|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Moon and Mars expeditions vs. RLV development
Rather than developing a new Apollo-style capsule to be launched on an
expendable rocket, I think the United States should develop a fully reusable human-rated launch system that will significantly lower the cost and risk associated with spaceflight. Anything else seems fiscally irresponsible. Perhaps the goals stated during the ill-fated X-33/VentureStar program were overly ambitious (reducing launch costs by a factor of 10), but it seems to me that we should certainly be able to do better than what's currently being proposed. I'd love to see humans return to the moon and eventually travel to Mars and beyond. But the first step we need to take is to develop a safer, more cost effective means of reaching orbit. On-orbit assembly of lunar or interplanetary craft will become much easier once we have a "VentureStar" type vehicle capable of sustaining high flight rates. (I'm not necessarily saying it needs to be a lifting body SSTO vehicle, but rather that the concept of a fully resuable space plane has merit.) Also, while I'm certainly a proponent of space exploration, there are other programs that I think might have more relevance to American citizens, and therefore might be easier to sell. I'd love to see the United States commit itself to developing a new, commercially viable SST. That's something that I and every other American could actually use! It seems sad that 30 years ago, commercial aviation saw the dawn of supersonic flight with the Concorde (and briefly, the Tu-144), and now as we enter a new century, commercial supersonic flight is dead. The only things on the drawing board are slightly bigger or more efficient versions of the same Mach 0.85 airframes that my parents flew on. Another initiative that I think would benefit citizens more than Bush's space plan would be a national commitment to develop a high speed rail network. America's long neglected passenger rail system has fallen far behind the rest of the industrialized world, and with the exception of Amtrak's 150 mph Acela Express in the northeast, the United States doesn't even have any rail service that could be considered "high speed". Numerous trains in Europe and Japan routinely operate at up to 300 km/hr (186 mph), and speeds of greater than 200 mph are planned. Maglev technology is likely to push speeds to 300 mph or more! I'd certainly like to see the United States take a leadership role in the industry. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
OT: How about personal rapid transit (PRT) LOTS of LINKS (was Moon and Mars expeditions vs. RLV development
"vthokie" wrote in message
om... Another initiative that I think would benefit citizens more than Bush's space plan would be a national commitment to develop a high speed rail network. America's long neglected passenger rail system has fallen far behind the rest of the industrialized world, and with the exception of Amtrak's 150 mph Acela Express in the northeast, the United States doesn't even have any rail service that could be considered "high speed". Numerous trains in Europe and Japan routinely operate at up to 300 km/hr (186 mph), and speeds of greater than 200 mph are planned. Maglev technology is likely to push speeds to 300 mph or more! I'd certainly like to see the United States take a leadership role in the industry. Advanced Transit Association, Journal of Advanced Transportation, Ultra, Taxi200 (SkyWeb Express), etc. http://advancedtransit.org/ http://www.cities21.org/ http://www.maitint.org/ Modular Automated Individual Transport http://seattlelifestyle.tripod.com/c...ommonSense.htm SOME COMMON SENSE ABOUT PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION http://www.acprt.org/ http://www.cprt.org/ http://www.jrc.es/pages/iptsreport/v...h/TRA1E566.htm Personal Rapid Transit: A Potential New Urban Transport Solution http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/ http://www.electric-bikes.com/prt.htm http://www.et3.com/ http://www.cybertran.com/ http://www.advanced-transport.com/ http://www.atsltd.co.uk/ http://www.buick.co.uk/biway/ http://www.lycoming.edu/art/bogle/culor.html Computerized Ultralight Overhead Rail http://www.magsupport.com/ http://www.megarail.com/MicroRail_Urban_Transit/ http://ourworld.cs.com/PRTdesign/ http://www.skytran.net/ http://www.smartskyways.com/ http://www.swedetrack.com http://www.synchrorail.com/ http://www.skywebexpress.com/ obsoletes http://www.taxi2000.com/ http://www.orielsystems.u-net.com/fts/ http://www.unitran.ru/ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Moon and Mars expeditions vs. RLV development
vthokie wrote: Rather than developing a new Apollo-style capsule to be launched on an expendable rocket, I think the United States should develop a fully reusable human-rated launch system that will significantly lower the cost and risk associated with spaceflight. Anything else seems fiscally irresponsible. Perhaps the goals stated during the ill-fated X-33/VentureStar program were overly ambitious (reducing launch costs by a factor of 10), but it seems to me that we should certainly be able to do better than what's currently being proposed. It wasn't the goal that was overly ambitious, it was the means - SSTO. A factor of ten reduction is readilly obtainable with a 2-stage, fully-reusable design, it it's designed right (simple, reliable, maintainable, reasonable size). I'd love to see humans return to the moon and eventually travel to Mars and beyond. But the first step we need to take is to develop a safer, more cost effective means of reaching orbit. If I had to chose one or the other to work on over the next 10-15 years, I