Shuttle dumped within 5 years

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 16:51:53 GMT, in a place far, far away, Brett Buck
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Derek Lyons wrote:

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.

Thank God, someone had to say it!

Just because someone has to say something doesn't make it true, or
relevant.

--
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:

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in
:

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 16:51:53 GMT, in a place far, far away, Brett Buck
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Derek Lyons wrote:

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.

Thank God, someone had to say it!

Just because someone has to say something doesn't make it true, or
relevant.


Unfortunately, though, it is true (I won't judge the relevance)..

Progress toward winning the X-prize has happened because the commitee
made the requirements relatively easy to meet -- reach altitude X with
passengers, then reach it again within Y days with the same craft
(paraphrased, of course). The really difficult parts (getting to and
from 17,000 mph without killing yourself) have been left out...

Rutan is well along with his craft because he gets it -- all you need to
do to win the money is meet the requirements, not develop a space ship.
There's no reason to think that the Spaceship One won't work -- but it's
really nothing more than a comfortable bottle rocket with a good
recovery system. I'm not sure that Estes or Centauri hasn't already
patented the design...

Rutan's ship *is* a toy -- a cool one, one that I hope works, one that
I'll want to see video clips and pictures of. But still a toy, but one
that will earn him the money then be put away in closet once it's done
its job.


--
Reed

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 15:00:50 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 08:46:24 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Christopher) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

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?

There are X-Prize competitors in other countries, but I don't know if
there are any funded commercial efforts.

I only know of one here in Britain.


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

Christopher wrote:

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.

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

Hop David wrote:

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

If it's much more than normal sales taxes, expect a massive black
market to spring up overnight.

If they can't stop the flow of purely recreational drugs, imagine
stopping something demonstrably *good* for you....

Brian Thorn wrote in message . ..
On 2 Sep 2003 08:46:02 -0700, (ed kyle) wrote:
At any rate, a US cargo carrier would have advantages over
ATV that would allow more payload - it would be launched
from a higher latitude by a more powerful launch vehicle.
The reason ATV weighs 20.5 metric tons at launch but only
carries 7.3 tons of cargo is that Ariane 5V can't get 20.5
tons into a 51.6 degree orbit. Instead, ATV must use its
own propellant (it has to carry 4.5 tons of it) to finish
the job after Ariane boosts it into an unsustainable
30 x 300 km x 51.6 degree orbit.
Proton, launched from an even higher
latitude, could nearly do the same thing.

I'm missing something... how does higher launch latitude equal greater
payload? I understand the reverse being true... I didn't know KSC had
an edge over Kourou for 51.6.


Well, as best I can determine it seems to be pretty much a
wash between Kourou, Cape Canaveral, and Baikonur when it
comes to Earth rotation incremental velocity (let's call it
Edv) for launches to 51.6 degrees inclination. You always
get the maximum Edv available from any launch site latitude
by launching due east (90 degree azimuth). If you must
launch to another azimuth, your Edv is reduced and you get

Edv = cos(launch latitude) * 1520 ft/sec (in ft/sec)

where 1520 ft/sec is Edv at the equator.

A rough estimate of the necessary launch azimuth for a
given launch latitude and orbit inclination is given by:

Azimuth (deg) = arcsin{cos(inclination)/cos(latitute)]

This gives:

Site/Latitude/Azimuth/Edv for due east azimuth

Baikonur/45.6 deg/62.6 deg/1063 ft/sec
Canaveral/28.5 deg/45 deg/1336 ft/sec
Kourou/7 deg/38.7 deg/1509 ft/sec

I don't have a handy equation, but I do have a plot of
Edv versus launch latitude versus launch azimuth from
an old orbital mechanics book. It shows that Edv from
all three launch sites would be about 950 ft/sec for the
51.6 deg inclination ISS orbit. In other words, Kourou
loses it's near-equatorial advantage for the ISS orbit.
EELV (Canaveral) and Proton (Baikonur) gain a relative
advantage to Ariane (Kourou) the ISS orbit because these
launchers had to be more powerful to begin with in order
to boost mass into low inclination geosynchronous
transfer orbits.

- Ed Kyle

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:
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.

That's wishful thinking. An equivalent statement might be 'if there
is money to be made in food processors, money for electric guitars
will follow'. The two markets are that dissimilar.

In fact, it's already happening (e.g., SpaceX).

Sorry, no. SpaceX is a bunch of pretty pictures and viewgraphs.
Flying hardware is 'happening', and none of the mammals have any yet.

Elon Musk has every intention of building manned orbital systems.

So did Gary Hudson, yet we see where Roton is today. Intentions count
for nothing, flying hardware matters and there isn't any.

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.

(ed kyle) wrote in message . com...
You always
get the maximum Edv available from any launch site latitude
by launching due east (90 degree azimuth). If you must
launch to another azimuth, your Edv is reduced and you get

Edv = cos(launch latitude) * 1520 ft/sec (in ft/sec)


Whoops. Replace the second sentence above with "if your
launch site is not at the equator, your Edv is reduced and
you get:

Edv = cos(launch latitude) * 1520 ft/sec (in ft/sec)"

Apologies.

- Ed Kyle

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 06:10:12 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:
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.

That's wishful thinking. An equivalent statement might be 'if there
is money to be made in food processors, money for electric guitars
will follow'. The two markets are that dissimilar.

In your not so humble (and incorrect) opinion.

Of course you fail to provide evidence that my opinion is incorrect.
But then you rarely provide evidence.

In fact, it's already happening (e.g., SpaceX).

Sorry, no. SpaceX is a bunch of pretty pictures and viewgraphs.

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. "Intent" and
"Accomplishment" are two very different words, with two very different
meanings. And, as you've said before, words mean things.

Elon Musk has every intention of building manned orbital systems.

So did Gary Hudson, yet we see where Roton is today.

Except Elon has his own money to do it.

Does how he have flying hardware? Nope.

Intentions count for nothing, flying hardware matters and there isn't any.

You need to get out more.

In other words, while you freely insist that others must support their
viewpoints, you quail from holding yourself to the same standard.

You're a fraud Rand.

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.

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"?

Do you ever read what you post?

Elon Musk has every intention of building manned orbital systems.

So did Gary Hudson, yet we see where Roton is today.

Except Elon has his own money to do it.

Does how he have flying hardware? Nope.

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. You've offered
nothing to refute that statement, and I stand by it.

You're a fraud Rand.

Has someone been peeing in your cheerios again, Derek?

--
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: