|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle dumped within 5 years
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... It would be much more effective (cost and otherwise) if the "NASA payload" were the astronauts, rather than a twelve-billion-dollar make-work and keep-control-of-the-system project. I think I'll wait and see what the actual price tag is, rather than clutch at the worst-case estimate I can find. And what "system" do you think NASA is "keeping control of"? -Kim- |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle dumped within 5 years
Christopher wrote:
[snip] The recurring theme in this ng is companies are not going to put money into human space flight till they can be certain of getting a return, so if NASA--as in America NASA is the current only game in town--isn't going to be putting people in space who will? Companies that decide to start satisfying the much larger market for public space transportation. They're already making the investment to do so. And the launch vehicle, and launch pad location? There are several, in several locations. Go do a little research. All in America or in other countries? No, there are one or two aspirants in your own back yard. As he said, look it up. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle dumped within 5 years
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 11:08:07 GMT, Joann Evans
wrote: Christopher wrote: [snip] The recurring theme in this ng is companies are not going to put money into human space flight till they can be certain of getting a return, so if NASA--as in America NASA is the current only game in town--isn't going to be putting people in space who will? Companies that decide to start satisfying the much larger market for public space transportation. They're already making the investment to do so. And the launch vehicle, and launch pad location? There are several, in several locations. Go do a little research. 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. Christopher +++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Kites rise highest against the wind - not with it." Winston Churchill |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle dumped within 5 years
"Kim Keller" writes:
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... It would be much more effective (cost and otherwise) if the "NASA payload" were the astronauts, rather than a twelve-billion-dollar make-work and keep-control-of-the-system project. I think I'll wait and see what the actual price tag is, rather than clutch at the worst-case estimate I can find. And what "system" do you think NASA is "keeping control of"? Manned access to space. If OSP isn't going to be as challenging as the shuttle (less payload, less overall capabilities, less complexity), then why isn't it time to let the contractors design, build, and test, and sell launches of OSP to NASA? This would open up the possibility of privately funded US manned missions into space, without NASA controlling the entire process. This would also open up the possibility of "tourist" flights to ISS on a US vehicle, by letting private industry sell otherwise empty seats. Jeff -- Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle dumped within 5 years
Joann Evans wrote: On the sci.life-extension group, I see occasional assertions sounding very much like this, as to any breakthroughs in coontrolling the aging process, that it would be kept expesive, and in the hands of a few. Why? Nothing requires either one be expensive, and you don't *have* to be a billionare to *want* to visit Mars. (And with aging, *everyone* gets old. It's just the opposite of an 'orphan drug.' *Everyone* is a potential customer.) Improved technology and falling birth rates have averted Malthusian disaster. If everyone didn't age, it seems to me we'd have a dramatic population surge even if third world families limited themselves to 2.5 kids. Even if anti-aging treatments were inexpensive, I believe governments would have some incentive to levy taxes. Hop http://clowder.net/hop/index.html |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle dumped within 5 years
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 10:51:25 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Kim
Keller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: "Rand Simberg" wrote in message .. . It would be much more effective (cost and otherwise) if the "NASA payload" were the astronauts, rather than a twelve-billion-dollar make-work and keep-control-of-the-system project. I think I'll wait and see what the actual price tag is, rather than clutch at the worst-case estimate I can find. And what "system" do you think NASA is "keeping control of"? Manned spaceflight. -- 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: |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle dumped within 5 years
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 15:43:19 GMT, in a place far, far away, (Christopher) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: The recurring theme in this ng is companies are not going to put money into human space flight till they can be certain of getting a return, so if NASA--as in America NASA is the current only game in town--isn't going to be putting people in space who will? Companies that decide to start satisfying the much larger market for public space transportation. They're already making the investment to do so. ROTFL. There's a loooooooooong leap between the sub orbital toys that satisfy the X-prize and craft capable of performing orbital operations and support. 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. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle dumped within 5 years
Andrew Gray wrote:
In article , Christopher M. Jones wrote: Whereas before, when it flew some 75 or so flights after having killed 7 people in a dramatic launch accident broadcast on TV and viewed by family members in the stands, it hadn't been tainted at all by the smell of death. Nor, of course, had the Apollo capsule been tainted by death after it burned to death a sizeable percentage of the world's small population of experienced astronauts in a rather gruesome manner during a mundane training excercise. You forgot Soyuz, which managed to kill an equal proportion on its first flight, or for that matter three of the most (in terms of duration, at least) experienced crew around on its eleventh... and, last I checked, it still flying. Subsidised by the US government, too, so presumably it agrees... Do they have an option to disagree? It is after all, the only other manned vehicle available. -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle dumped within 5 years
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 16:42:33 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: The recurring theme in this ng is companies are not going to put money into human space flight till they can be certain of getting a return, so if NASA--as in America NASA is the current only game in town--isn't going to be putting people in space who will? Companies that decide to start satisfying the much larger market for public space transportation. They're already making the investment to do so. ROTFL. There's a loooooooooong leap between the sub orbital toys that satisfy the X-prize and craft capable of performing orbital operations and support. The question was about "in space," not "in orbit." And I wasn't referring to X-Prize contenders. 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. -- 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: |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | April 2nd 04 12:01 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Manifest | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 2 | February 2nd 04 10:55 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 2nd 04 03:33 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Manifest | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | October 6th 03 02:59 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 12th 03 01:37 AM |