Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05

Pete Lynn wrote:
> "Fred J. McCall" <fmccall@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:a5vil1p203v26arp7v4e1ncvu62232k5c3@xxxxxxxxxx

.......
> > Otherwise, one is probably going to have to count on
> > flying the prototypes as the operational vehicles as
> > well
>
> It would be silly for initial prototypes not to be operational vehicles,
> and vice versa. An operational vehicle which is not a prototype is a
> wasted opportunity.

Of course. I have never thought that the first commercial
space transports would be anything but "operational
prototypes." IMO, Clipper Ships are a better economic
model. The potential economic justification for Clipper
Shippes only allowed for designing and building one at
a time. In this sense, I will concede that Pete has a
good point that perhaps experience with the first
(operational) prototype should influence the design and
construction of the next. However, I still think the
money should be there for the second and third prototypes.
Otherwise, a fluke accident would likely end the program:
An accident leading to a total loss of a prototype would
not be the best circumstances to get additional money.
......
> > Why would you want a 'passenger' to be able to link
> > into it at all? Either it can adequately be controlled
> > remotely or it cannot. If it cannot, letting a passenger
> > with a laptop tinker isn't going to help you.
>
> Because the passenger would be a pilot.

I personally would not consider designing a space tourism
vehicle without a pilot, co-pilot and flight attendant.
Accordingly, I would not think less than four of five
passengers would make sense. Our current design accommodates
eight passengers--plus pilot, co-pilot and attendant--on an
eleven-orbit flight at a proposed price that is a a good deal
less than others are planning for a short sub-orbital flight.
The co-pilot position is also a training position.

The cargo version has only one pilot plus about 1500 kg of
payload. IMO, a pilot makes development easier and cheaper
and does not seriously compromise cargo payload at the size
vehicle that I think is appropriate to avoid extreme sensitivity
of performance to size.
>
>
> It is quite sufficient. The Wright flier and those which followed were
> not four person aircraft.

However, I would hope that the first commercial space transport
would be a little further down the space path than the Wright
Flyer was down the aviation path.
>
> > I think you better plan on being able to put up at least
> > 4, even if a couple of those are kids.
>
> There will be a lot of developmental water under the bridge before kids
> are on the cargo manifesto. Kid proofing a space station is non trivial
> and will come much later. Initial passengers will be competent and
> trained individuals.
>
> > Plus cargo space for luggage and all supplies needed
> > to sustain the group for however long they'll be up.

The passenger version of the Space Van 2010 is designed
to accommodate eight passengers plus attendant and
second pilot for less than a one-day fligt, in lieu of
1500 kg of cargo--so go figure. Moreover, at least one
crew member would likely be a female to help the overall
mass budget.
>
> This can more sensibly go up on separate unmanned flights.

The important parameter is cost. Lowest cost is not
necessarily manned or unmanned--discounting NASA
experience as irrelevant to what can really be done.
......
>
> Pete.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
x@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
    ... :> It would be silly for initial prototypes not to be operational vehicles, ... If it cannot, letting a passenger ... :vehicle without a pilot, co-pilot and flight attendant. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
    ... >> building three identical prototypes. ... > The real question is how cheap access to LEO has to ... It would be silly for initial prototypes not to be operational vehicles, ... >> also think it desirable that a passenger with a laptop ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
    ... :>> building three identical prototypes. ... :> The real question is how cheap access to LEO has to ... :It would be silly for initial prototypes not to be operational vehicles, ... :> What's the leak rate of Vectran with atmospheric ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Hitlers Major Blunders - Top Three
    ... prototypes were completed to Mark II ... Twenty pilot models ... The last five vehicles had ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)