What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

Austin Stanley · 2004-12-01 01:42:10

How, comstar how. You promise explinations, but your responses are lacking in details. How are coporations going to do all this?

#1. How will the pay for it?
They do not have the revenue streams to support a multi-billion dollar space development program. Even if a large coporation was to devote ALL of their revenue into space development (something they could not do, mind you), 100 million dollars a year would just begin to scratch the surface of what is needed.

#2. How will they make a profit?
There is currently little potential for profit in space. It's to expensive to get up there, and developing technologies that would bring this cost down are to expensive as well. This is especialy true for the major space development programs we talk about here such as space-stations, moon bases, and mars trips. All of these enterprises have expensises that are FAR to great to be offset by any potential income.

#3. Why would a major company do it?
Even if you assume that a profit could be made in space, a major company would not start pumping their money into it. Ford knows cars, Exon-Mobile knows oil, Wal-mart knows retail. These are all safe bets for them and they have tremendous amounts of assets devoted to performing these tasks. If they have revenue to reinvest, they are not going to take their money away from their core-buisness which they understand and is a sure bet, and put it into space, a buisness which NOONE knows anything about and is a crap-shoot.

#4. Why would I WANT the major companies to do it?
Don't get me wrong, I am all in favor of space development, but I do not benifit if it is done by big coporations. You are right that in this case individuals, instead of goverments would hold the rights to space and these technologies. However, these rights would be concentrated in the hands of very few. In America alone 10% of the population has 80% of the wealth. In the world at large the diffrence is even greater. If coporations develope space the rights to it will not be held by "the people", the will be held by a small fraction of the super-rich. The goverment certianly is not perfect, but they at least have the pretense of doing what they do for everyone they represent, coporations act only on behalf of those who own them.

comstar03 · 2004-12-01 02:43:11

Also, Austin Stanley

All the corporation you listed are public accountable corporations, that must provide information of what they are doing to the public media sources to relate this to shareholders and investor marketplace. I am talking about PRIVATE Unlisted corporations that don't need to prove what they are doing to anyone expect the owners of these corporations.

POCs are PRIVATE and don't require to disclose the business strategies or assets or income or even what they are doing within there corporations under the law.

comstar03 · 2004-12-01 03:18:22

We are talking about what program should we push !!!!

Q1. There are many different scenerios for funding space ventures for POCs. I will talk about two methods 1. New Revenue stream and 2. existing revenue stream.

Q1.1) A new product or service that you apply across the whole world, competing with other corporations for the customer base and the income from the income stream. The income stream must be recurring and providing continous income until the customer stops using the product or service.

Q1.2) Using existing products and services from existing business units expand and acquire more customer base thus expand the income base from the products and services.

In both methods you can also work with partners, alliances and other business relationships that could enhance the outcomes for the revenue stream and the use of the revenue against the costs in space development.

Q2.0) One method of Income from space - a rotating space platform providing gravitation workspace would be valuable real estate in orbit for space tourism and also governments through to private research firms in small space stations or orbiting platforms ( like bigalow ). We will be able to assembly that facility in orbit at a reduced cost making an operational profit in the first year. ( I won't tell how, commerical confidential ) I do have many other methods for income from space, you haven't been thinking much.

Q2.0a) Cause and effect - the permanent space platform for a larger volume of persons and different persons and also can provide leasable space for hotels and other activities, thus opens and expands tourism into space lowers the cost per kilo for cargo and persons to space thus reduces overall costs .

Q3.0) Spineless Public Corporations would go into the space environment unless they see an immediate return on investment that is why they are NASA trained companies.

Q4.0) Well, you don't public corporations have your super and that is high risk with high rewards. And that is the place big boys and girls play , not frighten public corporations should be in. Rockfeller, Morgan, Getty and more are private corporations that eventually became public but when they were private they controlled them by a small number of individuals and space will be the same expect on a planetary scale not a country scale.

The problem with you Austin Stanley is that the issue is can i be one of the few ( in hundreds or thousands not 10 ) or just be a worker paid to come out there by the employer, the POCs to work for them.

This gets back to what we are talking about the program and what to push -----> If you want the program with NASA as leader dog, then make work hard and come up with the new innovations and work for a contract with them. If you want to have POCs do then support the effects of SpaceshipOne and other developer and develop strategies to bring the various smaller current POCs together and form an alliance to expand space.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-01 05:55:32

#1. How will the pay for it?
They do not have the revenue streams to support a multi-billion dollar space development program.

