Dragon Rocket Fizzles! 1960 all over again~

"David E. Powell" wrote in message
...
On May 19, 11:46 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Snip

Even if you assume the most optimistic numbers for Space-X, launch
costs don't drop nearly enough to make an SSPS make economic sense.

Agreed. For now power sources that are earth bound offer plenty of
options far cheaper. Thorium type reactors, oil, coal etc.

David


...............................................


These advisors below think differently, that it's practical
already, they estimate a 1 giga-watt satellite chimes in
at about the same cost and ...time to build as a
nuclear plant. And that's even if they go it alone.

It's hard to win a debate without any
credible evidence on your side.

The advisors below are the leaders in the field.
I've shown you my evidence, now show me yours
....if you can!

Space Energy Inc Technical Consultants
http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/TechnicalAdvisors.htm

Space Energy Inc Presentation
http://www.spaceenergy.com/i/flash/ted_presentation




s

"David E. Powell" wrote in message
...
On May 19, 11:40 am, "jonathan" wrote:
"Vaughn" wrote in message

...

On 5/19/2012 8:30 AM, jonathan wrote:

WHY has the last FIFTY YEARS of space activity
ended up where it all started?

So tell us Jonathan; what's your REAL problem?

My post wasn't about the Deja-vu Dragon rocket, it was
about the current state of our long term space goals.

On the one hand, launchers are going commercial
and appear to be little ahead of where they were
in 1960, while on the other hand NASA makes plans
to send men to visit asteroids, and send a fleet of nuclear
powered manned ships to Mars. A goal which will
take ...another fifty years, and end up at the same place
as the last fifty....starting over from scratch.

Well, for the next couple decades at least, most viable launch stuff
will be to earth orbit. Tourist flights, suborbital and eventually
orbital, as well as satlelites.

Longer range stuff may eventually be assembled in orbit as well, or a
private space station.

..............................



I have nothing against Space Tourism at all, I just want
to point out a couple of things. That space activity needs
a huge commercial market to overcome the massive
costs of doing anything in space. And space tourism
is analogous to the Concorde in terms of a business plan.
I'm not saying it can't succeed, but it'll be highly limited,
since it's a far more expensive and dangerous version
of the Concorde, and without even taking anyone
from point A to B.

Hardly the scale of business needed to start a gold-rush
for space.

But with Space Solar Power, the market happens to be
the ... $6 trillion dollar per year energy industry, second
only to food, and some $3 trillion dollars larger than
any other market or industry that exists.
http://www.sapphireenergy.com/learn-...matter-so-much

You listed a couple of nice customers in the ISS, and
tourism and so on. I can list a hundred very potential
customers for SSP, each of which dwarf tourism. Just two
for instance, Japan and India. It should be necessary
to explain why those two countries would find plenty
of uses for SSP.

Just answer this question, which goal would do more
to change the world? Space tourism and the ISS?

Or a night sky lit up with massive engeerning projects
in orbit, providing endless streams of clean energy
to any point on Earth?


s

On 19/05/2012 10:30 PM, jonathan wrote:
See the launch abort video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O4V7JfeTSU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JwtONW8oTU


WHY has the last FIFTY YEARS of space activity
ended up where it all started?


The two events are quite different. In the latter it appears that the
launch was aborted before the vehicle had moved, as a result of some
abnormality being sensed. The issue can presumably be addressed and this
same vehicle then launched on another day. In that regard it's no
different from an airliner that starts a take-off run, but aborts it and
stops, which happens often enough.

Sylvia.

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
On 19/05/2012 10:30 PM, jonathan wrote:


See the launch abort video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O4V7JfeTSU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JwtONW8oTU



WHY has the last FIFTY YEARS of space activity
ended up where it all started?



The two events are quite different.


Thanks for replying. My point is about how that
abort highlights the current state of space activity.
Can you honestly say that we shouldn't be much
farther along after 50 years?

Why?

I believe the goal is the thing. Apollo had a goal
that was as clear and inspirational, as it was
worthwhile. Our goal now?

A FLEET OF NUCLEAR POWERED SHIPS TO MARS?

How can anyone defend that goal? It's all Bull****, 'designed'
only for public consumption. A thinly veiled cover story
for missile defense.

So after 50 years of the 'promise' of space, and while the
World Burns, billionaires dream of taking the rich-and-famous
on joyrides, to brag about joining the 50 mile-high club.
That's how the rich ...masturbate, not a goal.

And while the World Burns, NASA makes plans for a
Gilded Safari to Nowhere.

Before 9/11, NASA had a mandate for a new
direction, a goal that anyone could understand
and appreciate as potentially world-changing.
A goal which could fill the night sky with magnificent
engineering projects in space, while paving the
way for solutions to fossil fuels and climate change.
For Saving the World!

