Re: top ten reasons there'll be faster progress

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 18:46:11 GMT, in a place far, far away,
throopw@xxxxxxxxx (Wayne Throop) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

: Joe Strout <joe@xxxxxxxxxx>
: - Flight rate. So far, about 500 humans have ever been in space.
: Virgin Galactic plans to fly about 500 passengers per year. Manned
: space launches currently happen at a rate of about half a dozen
: (launches, not people) per year; Virgin will be flying more than once
: per week. And of course, VG will not be the only game in town; Space
: Adventures also seems pretty credible to me in their plans for
: suborbital tourism. So in a few years, we're looking at a flight rate
: orders of magnitude higher than what we have now. Even if this is
: suborbital rather than orbital, this will result in a much faster
: feedback & revision cycle, and so faster progress.

My problelm with this one is that you can revise and improve suborbital
flight all you want, and you're still no farther along than the X15 was,
in terms of basic capability. Is there some reason to think this will
spill over to orbtial capability?

Yes.

Suborbital will gradually increase its speed and altitude to the point
that it becomes orbital, in a more natural progression than occurred
with the unnatural jump to Apollo, which was a cost-is-no-object
response to the needs of the Cold War.

: - Once the cold war rivalry as justification for space development
: evaporated, the space community seized on science as its raison
: d'etre. This was a mistake; space science is almost entirely pure
: research, and there isn't much money in that (in the short term
: anyway);

My problem with this is that there has been lots of money to be made for
less costly launch capability for some time. Slots for comm satellites,
weather satellites, mapping satellites, and on and on.

Not really. For the most part, launch costs were not significant
drivers of those projects to demand lower ones.

Projects like
Iridium might have been profitable if the costs of keeping the satellites
up and supplying more were less.

Even they weren't willing to spend enough money on the necessary
development to lower the cost of launch, and they didn't provide
enough market to do so. So far, there's only one clear market that
could, and doesn't require ancillary technology development--people
who want to go and are willing to pay their own money for the
opportunity.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: We can meet all our needs through space development
    ... with each opportunity structured as a separate finance company ... looking for good returns on this money. ... The heavy lift launcher, with its launch facility in New Mexico, will ... satellites, asteroidal survey and development... ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: White Elephant (was Re: Naming the stick)
    ... can re-enter to glide back to the launch center again, ... oxygen and refurbishment costs are the only recurring costs. ... Two launches and an on orbit docking, allow 400 tons of payload to be ... Five satellites generate a GW, and 5,000 satellites generate a TW. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: News - Air Force developing unmanned space plane - X-37B
    ... Current satellites are not cheap to launch either. ... not reduction of launch costs, ... AFAIK, for commercial GEO communication satellites, the price of the ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: Modest Proposal - Common Interplanetary Booster
    ... sized vehicle can do much to reduce costs as well. ... The smallest vehicle I have analyzed involves building an annular ... It is attached to a flight element that has 15,384 pounds ... per launch. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Modest Proposal - Common Interplanetary Booster
    ... Recall, that high specific impulse on orbit, translates to more ... sized vehicle can do much to reduce costs as well. ... It is attached to a flight element that has 15,384 pounds ... per launch. ...
    (sci.space.policy)