So why should it remain to cost multi-Billion for any space effort? It only needs a different mind set to change what is driving the cost sky high. It is still manufacturing of an item, just look around you do TV cost 1,000 no they cost only a few hundred or less for the same size as grandpa use to have.

#2. How will they make a profit?
There is currently little potential for profit in space. It's to expensive to get up there, and developing technologies that would bring this cost down are to expensive as well.

So moon rocks have no value. Thats why they are stole and given such high values at auctions for museums and are so wanted by collectors. Everyone has differeing opions as to what has value.

#3. Why would a major company do it?
Even if you assume that a profit could be made in space, a major company would not start pumping their money into it.

I guess that question can only be answered by how greedy for profits and to what amounts do they consider a profit is large enough.

#4. Why would I WANT the major companies to do it?
Don't get me wrong, I am all in favor of space development, but I do not benifit if it is done by big coporations.

It is to bad that the leading space companies are using it as a cash cow instead of going for it with what they can do.

By the way this was not pointed at the quotes but rather at the questions raised.

comstar03 · 2004-12-01 07:08:16

SpaceNut,

I like your wit , in your answers !!!!

and

Austin Stanley,

Do I need to take you to the bathroom and show you how to do it. Use your brain, it is quite easy to work out all the income streams from outer space and also the methodology for creating a privately funded and managed space program other than government or government agencies.

Or

For simplistic answers for you, everyway to manufacture and supply current space program from earth could be supplied from facilities in orbit or on the moon and also you can get other revenues from geographic / location uniqueness factors.

Does that help you more !!!!!!

If I haven't help I could start a class of space business dynamics 101 for you !!!!

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-01 08:30:34

Maybe I can make this simple enough for you Comstar:

You are a dumb person who has his head stuck in a fantesy world of yesteryear and who resists all challenges to your wild statements in an attempt to drum up exclamation point ridden yes-men support.

1: There are no majority private corporations with enough money to to execute manned beyond-LEO spaceflight. A sum of no less then tens of billions of dollars would be needed for a substantial Lunar program or minimal Mars program or large scale LEO program.

No "POC" has this kind of money that they will throw away for spaceflight. Corporations that are that big get that way BECAUSE they are publicly owned, thats how they attracted enough investment money to become a multibillion dollar entity. Plus, secret dealings of this scale are of questionable legality, and there is no chance you could hide the projects.

2: You again rely on the fallacy of technological spinoff being an unlimited "money multiplier" to fund your scheme. There is a limit to how much money you will recieve from new technology compared to how much you put into development programs. This is simply a pipe dream, economically speaking.

Plus, if you haven't noticed, most AltSpace companies are merely trying to leverage technology which already exsists, not to build new technology. This is one way that they can supposedly "do space" for less then bigger companies, since they don't try and do much new stuff. Rocket technology has by and large reached a zenith too, engines have reached the limits of their fuels (SSME), materials are reaching their limits (Al/Li, composit), and computer technology does not need to improve any more to fly them.

The idea that Austin pointed out, and I will emphasize, is that you must not only provide a low-risk profit for an investing corporation, but you must provide a superior profit to Earthly ventures if a company is to consider the investment. I would like to point out that risk is expensive for large investments.

3: Simply because you build space infrastucture, like a space station, will not at all promise that it will have to make money. Getting to such a station will still be a limiting factor most likly for general civilian space travel, and there is as of yet no good reason to go up there beyond tourism, which at best would hardly recoup your costs.

Space research and manufacturing is just not that profitable either. Advancements in gravity-defying chemical reactors of various sort advancing on Earth rapidly. This so-called "real estate" on your giant 10,000MT space station simply does not have much worth. If access to such a station is cheap enough, then the rent and launch costs will not be enough money to pay for the project. This is a threshold issue, btw.

The only "effect" from Space Ship One that I know of is to prove that you CAN'T go to space for a paradign-shift price, the pitiful performance of the vehicle compared to what would be demanded of it for orbital flight clearly underscores the difficulty. Its only taken private interests decades to catch up to what the X-15 did?

