Is suborbital a real market?

The Ansari X prize was great but then we see all these guys who say
they will make money sending people into 5 minutes of weightlessness.
Do you buy this? It seems awfully sketchy to me. I hope they are
right.
You might say that this is a step towards an orbital market but all
you have to do is to compare E=mgh to E=1/2 mv^2 where v is orbital
velocity to see that suborbital isnt a real step toward orbital. For
orbital, you gotta carry a whole lotta fuel and I dont see Virgin or
Blue Origin or the others trying to do so.

On Nov 21, 7:43 pm, wrote:
The Ansari X prize was great but then we see all these guys who say
they will make money sending people into 5 minutes of weightlessness.
Do you buy this? It seems awfully sketchy to me. I hope they are
right.
You might say that this is a step towards an orbital market but all
you have to do is to compare E=mgh to E=1/2 mv^2 where v is orbital
velocity to see that suborbital isnt a real step toward orbital. For
orbital, you gotta carry a whole lotta fuel and I dont see Virgin or
Blue Origin or the others trying to do so.

I agree with you that the suborbital market is overrated. In fact,
I feel that it is more of a distraction than a help with respect to
getting to orbit. For one thing, 100 km at slow speed is way outside
of the normal abort corridor for going to orbit. I tried
unsuccessfully
to get the X PRIZE goal changed to a more appropriate step toward
going to orbit--before the prize got set in concrete.

Recovery from near-zero speed at 100 km is quite difficult
and, without retro or low ballistic coefficient, results in high g's,
since
the vehicle reenters at steep angles, rather than grazing angles.

Sure, going to orbit is going to be more expensive--but not
necessarily that much more difficult than suborbital. However, the
ratio of potential market to investment is far better with orbital
than
with suborbital.

Len

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:43:44 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

The Ansari X prize was great but then we see all these guys who say
they will make money sending people into 5 minutes of weightlessness.
Do you buy this?

Of course.

It seems awfully sketchy to me.

That's your problem, not ours.

You might say that this is a step towards an orbital market but all
you have to do is to compare E=mgh to E=1/2 mv^2 where v is orbital
velocity to see that suborbital isnt a real step toward orbital.

No, I can't see that, sorry. Even though I'm an astronautical
engineer with three decades of experience, and understand the math.
Can you explain it further?

For orbital, you gotta carry a whole lotta fuel and I dont see Virgin or
Blue Origin or the others trying to do so.

Of course they're not. They have to do things one step at a time.

On Nov 21, 8:02 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:43:44 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

The Ansari X prize was great but then we see all these guys who say
they will make money sending people into 5 minutes of weightlessness.
Do you buy this?

Of course.

It seems awfully sketchy to me.

That's your problem, not ours.

You might say that this is a step towards an orbital market but all
you have to do is to compare E=mgh to E=1/2 mv^2 where v is orbital
velocity to see that suborbital isnt a real step toward orbital.

No, I can't see that, sorry. Even though I'm an astronautical
engineer with three decades of experience, and understand the math.
Can you explain it further?

For orbital, you gotta carry a whole lotta fuel and I dont see Virgin or
Blue Origin or the others trying to do so.

Of course they're not. They have to do things one step at a time.

Rand:

How much of an engine would Virgin have to carry to go to orbital
velocity once they are up to say 200 Km?

On Nov 21, 8:02 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:43:44 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

The Ansari X prize was great but then we see all these guys who say
they will make money sending people into 5 minutes of weightlessness.
Do you buy this?

Of course.

It seems awfully sketchy to me.

That's your problem, not ours.

You might say that this is a step towards an orbital market but all
you have to do is to compare E=mgh to E=1/2 mv^2 where v is orbital
velocity to see that suborbital isnt a real step toward orbital.

No, I can't see that, sorry. Even though I'm an astronautical
engineer with three decades of experience, and understand the math.
Can you explain it further?

For orbital, you gotta carry a whole lotta fuel and I dont see Virgin or
Blue Origin or the others trying to do so.

Of course they're not. They have to do things one step at a time.

Can the Virgin ship be modified to carry a big enough engine to get to
200 Km and then can it carry a big enough engine to go orbital?
Otherwise they gotta build a whole new system.

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:06:46 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

On Nov 21, 8:02 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:43:44 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

The Ansari X prize was great but then we see all these guys who say
they will make money sending people into 5 minutes of weightlessness.
Do you buy this?

Of course.

It seems awfully sketchy to me.

That's your problem, not ours.

You might say that this is a step towards an orbital market but all
you have to do is to compare E=mgh to E=1/2 mv^2 where v is orbital
velocity to see that suborbital isnt a real step toward orbital.

