|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#21
October 7th 04, 03:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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. I believe a New York to Boston shuttle would be too short for a suborbital flight. One possible application though would be to leap over the airspaces of hostile countries such as North Korea. You can snap a few photos on short notice all without entering their airspace, since you would be above the atmosphere. Unlike satellites which have a predicatable flight path, you could keep a SpaceShipOnce type craft ready to go on a moments notice. Governments might pay well for such a service, as it would be much cheaper than using up traditional spy satellite operational time. The spy satellite would have to use up propellents to change orbits, and the target country would be well aware of when the spy satellite would be over their country snapping picture. Suborbiters are also good places for testing out deep space propulsion ideas. NASA could build its own "SpaceShipOne" and put a NERVA nuclear rocket engine in its upper stage, firing it up when it reaches space. This would maximize the payload deliverable to orbit. The thrust of the NERVA would have to be something on the order of at least 2-g as it would have to prevent itself from falling back into the Earth's atmosphere as it accelerates to orbital speed. Tom 
|
|
#22
October 7th 04, 04:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Tkalbfus1 wrote: I believe a New York to Boston shuttle would be too short for a suborbital flight. Fast intercontinental transport might find a market. There's an something called "The Dinnertime Effect" where when it becomes possible for a businessman to travel to another city, conduct his or her business and travel back home in the time between breakfast and dinner, business between the two cities doubles in about half a decade. Suborbiters are also good places for testing out deep space propulsion ideas. NASA could build its own "SpaceShipOne" and put a NERVA nuclear rocket engine in its upper stage, firing it up when it reaches space. This would maximize the payload deliverable to orbit. The thrust of the NERVA would have to be something on the order of at least 2-g as it would have to prevent itself from falling back into the Earth's atmosphere as it accelerates to orbital speed. I await with anticipation the PR campaign that convinces a population nervous about Cassini that semi-orbiting an NTR would be a good idea. As I recall, the classic NERVA didn't develop enough thrust to lift itself off the ground on Earth, so whatever this NTR is, it isn't classic NERVA. There are and were other NTR designs, though. I'm don't think you need two gees, though. Half a gee might do, depending on how much time you have before you re-enter. -- "You work for the A-Sharp beings, and you help out the E-flat beings and you've done considerable for the B Major beings. But what have you done for the _sound absorbent_ beings?" Coyu, giving [Rot Lop Fan] a hard time.
|
|
#24
October 8th 04, 03:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Tkalbfus1) wrote in message ...
Looks like the era of cheap suborbital flight is almost upon us. So what's next? We need an X2-Prise, we should raise the bar, and the prise money to $25 million next time around. Spaceship One can reach space. We need to raise the bar and have another competition. Suborbital transportation if you can go somewhere while at the same time reach space. A suborbital flight from New York to Los Angeles might be a good start. The next would be a suborbital transaltantic flight from New York to London. Basically the ship would leave the Earth's atmosphere and follow a ballistic journey toward its destination and then reenter the atmosphere just before landing. If cheap access to suborbital flight of this sort can happen, we wouldn't need to develop supersonic aircraft. There would be no one complaining about the noise generated or about destruction of the ozone layer as the suborbiter would be above it all. A trivial (on paper) change would just be to raise the altitude to 200 km and leave all other conditions unchanged. I first heard this from Jim Bowery (who felt that the X-Prize had set their target altitude too low unlike his $2000 prize for the first amateur rocket to 200 km). The idea is that 200km requires propulsion systems and reentry systems that are fairly close to those that would be required to achieve orbit and reentry from orbit. Ie, one can scale up to an orbital vehicle from 200 km while 100 km is far more problematic. For example, the reentry system of Spaceship One can't operate at the fiery temperatures of reentry from orbit. Karl Hallowell
|
|
#25
October 8th 04, 04:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I await with anticipation the PR campaign that convinces a
population nervous about Cassini that semi-orbiting an NTR would be a good idea. Well its in space when you ignite the rocket and you launch it over the Pacific Ocean and you are a private company. The company buys a private island with a runway on it and the carrier plane takes off from it, ascends to the proper altitude and the suborbiter detatches and fires its chemical rockets to clear the atmosphere and then it ignites its nuclear rockets. Their are no protestors, because the nuclear rockets are a proprietary secret, Then the company announces that its orbiter has achieved orbit and presents it to the world as a "fait accompli" and is now selling launch services and affordable rates. Now the protestors come out in their dingies, little boats, and sloops. And so what? Its not like the CEO has to run for reelection and depend on their votes. Plenty of customers want cheap access to space and they don't care about those protestors anyway. The NERVA engines release hydrogen gas. The little radiation gets spead over a large geographic area and can't be separated from the background radiation.