C M Edwards · 2004-12-01 17:10:37

Maybe I can make this simple enough for you Comstar:
You are a dumb person who has his head stuck in a fantesy world of yesteryear and who resists all challenges to your wild statements in an attempt to drum up exclamation point ridden yes-men support.

Ouch, GCNRevenger. Mixing a little bitter venom with our usually refreshing pessimism today?

You did say one thing that rang true, though. IMHO, it's the true cause of the current sorry economic state of affairs in space exploration.

Rocket technology has by and large reached a zenith too, engines have reached the limits of their fuels, materials are reaching their limits, and computer technology does not need to improve any more to fly them.

Rocket technology can take us no farther in our current direction. That's why we've made so little progress since the 1980's. That's why Mars Direct can't work. We are reaching the limits of this technology.

However, the proper response is not to rant about the limits of the old technology and how nobody using the old technology is able to innovate sufficiently to make it work. The proper response is to turn to new technologies that can still innovate and improve. Don't hitch your wagon to a falling star.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-01 17:36:19

"Do I need to take you to the bathroom and show you how to do it. Use your brain, it is quite easy to work out all the income streams from outer space and also the methodology for creating a privately funded..."

Blah blah blah... which I don't take kindly to.

Ultimatly it is about the limitations of chemical fuels. Since even the best fuels have reached their practical limits, and new "super" fuels will probobly only be a marginal improvement, then space travel becomes a question of scale. There will be a minimum scale of vehicle(s) required for space travel, which is really big even with maximum performance squeezed out, that is too big for any NGO to afford.

I am not so much mad at AltSpace as the folks that herald them as the second coming of space travel. They are stuck with the same technology we are, and the best they can do is try and tweak it and make it cheaply as possible... but they can offer nothing new. They may learn to play the current game better then the megacorporations, but they are stuck here just the same.

comstar03 · 2004-12-01 19:08:42

C M Edwards

I am ok, with GCNRevenger commitments, he is acting out his rage on me, because he doesn't see how POCs can do what I am telling him.

You see GCNRevenger is like those who told the Wright Brothers that you can't flight or that thing won't get off the ground or people like the world is flat in the late 1400's with christopher colombus. If we listened to those people humanity would still be in the stone age or bronze age not past the industrial age into the information age going to the space age of humanity.

GCNRevenger, will be one of the people still on the earth, with rage while the rest of the optimists that understand the current technology level in space can see the way through to expanding humanity into space in a limited way over the next few decades.

GCNRevenger, At least I know where i am going in my research and development projects for the next few years and the overall strategy has been set. I just see you going round and round in circles from all your commitments on this forum I have read your commitments are always negative towards anyone that tries to move forward by create potential solutions to complex issues.

This issue - What program to push for ? > is viatal for the space program from the US Government and Public Space related development coporations. As what pressure should be maintained on what political processes to ensure that delivery of that program.

GCNRevenger, You should Stop mouthing off like a raging argue person , with no self control, I am sorry , but someone needs to say this CM Edwards.

Gennaro · 2004-12-01 19:38:19

...or people like the world is flat in the late 1400's with christopher colombus.

Off topic, but just a quick comment about something I have to point out from time to time, before I'll to run off.

*No one* who was anyone in the 1400's believed the world was flat. Nobody had believed that since about the 5th century BC. The western church didn't believe it and they certainly didn't preach it. For evidence of a flat worldview you'd probably have to go into the darkest of Africa or something.

They, including Columbus, did believe the Earth was in the centre of the universe, however, and the Sun and the "stars" (planets) circled it in perfect spheres like so many layers of an onion. Like any sane man had done all since pagan antiquity.
:;):

Euler · 2004-12-01 19:52:27

or people like the world is flat in the late 1400's with christopher colombus. If we listened to those people humanity would still be in the stone age or bronze age not past the industrial age into the information age going to the space age of humanity.

People never told Columbus that the world was flat. They told him that the world had a circumference of about 25000 miles, so he would have to sail over 10,000 miles to get to China. Columbus replied that his calculations showed that the world was much smaller than that, and that China was less than 3000 miles away. It turned out that they were right and Columbus was wrong. Fortunately for Columbus, he ran into America rather than starving to death on his voyage.

In this situation, we have a much better idea of what we are getting into than Columbus did. We cannot expect to get lucky and run into America, so we must be properly prepared when we begin the journey.

