Redesigned Shuttle

[tomnackid]

"I think this is absolutely false."<br />-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />On what do you base this assertion? The economies in Russia and China are only going to improve making their launch services more expensive. Space elevators, laser launch systems, mag lev catapults are all years or decades away and will require huge infra structures that will only be cost effective if there is a large established market. Space planes are comfortable for taking people to and from orbit--but getting people to and from LEO doesn't MAKE anything. Its just moving people around. There is no net increase in wealth from it.<br /><br />The whole "build it and they will come" idea is bogus. The government of the USSR spent decades and billions of dollars building factories in a futile attempt to force their economy into a first world industrial model. Needless to say it didn't work out that way. Now most of those Stalin era factories are abandoned. Attempts to build cut rate spaceships will prove just as useless.<br /><br />Space flight will never be "cheap" (physics has seen to that) but neither is crossing the Atlantic, drilling for oil or building a railroad. It can be COMMON if there is a profit to be made. But in a free market there has to be a demand for it. Anything else is just attempts at planned economy.<br /><br />PS: I don't want to hear any more about "space tourism". Do you know what kinds of societies depend on tourism? Third world, non industrial countries! Tourism will never and can never be the basis for an industrial economy. All it does is move people and money from one place to another--it generates nothing. It is a parasite industry that can only exist in an already wealthy environment. Hopefully like barnstorming in the 20s it can keep interest alive in space flight until the REAL money making ventures com online. Until then it is just an elaborate theme park ride.

 

[josh_simonson]

$100/lb is about 300% of fuel costs, that's why I chose that number.<br /><br />Tourism may not be 'productive' per se, but trillions of dollars are wasted on frivolties like sports cars and hobbies. Diverting some of that money so that it fosters the space industry is certainly worthwhile. What is better for humanity, a new line of sports car or a RLV? The fact is that the money is there and if it's used to build space infrastructure that is useful for commercial as well as tourist purposes, then it's better spent than just carting people back and forth to hawaii for a suntan.<br /><br />Tourism supports the entire air travel industry, should we have called that 'unproductive' back in the 30's?

 

[tomnackid]

Air Mail service started the airline industry. Carting people around has never been very profitable that is why passenger airlines have always been heavily subsidized. <br /><br />Space tourism has its value, don't get me wrong. But riding suborbital firecrackers is a fad that will pass. I think people entrepreneurs would better spend their time and money developing ways to extract oxygen from lunar regolith, prospect the moons surface for H3, develop new an novel ways for using com sats and beamed power--in short look for more ways to profit FROM space rather than fixate on getting INTO space. I know its not as glamorous but it is instructive to note that very very few miners got wealthy during the California gold rush, but a whole lot of grocers, store owners, saloon keepers (not to mention prostitutes!) DID get wealthy.

 

[j05h]

>in short look for more ways to profit FROM space rather than fixate on getting INTO space. <br /><br />I agree with you on a personal level, my interest is in space applications. However, we desperately need cheaper rides up to make money at "space". If it takes rich spaceflight participants to make this happen, so be it. I'd rather be fueled by wealthy wanderlust than confiscatory tax money.<br /><br />I don't like the word "tourist" for the ISS visitors - SHuttleworth and Olsen both did real science onboard and advocacy before & after. Dennis Tito is perhaps underwriting other space developments (only rumors), and the Ansari family is involved in spaceflight at all sorts of levels. Tourists sit around and sip mojitos.<br /> <br />The thing that will bring down flight costs is simple: higher flight rates, whatever the architecture. If STS had flown 50 times a year, it would be cheap(er). Soyuz is affordable because of volume. etc.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

The big thing that tourism has going for it is a steep demand curve. If launch costs fall by half, that won't inspire twice as many comsats to be launched - they cost more than the launch anyway. But a halving of the price to tourists will definitely attract more customers.<br /><br />I'm not sure how the sub-orbital market will break, nobody has taken that ride and jumped off saying 'wow, that was worth 100k...'