NASA SERT Space Solar Power Program
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1

I think it's high time we returned to the pre-9/11 world.
And start making 'designs' on how to create a
better future, not just seek and destroy.

Thanks for reading.


Space Energy Inc
http://spaceenergy.com/

Space Energy Inc Presentation
http://www.spaceenergy.com/i/flash/ted_presentation

Space Energy Inc Technical Consultants
http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/TechnicalAdvisors.htm

Pentagon Study
Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity
for Strategic Security

"Complicating the matter is a lack of professional consensus on
the actual expected date of global peak oil production, with
credible organizations such a Exxon Mobil predicting that
the non-OPEC Hubbert's Peak will arrive within 5 years"
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat56.pdf



Sylvia.

"Vaughn" wrote in message
...
On 5/19/2012 11:40 AM, jonathan wrote:
wrote in message
...


My post wasn't about the Deja-vu Dragon rocket,

Errr, go back and read YOUR title to this thread.

It was about comparing today to 50 years ago
concerning space activities.



There needs to be a worthy accomplishment at the
end of all this for such a long and expensive goal
to succeed.

What is it?

I would submit that the hundreds of satellites that serve us in various
ways are a pretty damn good accomplishment, many (likely most) would have
been quite impossible with 1960's technology.


As for more adventurous goals, they all depend on affordable access to
space.


That's where the huge mistake is being made.
Your putting the cart before the horse.

Why were we able to make the big advances
of the Saturn V and lander? Because there was
a burning public desire for a heavy lift rocket?

No, because we wanted to go to the Moon.
The ..inspiring goal created the effort needed
to make that big technological leap.

Not the othe way around. You have to have
a clear and inspirational ....use in mind, then
people will /find a way/ of creating whatever
technology is needed. For the last 40 years
people have assumed, 'build it and the promise
of space will naturally follow'.

And 50 years later we're starting over from
scratch as a result.

Find a ...goal that can change the world, and
low cost to orbit will materialize almost overnight
as if by magic. Like the needed advanced did
with Apollo.


Jonathan


s








The space shuttle was supposed to do that for us, but after 30
years of trying it didn't happen. The Dragon series, and its various
competitors represents another approach to the same goal, affordable
access to space. It's really amazing what competition and the laws of
economics can accomplish.

Will it actually happen? I honestly don't know, but SpaceX has my full
attention. They've already gone further than I thought was possible, and
we're just starting to see what the rest of the industry can accomplish.

Vaughn

On 21/05/2012 1:51 AM, jonathan wrote:

You are a troll and a liar. **** off.

On Saturday, May 19, 2012 9:35:58 AM UTC-4, jonathan wrote:

The Historic Failure is having the ultimate long term goal
a matter of blind faith. If we build it 'they' will come.
Which is a goal amazingly like this one.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le-J-9IPlT4

Call me a sap; I still believe in the dream, even if the efforts sometime seems to be going nowhere.

Regards,
John Braungart

On 5/20/2012 11:51 AM, jonathan wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 5/19/2012 11:40 AM, jonathan wrote:
wrote in message
...


My post wasn't about the Deja-vu Dragon rocket,

Errr, go back and read YOUR title to this thread.

It was about comparing today to 50 years ago
concerning space activities.

Then it was a pretty bad choice of titles because it failed to convey
that idea. Further, since there was no "fizzle" it was non-factual.



As for more adventurous goals, they all depend on affordable access to
space.


That's where the huge mistake is being made.
Your putting the cart before the horse.

And that is where you are tragically mistaken. Everything depends on
affordable access to space. Once we can do that, everything else
becomes simpler because we can assemble and fuel spacecraft in orbit to
do anything or go anywhere we wish.

Vaughn

"Vaughn" wrote in message
...
On 5/20/2012 11:51 AM, jonathan wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 5/19/2012 11:40 AM, jonathan wrote:
wrote in message
...


My post wasn't about the Deja-vu Dragon rocket,

Errr, go back and read YOUR title to this thread.

It was about comparing today to 50 years ago
concerning space activities.

Then it was a pretty bad choice of titles because it failed to convey that
idea.


Eh hum, the title clearly indicates a comparison between
today and the early days of NASA.


Further, since there was no "fizzle" it was non-factual.


I think fizzle is an accurate description.




As for more adventurous goals, they all depend on affordable access to
space.


That's where the huge mistake is being made.
Your putting the cart before the horse.

And that is where you are tragically mistaken. Everything depends on
affordable access to space. Once we can do that, everything else becomes
simpler because we can assemble and fuel spacecraft in orbit to do
anything or go anywhere we wish.


You make my point. Build it and figure out later what
to do with them. That's what got us into this mess.


s





Vaughn

On 5/19/2012 9:35 AM, jonathan wrote:
Entirely clean, endlessly abundant Space Solar Power.

$0.08 / kW-hr