No, I can't see that, sorry. Even though I'm an astronautical
engineer with three decades of experience, and understand the math.
Can you explain it further?

For orbital, you gotta carry a whole lotta fuel and I dont see Virgin or
Blue Origin or the others trying to do so.

Of course they're not. They have to do things one step at a time.

Rand:

How much of an engine would Virgin have to carry to go to orbital
velocity once they are up to say 200 Km?

I have not idea. What is the purpose of this seemingly stupid
question?

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:07:56 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

You might say that this is a step towards an orbital market but all
you have to do is to compare E=mgh to E=1/2 mv^2 where v is orbital
velocity to see that suborbital isnt a real step toward orbital.

No, I can't see that, sorry. Even though I'm an astronautical
engineer with three decades of experience, and understand the math.
Can you explain it further?

For orbital, you gotta carry a whole lotta fuel and I dont see Virgin or
Blue Origin or the others trying to do so.

Of course they're not. They have to do things one step at a time.

Can the Virgin ship be modified to carry a big enough engine to get to
200 Km and then can it carry a big enough engine to go orbital?

Of course not. Again, what is the purpose of this seemingly stupid
and irrelevant question?

Otherwise they gotta build a whole new system.

So?

On Nov 21, 10:57 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:07:56 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

You might say that this is a step towards an orbital market but all
you have to do is to compare E=mgh to E=1/2 mv^2 where v is orbital
velocity to see that suborbital isnt a real step toward orbital.

No, I can't see that, sorry. Even though I'm an astronautical
engineer with three decades of experience, and understand the math.
Can you explain it further?

For orbital, you gotta carry a whole lotta fuel and I dont see Virgin or
Blue Origin or the others trying to do so.

Of course they're not. They have to do things one step at a time.

Can the Virgin ship be modified to carry a big enough engine to get to
200 Km and then can it carry a big enough engine to go orbital?

Of course not. Again, what is the purpose of this seemingly stupid
and irrelevant question?

Otherwise they gotta build a whole new system.

So?

Is it really a stupid question? Is it really an irrelevant question?
No, going into orbit takes orders of magnitude more energy than simply
raising yourself to 60 Km and it is reasonable to wonder if they can
easily do it.

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:05:01 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

You might say that this is a step towards an orbital market but all
you have to do is to compare E=mgh to E=1/2 mv^2 where v is orbital
velocity to see that suborbital isnt a real step toward orbital.

No, I can't see that, sorry. Even though I'm an astronautical
engineer with three decades of experience, and understand the math.
Can you explain it further?

For orbital, you gotta carry a whole lotta fuel and I dont see Virgin or
Blue Origin or the others trying to do so.

Of course they're not. They have to do things one step at a time.

Can the Virgin ship be modified to carry a big enough engine to get to
200 Km and then can it carry a big enough engine to go orbital?

Of course not. Again, what is the purpose of this seemingly stupid
and irrelevant question?

Otherwise they gotta build a whole new system.

So?

Is it really a stupid question? Is it really an irrelevant question?

Yes.

No, going into orbit takes orders of magnitude more energy than simply
raising yourself to 60 Km and it is reasonable to wonder if they can
easily do it.

No one has claimed that they can "easily do it." They aren't even
currently attempting to do it. That doesn't mean that some companies
won't use suborbital vehicles as a stepping stone to orbital
capabilities.

On Nov 22, 10:13 am, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:05:01 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:



You might say that this is a step towards an orbital market but all
you have to do is to compare E=mgh to E=1/2 mv^2 where v is orbital
velocity to see that suborbital isnt a real step toward orbital.

No, I can't see that, sorry. Even though I'm an astronautical
engineer with three decades of experience, and understand the math.
Can you explain it further?

For orbital, you gotta carry a whole lotta fuel and I dont see Virgin or
Blue Origin or the others trying to do so.

Of course they're not. They have to do things one step at a time.

Can the Virgin ship be modified to carry a big enough engine to get to
200 Km and then can it carry a big enough engine to go orbital?

Of course not. Again, what is the purpose of this seemingly stupid
and irrelevant question?

Otherwise they gotta build a whole new system.

So?

Is it really a stupid question? Is it really an irrelevant question?

Yes.

No, going into orbit takes orders of magnitude more energy than simply
raising yourself to 60 Km and it is reasonable to wonder if they can
easily do it.

No one has claimed that they can "easily do it." They aren't even
currently attempting to do it. That doesn't mean that some companies
won't use suborbital vehicles as a stepping stone to orbital
capabilities.

So, my question is reasonable. So, how easy would it be for them to
carry more fuel and go into orbit. I am not the aeronautical engineer
here, just a lowly x-ray physics person so I have no way to answer the
question myself. Obviously, it is a legit question.