wouldn't hesitate to chose the later. On-orbit assembly of lunar or interplanetary craft will become much easier once we have a "VentureStar" type vehicle capable of sustaining high flight rates. (I'm not necessarily saying it needs to be a lifting body SSTO vehicle, but rather that the concept of a fully resuable space plane has merit.) Full reusability is essential, but at this point, the goal of simplicity and reliability would be better served by a 2-stage, VTOL design. I don't consider VTHL to be practical at all (the Shuttle experience is certainly not encouraging). Also, while I'm certainly a proponent of space exploration, there are other programs that I think might have more relevance to American citizens, and therefore might be easier to sell. I'd love to see the United States commit itself to developing a new, commercially viable SST. That's something that I and every other American could actually use! It seems sad that 30 years ago, commercial aviation saw the dawn of supersonic flight with the Concorde (and briefly, the Tu-144), and now as we enter a new century, commercial supersonic flight is dead. The only things on the drawing board are slightly bigger or more efficient versions of the same Mach 0.85 airframes that my parents flew on. Another initiative that I think would benefit citizens more than Bush's space plan would be a national commitment to develop a high speed rail network. America's long neglected passenger rail system has fallen far behind the rest of the industrialized world, and with the exception of Amtrak's 150 mph Acela Express in the northeast, the United States doesn't even have any rail service that could be considered "high speed". Numerous trains in Europe and Japan routinely operate at up to 300 km/hr (186 mph), and speeds of greater than 200 mph are planned. Maglev technology is likely to push speeds to 300 mph or more! I'd certainly like to see the United States take a leadership role in the industry. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Moon and Mars expeditions vs. RLV development
"vthokie" wrote in message
om... Rather than developing a new Apollo-style capsule to be launched on an expendable rocket, I think the United States should develop a fully reusable human-rated launch system that will significantly lower the cost and risk associated with spaceflight. let us know when you've got all that up and running, willya? Anything else seems fiscally irresponsible. it's irresponsible to finally admit that RLVs aren't economical? Perhaps the goals stated during the ill-fated X-33/VentureStar program were overly ambitious (reducing launch costs by a factor of 10), but it seems to me that we should certainly be able to do better than what's currently being proposed. and your specific plan for doing better would be...what? I'd love to see humans return to the moon and eventually travel to Mars and beyond. But the first step we need to take is to develop a safer, more cost effective means of reaching orbit. been trying to do that for a very long time now in a wide variety of guises. None of them worked out. Time to move on. On-orbit assembly of lunar or interplanetary craft will become much easier once we have a "VentureStar" type vehicle capable of sustaining high flight rates. the lesson that Columbia was *supposed* to have taught us is that there's no such thing as a sustainable high launch rate for reusable spacecraft. Also, while I'm certainly a proponent of space exploration, there are other programs that I think might have more relevance to American citizens, and therefore might be easier to sell. I'd love to see the United States commit itself to developing a new, commercially viable SST. That's something that I and every other American could actually use! then why did Concorde never earn out? Simple: because it was much more difficult to operate than the initial projections (sound familiar?), and thus the airfare was so outrageously high that very few people found it useful. And then the market for international travel (let alone *fast* international travel) dried up after 9/11. There's no market anymore for SST. Hell, there's hardly a market for anything fancier than a 767 these days. It seems sad that 30 years ago, commercial aviation saw the dawn of supersonic flight with the Concorde (and briefly, the Tu-144), and now as we enter a new century, commercial supersonic flight is dead. here's a concept I want you to think long and hard about: not all advances move you forward. There have been so many examples of that the last few years you should already realize that. Another initiative that I think would benefit citizens more than Bush's space plan would be a national commitment to develop a high speed rail network. America's long neglected passenger rail system has fallen far behind the rest of the industrialized world, but our automotive infrastructure is IIRC more advanced and widespread than anyone else's. The Japanese didn't build high-speed trains because they're neat, they built them because they don't have room for any more freeways. Same thing for Europe. Again, a little gratuitous advice: progress for progress' sake never works out in the long run. You innovate because you have no other alternatives, not because there's anything inherently special about new technology. and with the exception of Amtrak's 150 mph Acela Express in the northeast, the United States doesn't even have any rail service that could be considered "high speed". Numerous trains in Europe and Japan routinely operate at up to 300 km/hr (186 mph), and speeds of greater than 200 mph are planned. Maglev technology is likely to push speeds to 300 mph or more! I'd certainly like to see the United States take a leadership role in the industry. Again: why do we need that? You can fly all the way across country in just over four hours, and there are plenty of seats available on commercial airliners. Except for a few bottlenecked megalopoli, we don't *need* high-speed rail and won't for quite some time. -- Terrell Miller "It's one thing to burn down the **** house and another thing entirely to install plumbing" -PJ O'Rourke |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Moon and Mars expeditions vs. RLV development
