hotel, you might as well get a ship
that can do it in one go.

--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total ****. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS

And you'd want a vehicle that could enter at Mach teens, rather than
Mach three...


Slap on some shuttle tiles.

Tom

Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:
Scott Lowther :
Neil Halelamien wrote:
"We'd have a small cramped cabin for the orbital flight and you'd
be in
it for a long time. You'd want to go to a hotel [because of that]
and
for orbital tourism you'd want an altitude of 130km," says Rutan.


Yikes. You'd want higher than that, and you'd want more than one
guy.

Why, electric rockets or tethers can keep the station up, with one
man
rockets you have a lot of traffic bring up supplies. At one time
most of
China moved on bikes, it did not stop them from getting to work.
Start small
and work your way up. The problem with present day NASA is that it
always
wants to start big.

This raises an interesting question: With current technologies and a
reasonable amount of consistent power, what is the lowest altitude (and
speed) at which one can sustain an orbit, if you're constantly
propelling yourself upwards?

-- Neil

"Neil Halelamien" wrote in message
oups.com...
Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:
Scott Lowther :
Neil Halelamien wrote:
"We'd have a small cramped cabin for the orbital flight and you'd
be in
it for a long time. You'd want to go to a hotel [because of that]
and
for orbital tourism you'd want an altitude of 130km," says Rutan.


Yikes. You'd want higher than that, and you'd want more than one
guy.

Why, electric rockets or tethers can keep the station up, with one
man
rockets you have a lot of traffic bring up supplies. At one time
most of
China moved on bikes, it did not stop them from getting to work.
Start small
and work your way up. The problem with present day NASA is that it
always
wants to start big.

This raises an interesting question: With current technologies and a
reasonable amount of consistent power, what is the lowest altitude (and
speed) at which one can sustain an orbit, if you're constantly
propelling yourself upwards?

-- Neil


Perhaps JP Aerospace will find out with their electric propulsion powered
giant airship.

Mike Walsh