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

"Len" <len@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

: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.

Then you better be planning for clipper ship load rates. How many
tons and how many people did the typical clipper ship move in a year?

: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.

If you're building little one-man ships, you'd better have more than
one of them from the very beginning.

:> > 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.

Why not? Now you're moving a bunch of 'dead headers' back and forth.

: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.

What does the attendant do (other than point out where to find the
barf bags)? Why do you need a regular copilot position?

:The cargo version has only one pilot plus about 1500 kg of
:payload.

Why do you need a pilot on this one?

: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.

What are your expected flight durations? Don't forget about providing
all the mass for the pilot (seat, escape system, atmosphere, water,
etc.)

:> 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.

Yeah, no kidding!

:> > 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.

Your mass budget doesn't seem high enough for adding 10 people.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
.

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)