Re: SPACE PRIZE

From: Renee Keller (kellerr13_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 07/22/04 

Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 02:02:03 GMT

If we are really going to get into space commercially and otherwise, then a
number of things must be true.

1. It must be a popular and well supported by the public.
2. It must be huge advancements over the age old rockets. or we will still
be sputtering 50 years from now.
3. Production and turn around time MUST become efficient.
4. It must become common. almost as much as Air travel.

Rockets are old (although proven) technology. But the public is tired of
that. They are use to seeing airplanse take off, and similar types of space
ships in the movies. They want that now. This is the reason the VTOL is
not generally supported. Although if it actually looked like something other
than a stupid cone, it might be more popular.

Aerospike engines are nice advancements, but I think fully developped air
breathing engines would be a substantial improvement in technology.

Paying thousands of people refit and reconstruction time for a craft is too
costly. It needs to be done quickly, like a regular aircraft, and we have
the facilities to support that already. An assembly line type construction
may reduce cost on construction if there are enough on order.

When it becomes common, the price will come down, and services will
diversify.

>
> That you should not limit the solution to "takes off like a plane" and
> "lands like a plane". What have you got against VTVL (vertical take-off,
> vertical landing) or VTHL (vertical take-off, horizontal landing)
vehicles?
>
> Furthermore, why the SSTO limitation? If someone can come up with a
> reusable TSTO, why would you not give them the prize?
>
> Jeff
> --
> Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.
>
>
>

Loading