|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Space Program Needs The Right Stuff
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Space Program Needs The Right Stuff
"Lou Adornato" wrote:
You're ignoring the crucial fact that NASA walked away from this technology and refused to even reconsider it because it would make subsequent decisions look bad. Which technology? Air dropped spaceplanes? Air dropped launchers? Hybrid engines? Which? (To be fair, I have long been on record for criticizing NASA for choosing Max Faget over building on the X-15.) This sort of situation doesn't exist in a competitive market - any company that refuses to face reality about failing projects will eventually go out of business. A meaningless comparison as NASA isn't in a commercial market. It's not all that strange that it took a bunch of bootstrap organizations 40 years to catch up to the state-of-the-art, with NASA effectively blocking all commercial incentive to do so and thereby driving away any potential investors. So what happened to all the rocketry pioneers in the twenties, thirties, and forties... Years before NASA came along, not a one made a serious attempt at commercial space, manned or unmanned. D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to , as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Space Program Needs The Right Stuff
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Space Program Needs The Right Stuff
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Space Program Needs The Right Stuff
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Space Program Needs The Right Stuff
In sci.space.policy Kaido Kert wrote:
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... That's Fox News' title for my column. I just called it "Daring." The third in a trilogy, and I think that I'm overwraught, or at least overWrighted... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,106062,00.html No mas. concept works, practical application Automotive: Daimler-Benz ( 1886 ) Ford Model - T ( 1908 ) Uhh.. this is gross misstatement of the car business. Ford didn't really make cars be widespread. Aviation : Wright ( 1903 ) Glenn Curtis ( ~1909 ~1911 ) Space : Rutan ? ( 2004-5? ) blank ( 200x ? ) I wonder who will fill in the blank and when ? BTW, there were equivalents of STS, EELVs etc. both in aviation and automotive as well. Aviation: dirigibles, Langley & Co. hot air balloons, steam cars and whatnot. -kert -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Space Program Needs The Right Stuff
Hi
"Sander Vesik" wrote in message ... much snipped concept works, practical application Automotive: Daimler-Benz ( 1886 ) Ford Model - T ( 1908 ) Uhh.. this is gross misstatement of the car business. Ford didn't really make cars be widespread. If Ford didn't then who? Certainly none of his contemporaries. They didn't build cars for the masses, they were building cars for the aristrocracy. Luxury goods for luxury people. Ford made cars in numbers that all his compeditors put together could not match. Ford made automobiles affordable to the people who actually worked on the production lines to manufacture them (and by implication to almost everyone else). Ford made automobiles maintainable to the common man, by making them simple enough for the ordinary man to fix. Before Ford cars had been grossly complex pieces of machinery that need the constant attention of skilled mechanics. Ford made automobiles accessible to the common man by making them easy to operate. He established a simple set of controls and didn't change them with every new model. Admittedly his Model-T set isn't the same set we use today, but it was the set that launched the Age of Automobiles. -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ Who are you going to hold up as the inventor of the first practical motorcar? Certainly no one before Ford produced anything like Ford's volume. Prior to the Model-T the only complex mechanical items that had been produced in similar numbers were firearms. The fact that 90% of the planet didn't get to see or embark upon a motorcar before 1950 doesn't make the fact any different that 10% of them did in the decade after the Model T went into production. And the overwhelming majority of that 10% saw and rode in and would only have recognized a Ford, until at least the 1940s. The man had faults (Big ones, San Andres Faults) but he (and his company, and the several thousand very bright people he employed and routinely listened to) turned the motorcar from a rich man toys into a workhorse of an entire civilization. If you wish to claim otherwise you'd better have pretty astounding facts. Regards Frank |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Space Program Needs The Right Stuff
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 14:57:27 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away, (Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: "Lou Adornato" wrote: You're ignoring the crucial fact that NASA walked away from this technology and refused to even reconsider it because it would make subsequent decisions look bad. Which technology? Air dropped spaceplanes? Air dropped launchers? Hybrid engines? Which? Suborbital reusables. Problem is, why should NASA have chased this technology? Which of it's organizational goals does it meet? It's not all that strange that it took a bunch of bootstrap organizations 40 years to catch up to the state-of-the-art, with NASA effectively blocking all commercial incentive to do so and thereby driving away any potential investors. So what happened to all the rocketry pioneers in the twenties, thirties, and forties... Years before NASA came along, not a one made a serious attempt at commercial space, manned or unmanned. Then it was a technology problem. A reasonable answer. D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to , as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Space Program Needs The Right Stuff
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:25:30 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Which technology? Air dropped spaceplanes? Air dropped launchers? Hybrid engines? Which? Suborbital reusables. Problem is, why should NASA have chased this technology? Because it provided a pathway to eventually learning how to do affordable orbital reusables. Which of it's organizational goals does it meet? None, apparently, but NASA's organizational goals have little or nothing to do with running a cost-effective space program. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
No Red Space Menace | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 11 | October 18th 03 06:30 AM |
Is a Space Elevator more risky than the shuttle? | Henry J. Cobb | Space Science Misc | 18 | October 4th 03 02:06 AM |
The Non-Innovator's Dilemma | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 76 | September 27th 03 03:09 AM |
Asteroid first, Moon, Mars Later | Al Jackson | Space Science Misc | 0 | September 3rd 03 03:40 PM |
Is space over? | Tony Rusi | Space Science Misc | 0 | July 6th 03 12:40 PM |