GCNRevenger, will be one of the people still on the earth, with rage while the rest of the optimists that understand the current technology level in space can see the way through to expanding humanity into space in a limited way over the next few decades.

While GCNRevenger is often too pessimistic, the optimists are invariably too optimistic. Many of them, especially the people in the alt-space crowd, have a strong vested interest in convincing other people that their ideas are more likely to work than is actually the case. When such people start making big promises, you should always take them with a big grain of salt.

This issue - What program to push for ? > is viatal for the space program from the US Government and Public Space related development coporations. As what pressure should be maintained on what political processes to ensure that delivery of that program.

I think that it would be a big victory if we could push through a space program which acknowledged that a permanent manned base/colony on would be a worthwhile long term goal.

ftlwright · 2004-12-01 22:22:10

GCNR has got it right,

Private owned industries simply do not have the resources to pull or a manned space program; there are no worthwhile assets that the company can recoup it resources from in a reasonable time frame (15 - 20 years). Unless there is some pent up demand for bottled vacuum, I don't think we will see any sort of extraplanetary commerce .

If you want to talk about contemporary launch system development you have to follow the hardware:

1a) SpaceX - Thier building a 'micro' launch vehicle to compete with Orbital Space Sciences Pegasus-class launch vehicle, which is mainly a rapid deployment/technology testing platform. I personally think they are bringing some good ideas to the table, but illustrate how difficult it is to get to space.

1b) Microcosm - Are taking a more "russian" inspired approach towards reducing launch cost; instead of spending billions of dollars on small increases in efficiency (i.e. - SSME turbopump redesign) make every part as inexpensively as possible and attain reliability through frequency. I really like the contrast between these two companies and can't wait to see how this pans out. Microcosm has some logitical advantages while SpaceX has managed to assemble a rather talent team in short order.

2) Missile Defense - Recieving the most launch system funding of any other program (not exactly sure why...). The only thing we can hope to get from this is gelled propellants.

3) Triple-barreled AtlasV/DeltaIV - as much as I like the RD-170, the triple barreled A5 scares the crap out of me. LockMart still hasn't fully addressed the 3g lateral kicks consistently observed on the platform and this would just be exasperated on a triple barrel configuration. RS-68 stands a much better chance of being man-rated for space flight. I really, really, really don't like the triple barrel EELVs, but the are likely to be our only option in the 13-17 year time frame.

4) SS1/WhiteKnight - Very cool toy. It's fun and exciting, but keep in mind that they are repeating a feet that was accomplished by the USAF almost 30 years ago (from what I understand Rutan was apart of that project). Scaled simply does not have the resources to develop launch vehicle capable of folks into orbit and back down. They will constantly drive the private space and come up with a couple of good ideas ( the ideas of changing your entry profile - nice), but they won't attain the Holy Grail. Won't hurt their succes as a company.

5) Hypersonic vehicles - will NEVER be used to get people into orbit. Never. Military will have plenty of use for them.

6) Kliper - Addresses the biggest problem with the Shuttle, it's too damn big/complex. The bigger the vehicle is, the more susceptible it will be to problems. Energia's biggest hurdle will be economics rather than technical.

All things said, the all arguments w.r.t to manned space programs return to energy density. The fact that the world's hyper-power can barely manage to get off this rock illustrates that manned spaceflight really, really, really hard; and this is not for a lack of intentions. We are running into true, honest-to-god, physical limitations of these systems. It's going to take a long time, it ain't going to be cheap and mistakes will be made. The question is if we can stomach such an expenditure, not if we can do it any differently.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-01 22:58:53

I don't think that any gainful, relativly safe Mars mission can be put together with payloads less then 40MT or so without turning into an ISS-style nightmare. Even with that size, it will still be difficult and alot of time, money, and efficency will be lost to modularizing.

The minimum size that ought to be employed is around 80MT for a heavy lift rocket, and no varient of any vehicle today except the Shuttle stack and Energia could reach this target.

If a one-shot direct mission design is settled on, a far bigger booster in the ~200MT class ought to be built, much bigger then any current rocket could handle. Perhaps with a cluster of upgraded RS-68R engines on the first and a single on the upper stage with using multiple (4-6) Shuttle solid rocket boosters.

As far as current rockets go...