|
|
#26
October 8th 04, 04:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Tkalbfus1 wrote: I await with anticipation the PR campaign that convinces a population nervous about Cassini that semi-orbiting an NTR would be a good idea. Well its in space when you ignite the rocket and you launch it over the Pacific Ocean and you are a private company. The company buys a private island with a runway on it and the carrier plane takes off from it, ascends to the proper altitude and the suborbiter detatches and fires its chemical rockets to clear the atmosphere and then it ignites its nuclear rockets. Their are no protestors, because the nuclear rockets are a proprietary secret, Then the company announces that its orbiter has achieved orbit and presents it to the world as a "fait accompli" and is now selling launch services and affordable rates. I bet you can't buy U or Th or Pu on the open market without attracting attention from large governments. Also fission-fear has very little to do with the odds of a serious accident or the results if there was one. And I doubt presenting these people with a fait accompli will help, as opposed to getting them to ask their governments to Do Something. A potential problem is Outer Space Treaty Treaty on Principles Governing The Activities Of States In The Exploration And Use Of Outer Space, Including The Moon And Other Celestial Bodies January 27, 1967 In particular Article VI States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty. The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty. When activities are carried on in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, by an international organization, responsibility for compliance with this Treaty shall be borne both by the international organization and by the States Parties to the Treaty participating in such organization. [So secret rockets to space are right out, if you are from a nation that signed the OST] Article VII Each State Party to the Treaty that launches or procures the launching of an object into outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and each State Party from whose territory or facility an object is launched, is internationally liable for damage to another State Party to the Treaty or to its natural or juridical persons by such object or its component parts on the earth, in air space or in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies. [You break it, your government pays for it. This gives whatever nation you are from a reason to keep an eye on what you are doing] Article VIII A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body. Ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects landed or constructed on a celestial body, and of their component parts, is not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by their return to the earth. Such objects or component parts found beyond the limits of the State Party to the Treaty on whose registry they are carried shall be returned to that State Party, which shall, upon request, furnish identifying data prior to their return. [No escape from having a State be responsible for you actions, either] snip Article X In order to promote international co-operation in the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, in conformity with the purposes of this Treaty, the States Parties to the Treaty shall consider on a basis of equality any requests by other States Parties to the Treaty to be afforded an opportunity to observe the flight of space objects launched by those States. The nature of such an opportunity for observation and the conditions under which it could be afforded shall be determined by agreement between the States concerned. [Any other State that gets concerned in their cheese eating surrender monkey way about why you are building missiles and buying fissionables can ask to look at what you are doing] Article XI In order to promote international co-operation in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space, States Parties to the Treaty conducting activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, agree to inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations as well as the public and the international scientific community, to the greatest extent feasible and practicable, of the nature, conduct, locations and results of such activities. On receiving the said information, the Secretary-General of the United Nations should be prepared to disseminate it immediately and effectively. [Secrecy is a no no] Article XII All stations, installations, equipment and space vehicles on the moon and other celestial bodies shall be open to representatives of other States Parties to the Treaty on a basis of reciprocity. Such representatives shall give reasonable advance notice of a projected visit, in order that appropriate consultations may be held and that maximum precautions may be taken to assure safety and to avoid interference with normal operations in the facility to be visited. [Apparently situating the observers under the rockets themselves is also a no no] snip I can think of at least three ways around these clauses. One is Article XV Any State Party to the Treaty may propose amendments to this Treaty. Amendments shall enter into force for each State Party to the Treaty accepting the amendments upon their acceptance by a majority of the States Parties to the Treaty and thereafter for each remaining State Party to the Treaty on the date of acceptance by it. Another is Article XVI Any State Party to the Treaty may give notice of its withdrawal from the Treaty one year after its entry into force by written notification to the Depositary Governments. Such withdrawal shall take effect one year from the date of receipt of this notification. And the third is getting some state that has not signed the OST to be the formal nation of record of the company. That may not help if you have any American citizens on board, because the US will insist it has the right to extend US law to them, anywhere. Also, if you look alarming enough, and a secretive Island of Doctor No Missile Launch Site (Now With Added Uranium!) is probably a very good way to get them to be alarmed, some pretext for interfering will be found, legal or quasi-legal. See the history of OTRAG, who got leaned on by the USSR (when they were in Zaire) and then by the USA (When they were building missiles in Libya). -- "You work for the A-Sharp beings, and you help out the E-flat beings and you've done considerable for the B Major beings. But what have you done for the _sound absorbent_ beings?" Coyu, giving [Rot Lop Fan] a hard time.
