You are not logged in.
Private spaceflight is never going to go far because it has no way to grow beyond the pockets of its bennefactors, which will always be limited in time and scope.
Barring a major scientific breakthrough in rocketry or a major engineering breakthrough in airbreathing propulsion or something, this probably isn't going to change.
AltSpace can happen, but it pains me to see people like Bigelow and Burt Rutan make it seem so close and so easy, that just a little bit of entrapanurial ingenuity and cleverness will launch us into the heavens, etc etc etc. It makes me sick, too bad SpaceShipOne is mounted from the ceiling of the Air & Space museum so I can't spit on it.
So long as we are bound by Tiokovski, the lack of advanced technology development (read: RLVs), infrastructure (eg Lunar fuel depot), and at the moment demand (source of $$$) makes profiting off orbital flight save weather/com sats unrealistic... Which therefore makes commercial manned spaceflight unrealistic.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
Re. "AltSpace can happen, but it pains me to see people like Bigelow and Burt Rutan make it seem so close and so easy, that just a little bit of entrapanurial ingenuity and cleverness will launch us into the heavens, etc etc etc. It makes me sick, too bad SpaceShipOne is mounted from the ceiling of the Air & Space museum so I can't spit on it."
What a shame you can't spit on the Wright Flyer, the Gossamer Albatross, or the Mercury Capsule (to mention a few) while you're at it? They were all impractical, barely functional firsts, as well! Or, is it only contemporary, impractical firsts which have been so-honoured without your approval, that deserve your expectoration?
Offline
Like button can go here
There is a fundimental difference between airplanes and rockets, one that it seems I will have to explain again. They are not comparable, because the physics behind the way they operate are different.
In a nut-shell, the difference is that there is nowhere for rocket technology to go; that is that it has already reached its limit. This limit is imposed not by any factor of engineering or design or things that can be improved on airplanes, this limit is imposed by the mass of the propellant atoms themselves.
The best rocket fuels that we can make, handle, and burn in quantity simply do not offer enough performance to enable small-time outfits to make advanced orbital vehicles. The size and performance of the vehicles has a "floor," a minimum below which it can't reach orbit and do anything useful. This floor is simply above everyone's head.
Because nobody can make atoms that weigh less then the ones we use now, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon (a little nitrogen and aluminum perhaps too), then thats it, rockets have reached their zenith. There will be no improvement, no evolution, no breakthrough. Thats it, no where to go like the Wright Brothers, and it is the millstone around Burt's neck.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
Explanation of the physics:
The minimum velocity for a real orbital space ship is not a factor of the vehicle's design, but rather is imposed by the strength of the Earth's gravity. This velocity is very high. Mach twenty five high. Easily ten times what Burt's toy could achieve. This minimum velocity cannot be changed.
The central problem of spaceflight, so long as it is predominantly rocket powerd, is embodied in the Tiokovski rocket equation. The key controlling variable of this equation is the velocity of the propellant (Ve) which is in turn ultimately controlled by what propellant you use.
Since the minium velocity is large, the velocity of the propellant is small, this therefore dictates the unfueled mass of the vehicle must be small, which in turn means your vehicle must be big to lift anything, even itself. Again, this is not a factor of engineering, not a factor of cleverness or ingenuity, not a factor of technology. This is because propellant atoms are too heavy, and there is no way to make them lighter. All the atoms that comprise modern fuels are at the top of the periodic table, there simply aren't any that weigh less.
This is combined with the problem that as you add more propellant, you have to add more fuel tank/structure/heat shield to hold that fuel and more thrust to push it. So, as the amount of propellant you add increases, you have to add more fuel tank, which means you have to add more fuel, so you have to add more fuel tank... its a vicious cycle, and is why orbital rockets are so big and expensive, and why Burt's toy is such a joke.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
Private enterprise in space will go virtually nowhere in space without a major government backing them up.