SpaceX is wanting to build a booster in the Delta-II range of payloads, but its unclear if they can do this. Larger vehicles are probobly outside their near-term reach.

Tripple-barrel Atlas-V is probobly not going to happen, and it could match Proton for payload with the full compliment of heavier solid rocket motors. Atlas could also have expanded fuel tanks and a larger upper stage along with Lithium alloy tankage, and some Lockheed rumor it could hit the 40MT range, but this is iffy.

Boeing is already thinking of upgrading the Isp on the RS-68 up to SSME-like levels, and are already thinking ahead at using improved quality LH2 fuel and Lithium alloy tankage. Such a Delta single-barrel could loft CEV without boosters or in HLV configuration lift 40MT.

Hypersonic Scramjet vehicles WILL eventually be the launch vehicle of choice, but some pretty big technical hurdles stand in its way. Most noteably, making a regenerative cooling system for the vehicles' skin.

Klipper is just a Russian OSP and just as useless. It may very well be a show program to try and bring in money, not to even build a vehicle... It certainly can't withstand transfer orbit reentry velocities for Lunar/Martian travel.

comstar03 · 2004-12-01 23:14:34

Euler,

I agree that before you build the infrastructure you must plan, assembly a strategy, implement project team and then work towards the first small objective in a larger complex list of steps to meet the complex goals / objectives to get into space using POCs.

I have completed the three steps on the path of building this reality on schedule.

fltwright,

I love a laugh, especially your first statement , I will tell you why that is funny, ln the last two years a single geographic region of this world charge for licensing rights equivalent of US$350 Billion (1/3 of a trillion dollars ) in a new technology to private enterprise.

That would mean the consumers would need to pay a running cost and license recoup fee and a profit margin for this new technology. The individual enterprises then come together to reduce and eliminate duplication costs thus making the process more economic, so they could sell the technology.

That is why I think your statement is laughable and extremely funny and any person that thinks the same way, not understanding the way business environment will provide a solution to all issues / problems / including government issues.

ftlwright · 2004-12-02 00:15:13

fltwright,
I love a laugh, especially your first statement. I will tell you why that is funny; in the last two years a single geographic region of this world charge for licensing rights equivalent of US$350 Billion (1/3 of a trillion dollars ) in a new technology to private enterprise.

That's fine and dandy, if you have a product/service. What product/service are you proposing that would recoup the cost of developing a robust spaceflight infrastructure?

That would mean the consumers would need to pay a running cost and license recoup fee and a profit margin for this new technology. The individual enterprises then come together to reduce and eliminate duplication costs thus making the process more economic, so they could sell the technology.

I don't know what industry your talking about, but the contemporary aerospace industry does not share IP, especially when it would benefit the launch capabilities of their competitors (case in point - read up on Pintle injectors and try to figure who is actually allowed to use them).

That is why I think your statement is laughable and extremely funny and any person that thinks the same way, not understanding the way business environment will provide a solution to all issues / problems / including government issues.

Private enterprise does not what to invest the massive amounts of resources required to develop the systems to facilitate this sort of exploratory mission. The only thing we can get to now is vacuum, what sort of commerce can you base upon that?

GCNR,
W.R.T. hypersonic vehicles, I haven't seen anything that would indicate that it would be functional outside of *instantly* deliverying small payloads to orbit quickly. The materials I've seen w.r.t. manned orbital hypersonic vehicles aren't too favorable. You still need traditional traditional rockets for maneuvering and orbital transfer events. Hypersonic vehicles are getting to orbit on some trim mass budgets, just having a hard time seeing it. Any resources you have on the subject would be welcome.

Kliper/OSP - Hehe. Hang over from the expendable vs. reuseable crew transfer vehicle argument. Personally, I'm still up in the air on this issue...

SpaceX - I want them to be successful so that LM and Boeing will cut some of the fat. Any ideas regarding manned space flight w/ this system are nothing more than illusions of grandeur.

Austin Stanley · 2004-12-02 00:18:35

Maybe you need to "take me to the bathroom" as it were, because your hand waving of important issues such as exactly how a private coporation is going to develope a space based revenue scheem is illustrates exactly why it wont work.

How exactly is it going to work? What scheem are they going to use to turn a profit on there investment? And who exactly is going to foot the bill?

