Re: Spaceship One stepping-stone or dead-end?
From: Dave O'Neill (daveon_at_gmail.com)
Date: 10/07/04
- Next message: Paul Blay: "Re: Dynamics of an Earth Ring"
- Previous message: Alex Terrell: "Re: CO2 and global warming"
- In reply to: Earl Colby Pottinger: "Re: Spaceship One stepping-stone or dead-end?"
- Next in thread: Edward Wright: "Re: Spaceship One stepping-stone or dead-end?"
- Reply: Edward Wright: "Re: Spaceship One stepping-stone or dead-end?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 7 Oct 2004 01:20:57 -0700
Earl Colby Pottinger <earlcp@idirect.com> wrote in message news:<D-idne7hR-QmF_ncRVn-hg@look.ca>...
> "Dave O'Neill" <daveon@atomic.raz.spam.or.com> :
>
> > "Earl Colby Pottinger" <earlcp@idirect.com> wrote in message
> > news:45Odnez9nu2vkPncRVn-hA@look.ca...
> > > > I think SS1 is giving people a false sense of security...
> > >
> > > Only that CATS is possible, while a number of people have claimed
> > otherwise.
> >
> > For certain values of _space_ we have a CATS solution.
>
> Where? I have not seen it. I hope you don't mean the few piggyback rides
> that some people (AMSAT) have gotten?
According to a recent s.s.p. flame war, it was stated by many here
that SS1 goes into space. It would seen to do so relatively cheaply,
plus the vehicle appears to be reusable so that helps. Or are you
only talking about orbital access? Derek Lyons got hammered for
making that distinction recently and I didn't want to fall into the
same hole.
> > I'm still far from convinced that means orbital access will ever be
> _cheap_,
> > at least for sensible values of the word _cheap_.
>
> To most of us 'cheap' is $100-200 per kilo, for industrial needs $500 per
> kilo will do. What is your defination of 'cheap'.
CST will do you launches in those price ranges - lower sometimes.
Certainly sub-$500 if we want to make LEO space industrial research
fall into the budgets of large companies.
> > > > What ever flies to orbit needs 49 times the energy of SS1, it also
> > > > needs to re-enter the atmosphere and have long term life support
> > > > system - sounds pricy.
>
> > > Pardon, why is there a need for a long term life support system? No-one
> > > has stated that the next step must spend a long time in space/orbit yet.
>
> > I am making the assumption that the goal is to spend _time_ in space, more
> > than an hour or two - certainly enough time to rendezvous with a space
> > station.
>
> First rule of assumptions, don't just make them, state them!
So you're assuming we won't spend much time in space? Or is that an
opinion? Would you care to share your assumptions on this? Or would
you rather just mud sling like a kid?
> > Building a vehicle with lower capabilities doesn't necessarily remove the
> > need to do them, it just pushes back the point where it will need to be
> > done.
>
> But it let's you test ideas before you commit big bucks to an idea that does
> not work. And maybe shows you don't need a capability that you thought that
> you did and were planning to spend money on.
If you have the ongoing budget, it makes a lot of sense.
> > We could build a larger SS1, then another, then one with a single long
> > sub-orbit and then one that can spend 2 orbits, and then vehicles which can
> > make orbit and so forth.
>
> Sorry, but how is this more costly than building a big expensive shuttle,
> then find all sorts of problems that need more money to fix like NASA did?
I don't recall saying anything about the Shuttle nor NASA - please
keep strawmen out of this.
> For that matter did any aerospace company start out building planes that fly
> less than a dozen people at a time then jumped to a model that flies hundreds
> at a time without building inbetween sizes?
If we are talking about passenger jets then that's pretty much what
they did. It also went horribly wrong for DeHavilland but that's what
normally happens in new markets.
Well, actually when looking at jet passenger aircraft, compared to
prop, we jumped straight into airliners which could carry lots of
people long distances, faster and higher than ever before. We didn't
build biz-jet sized vehicles and then scale up. We designed vehicles
which met a commercial need.
> > By that stage I'm not convinced you'll necessarily have CATS and you'll
> have
> > the development costs of multiple generations.
>
> And if easy generation is cheap you get lots of building experience, a
> production line that you did not shut down for years/decades at a time and
> engineers who spent thier time bending metal instead of piling up paper.
It depends, again, on "cheap" - we seem to be agreed, or moving to an
agreement that an orbital vehicle will cost a lot more than SS1. Rand
Simberg states "probably hundreds of millions" to develop.
Work it out for yourself. Put in as many generations as you want,
apply a curve - perhaps linear to start with and work out the overall
cost depending on the number of generations you have.
Compare that to the ease people have had finding money so far, and
work out how many itterations you think you can afford.
<snip sillyness>
- Next message: Paul Blay: "Re: Dynamics of an Earth Ring"
- Previous message: Alex Terrell: "Re: CO2 and global warming"
- In reply to: Earl Colby Pottinger: "Re: Spaceship One stepping-stone or dead-end?"
- Next in thread: Edward Wright: "Re: Spaceship One stepping-stone or dead-end?"
- Reply: Edward Wright: "Re: Spaceship One stepping-stone or dead-end?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
