TGV Rockets founder speaks

[shuttle_man]

I like the sound of this guy. A lot less gun ho than some of the others. Gun ho only worked in the very early days of Nasa.<br /><br />http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=3679

 

[vt_hokie]

"TGV is an acronym for "Two Guys and a Van", the ultimate ground crew staffing for a spacecraft."<br /><br />I was wondering where "TGV" came from. I always thought of "tren a grande vitesse" which is French for "high speed train". <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[shuttle_man]

This quote was what made me think this guy has at least thought it through.<br /><br />"I believe the insurance problems are a significant business challenge, and that insurance reflects the liability environment of the United States, and does create competitive issues. The best example of this is that the only competitive American space tourism operation to date uses Russian rockets"

 

[franson_space]

That sure is one funky space ship. There's a link to their site on the bottom of the article and there's some even funkier ships on there. I can do funky, oh yes <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[shuttle_man]

I'd go for working that funky. But he seems to be thinking working over funky. It's impressive.

 

[mikejz]

Its like any good idea in the country, the person is really really excited about a new idea---then he talks to a lawyer.....<br /><br />The biggest issue with private space is liablity and range issues, add to that ITAR which means launching over poor 3rd world people that would not sue not an option. In the end, sort of shooting all the lawyer or major reform to our legal system (like loser-pays) I think the best we can hope for is gov't based protection or provided insurance. <br /><br />That really is how the gov't could promote private space--give them a place to launch for CHEAP and protect them from some liability.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"That really is how the gov't could promote private space--give them a place to launch for CHEAP..."</font><br /><br />You mean a place like a tiny island with no inhabitants and most of the Pacific Ocean to the east to provide a buffer for launch problems? Maybe with some exotic name like 'Kwajalein'? The Air Force and SpaceX are on it. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[mikejz]

Umm...well judging by what I have heard Musk say the costs of launching are less, but the Logistics costs are higher---plus it is still a MIL range, so plenty of BS in all odds still applies.

 

[mrmorris]

From what I've read, Elon has said the climate there is bad for corrosion. However -- you'll get that at any sea-side launch side... which basically means for anything other than a polar launch site, you'll have it. He's had to build his own facilities... but as costs are sunk in that and the infrastructure grows, incidental logistics costs will drop.<br /><br />As for it being military -- you'll have a hard time finding something that's seaside, U.S. territory, not already either heavily populated or massively expensive, *and* not owned by the military. As for B.S. -- the military wants their low-cost responsive launcher. They're liable to provide some grease to the wheels of their normal processes.<br /><br />In any event -- logistics costs are unlikely to kill an operation of this sort. Litigous costs, on the other hand, could kill one in a heartbeat. I can't see a better option than this to minimize risks of this sort.

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">This quote was what made me think this guy has at least thought it through. </font><br /><br />I used to lurk on some boards where Pat Bahn posted. Very level headed and practical, he is. I'm keeping my eye on him, he's a winner IMO. <br /><br />He is in position to be the Deming of spaceflight, at least in regards to keeping operations costs very low and why it is critical to do so. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>