Moon and Mars expeditions vs. RLV development

On 21 Jan 2004 16:50:26 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(Tom Merkle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:21:30 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Terrell
Miller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

it's irresponsible to finally admit that RLVs aren't economical?

Yes, based on very little data, other than that a bloated government
agency with very little interest in making them happen failed a
program to build them.

So the solution is to force the government to make yet another attempt
at developing an affordable RLV? (In case you haven't been paying
attention, that's what the original poster was suggesting.) True, the
experience of shuttle may not prove that RLVs have to be uneconomical.
But there's no experience (yet) of an economical RLV. In the absence
of proof either way, the only rational thing is to leave the answer up
to the free market.

Which is difficult to do when the "experts" at NASA claim that it's
not possible.

On 21 Jan 2004 13:11:33 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(vthokie) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

"Terrell Miller" wrote in message ...

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.

I would have at least liked to see Boeing follow through with its
"Sonic Cruiser" concept. It would have been a small step in the right
direction.

Not really. There's a qualitative difference between subsonic and
supersonic, not a quantitative one.

Rand Simberg wrote:

On 21 Jan 2004 13:11:33 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(vthokie) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

"Terrell Miller" wrote in message ...

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.

I would have at least liked to see Boeing follow through with its
"Sonic Cruiser" concept. It would have been a small step in the right
direction.

Not really. There's a qualitative difference between subsonic and
supersonic, not a quantitative one.

Somehow this sounds quite wrong to me.

I suspect it is a matter of semantics. Certainly supersonic flight is
quantitatively different than subsonic flight in the simple matter of
being faster and in most cases much faster.

In the case of the Sonic Cruiser concept it looked as if it required
some sophisticated engineering to get a quite limited speed increase.
The airlines shot it down and seem to have called for greater economy
at pretty much current speed levels.

Oh, well. A bit off-topic anyway.

Mike Walsh

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 01:43:53 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael
Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

I would have at least liked to see Boeing follow through with its
"Sonic Cruiser" concept. It would have been a small step in the right
direction.

Not really. There's a qualitative difference between subsonic and
supersonic, not a quantitative one.

Somehow this sounds quite wrong to me.

It's not. It's an extremely non-linear situation, and subsonic
designs, even those approaching transition, have little in common with
supersonic ones.

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 01:43:53 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael
Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

I would have at least liked to see Boeing follow through with its
"Sonic Cruiser" concept. It would have been a small step in the right
direction.

Not really. There's a qualitative difference between subsonic and
supersonic, not a quantitative one.

Somehow this sounds quite wrong to me.

It's not. It's an extremely non-linear situation, and subsonic
designs, even those approaching transition, have little in common with
supersonic ones.

Linearity has nothing to do with whether the difference is qualitative
or quantitative.

Mike Walsh

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 02:58:25 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael
Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:



Rand Simberg wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 01:43:53 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael
Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

I would have at least liked to see Boeing follow through with its
"Sonic Cruiser" concept. It would have been a small step in the right
direction.

Not really. There's a qualitative difference between subsonic and
supersonic, not a quantitative one.

Somehow this sounds quite wrong to me.

It's not. It's an extremely non-linear situation, and subsonic
designs, even those approaching transition, have little in common with
supersonic ones.

Linearity has nothing to do with whether the difference is qualitative
or quantitative.

Regardless, the difference is qualitative, not quantitative. A
supersonic airplane is not like a subsonic one, except "more."

"Ool" wrote in message
...

Think of Hubble! Was in worth using the Shuttle to repair the thing?
Maybe... But should the Shuttle have been the only means available
for shooting it up into orbit in the first place? Definitely not! If
a rocket existed that could launch something of Hubble-size into orbit
we could launch five space observatories for the price of one!

Sorry, but we did have something capable of launching it (at least
mass-wise, vibration was another matter).

That launcher cost MORE than the shuttle.

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message ...
"Ool" wrote in message
...

Think of Hubble! Was in worth using the Shuttle to repair the thing?
Maybe... But should the Shuttle have been the only means available
for shooting it up into orbit in the first place? Definitely not! If
a rocket existed that could launch something of Hubble-size into orbit
we could launch five space observatories for the price of one!

Sorry, but we did have something capable of launching it (at least
mass-wise, vibration was another matter).

Like what? (Okay, eleven tons is feasible. I think the current EELV
limit is around twenty tons. Depends on how much fuel you need for
the final destination, I suppose...)


That launcher cost MORE than the shuttle.

How so, with all that dead weight you have to lift along with it in
the form of the Shuttle? What was it that made the Shuttle cheaper?

Are there any details available on those cost estimates?



--
__ “A good leader knows when it’s best to ignore the __
('__` screams for help and focus on the bigger picture.� '__`)
//6(6; ©OOL mmiii :^)^\\
`\_-/ http://home.t-online.de/home/ulrich....lmann/redbaron \-_/'

h (Rand Simberg) writes:

Regardless, the difference is qualitative, not quantitative.

Oh, come on; give it up. You were wrong and Michael was correct.
Sure the difference is qualitative, but it is also (even more) clearly
quantitative: namely, the Mach number quantity is different.

But I don't know why the subject was even raised as the Sonic Cruiser
was to be subsonic. If you'd have just said that it's hard to design
a plane to fly cheaply near Mach 1, you probably wouldn't have got any
disagreement.

As was noted, the only thing that stopped the detailed design and
construction was the lack of enough buyers.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..

But there's no experience (yet) of an economical RLV. In the absence
of proof either way, the only rational thing is to leave the answer up
to the free market.

Which is difficult to do when the "experts" at NASA claim that it's
not possible.

You sure are easy to discourage. Luckily, the average tech investor is
not quite so chicken****.

This is the exact same argument you've been using (to the letter)
since the start of your sci.space.policy posts. Your Fox articles
clearly suggest you are capable of original thought and verbiage. Why
do you stick to such a tired mantra here? My current theory is that,
as long NASA can still be considered(in your mind) an enemy of cheap
space flight, it offers the false hope that by hurting NASA, you can
therefore help cheap spaceflight. This is an illusion. The enemy of
your enemy is not always your friend.

You cannot yourself solve the tough problems that raising money,
developing a working rocket, workeable fuel, and guidance systems, and
recovery systems all require. However, NASA is very big, very public,
and very easy to attack. When you started attcking NASA, much of what
you said was true--the leadership was indeed skeptical of commercial
spaceflight, NASA was helping less than it was hurting, and leaders at
NASA frequently expressed derision for commercial efforts. Lots has
happened since then.

First, 90's commercial efforts were indeed worthy of skepticism
(Rotary in particular was a juicy target.) Each of these companies has
now died a rather unpleasant death, to be replaced by much better run
companies, two of which are now poised to compete for the X-prize this
year. Second, leadership at NASA and in the White House has changed.
NASA leaders now frequently express optimism for current commercial
efforts and express a willingness to buy from third party providers
once they are available. Third, the new NASA space plan currently
calls for leaving LEO to others--something you and others have called
for from the beginning. You're fighting the war after the Berlin wall
came down.

Tom Merkle