If you wish to exclude public coporations, thats fine. But the largest private coporations are at best half the size of those giants, and there are alot fewer of them in billion dollar revenue range.

There is no workable buisness plan for making money off of large scale human space development. Certianly not for building such things as space-stations, moon bases, or trips to mars.

And frankly, even if making a profit was not an issue, it still couldn't be done outside of goverment. Because no single individual, or small group of individuals have the billions of dollars necessary to captilise such a venture, the ability to liquidate and spend those billions of dollars, and the willlingness to do so.

-----------

Just as a correction, I mispoke in one of my earlier posts. I said revenue when I ment profit. Coporations may have reveneus in the 100 billion dollar range, but there profits are generaly only in the 100 million dollar range.

Euler · 2004-12-02 00:20:51

Microcosm - Are taking a more "russian" inspired approach towards reducing launch cost; instead of spending billions of dollars on small increases in efficiency (i.e. - SSME turbopump redesign) make every part as inexpensively as possible and attain reliability through frequency. I really like the contrast between these two companies and can't wait to see how this pans out. Microcosm has some logitical advantages while SpaceX has managed to assemble a rather talent team in short order.

It seems to me that Microcosm has logical disadvantages compared with most other launch ideas, rather than the other way around. They try and use all low-cost parts on a small rocket, despite the fact that such an approach would be better suited to a large rocket which could absorb the extra structural weight without decreasing the payload mass fraction as much. This forces them to use three stages to get to LEO to compensate for the low performance of each stage. All stages, even the top one, use Lox/kerosene propellant. This means that the upper stages will be heavier than Lox/Hydrogen stages, so the lower stages have to be larger than they would otherwise be to lift all the weight. Finally, they use way too much engine clustering. Even the smallest versions use clustered engines, so the bigger versions end up having around 50 engines. I don't think that they will be able to accomplish much with this approach.

Austin Stanley · 2004-12-02 00:26:33

I think it is still to earlier to make a defentive rulling on Scramjets, there is still alot of work to be done in this area. We've barely even proved that supersonic combustion is possible. A multi-mode scramjet engine (one that can convert over to a pure rocket for orbital operations), may help with some of the issues you are talking about. If nothing else, they may be practicle as reusable high altitude boosters for some sort of reusable vehicle.

FTLwright, love the name btw,

ftlwright · 2004-12-02 00:48:14

It seems to me that Microcosm has logical disadvantages compared with most other launch ideas, rather than the other way around. They try and use all low-cost parts on a small rocket, despite the fact that such an approach would be better suited to a large rocket which could absorb the extra structural weight without decreasing the payload mass fraction as much.

I meant logistical... still doesn't help me at all . I agree with your assessment (and I have said the same to a friend working there), an additional issue is that the reliability of system is going to attrocious until they are able to launch a significant volume of these things... not sure how long that is going to take.

What I'm more interested in are the differences philosophy between the companies and the legitimacy of each. What is the happy medium between efficiency and economy? Hell, what are chances of someone other than LM or Boeing getting meaningful payloads into orbit!?! Those are the question begin addressed by these guys, I don't think a moonshot is in the radar .

One thing I've been wondering about for an inital Mars mission is what I call a "Blaze of Glory" mission where the Shuttles are chopped to necessary systems and used to launch the 2-3 massive loads required for the mission. Not very robust and definitely not the most favorable option, but if the administration determines it just wants to go and collect rocks it might be the most economical.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-02 00:52:21

" love a laugh, especially your first statement , I will tell you why that is funny, ln the last two years a single geographic region of this world charge for licensing rights equivalent of US$350 Billion (1/3 of a trillion dollars ) in a new technology to private enterprise."

Comstar, the big reason that I'm mad at you is your persistant habit of talking down to whoever poses valid questions to your crazy schemes. It makes you sound arogant and stupid... the more you do it, the less reason other readers will have to believe otherwise.

Last two years... geographic region... license rights for an absurd sum... what on Earth are you talking about? Your just babbling to make yourself sound like some kind of enlightend beyond-our-plain business genius unless you have one heck of an explanation.

Scramjets are the only proposed engines I have heard of that could, in theory, access orbital velocities without being held hostage to carrying oxidizer or every last gram of reaction mass for Earth launch. Such an engine wouldn't have to carry LOX and could perhaps trade raw Isp for higher thrusts and speeds with the "free" reaction mass of the atmosphere.