Terrell Miller wrote: "vthokie" wrote in message om... Rather than developing a new Apollo-style capsule to be launched on an expendable rocket, I think the United States should develop a fully reusable human-rated launch system that will significantly lower the cost and risk associated with spaceflight. let us know when you've got all that up and running, willya? Anything else seems fiscally irresponsible. it's irresponsible to finally admit that RLVs aren't economical? We've never built a true RLV, so it's a little soon to say that we can't make one that's economical. Perhaps the goals stated during the ill-fated X-33/VentureStar program were overly ambitious (reducing launch costs by a factor of 10), but it seems to me that we should certainly be able to do better than what's currently being proposed. and your specific plan for doing better would be...what? Fully-reusable, 2-stage, VTOL would be mine. I'd love to see humans return to the moon and eventually travel to Mars and beyond. But the first step we need to take is to develop a safer, more cost effective means of reaching orbit. been trying to do that for a very long time now in a wide variety of guises. None of them worked out. Time to move on. Trying single-stage, horizontal-landing designs twice is not a very wide variety. There are a lot of other ways to build a launch vehicle. On-orbit assembly of lunar or interplanetary craft will become much easier once we have a "VentureStar" type vehicle capable of sustaining high flight rates. the lesson that Columbia was *supposed* to have taught us is that there's no such thing as a sustainable high launch rate for reusable spacecraft. How so? Also, while I'm certainly a proponent of space exploration, there are other programs that I think might have more relevance to American citizens, and therefore might be easier to sell. I'd love to see the United States commit itself to developing a new, commercially viable SST. That's something that I and every other American could actually use! then why did Concorde never earn out? Simple: because it was much more difficult to operate than the initial projections (sound familiar?), and thus the airfare was so outrageously high that very few people found it useful. And then the market for international travel (let alone *fast* international travel) dried up after 9/11. There's no market anymore for SST. Hell, there's hardly a market for anything fancier than a 767 these days. It seems sad that 30 years ago, commercial aviation saw the dawn of supersonic flight with the Concorde (and briefly, the Tu-144), and now as we enter a new century, commercial supersonic flight is dead. here's a concept I want you to think long and hard about: not all advances move you forward. There have been so many examples of that the last few years you should already realize that. Advances move you forward (by definition), but not all changes are advances. Another initiative that I think would benefit citizens more than Bush's space plan would be a national commitment to develop a high speed rail network. America's long neglected passenger rail system has fallen far behind the rest of the industrialized world, but our automotive infrastructure is IIRC more advanced and widespread than anyone else's. The Japanese didn't build high-speed trains because they're neat, they built them because they don't have room for any more freeways. Same thing for Europe. Again, a little gratuitous advice: progress for progress' sake never works out in the long run. You innovate because you have no other alternatives, not because there's anything inherently special about new technology. The Wright Brothers had a perfectly good alternative: stick to building bicycles. and with the exception of Amtrak's 150 mph Acela Express in the northeast, the United States doesn't even have any rail service that could be considered "high speed". Numerous trains in Europe and Japan routinely operate at up to 300 km/hr (186 mph), and speeds of greater than 200 mph are planned. Maglev technology is likely to push speeds to 300 mph or more! I'd certainly like to see the United States take a leadership role in the industry. Again: why do we need that? You can fly all the way across country in just over four hours, and there are plenty of seats available on commercial airliners. Except for a few bottlenecked megalopoli, we don't *need* high-speed rail and won't for quite some time. -- Terrell Miller "It's one thing to burn down the **** house and another thing entirely to install plumbing" -PJ O'Rourke |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Moon and Mars expeditions vs. RLV development
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:21:30 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Terrell
Miller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: it's irresponsible to finally admit that RLVs aren't economical? Yes, based on very little data, other than that a bloated government agency with very little interest in making them happen failed a program to build them. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Moon and Mars expeditions vs. RLV development
"Terrell Miller" wrote in message ...
