Re: Historical comparisons


Rand Simberg wrote:
On 25 Feb 2006 21:57:57 -0800, in a place far, far away, "H2-PV NOW"
<H2.PV@xxxxxxxxxxx> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

Sub-orbital joyrides of 15 minutes is another diversification, not a
displacement of anything. It is not appropriate to even call it
"commercial passenger space industry".

Of course it is. It's an industry that takes passengers into space,
for pay.

Especially as most of the protagonists want to develop the model
further.

It is doubtful that sub-orbital jaunts will become more orbital-like
and less amusment-park ride-like.

Actually, it's doubtful that they will not.

Just about the first commercial use for aeroplanes was for passenger
joyrides.

SSTO requires a rethinking that is more fundamental than any of the
plans posted in public to date.

And people who think that SSTO is necessary for low-cost reliable
launch need to do some rethinking themselves.

People do get fixated about this for some reason. Space travel is very
new, and the eventual configuration eventual lower cost access to orbit
is difficult to predict. The SSTO model certainly seems to require some
significant technological advances in materials science at the very
least before it becomes viable.

.