So perhaps a better use of private companies limited funds is to professionally lobby the government to enact some incentive schemes like a Mars Prize etc? But all of this is a hard balancing act. To gain support from the government you need to show you have some level of competence and from what some of you are saying the alt.space industry just doesn't have it. So to me, a better use of the funds these companies have is to get a strong space advocate and lobbying group in place(far better than anything they have so far tried out). If the government backing is needed, what is being done about this? You can point out all the logical arguments you want as to why the government is needed but let's look at that side of things shall we?
For decades now the various space and Mars advocate groups have been very divided on almost every issue and this has made them weak and ineffective at being lobbyists. Look at the environmental movement or the gun lobby. That is the kind of organization and professionalism space advocates will need(at the least) to hope for a serious audience with the government. I mean, does anybody here realistically think that a few divided and outspoken space advocates showing up to congress every so often(far less than big lobby groups) is going to accomplish anything? If alt.space doesn't work and the solutions still brings us back to government funding then isn't it logical to assume we should focus serious time and resources on that side of things? Some of you might say that lobbying has been tried, petitions have been sent in, congress and other government leaders have been spoken to and all for no result, but lobbying, especially in Washington, is not something you "try" out. Professional lobbying takes both adequate funding and intelligent people to do the job. It is also a long term thing. I don't really see sufficient committment from any space advocate group or union of groups(like the SEA) to bring us up to the level of serious lobbying.
Instead of "Blitzing" Washington D.C once every few months, how about we do it every day? Because that is the kind of committment it will take. We have so much to overcome, so many misconceptions and internal problems, nothing less than all out committment is what it will take. Some of us want a private future in space, some do not. But whatever we want, it all comes down to the governments support. Space advocates talk of multi billion dollar ideas and totally ignore the very powerful misperceptions that many of our leaders(and the public) have about the whole space issue. The fact is, to the mainstream leaders of today the priority of sending humans into space is waaaay down on the list. The same applies to public perceptions about it. How can we overcome all these problems? By taking them seriously and getting our voice in Washington heard. Until now all we have had is groups like Lockheed and others pushing for more government contracts, and that is the extent of their lobbying. What we need is the funding from alt.space and larger aerospace giants dedicated to a lobby group that does not have its hands tied by narrow corporate agendas. If we can't make our voice be heard then what is the point of any of this? Space advocates are the true keepers of the visions, its time they stepped up and took charge of this mess.
So yes, by all means, get government backing, but this time let's make it happen.(Instead of more decades of talk). Or we can do nothing and just keep living in a fantasy world.
welcome to [url=http://www.marsdrive.net]www.marsdrive.net[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
Well with the return of the board of enguiry into Space X and its loss of the first Falcon flight putting it down to just a minor fix needed this is good news for Bigalow and for future flights.
We will probabily see an increase in statements from Elon Musk soon about the Falcon 5 plus series of rockets.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
Like button can go here
In response to Marsman:
We need to work on multiple fronts at the same time and not concentrate on our various interest in space by the various space groups. It doesn't matter what we do in space as long as we are doing something in space, we will support it even if it not what we personally would like see happen in space. That way we talk with a unified voice and we will exert more influence on the matter.
Yes, we need to setup professional lobbyist to plead our space viewpoint in Washington DC in Congress, but we also need to be working on the President too. During Election Year, we need to be looking for candidates that have a strong space advocate for both NASA and for private ventures in space. The Candidates that get on board and honor there commitment to space, we will support them.
According to polls taken, between 50% to about 70% of Americans favor a space program and would like to see a major new mission for NASA. So it our job to find a mission that we can do that will excite those people and get them behind the project like the Kennedy Moon Missions did. That means we will probably have to have an American President pushing it.
We also need to be forming alliances with other groups besides the different space groups like the people in the aero-space industries that would directly benefit the manufacturing of the equipment that we are going to be using.
We also need to engage in an education program to show people the benefits of space and why we should be doing it. We especially should be targeting the children with our education program. They will be the most receptive to our education program and it was during the Apollo Moon program, that a major portion of the engineers currently inside the United State made there discussion to be an engineer.
One of the biggest peace time expansions of the US Economy was during the Apollo Moon Missions and the development of new technologies.