Perhaps the goals stated during the ill-fated X-33/VentureStar program were overly ambitious (reducing launch costs by a factor of 10), but it seems to me that we should certainly be able to do better than what's currently being proposed. and your specific plan for doing better would be...what? I would like to see the funding that Bush wants to use for the "CEV" instead go toward developing a fully reusable launch vehicle. I think that if a conservative approach is taken, using advanced but proven technologies and most likely requiring a two-stage design, such a vehicle could be developed for less than the cost of Bush's plan for "Apollo II". I'd love to see humans return to the moon and eventually travel to Mars and beyond. But the first step we need to take is to develop a safer, more cost effective means of reaching orbit. been trying to do that for a very long time now in a wide variety of guises. None of them worked out. Time to move on. We've had the space shuttle, which was shaped largely by underfunding and resulting design compromises, and by military interference. It was sold on false promises, but nonetheless was a technological success in that it proved the concept of a reusable space plane and provided unmatched capabilities. It should be viewed as just one step along the path of RLV development. Any subsequent RLV programs have been half assed attempts with no real commmitment. You say time to move on. I agree. It's time to move on to the next generation of RLV's, not move back to throw-away rockets and ballistic entry capsules! On-orbit assembly of lunar or interplanetary craft will become much easier once we have a "VentureStar" type vehicle capable of sustaining high flight rates. the lesson that Columbia was *supposed* to have taught us is that there's no such thing as a sustainable high launch rate for reusable spacecraft. No, it just reinforced what we already knew - that the space shuttle would never be able to deliver on its original promise. That doesn't mean that no vehicle ever could. then why did Concorde never earn out? Simple: because it was much more difficult to operate than the initial projections (sound familiar?), and thus the airfare was so outrageously high that very few people found it useful. And then the market for international travel (let alone *fast* international travel) dried up after 9/11. There's no market anymore for SST. Hell, there's hardly a market for anything fancier than a 767 these days. I don't believe that there's no market. I think that companies just aren't willing to invest enough in new technologies. In today's risk averse environment, concern over short term profits is retarding technological advancement. I will agree that there's hardly a market for a fuel guzzling environmental menace like the Concorde, but surely we should be able to expect technological advancements by now that can take us beyond the Mach 0.85 range economically. but our automotive infrastructure is IIRC more advanced and widespread than anyone else's. The Japanese didn't build high-speed trains because they're neat, they built them because they don't have room for any more freeways. Same thing for Europe. I think that's a fallacy. Germany certainly has both an excellent highway system and an excellent rail network. Again: why do we need that? You can fly all the way across country in just over four hours, and there are plenty of seats available on commercial airliners. Except for a few bottlenecked megalopoli, we don't *need* high-speed rail and won't for quite some time. http://www.trainweb.org/hsr/ http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...300439& itm=1 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Moon and Mars expeditions vs. RLV development
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Moon and Mars expeditions vs. RLV development
"Terrell Miller" wrote in message ...
then why did Concorde never earn out? Simple: because it was much more difficult to operate than the initial projections (sound familiar?), and thus the airfare was so outrageously high that very few people found it useful. I would have at least liked to see Boeing follow through with its "Sonic Cruiser" concept. It would have been a small step in the right direction. If Cessna can design the Citation X business jet to fly at Mach 0.95 economically, surely the technology exists to design a commercial airliner that can do the same! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Moon and Mars expeditions vs. RLV development
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA to Start From Scratch in New [Moon/Mars Exploration] Effort | Tom Abbott | Policy | 14 | January 19th 04 12:12 AM |
NEWS: The allure of an outpost on the Moon | Kent Betts | Space Shuttle | 2 | January 15th 04 12:56 AM |
Moon key to space future? | James White | Policy | 90 | January 6th 04 04:29 PM |
We choose to go to the Moon? | Brian Gaff | Space Shuttle | 49 | December 10th 03 10:14 AM |