World's first commercial spacecraft completes manned flight

On 10/15/2010 11:43 AM, John M wrote:


Even if they managed to get costs of a hypersonic flight overseas down
to Concorde levels, I still don't see much of a business plan. How
long did the supersonic travel industry last after the Concorde had
its first accident, in an otherwise perfect safety record?

BTW, the dangers of buying into your own propaganda...hit the Way-Back
Machine, Mr. Peabody - let's have a look at how "supersonic travel is
better travel" as we commute from our day job in New York City back to
our home in London on a daily, or at worst, weekly, basis:
http://www.concordesst.com/history/eh6.html
Excuse me, but wouldn't it be cheaper to move the wife and kids to NYC
in the long run? Then they could fly down to Mexico City at Mach 2 if
their mornings got boring, and be back in time for her to make dinner. :-D

Pat

In message tatelephone
Pat Flannery wrote:

Excuse me, but wouldn't it be cheaper to move the wife and kids to NYC
in the long run? Then they could fly down to Mexico City at Mach 2 if
their mornings got boring, and be back in time for her to make dinner. :-D

But then you'd be living in New York *all* the time instead of having
weekends in civilisation...

Anthony

On Oct 16, 4:22*am, Anthony Frost wrote:
In message tatelephone
* * * * * Pat Flannery wrote:

* Excuse me, but wouldn't it be cheaper to move the wife and kids to NYC
* in the long run? Then they could fly down to Mexico City at Mach 2 if
* their mornings got boring, and be back in time for her to make dinner. :-D

But then you'd be living in New York *all* the time instead of having
weekends in civilisation...

Well, there's always moving the wife and kids to Boston or Toronto
instead of right to NYC. Or, even merely as far away as (and I know
this suggestion will chill the blood of a New Yorker in horror)
Trenton.

But home is home, and so if transatlantic flight did improve to such a
point as to make it practical to commute from London to New York - at
least for some people with _very_ high-paying jobs - that would be
another positive achievement on the ladder of human progress.

It could be that the position would only last for a year or two.
Selling everything one owns and then trying to buy the same stuff
again in another country, for example, is hideously expensive, even
though it may be cheaper than attempting to go through customs with
the complete contents of a house that has been lived in for
generations.

John Savard

On Oct 12, 9:47*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 5163c257-f7f4-41f8-afda-503ccbc46cc6
@p26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com, says...



there were leaks just after columbia hat the military has or had a air
launched orbital plane that might have been used to get essential
supplies to columbia if the crew was stranded.

Not so much leaks as rumors. *It's very hard to hide a launch vehicle. *
They're too easy to spot and track, so the likelihood that "the
military" has an orbital space plane is about nil.

Jeff
--
42

taken off from somewher like area 51 and taken piggyback to release
altitude perhaps over a ocean with in flight refueling, who would see
it launch.

conventional rockets with pads would be impossible to hide

On Oct 16, 1:28*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:

taken off from somewher like area 51 and taken piggyback to release
altitude perhaps over a ocean with in flight refueling, who would see
it launch.

Anyone with a NUDETS satellite system. *That's probably us, the
Russians, the French at a minimum.



conventional rockets with pads would be impossible to hide

No harder than the bright flash of boosters firing.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

they all liely have secrets of their own, and making anything public
will lead to more disclosures, and info on how sensitive the detection
system is.

so everyone keeps their mouth shut...

On Oct 16, 11:51*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:
On Oct 16, 1:28*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:

taken off from somewher like area 51 and taken piggyback to release
altitude perhaps over a ocean with in flight refueling, who would see
it launch.

Anyone with a NUDETS satellite system. *That's probably us, the
Russians, the French at a minimum.

conventional rockets with pads would be impossible to hide

No harder than the bright flash of boosters firing.

they all liely have secrets of their own, and making anything public
will lead to more disclosures, and info on how sensitive the detection
system is.

so everyone keeps their mouth shut...

So it would be just as easy to hide "conventional rockets with pads",
then, for the same reason.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

conventional rocket on pad cant be hidden.....

but any rocket sent to space can have its stealth satellite move to a
new unknown location.

our military has one of those semewhere right now....

On 10/16/2010 2:22 AM, Anthony Frost wrote:
In rthdakotatelephone
Pat wrote:

Excuse me, but wouldn't it be cheaper to move the wife and kids to NYC
in the long run? Then they could fly down to Mexico City at Mach 2 if
their mornings got boring, and be back in time for her to make dinner. :-D

But then you'd be living in New York *all* the time instead of having
weekends in civilisation...


Good one! You read that article nowadays, and you just shake your head
at it, as they talk themselves into believing a completely
off-its-rocker concept.

Pat

On Oct 17, 1:12*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:
On Oct 16, 11:51*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:
On Oct 16, 1:28*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:

taken off from somewher like area 51 and taken piggyback to release
altitude perhaps over a ocean with in flight refueling, who would see
it launch.

Anyone with a NUDETS satellite system. *That's probably us, the
Russians, the French at a minimum.

conventional rockets with pads would be impossible to hide

No harder than the bright flash of boosters firing.

they all liely have secrets of their own, and making anything public
will lead to more disclosures, and info on how sensitive the detection
system is.

so everyone keeps their mouth shut...

So it would be just as easy to hide "conventional rockets with pads",
then, for the same reason.

conventional rocket on pad cant be hidden.....

Why not? *It can be 'hidden' just as easily as an air launched booster
flash can be.



but any rocket sent to space can have its stealth satellite move to a
new unknown location.

our military has one of those semewhere right now....

snork

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

right now that military test model is at unknown location. so
obviously its possible......

(Jeff Findley) wrote:
World's first commercial spacecraft completes manned flight
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/10/11....space.flight/

Good enough article, but since there have been commercial craft in
space since Intelsat-I in 1965, and Arianespace (partly government
owned, but a corporation) has been around since 1980, I really think
the headline/subject header needs to say "World's first *manned*
commercial spacecraft."

--
djb@ | Dan Birchall - Observation System Associate - Subaru Telescope.
naoj | Views I express are my own, certainly not those of my employer.
..org | Oh wicked, bad, naughty, _evil_ Dan! He is a _naughty_ person.