Marsman do you have any suggestion on how to get all this stuff done or even just some of it done?
That what our problem is.
Larry,
Offline
Like button can go here
Marsman do you have any suggestion on how to get all this stuff done or even just some of it done?
The answer to that Martian Republic is not simple. If we had some rich benefactors who could see what we see then yes, that would be the easiest way to gain the means to push the space agenda forward, but as you know, there are very few(read none) of such benefactors. So the next solution is for the current space groups and companies to become much more professional and much more dedicated, and I'm sorry to say it, they can't do that on their own. If they could well you would be seeing the results right now wouldn't you? So to me what is needed is the creation of a group that can serve these more established groups in helping them become more professional and more effective in their approaches to lobbying and whatever else they do.
From educating the public to lobbying congress and supporting a pro space president, all of these things need to be done, and they need to be done with a much higher level of committment and professionalism than anything we have previously seen from space groups. As you may or may not know, last year a group called "The MarsDrive Consortium"( www.marsdrive.com ) was created with the aim to work on all of the issues private and government preventing human space and Mars settlement, etc The methods they chose were to work within current groups by strengthening those groups, helping them with things like a better designed website, being a think tank for various groups to work through issues, IT advice, consulting and educational outreach among many other things they do. Every group in the space community has a specific speciality or function, the function of MarsDrive has so far mainly been to unite, serve and problem solve.
As you know, I'm the director of that group. Now as I'm I pragmatist I also believe that if there is something or some idea better than what we have at MarsDrive then by all means, please go for it. I don't want people to "join" MarsDrive like with traditional groups. I would rather they stay where they are, join whatever groups they want and when they need some help they can come to us.(or anyone else). In other words, most of our members are already members of groups like The Mars Society, TPS, NSS, etc and being in Marsdrive means that they become much more effective within their own groups because they have an outside group like MarsDrive to brainstorm with, to discuss ideas with, to gain support from, etc and to give them a valuable outsiders perspective on their own group's actions. We do alot of consulting now both unofficially and officially. If that helps some other groups work through some problems then that's great. But at the same time as MarsDrive is helping all these other groups we are also working on our own plans which include education for the public, political campaigns, private mission plans and more.
Just in the last few days one of our education task force has launched a template for a kids educational website and we are needing some help on that as we intend it to become a serious source of inspiration and information for the kids etc. That's one thing we are doing. You can find that here- http://www.kids4mars.com/news.php
We have also been able to consult and some of our members will take part in the coming "Blitz" on congress from the upcoming Mars Society Conference, where 3 of our guys will be presenting. Marsdrive is about being flexible and doing what works. Some of our early ideas were more hype than anything else but as we are becoming more established I am excited by what I see taking place. Our own problems right now are lack of funds but soon our non profit status will be legalized and that will help us move forward from there. What I can say is that the ideas have flowed thick and fast this last 8 months and I am amazed by the levels of support we have receieved.
But you know, in the end I don't care if Marsdrive or the Space Exploration Alliance or someone else does these things, as long as they get done, but while others are sitting around thinking and talking, Marsdrive is at least doing all it can to move our progress forward for humans in space. Are we the answer to your question MR? We are doing our best to provide some solutions and that is better than doing nothing at all. If a bigger and better group or idea comes along to replace us or do a better job then I welcome it.
welcome to [url=http://www.marsdrive.net]www.marsdrive.net[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
This is so lame.
An equation is a barrier to space?! I can't believe people swallow this garbage.
While the mighty mental midgets decry with utter certainty the end-time of rocketry and all associated science, common sense teachs us otherwise. Every year there are more satellites hurled into orbit. Pray tell, how did they get there?
Is it easy? No. That is primarily a function of two things- yes, physics, but more importantly, technology.
We can't imporve the physical properties of our rocket fuel. Fine. So if a genuis in the class can offer an idea, I'm all ears. Wait. I got one, why don't we do what we always do- improve effeciency in the applications that utilize the rocket fuel?
Is it hard? yes. Impossible, decidely not.
