|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Will the investment flood happen?
On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 22:26:40 -0500, "Paul F. Dietz"
wrote: Mary Shafer wrote: It's not just dispatch reliability but post-takeoff, pre-landing reliability. It's rare that a FedEx or UPS airplane or truck has an accident in transit, and if it happened often customers wouldn't use their services. It doesn't take many "Destroyed in transit" notices before folks stop shipping irreplaceable objects. I received an item by FedEx once that was destroyed in transit. It was replaceable, though -- a computer from HP. It arrived in an anonymous brown cardboard box (clearly not the original), with the shipping sticker on a separate square of cardboard that was taped onto the box. The computer itself had a major dent -- the back of the case was bashed in, with the steel bottom pushed forward about an inch. Fragments of electronics rattled around inside. Something had clearly clobbered it at the bottom of a conveyor ramp somewhere in the bowels of FedEx. Well, it wasn't FedEx, but several of our canceled checks came back scorched around the edges and stamped "Damaged in airplane accident" once. The banks use check-transfer services that fly checks around the country in small aircraft at night, so they'll clear faster. Apparently, they have the occasional accident (this one was a hard landing, as I recall). And UPS once re-wrapped and re-boxed Christmas presents I'd sent to Iowa and delivered them, with a note about a traffic accident involving the truck somewhere in Kansas (I think). Mary -- Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer "Turn to kill, not to engage." LCDR Willie Driscoll, USN |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Will the investment flood happen?
For the intercontinental runs, suborbital flight does gain enough time to
be really interesting. BUT... Depends on where you're going, and what the condition of their ground transportation is. The smaller the percentage of the travel time the airflight is, the less it helps. What Fedex would really like is special "fedex" lanes in major cities that only their trucks can drive on. That won't happen, but it would be a lot more to their benefit than suborbital flights. It's rare that a FedEx or UPS airplane or truck has an accident in transit True about the airplanes, not about the trucks. Their trucks break down and have accidents at about the same rate as other human-driven vehicles. They are just ready for it happening, or for a driver getting sick, and are prepared to send out a new truck to grab the packages and keep going. The chances that these constraints can be satisfied by a first-generation reusable rocket are nearly zero. A second-generation system... perhaps. I agree, entirely. However, reusability probably isn't the primary issue in success or failure. Problem is that the return on increasing speed isn't worth it for fed-ex - I mean, it's not like they bought a fleet of Concordes to get mail to the U.K. and France in half the flight time. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Will the investment flood happen?
Henry Spencer wrote:
FedEx and similar companies have made considerable efforts to minimize the ground overhead, with some success. That said, it remains significant, and suborbital package delivery would be interesting mostly for the real long-haul runs, mostly intercontinental. I'm skeptical that it would be allowed. The US federal government doesn't like planes within a half hour's flying time of DC. For something going close to orbital speed, a half hour encompasses all of the US, Canada, and Europe. -- Keith F. Lynch - - http://keithlynch.net/ I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Will the investment flood happen?
Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Henry Spencer wrote: FedEx and similar companies have made considerable efforts to minimize the ground overhead, with some success. That said, it remains significant, and suborbital package delivery would be interesting mostly for the real long-haul runs, mostly intercontinental. I'm skeptical that it would be allowed. The US federal government doesn't like planes within a half hour's flying time of DC. For something going close to orbital speed, a half hour encompasses all of the US, Canada, and Europe. That's a somewhat silly concern; we launch almost all our spacecraft out of somewhere much less than a half hour's flight time for the rocket out from DC. The whole *country* is less than a half hour's rocket flight from DC. Most of the western hemisphere... Besides, inbound ballistic cargo vehicles will have a limited crossrange, and if the Secret Service and FAA declare that the closest you can come to Washington DC is 1.5 x crossrange then that will solve the problem nicely. -george william herbert |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Will the investment flood happen?
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Will the investment flood happen?
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Will the investment flood happen?
Allen Thomson wrote:
(George William Herbert) wrote Obviously, when attempting to minimize travel time for a point to point urgent package, placed on a rocket plane for suborbital delivery etc, not only is it going to be handled in the same priority manner as they already do with things like transplant organs, but will also have a delivery vehicle or vehicles and team ready to go on the far end, as soon as the rocket touches down. If necessary, helicopters standing ready to fly from acceptable rocket landing areas to as close as possible to get with a helicopter, and then ground vehicles all fueled up and ready to go with the maps and traffic reports all pre-checked. Multiple ground vehicles in case the first one breaks down, etc. For urgent enough packages, a police escort through traffic lined up. How close do things get to that model today? Are there companies that provide such ultra-rush deliveries using business jets rather than rocket planes? I find some that offer same-day-in-US/CA, next-commercial-flight-out service, but that seems a step down from really pulling out all the stops. There isn't much overall speed improvement to be found over next-commercial-flight-out service, so no, nobody really offers a routine service of pulling all the stops out. You really have to save the 5 hours of plane flight for saving the hour in transit at the far end to be worth anything much as a service. But I have read about numerous instances of airplane parts, chip fab plant parts, and other miscellania being shipped on a bizjet or commercial transport next-out with all the bells and whistles set up on a one-off special deal araingement for a customer whose factory was losing a million dollars an hour of downtime and such. -george william herbert |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Will the investment flood happen?
pamsuX (Allen Meece) wrote in message ...
Or do you think most investors will wait until the X-Prize competitors actually start turning profits? Investors won't be watching for profits, too many variables go into the profit equation. They'll be watching for proof of suborb systems reliability. Then they can apply their own expertise toward the profit scenario. FEDEX would love a suborb package deliverer, something quite different from suborb tourism. All it'll take is a reliable system and then the suborb investment dam will break. Actually, if the dotcom bubble is any indication, they'll be looking first and foremost for the "exit strategy". Ie, once space companies can consistently move from startup to IPO or profitable merger, then the venture capital will pour in. Karl Hallowell |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Will the investment flood happen?
Richard Schumacher wrote:
Henry Spencer wrote: It might be easier to do this than it is with aircraft, because it won't be necessary to forecast the weather at the destination so far ahead, as is the case for slower aircraft. True, you can just hold the takeoff half an hour to wait for that thunderstorm to leave the airport at the other end. On the other hand, if if it's pouring down rain and shows no signs of stopping -- bearing in mind that in Northern Europe, one major terminus for intercontinental runs, this is far from rare :-) -- you have to be able to fly through it. A vertical-takeoff vertical-landing rocket ought to be less susceptible to weather than any airplane, true? It doesn't rely on aerodynamic lift (except perhaps very early in the re-entry, when it will be miles above the weather anyway), so there's none of that nonsense about crosswinds or icing. As we've seen with Apollo 12, there could be issues with cloud electrical potentials, though. If the exhaust trail enhances conductivity to ground, it's a path almost directly there, as opposed to an HTO that may ascend into the clouds at a shallower angle. Understand, I think VTVL is the way to go in most cases (espically at very large payloads) but this has to be considered. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ISS an accident waiting to happen ? | David Linney | Space Station | 9 | October 1st 03 09:51 AM |