|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
On 16 Feb 2007 12:16:55 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: 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? Yes. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
On Feb 16, 3:32 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote: On 16 Feb 2007 12:16:55 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: 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? Yes. I take it you mean both. Seems to me that SpaceX and Kistler could and should benefit by the X-33 debacle. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
Joe Strout wrote:
In article , (Derek Lyons) wrote: 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, when you give somebody something in exchange for nothing, we call that a "handout." When you give somebody something exchange for goods and services, we call that a "purchase." Well, since neither definition applies in this instance... What you _you_ call the Government purchasing something for which it has no discernible need in order to provide money to someone that it cannot provide money to through the usual (legal) methods and channels? Until you provide a definition, 'pork and handouts' will do nicely. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
On Feb 16, 5:03 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote: On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 00:28:54 GMT, in a place far, far away, (Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: 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. Buying something for which demand exists (beyond a future handwaving one) amounts to the same thing - giving away money in exchange for token services. Huh? That should have been 'for which no demand exists'. But demand can be easily created. Water in space is useful. NASA is already purchasing space services. We propose only that they propose useful ones, that actually have a chance of reducing costs of space access, and orbital operations.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Thank you Rand, your reply is a thing of beauty. To counter the cry of 'pork, handouts and handwaving!', water should be limited to less than half of yearly payloads and even then mostly as ballast... to top off the throw weight of a standard RLV that will often outmatch its cargo. Just as important will be the electrolysis and liquification hardware. Cooling and storing H2 and O should be easier given the temperature of space and vacuum for the thermous effect. Actually generating and using the 'sweet combination' is key. Deadweight water is DOA. A split and store facility is a significant undertaking, but it is the only way that the advantage of boosting reactants in reacted form can be made palatable. Using H2 for a manned moon landing, then people to mars, is the present vision. Building the infrastructure for economic access to earth space and beyond, facilitating robotic expeditions, space telescopes, life science and commertial possibilities strikes me as a better investment. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
On Feb 16, 8:07 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
(Rand Simberg) wrote: :On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 00:28:54 GMT, in a place far, far away, (Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor glow :in such a way as to indicate that: : :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. : :Buying something for which demand exists (beyond a future handwaving :one) amounts to the same thing - giving away money in exchange for :token services. : :Huh? : :That should have been 'for which no demand exists'. : :But demand can be easily created. Water in space is useful. And yet every space station that ever was has a problem getting rid of the stuff. Over a thousand gallons per year are required for each crew member, that would be over fifty million dollars/year if it could only be used once through. The ISS does a pretty good job of recycling wash water, breath, sweat and urine. Hint: You don't try to 'create demand'. You service the ones that exist and let the new ones come as they will. Hint: You 'create demand' to run down the cost of service, new ones won't come unless we will it. "....all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." --George Bernard Shaw |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 05:19 PM |
Are regular eyepiece lenses "bad?" | RichA | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | December 12th 04 06:10 AM |
Regular access to 3rd Party FITS Images | Dafydd | UK Astronomy | 1 | January 13th 04 10:18 PM |
Fast, reliable, cheap vs CATS | brianwh | Technology | 2 | August 10th 03 05:28 PM |