Improvements in aeroplanes was largely the result of improvements in the effeciency of the machine. improvements in material science, fluid dynamics, our understanding of unknown principles, etc.
The same is true for rocket science. We are still learning and still improving. Alt space should be encouraged primarily because they are trying out science that has largely been abanadoned by the government. The more and varied the attempts, the better.
Look how many failures came before the Wright brothers. It is the same princple, the same underlying concept.
As for being on topic, Bigelow, if he can bring in a space station at 500 million with an assumed half life of 10 years, capable of supporting 6 people at a time:
6*10 million = 60 million per human cargo * however many times a year you fly (say 12, once a month) = 600 million per year.
in one year you have paid the principle and made a 20% profit. yeah, no money there. But whatever. beat some more puppies.
Offline
Like button can go here
The "equation" is not the barrier, the equation is simply a description of the physics that rockets are governed by. It simply states the way that rockets work, there is nothing "lame" about it, its actually quite simple and elegant.
It is also authoritative and unavoidable... even if you could build a rocket out of some magical composite for fuel tanks/structure that had half the mass, rockets would still wouldn't be much smaller because of the mass of the fuel in them.
common sense teachs us otherwise
Really? Then why has rocket performance not increased hardly at all in twenty five years? Certainly their reliability has improved a little bit, and the payload slightly perhaps, but there hasn't really been a signifigant change in decades.
More satelites are being launched anually thanks to cheap labor and government-developed technology in the former Soviet Union, China, and India. Ariane-V is also government developed/subsidized for intents and purposes, as are all signifigant American launch vehicles to date. Not because rockets have changed much.
Improvements in aeroplanes was largely the result of improvements in the effeciency of the machine... The same is true for rocket science
A half truth at best, at worst simply wrong. One of the two most important advances in airplanes since Kitty Hawk has been engines; the engines have become infinitely more powerful, efficient, and reliable. Rockets however, unlike airplanes, simply have no where to go as their performance has already reached the limits of their propellants. The other big one, aerodynamics, are very simple and have no little room for improvement in rockets either. Thats the simple, hard truth... the sooner people, including people like you, accept this the sooner real progress can be made.
We are still learning and still improving
But we aren't, we really are not improving, rocket technology has gone nowhere and is going nowhere. Even the EELVs, arguably the most advanced rockets available, have little more performance than their predecessors from decades hence.
because they are trying out science that has largely been abanadoned by the government
No they aren't, if anything they are taking a step backwards technologically in a desperate attempt to simplify and reduce the cost of rockets. Kistler for instance, the only AltSpace firm with half a prayer thats really trying something new, is using surplus Soviet developed NK-33 engines. And please, piston-driven LOX pumps?
Is it hard? yes. Impossible, decidely not.
At what point does "hard" become "too hard?" I think that history and today's AltSpace offerings all loudly state that purely commercial orbital industry is beyond such a threshold.
Sure they could try to use advanced jet and large cryogenic engines to make a TSTO spaceplane, or develop slush hydrogen burning engines, or all-composite rockets... but all these things are beyond them, because they are too hard, and hard things cost money. Simply more money than they have to spend. There simply aren't sources of money big enough, even under your example, the world would use up its supply of willing millionaires quickly at 72/year, and the cost of launching & supporting them would be ruinous.
That is simply the way things are, AltSpace on its own is doomed
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
To elaborate a little more... no AltSpace outfit can bring any advanced launch technology to fruition (air-breathing first stage, N5+ solid rockets, etc) without needing so much money that making a profit is essentially impossible. They can sell technology rights to others for quick cash, but this will only delay the inevitible. Even SpaceX would have to be crazy to build their Falcon-IX and Dragon capsule as a tourist vehicle, since it would easily cost more than seats on Soyuz.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
To share a thought... Why are there no balloon-lofted hotels? A little cabin rental outfit in the Himalaya mountains? Certainly any one of these would be easier to build/tend and much more accessable to customers of lesser means, so where are they? There aren't even many really private underwater hotels (save that big one the Sheik of Dubai dreams of).
A space hotel is far harder than any of these
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
What is it, exactly, that costs all that money, pray tell?