 

[scottb50]

I would think instead of Com Sats we would be better served with manned Platforms in much lower orbits then most Com-Sats use, say a point where three to five Platforms could relay directly to each other and overlap their coverages enough to provide uninterrupted service World Wide, as far as the user is concerned.<br /><br />Like Wi-Fi everywhere. Match the number of Platforms to Computer centers, and the Earths surface, so that anywhere sees at least two other Platforms, the time lag would be minimal, if noticable, om Earth.<br /><br />The user, or consumer, has the capabilities of a super computer anywhere any time. Plug a Module into any device, the device gets what it needs. You pay for this, by the way.<br /><br />Instead of water cooled ubber PC's we use Modules, plug one into a cell phone, PDA , Novel size notebook, laptop, desktop and other displays. The work is done on the super computers moon ot Mars cycler, as well as TV's and Jumbo-tron size devices. The computing is on the ground. The Modules communicate to the Platforms,the Platforms communicate to the Super computer Centers and each other. <br /><br />The interface is a simple, low powered transmitter and receiver, on a single hardened chip, sealed into a Module that plugs into any device it is compatable with. <br /><br />Using large scale receiving antennas and high powered transmitters allows simple user interfaces, a low power transmitter combined with football field size LEO antennas and Transmitters that put out the juice, just like the Mexican stations; I always liked ZZ-Top. <br /><br />In orbit you can easily have football field, or bigger antennas, that would capture weaker signals. You can also have much bigger and more capable transmitters, that use Solar power, water, LH2/LOX and fuel cells to provide continuous power. It would also work to the moon or Mars. Easily acessable water would be a plus with Arrival Platforms in orbit there, I would think three would work fine at either, for the near fu <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

Offsprey5:<br />So, you don't think that a cargo spaceplane couldn't be made to satisify say any have-to-positively-get-there-yesterday market (Such as donor organs, for example)?<br /><br />Me:<br />I don't see that being possible in the near term considering all the attempts that were cancelled. For one thing, not only would the vehicle have to be robust enough for daily or hourly turnaround, you'd have to be able to launch/land at a much wider range of facilities than has currently been planned for. Launch from say, LAX to the east involves possible range safety issues as well resulting from overflight of populated areas. Launching from say MIA to the west would be impractical due to the loss of Earths rotational momentum resulting in payload capacity deep cut or elimination. This in addition to similar populated area overflights. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

A commercial sub-orbital rocketplane probably won't have overflight issues if it is certified for routine commercial use. However, at half a million dollars/flight, any of our insurance companies will let us die rather than pay that.<br /><br />The earths rotation only affects getting to orbit. For a suborbital trajectory there is no appreciable difference going e-w or w-e, or n-s for that matter.

 

[qso1]

josh_simonson:<br />The earths rotation only affects getting to orbit. For a suborbital trajectory there is no appreciable difference going e-w or w-e, or n-s for that matter. <br /><br />Me:<br />There would definetely be insurance issues but so far as I can tell based on all the past proposals and promises, the basic technology required for SSTOs is not in practice, practical enough for under 24 hour turnarounds. We really haven't had practice with SSTO systems except Delta Clipper which was a suborbital demonstrator but the fact we had so many promises that ended up never reaching operational status is an indication to me the challenge is much more difficult than stated.<br /><br />Offsprey5 didn't specify whether his scenario involved orbital or suborbital. I was assuming orbital vehicle but your correct on suborbital flight. Direction of flight would be far less of an issue if any at all. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Another aspect of the scenario Ossprey5 commented on, if he meant suborbital craft, that would probably be more within the realm of possibility than going straight orbital. Only potential problem I can see however is operational costs which will greatly depend on a relatively trouble free, sustainable flight rate. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[mattblack]

>absolutely false<< was vt_hokie's assertion: I was merely quoting him. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[egom]

The best reason to go to LEO/space is for sun energy. We need to get a way to collect energy, store it and transport it.<br /><br />This is the new 'oil rush'.<br /><br />EgoM

 

[mattblack]

You bet!! Fossil fuels suck, but it's gonna take awhile to get the solar & other infrastructure in place. I say get better Catalytic converters for combustion engines underway and develop Thorium-based nuclear energy infrastructure: No bomb-making materials produced and massively reduced waste products. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Makes more sense to me now, especially economically. Flight rates will probably not be nearly as difficult to maintain with suborbital craft as they would be orbital. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>