Shuttle dumped within 5 years

(Derek Lyons) wrote:

There is no halfway point between suborbital craft and orbital craft
in the way that provides an advantages in the same way a modest
increase in range or capacity does to an ordinary aircraft. Evolution
cannot happen without those modest increases being possible.

There certainly is a halfway point. Higher "sounding rocket" flights
which provide significant periods of microgravity provide advantages over
lower-altitude ones. Modest increases in propulsion and thermal
protection are possible, and provide a clear evolutionary path between
suborbital and orbital craft.

The other halfway point is the "orient express" type of suborbital
transport. Increased range and capacity would work exactly the same way
as they do for "ordinary aircraft".

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 02:15:09 GMT, Joann Evans
wrote:

Christopher wrote:

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 01:32:06 GMT, Joann Evans
wrote:

Christopher wrote:



All in America or in other countries?

No, there are one or two aspirants in your own back yard.

They are all planing a sub orbital hop, not a true space shot.

As he said, look it up.

Why should I, he's the one with supposedly all the answers.

Which you seem not to accept. Thus, do your own research.


You take offence at a certain amount of sceptism, geezh get-a-life.


Nope, I'm only offended by laziness. The information is out there.

As is Rand/Rant the guy with all the answers.

And was he born with them?

Well he does have all the future space endevours mapped out as to what
NASA should do when the last shuttle is grounded. Me i just want to
firstly go to Mars.

How about starting he

http://www.spacefuture.com

...and here.

http://123107127.home.icq.com/link3....ce-Development

...and making good use of your friendly neighborhood search engine.
(and library)

You forgot usenet.



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

(Derek Lyons) writes:

jeff findley wrote:

(Derek Lyons) writes:

The problem is that the X-prize ships are not really related to manned
spaceflight. Their stunts will attract attention, but won't change
the fact that their are fundamental differences between sub orbital
and orbital flight.

There are fundamental differences between early piston powered
transports like the Ford Tri-motor and today's large, turbofan powered
transports. However it's clear that the latter evolved from the
former, over a long period of time, with the introduction of a few key
technologies.

They evolved because there was a clear path and demanding market to
connect the Tri-Motor to the L-1011. The same is decidedly *not* true
of the X-contest ships.

There is no halfway point between suborbital craft and orbital craft
in the way that provides an advantages in the same way a modest
increase in range or capacity does to an ordinary aircraft. Evolution
cannot happen without those modest increases being possible.

I figured this argument would crop up. At the time of the Ford
Tri-Motor, I'm sure people doubted the viability of something like a
Boeing 747-400. Such a high passenger capacity, long range, and high
speed can't easily be envisioned by someone who thinks the Tri-Motor
is the pinnacle of aerospace technology. You're falling into the same
trap with the X-Prize vehicles.

Higher and faster suborbital flights eventually enables things like
high speed flight from coast to coast (I'm thinking US, but other
large distances apply). There is a demand for such a vehicle, if
costs can be brought down enough. The X-Prize vehicles will help
demonstrate that costs could be brought down to reasonable levels.

Following that would be sub-orbital, transcontinental transports.
They could deliver people or cargo half way around the world without
attaining orbital velocity. This is something the US military has
looked at in the past:

http://www.panix.com/~kingdon/space/military.html

In aircraft development it would be like assuming that a company that

As I said above, there is no path for evolutionary advancement from
one to the other.

There is, you just have to know what markets they would serve.

The alternative is for private industry to be permanently
bound to the earth.

There is neither currently nor for the foreseeable future incentive
for private industry to move off-planet.

There is a market for delivery of unmanned payloads into LEO and GEO.
There is also a demonstrated market for manned spaceflight, it's just
that at current costs ($20 million per flight), there are few people
that can afford the cost.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

On 08 Sep 2003 11:18:27 -0400, in a place far, far away, jeff findley
made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

(Alex Terrell) writes:
However, if a HLV can be developed for low cost, even if it has a high
unit cost, it will be worth it occassionally. Somethings just need to
be taken up in big modules - at least till we have better in space
assembley.