Offline
Like button can go here
To share a thought... Why are there no balloon-lofted hotels? A little cabin rental outfit in the Himalaya mountains? Certainly any one of these would be easier to build/tend and much more accessable to customers of lesser means, so where are they? There aren't even many really private underwater hotels (save that big one the Sheik of Dubai dreams of).
A space hotel is far harder than any of these
*I've been reading through this thread today and I agree with you, GCN. All your posts are very well stated.
--Cindy
We all know [i]those[/i] Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...
--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)
Offline
Like button can go here
What costs so much? Is this some attempt at humor?
A symptom, perhaps a logical derivitive, of the Big Lie of the AltSpace community: that space is so easy if you are just clever enough that spaceflight "should" cost far far less than it does now.
Spaceflight is inherintly extremely difficult, you have supersonic speeds in the atmosphere (hypersonic for spaceplanes) plus vacuum in space, engines producing many tonnes of thrust and burning as hot as possible (to maximize efficiency), and large structures that must resist multiples of gravity without buckling... and all this requires very careful engineering with the minimum possible mass.
What about spaceflight doesn't cost so much?
Oh, and thanks Cindy. About your signature line though, since computers do all the flying, what do we call people who go up in space ships now?
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
No joke: Materials, wages, salaries, administration, profits, living expenses ... Not generalities: "difficulty," "hugeness," "awsomeness," "impracticalness," "Physics." What exactly does the money pay for in addition to the actual getting to and from orbit for whatever purpose, routinely? I kow: People have to live, but this is pioneering work. Does it have to (gasp) be paid for like a plumber, that is, for what he knows rather than what he does. Am I getting through to you, or are you one of the "plumbers"?
Offline
Like button can go here
Pretty much sums up the places that are obsorbing the large sums that Nasa recieves each year.
Here is a few more.. and I am sure that there are others reasons for where all the money goes.
Projects that are started but never finished, contractor payouts that are for work that is never done or work amounts that forfill the smallest amount of work per a badly written contract.
Offline
Like button can go here
No joke: Materials, wages, salaries, administration, profits, living expenses ... Not generalities: "difficulty," "hugeness," "awsomeness," "impracticalness," "Physics." What exactly does the money pay for in addition to the actual getting to and from orbit for whatever purpose, routinely? I kow: People have to live, but this is pioneering work. Does it have to (gasp) be paid for like a plumber, that is, for what he knows rather than what he does. Am I getting through to you, or are you one of the "plumbers"?
You aren't listening
You are trying to pick out specific symptoms derived from the core problem, which is that the science, engineering, and construction/operation of real orbital space craft are difficult: because they are hard, it doesn't matter what combination of labor, materials, and whatnot you use, because the task is so difficult if you decrease the cost of one facet you will inevitibly raise another. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Edit: Think about it, your whole point of view has been tainted by Burt's Big Lie... your default position is that there must be some "wrong" reason that spaceflight is very expensive that can be "fixed" if you are just clever enough, isn't it? Some "second way" must be out there, or some capitalist cabal fixing prices, or someone just hasn't tried something obvious.
Spaceflight with today's technology should prove that its high price is justified despite the clear historic evidence, while AltSpace is innocent until proven guilty despite its years of ongoing failure with bleak hope for real profit? Infact, I wonder if you would accept any reason, that if you really believe the Big Lie, then no evidence presented to you would be sufficent.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
I'm still not quite sure what it is but I sense something is missing when even a feasibility argument gets a monetary expense objection attched to it. This particular thread started out as a discussion about the Bigalow orbital test object. You dragged in poor old Burt and his bread-and-butter spaceplane project. Now you don't seem able to get off of this hobbyhorse of yours. So how about a strictly economics thread, which discusses different ways of financing (to-be-defined) LEO space transportation and/or habitat schemes?
Offline
Like button can go here
speaking of price of space, Zubrin and Bigalow seem to have both presented evidence that the price of spaceflight was inflated by the U.S. to prevent others from catching up;
Offline
Like button can go here
speaking of price of space, Zubrin and Bigalow seem to have both presented evidence that the price of spaceflight was inflated by the U.S. to prevent others from catching up;
Some "second way" must be out there, or some capitalist cabal fixing prices...