The X-30 project would have been such a vehicle, but it was an idea before its time. We will have to probobly have one more generation of advancement in materials science to make such a vehicle practical. The USAF is probobly going to employ the engines for its FALCON hypersonic bomber project.

The two major hurdles for a launch vehicle are friction and the heat that comes with it. Right now, it seems like a safe bet that Scramjets can hit Mach 15 or so, about 5 mach numbers below where a launch vehicle becomes practical. The trick will be to use the fuel to cool the skin, which will take care of heating and boost thrust by preheating the fuel... but that would be an engineering nightmare of billion-dollar proportion. Of course, a small rocket for orbital insertion and deorbiting will be needed.

Dayton3 · 2004-12-02 01:12:40

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

The problem for me is that almost everyone here sounds like a lawyer or an engineer, with an adversion for risk that borders on the ridiculous.

If we ever explore space, meaning go beyond Earth orbit, then we're going to have to take some really bold gambles.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-02 01:20:24

I think that even from any standpoint, the system has to be at least somewhat reliable, simply because if you lose too many ships then you won't get much done.

comstar03 · 2004-12-02 01:41:20

GCNRevenger Posted on Dec. 02 2004, 01:52
Comstar, the big reason that I'm mad at you is your persistant habit of talking down to whoever poses valid questions to your crazy schemes. It makes you sound arogant and stupid... the more you do it, the less reason other readers will have to believe otherwise.
Last two years... geographic region... license rights for an absurd sum... what on Earth are you talking about? Your just babbling to make yourself sound like some kind of enlightend beyond-our-plain business genius unless you have one heck of an explanation.

GCNRevenger , Answer - G3 Mobile telephone Licensing rights in european countries, they must recoup the fees charged by the government. Problem for these companies is the newer technology called 802.11a/b/g wireless LAN systems are more preferred throughout the world because of higher bandwidth for communication and video links another clashing of technologies like the Beta Max and VHS recording issues of 1970-80's. So don't dismiss technology or ideas or concepts or strategies that might make your ideas obsolete.

ftlwright · 2004-12-02 01:48:09

GCNRevenger , Answer - G3 Mobile telephone Licensing rights in european countries. problem is newer technology at the same time called 802.11a/b/g wireless LAN systems are more preferred throughout the world higher bandwidth for communication and video links clashing technologies like the Beta Max and VHS recording, So don't dismiss technology or ideas that might make your ideas obsolete.

comstar,
You really should research your topics more.
You really should research your examples more.
You really need a better understanding technology, its applications, its limitations.
You really need to do a better job of supporting your arguments. The question your getting here are nothing compared to those you'll get in the industry.

A. Stanley,
Thanks, in my heart of hearts, I still dream of interstellar travel :-D. I'll concede on hypersonics vehicles a bit, just brings back memories of "Reaganonics", "Space Station Freedom" and "Star Wars". Oh, the chills...

comstar03 · 2004-12-02 02:42:53

ftlwright,

I always research my facts, and you don't know what I do, and at the end of the day , I know what I am doing and I will let history judge my actions against your actions.

Now, Lets get back to the topic at hand !!!!!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-12-01 01:42:10

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#27 2004-12-01 02:43:11

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#28 2004-12-01 03:18:22

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#29 2004-12-01 05:55:32

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#30 2004-12-01 07:08:16

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#31 2004-12-01 08:30:34

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#32 2004-12-01 17:10:37

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#33 2004-12-01 17:36:19

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#34 2004-12-01 19:08:42

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#35 2004-12-01 19:38:19

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#36 2004-12-01 19:52:27

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#37 2004-12-01 22:22:10

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#38 2004-12-01 22:58:53

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#39 2004-12-01 23:14:34

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#40 2004-12-02 00:15:13

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#41 2004-12-02 00:18:35

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#42 2004-12-02 00:20:51

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#43 2004-12-02 00:26:33

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#44 2004-12-02 00:48:14

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#45 2004-12-02 00:52:21

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#46 2004-12-02 01:12:40

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#47 2004-12-02 01:20:24

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#48 2004-12-02 01:41:20

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#49 2004-12-02 01:48:09

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

#50 2004-12-02 02:42:53

Re: What Kind of Manned Program Should We Push For? - A Time to choose

Board footer