A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 16th 07, 02:01 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Totorkon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 183
Default Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable


What if a 'vision for space exploitation' were to replace W's VSE.
It is the first step to LEO that requires the giant leap. I don't
know how to set a goal like, 'to deliver a thousand tons per year into
orbit, with a price ceiling of $1K/Kg' , and make it sound as
inspiring as 'landing a man on the moon', but it would be more
practical; serving as a robust foundation for exploration, science
and possible commertial ventures.
What would be the best way to accomplish this? A half dozen, ten ton
payload, frequent flyer flybacks, or a couple of heavys with a two
month turnaround? Anyone up for this game of 'IF', as in 'what if the
first goal is to establish the means'?

The parallel goal would be to establish demand, but that's another
subject.

  #2  
Old February 16th 07, 04:53 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Joe Strout
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 972
Default Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable

In article . com,
"Totorkon" wrote:

What would be the best way to accomplish this? A half dozen, ten ton
payload, frequent flyer flybacks, or a couple of heavys with a two
month turnaround?


Set up a water depot in LEO, and guarantee to purchase at least 1000
tons/year from the lowest bidder to actually deliver, but with a price
cap set initially just barely within reach of current launchers. Then
lower the price cap each year for ten years, to drive continual progress.

The parallel goal would be to establish demand, but that's another
subject.


Seems like the same subject to me.

Best,
- Joe
  #3  
Old February 16th 07, 06:16 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Totorkon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 183
Default Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable

On Feb 15, 7:53 pm, Joe Strout wrote:
In article . com,

"Totorkon" wrote:
What would be the best way to accomplish this? A half dozen, ten ton
payload, frequent flyer flybacks, or a couple of heavys with a two
month turnaround?


Set up a water depot in LEO, and guarantee to purchase at least 1000
tons/year from the lowest bidder to actually deliver, but with a price
cap set initially just barely within reach of current launchers. Then
lower the price cap each year for ten years, to drive continual progress.

The parallel goal would be to establish demand, but that's another
subject.


Seems like the same subject to me.

Best,
- Joe


Good idea, atleast for that part of the Kton that other projects can't
be found for or sold commertially. Water is stable and an ideal
asorber for cosmic rays until it is electrolysed for propulsion.
Still it's a lot less 'romantic' than space tourism or 'assemblable
space telescopes' or life science 'islands'. But for topping off the
tonnage, I can't think of anything better. Thanks.

  #4  
Old February 16th 07, 04:20 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Joe Strout
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 972
Default Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable

In article .com,
"Totorkon" wrote:

Good idea, atleast for that part of the Kton that other projects can't
be found for or sold commertially. Water is stable and an ideal
asorber for cosmic rays until it is electrolysed for propulsion.
Still it's a lot less 'romantic' than space tourism or 'assemblable
space telescopes' or life science 'islands'. But for topping off the
tonnage, I can't think of anything better. Thanks.


Yes, water has a lot of really important uses in space: shielding, fuel,
oxygen for breathing or industry, etc. It's also extremely cheap (on
Earth), can withstand any amount of acceleration, and if something goes
wrong on launch and it gets sprayed over a large area, nobody cares.
These traits would encourage the development of launchers which may not
be suitable for human transport (because they're too unreliable, or have
too high a G level, or whatever), but that's OK -- bulk cargo will be
the vast majority of mass launched for a long time. So if you can
launch that cheap, and launch people on a more specialized and expensive
launcher, you still come out way ahead.

Best,
- Joe
  #5  
Old February 16th 07, 06:47 PM posted to sci.space.policy
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable

Totorkon wrote:
What if a 'vision for space exploitation' were to replace W's VSE.
It is the first step to LEO that requires the giant leap. I don't
know how to set a goal like, 'to deliver a thousand tons per year into
orbit, with a price ceiling of $1K/Kg' , and make it sound as
inspiring as 'landing a man on the moon', but it would be more
practical; serving as a robust foundation for exploration, science
and possible commertial ventures.


What would be the best way to accomplish this? A half dozen, ten ton
payload, frequent flyer flybacks, or a couple of heavys with a two
month turnaround? Anyone up for this game of 'IF', as in 'what if the
first goal is to establish the means'?

The parallel goal would be to establish demand, but that's another
subject.


We're working on it.

You might be interested :

http://cosmic.lifeform.org/?p=267

The basic plan is to remove the SSME and use the robotic arm to install
it into a specially designed nose cone engine reentry carrier, leaving
the fully functional tank in orbit, for residual fuel stockpiling and
tourist operations. We'll put the tourists to work regardless.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
  #6  
Old February 16th 07, 07:30 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable

Joe Strout wrote:

In article . com,
"Totorkon" wrote:

What would be the best way to accomplish this? A half dozen, ten ton
payload, frequent flyer flybacks, or a couple of heavys with a two
month turnaround?


Set up a water depot in LEO, and guarantee to purchase at least 1000
tons/year from the lowest bidder to actually deliver, but with a price
cap set initially just barely within reach of current launchers. Then
lower the price cap each year for ten years, to drive continual progress.


In other words - pork and handouts.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
  #9  
Old February 16th 07, 09:16 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Eric Chomko
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,630
Default Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable

On Feb 16, 2:36 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:30:31 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Joe Strout wrote:


In article . com,
"Totorkon" wrote:


What would be the best way to accomplish this? A half dozen, ten ton
payload, frequent flyer flybacks, or a couple of heavys with a two
month turnaround?


Set up a water depot in LEO, and guarantee to purchase at least 1000
tons/year from the lowest bidder to actually deliver, but with a price
cap set initially just barely within reach of current launchers. Then
lower the price cap each year for ten years, to drive continual progress.


In other words - pork and handouts.


No, handouts are when you give the money with no service provided.
You know, like X-33?


So Rand, who is the big culprit WRT the X-33, NASA or Lock-Mart?


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NASA AND ZERO-G AGREE ON REGULAR SHUTTLE RUNWAY USE Jacques van Oene Space Shuttle 0 April 5th 06 10:38 AM
Regular photos, not long exposure? JimmyK CCD Imaging 0 January 24th 06 06:19 PM
Are regular eyepiece lenses "bad?" RichA Amateur Astronomy 3 December 12th 04 07:10 AM
Regular access to 3rd Party FITS Images Dafydd UK Astronomy 1 January 13th 04 11:18 PM
Fast, reliable, cheap vs CATS brianwh Technology 2 August 10th 03 05:28 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.