Bob is also been caught on reccord telling lies about NASA's earlier Moon plans, so I suppose it shouldn't surprise if he's being deceptive again in Congress.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
But what is the truth here? Must we believe that government reports of the huge costs of space flight are fully justified? Or is the private sector onto something? U.S National security is a priority far higher than anything we talk of here. Just remember that. Inflated prices fit a national security motive, but that does not prove it is true. As I see it, the drivers of price levels have been focused on a few things since the beginning of the space race. Military priorities(national security). Science missions. Commercial sat industries. And finally, humans in space. What will drive prices down? One thing- The will to do it. New technologies will have to be adopted, supressed technologies would have to be taken seriously, and whole new economic foundations will have to be laid from what we have currently. Will it happen? I hope it will, but realistically I doubt it. If there were some pressing reason to send humans into space we could not ignore, then you would find costs would become irrelevant. But that just isn't the case right now. It really comes down to this- unless the current system is stopped or bypassed(probably through competition), then prices will stay the same. But on national security matters wouldn't it be more advantageous for the U.S to subsidize their own home grown private alt.space industries? I think it would, and the U.S government agrees with me( SpaceX and the U.S.A.F). What we need now is a few more companies focusing on rockets they can make work instead of hype which gets them nowhere.
welcome to [url=http://www.marsdrive.net]www.marsdrive.net[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
But what is the truth here? Must we believe that government reports of the huge costs of space flight are fully justified? Or is the private sector onto something? U.S National security is a priority far higher than anything we talk of here. Just remember that. Inflated prices fit a national security motive, but that does not prove it is true. As I see it, the drivers of price levels have been focused on a few things since the beginning of the space race. Military priorities(national security). Science missions. Commercial sat industries. And finally, humans in space. What will drive prices down? One thing- The will to do it. New technologies will have to be adopted, supressed technologies would have to be taken seriously, and whole new economic foundations will have to be laid from what we have currently. Will it happen? I hope it will, but realistically I doubt it. If there were some pressing reason to send humans into space we could not ignore, then you would find costs would become irrelevant. But that just isn't the case right now. It really comes down to this- unless the current system is stopped or bypassed(probably through competition), then prices will stay the same. But on national security matters wouldn't it be more advantageous for the U.S to subsidize their own home grown private alt.space industries? I think it would, and the U.S government agrees with me( SpaceX and the U.S.A.F). What we need now is a few more companies focusing on rockets they can make work instead of hype which gets them nowhere.
I see your not listening either.
It not about competition to drive the price down for getting into space. As long as we are using present rocket technology, then the prices aren't going to be coming down very much, because of the limits of the technology we are using to get into space. You may find saving here or there, but it going to have virtually no impact on the overall reduction in cost for getting into space.
And it not just the US Government that having this problem, but Russian Government, Chinese Government, Indian Government and governments all over the world are having the exact same problem. Private companies in every country even those that are pro-space are also having the exact same problem. If it were possible to do it with present rocket technologies, then they would already be doing it.
Even if we had almost unlimited funding from almost all the major counties in the world, we would still have certain physical limitations, because of the technology we are using, besides of it being very expensive. Which would put it out of the price range of private enterprise and definitely make it a loser for any company trying to recover there investment in there space venture capital.
Now unless the US has some kind of black ops project that went public which uses an unknown technology that based on physical principle that most of us don’t know about or there some super brain scientist that discovered that new physical principle, then we are stuck with what we have.
Larry,
Offline
Like button can go here
The expense comes from the fact that for all the work that it takes to produce, space based technology still has very limited applications. It probably cost billions to develope the next-gen airliner, but your building a thousand of them for various airlines. Were your only build a handful of space shuttles. There simply arn't that many customers. Yet.
"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane
Offline
Like button can go here
Well, why are we not being more vocal about nuklear propulsion?
Offline
Like button can go here