You are not logged in.
ISA, don't you think you ought to have some details about this vehicle when you start a whole thread about the program?
It looks rocket powerd... is an SSTO or a TSTO? Air breathing engines? Payload size and mass?
[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
What did you think of the hyper-x test that just happened a few weeks ago?
If the USA helped to fund this project, why shouldn't the US Military have access to these vehicles, as you have stated in your materials?
Why should the USA participate, this would expose our technology to other Governments who would love to steal it!
Russia did a good job of raiding our tech data on the U.S. Shuttle's, and I am sure would jump at the chance to do likewise again under the guise of being a freindly partner in some international space plane program!?
I would guess that China would love to do the same as well!
So why an international space plane, and how do you propose to overcome these, and many other problems?
Offline
Why don't the blessed Americans share the love? Or is Charity immoral?
But no... there has to be something in it for you.
Come on to the Future
Offline
idiom, Capitalism is a great thing! Aint it! :-)
Those with brains and hard work enjoy the fruits of their labor, and well, the rest the get what they deserve, free hand outs and left overs!
Communism and Socialism failed because they punished the smart and productive people, and rewarded the lazy and corrupt people.
If those on the left in America succeed in getting their hands on control of America, we will face the same fate!
I would like to give you my love idiom!
But that AK-47 you are pointing at me looks a little scary!
Offline
Boy, was I grumpy when I posted that!
If I am disgruntled about something it's living in a nuke testing/dumping site... but anyway, radioactive water under the bridge.
Back on topic, the ISP seems to be full of happy glowwy buzz-words like "symbiotic". Terms are included like civil government but military is excluded. It all seems a little to Saganesque to really work.
They have to many goals going in to many different directions. It all ends up looking like pre-GWB Nasa.
Maybe if it was just Operating and supporting the biggest space stations possible, or just point to point transfer, or just planetary exploration.
As an organization, I can understand Artemis or the Mars Society, or the Planetary society. NASA only just stopped playing hydra and is busy chopping off all the spare heads.
I just don't think that building a space craft is a useful mission. I you just aim at build a RLV you will end up with the Space Shuttle and all the stupid design flaws that come with it. The Space Shuttle is so design compromised that they had to design a design compromised ISS just to give it something to do.
For one thing, people should not fly with payloads. Design an economic heavy lift with 100 tonnes that may or may not be entirley reusable. Design a fast safe people transport, whose total mass is as low as possible. Yeah it should be a single stage but if you turned out a two stager in which the first stage had a 10 minute turnaround and the top was "expendable/refurbishable" that would be an immense step forward too.
Is your goal a quantifed physical thing, or is it to promote warm fuzzy global hugginess?
Come on to the Future
Offline
Eric, you're squarely against international cooperation or only towards Russia/china?
What about Europe?
Do you think it would be better if each spacefaring nation went its own way, as opposed to ISA's view, or can there be a way to overcome this, meeting half-way, say? Seems almost impossible, 'cause any cooperation will result in at least partial sharing of engineering information...
Offline
Rxke,
I think the idea of an International Space Agency is a very good idea, and needs to happen.
However my comments are valid, and stand by them.
Governments are not going to all of a sudden trust each other and give away hard fought efforts to develop advanced technologies.
This has been a problem with ISS, as in the public media and public meetings all of the ISS partners are smiling, shaking hands, and hugging, and as idiom says "all that love".
Behind the scenes its a cat fight and the fur is flying everwhere! Russia and Europe have threatened more than once to pull out.
The problem is that complex space stations, space vehicles, and planetary surface operations and exploration will take a major effort and investment to achieve these things, beyond even a losely agreed on alliance like the ISS project. It really is going to take an effort like an international space agency for these things to happen.
This is one of the reasons I am so up set at the way Mr. Dobson from a group now working on putting together such an organization, was plowed under by clark mainly, but a few others as well. I really did want to hear what this guy had to say, and now because of this mess Mr. Dobson may not even want to come back. I think this is sad, and a big loss not to hear what such visionaries have to say.
I see they have now locked out the solar cruiser thread which I also was interested in. Congratulations clark and cronies, you succeeded in your agenda, hope you are happy now!
The international space plane idea is good, and I think Airbus Industries approach is very close to what Mr. Dobson has proposed for this project, he even makes reference to this in the project materials.
But, there are valid concerns in National Security, Technology Transfer, and the Ability for different societies and cultures to be able to work together in such a project.
Again such projects and efforts are badly needed if we are to ever do anything really big in orbit or on the moon or Mars. Mr. Dobson and his group are struggling with this, and should be supported and commended for their efforts. The road which lays ahead for these folks is going to be an up hill battle all the way, and a few land mines here and there along the way, for sure.
We don't need the type of garbage which was dished out by clark and his cronies mixed into this debate as it does nothing but harm, not only to this Dobsons efforts, but to every ones efforts and hopes.
Offline
Personally I think it should be run through the U.N.
Now I don't like the U.N. at all, but I think everybody would be more realistic about what to expect. Also it would open a lot of the tech to being public domain, allow a lot wider international support and it would draw funding from the general budget.
But it does need a charter other than "build a generic piece of space hardware".
I would vote, for example, A monster Space Station (think star trek huge), a heavy lift eelv, and an eelv passenger ship (20 peeps) on top of a fully reusable booster. Then begin cycling university students etc from all over the world. That is a concept that could justify 100 Billion dollars being spent on it.
The launch vehicles are not great, but if they aree to be built on PD hardware then they can't be NASA bleeding edge, eh Eric.
I just think something has to be at least slightly visionary to gain universal steam.
Come on to the Future
Offline
Having the UN get involved would immediately increase the amount of corruption involved. There are soo many countries and individuals that are involved with the UN that use the UN as a means of enriching themselves, or garnering control over other countries. This would be the worst case scenario. I'd rather have a commission set up of contributors and set voting powers based upon monetary and equipment contributions.
Offline