Re: SPACE PRIZE

From: Jeff Findley (jeff.findley_at_ugs.nojunk.com)
Date: 07/22/04 

Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:13:46 -0400

"Renee Keller" <kellerr13@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:veFLc.7199$iK.515@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> 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.

#1, quit top posting. It's annoying and against Usenet etiquette.

#2, if you're going to quote someone, quit trimming out the lines that
indicate who said what. Again, this is annoying and against Usenet
etiquette.

#3, your ideas of how to make spacecraft "popular" are at odds with
designing spacecraft that are cost effective. If HTHL SSTO vehicles were
easy, NASA would be flying them. If air breathing hypersonic engines were
easy, the would be more than a research topic.

#4, just because you desire aircraft like operations, doesn't mean that your
spacecraft has to be HTHL anymore than automobiles ought to look like
aircraft to have similar ease of operation.

Jeff 

-- 
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Engine Cooling - why not....
    ... The main reason for this is that the cooling air expands as it picks ... engines for WWII aircraft was advances in cooling fin design. ... Fins aren't trivial. ...
    (rec.aviation.homebuilt)
  • Re: Stupid Question
    ... that provides electrical power to the aircraft ... ... It's also can provide high pressure air to start the main jet ... engines, air conditioning etc. ...
    (rec.aviation.military)
  • Re: OT - Buncefield
    ... >Oil is used in Diesel engines (not aircraft) and is ignited by the high ... >burned by mixing it with air and igniting it with a spark plug. ... It is difficult to ignite when exposed to ...
    (uk.media.radio.archers)
  • Re: GE Superadios - Not ! - But Sometimes . . . The NUMB3RS CanNot...
    ... So,which companies do you think build the best Aircraft Engines,Aircraft ... Engines that have never failed,either in the Air or on the Ground? ... Heck,I dont know.I dont know which are all of the companies nowdays ...
    (rec.radio.shortwave)
  • Repost: Strategic nuke VS carrier
    ... That means little or no endurance to remain in the air. ... We are Chinese first, local ethnicities ... aircraft in the area even if they go past bingo fuel. ... fighters have to do is carry a cannon and two small AIMs. ...
    (sci.military.naval)