The HLV contenders would be a Shuttle C and a Saturn 5, or see what
the Russians have got.

You just killed your own argument. NASA repeatedly looked at
Shuttle C for launching large payloads. It was on the drawing
boards "forever". It was never funded because it simply makes no
sense.

Actually, it could have made sense, but it would have involved a total
redesign of the station. It certainly didn't make sense to use a
Shuttle C to launch payloads designed for Shuttle Non-C.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 07:35:48 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 17:59:41 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Flying hardware is 'happening', and none of the mammals have any yet.

No, SpaceX is hardware, and they intend to fly before the year is out.
Sorry to disappoint.

In other words, you produce a bull**** evasion to cover the fact the
SpaceX does not in fact have and flying hardware.

So, it's not enough to be in the launch licensing process, it's not
enough to have been through engine tests, it's not enough to have the
vehicle being built in El Segundo as we speak? Until it actually
flies, it's just "viewgraphs"?

That's exactly correct. Until it flies, it's not a proven vehicle.

Which remains entirely irrelevant to anything I said.

This entire discussion is an utterly absurd strawman, since I didn't
claim that anyone had "flying hardware." I said that there was
serious investment going into private spaceflight.

And you continuously equate that invest with a near certainty of
sucess.

No, you just continuously falsely infer that, for some reason that I
cannot fathom.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On 09 Sep 2003 02:55:19 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(McLean1382) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg writes:

If money is made in suborbit,
investment for orbit will follow. In fact, it's already happening
(e.g., SpaceX). Elon Musk has every intention of building manned
orbital systems.

But will that investment bear fruit?

Who knows? He obviously think so.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 00:50:17 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

There is no halfway point between suborbital craft and orbital craft
in the way that provides an advantages in the same way a modest
increase in range or capacity does to an ordinary aircraft. Evolution
cannot happen without those modest increases being possible.

Of course there is. Once people have done a hundred kilometers and
Mach 4, they'll be interested in going higher and faster. Eventually
higher and faster becomes orbital.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On 09 Sep 2003 02:40:37 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(McLean1382) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Henry Spencer writes:

NASA is doing just fine building and operating satellites which are gotten
into orbit by writing a check to a commercial launch provider. NASA did
not launch the Mars Exploration Rovers; Boeing did. Why shouldn't NASA be
required to do manned flights the same way?
--

Because the two markets are different.

Which could be changed by a different approach from NASA.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On 09 Sep 2003 16:26:43 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(McLean1382) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Charles Buckley writes:

The major weakness to OSP is that NASA is locking into contractors,
not services. Set performance goals in terms of cost and functionality,
then adjust the budget accordingly to cover the potential number
of vehicles. If it is $50 million per flight, and you have booked 10
flights per supplier, it is actually in the noise level whether there
are 3 or 4 providers.

That's not the way the economics works. If the supplier's only compensation is
a per flight charge, they have to build enough into that charge to cover their
fixed costs, including amortized development, and the interest on that
investment. That's a substantial fixed cost.

Let's say that NASA expects to need four four person rotations and six flights
of an ATV-like vehicle per year,

That's the problem. NASA starts with an arbitrary requirement, and
then perverts the entire launch infrastructure to support it. If
they're going to have an arbitrary requirement, why not make it one
that encourages low-cost human access?

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

Actually, it could have made sense, but it would have involved a total
redesign of the station. It certainly didn't make sense to use a
Shuttle C to launch payloads designed for Shuttle Non-C.


Why not? The Shuttle C isn't a specific vehicle, it is a class of vehicles.
Since their expendible, they can be built around the specifications of each
payload. No two Shuttle Cs need be exactly alike. They are basically a standin
for the shuttle, mounting on the same external tank as the shuttle does and
using the same solid rocket boosters.

Tom