|
|
#27
October 8th 04, 06:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I bet you can't buy U or Th or Pu on the open market without
attracting attention from large governments. What if that large Government is Taiwan, a non-UN member state? Mainland China has been putting on pressure to the UN body not to recognize Taiwan as a state, and UN members are mostly dancing to their tune due to the economic influence of China? Taiwan might not care for the charter rules of an organization that rejected them. Then there is Israel, the UN won't give Israel the time of day, for being incoveniently Jewish in an Arab region whose members have oil, and also because Israel receives too much help from the US, so that automatically makes Israelis bad in the UN's eyes. If a Jew gets beated by arabs and he puts up a finger in his self defense, he is condemned for violate the Arabs "right" to beat his brains in. Why should Israel give a damn about what the UN says, since it so frequently condemns Israel for defending itself and so often sides with the terrorists. I think a private company can base itself in a UN reject state such as Israel and Taiwan. Since the UN has largely rendered itself toothless, and deliberately does not enforce its own rules, and loudly complains if someone does anyway, the UN can safely be ignored. And any state that blithly ignores the UN and does not threaten any major powers such as the US can safely be used as a base for such a launch endeavor.. The US would probably not object too much about Taiwan having nuclear reactors or fissionables as that would serve as a check on China, which by the way also helped North Korea get Nukes. If the UN will stand by while rogue states get nuclear weapons, nuclear rockets which are even less threatening will merit even less attention. Tom
|
|
#28
October 8th 04, 06:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Tkalbfus1 wrote: I bet you can't buy U or Th or Pu on the open market without attracting attention from large governments. What if that large Government is Taiwan, a non-UN member state? Mainland China has been putting on pressure to the UN body not to recognize Taiwan as a state, and UN members are mostly dancing to their tune due to the economic influence of China? Taiwan might not care for the charter rules of an organization that rejected them. Interestingly, Taiwan is -not- a signatory of the OST. They are somewhat subject to political pressure from the USA so it becomes a question of whether the US sees interfering in this matter as something they should do. By the way, paragraphs are a useful way to make text more readable. Then there is Israel, Who signed the OST in 1967 and who ratified it in 1977. The Principles on the Use of Nuclear Power in Outer Space, a potential problem for any UN member, actually doesn't look all that hostile to using nuclear power in space, except for a bizarrely specific clause that reads "Nuclear reactors shall use only highly enriched uranium 235 as fuel [...]" Price supports for the struggling U235 industry? -- "You work for the A-Sharp beings, and you help out the E-flat beings and you've done considerable for the B Major beings. But what have you done for the _sound absorbent_ beings?" Coyu, giving [Rot Lop Fan] a hard time.
|
|
#29
October 9th 04, 03:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Interestingly, Taiwan is -not- a signatory of the OST.
They are somewhat subject to political pressure from the USA so it becomes a question of whether the US sees interfering in this matter as something they should do. George Bush is a supporter of the nuclear power industry and Taiwan is not seen as a threat to us. China has always hinted that it may someday take Taiwan by force. If Taiwan has nuclear technology and hence nuclear weapons, that might deter the Chinese from doing so and would eliminate the need for US forces to rescue Taiwan from a Chinese invasion. So if Taiwan is building nuclear power plants, and processing nuclear fuels in such as way that it might be used for nuclear weapons productions, the US would make the minimal protest as it would be in the US's interest that China be deterred from invading by the possibility that Taiwan might have nukes. Taiwan is an advanced industrialized country, it has its own home grown talent in the field of nuclear energy, these engineers could be put to work in building a nuclear rocket. The Taiwanese government might allow for the purchase of nuclear fuel for the purpose of providing a cheap launch service in Taiwan's name and it would also serve as an answer to China's newly invigorated manned space program. Since Taiwan was not allowed to join the UN, it is not subject to its rules. The Taiwanese are like the Jews of Medeaval who became bankers, since the Christian church forbade its followers at that time from Charging interest. Someday, Israel might just up and quit the UN, it has gotten enough grief from that body to justify doing that many times. The UN is full of countries that find it expediant to bash Jews to gain favor with Arab oil producers. Someday, the Israelis might just decide they've had enough and leave. Tom
|
|
#30
October 9th 04, 05:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Tkalbfus1 wrote: Interestingly, Taiwan is -not- a signatory of the OST. They are somewhat subject to political pressure from the USA so it becomes a question of whether the US sees interfering in this matter as something they should do. George Bush is a supporter of the nuclear power industry and Taiwan is not seen as a threat to us. China has always hinted that it may someday take Taiwan by force. If Taiwan has nuclear technology and hence nuclear weapons, that might deter the Chinese from doing so and would eliminate the need for US forces to rescue Taiwan from a Chinese invasion. So if Taiwan is building nuclear power plants, and processing nuclear fuels in such as way that it might be used for nuclear weapons productions, the US would make the minimal protest as it would be in the US's interest that China be deterred from invading by the possibility that Taiwan might have nukes. snip Really, paragraphs can be your friend. Historically, the US has opposed Taiwanese nuclear weapons programs and since the Bush family has close ties to mainland China, I wouldn't expect that to change any time soon. Interestingly, something I only noticed while sketching out what a Rainbow Republican Party might look like, Dan Quayle's grandkids are half-Chinese, Tucker having married Yuan Zhiqin in 2000. -- "You work for the A-Sharp beings, and you help out the E-flat beings and you've done considerable for the B Major beings. But what have you done for the _sound absorbent_ beings?" Coyu, giving [Rot Lop Fan] a hard time.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
