NOW they have a supercomputer! We had better build bomb shelters quickly, those commie bastards will likely be invading Los Angeles by the millions within a decade! Thank God we have happy-fun-ball to protect us. "Do not taunt Happy-Fun-Ball!"
Yep. Just like Mercury, SS1 requires a booster to get to it's goal. However, Mercury flew into two flight regimes, suborbital tests (at the bottom end) and orbital flights (at the top end). SS1 however flies in only one regime, suborbital (top end). So, already the SS1 isn't a 'commercial Mercury', but more of a 'commercial X-15'.
So by repeating your original argument with more verbage it's supposed to make it more valid? I was not talking intended design, I made it perfectly clear I was talking about significance. By your logic, Mercury was more capable simply because it had orbital capability after three launches. Of course, Mercury was a one-use tin-can, while SS1 is reusable and can be turned around in 12 days. Which is more capable? Let's not forget that both are designed to meet different, long-term, design criteria. We have no idea what the next intended iteration of SS1(SS2?) will be at Scaled Composites, but I am betting SS1 is just a first step in manned spaceflight for Rutan, just like Mercury was for NASA. If you wish to mince words, be obtuse, or smugly ignore the similarities between the two programs, be my guess.
Yep. Just like Mercury, SS1 requires a booster to get to it's goal. However, Mercury flew into two flight regimes, suborbital tests (at the bottom end) and orbital flights (at the top end). SS1 however flies in only one regime, suborbital (top end). So, already the SS1 isn't a 'commercial Mercury', but more of a 'commercial X-15'.
If it pleases you to compare it to the X-15 instead of Mercury, knock yourself out. Both are accurate, but the symbolism and significance favor a comparison to Mercury, not the X-15. You seem to care more about the nomenclature. So be it.
Here we again see where the SS1 falls short of being a 'commercial Mercury'. The Atlas flights were not follow ons, or after thoughts, but the actual intended flights of the capsule. Once SS1 hits 100 klicks, there is no follow on. It simply cannot go higher or faster without considerable redesign.
Actually, the Atlas was the ONLY vehicle originally intended to lift Mercury. Unfortunately, Atlas had a nasty habit of blowing up on the pads, and was nowhere near being a man-rated booster as it'a development went over schedule. The Redstone option was introduced almost halfway through Mercury's development due to political pressure, the failures of Atlas, and the evolving idea that sub-orbital would be a good "first-step". The design of Mercury's bottom end was even modified to fit the Redstone. We can argue history ad infinitum if you please, but it really has nothing to do with my original point, which is still valid. This launch is at least as significant as Mercury's first sub-orbital launch.
That arguement would only be made of someone utterly ignorant of space history. The suborbital flights were planned early on, well before we knew we were going to be in a race. (Though IIRC Redstone was substituted because the Atlas was viewed as not being ready.) Had we been worried about 'keeping up', we would have jumped straight to Atlas flights after Gagarin's launch. We didn't, but stuck with the program even though the Atlas was arguably ready. (Risky, pherhaps too much so, but ready.)
I'll ignore the ignorance comment for now. The pressure to launch with Redstone was based on the factors I named above. There was a political component, AND a developmental component. And no, we would have NEVER jumped straight to Atlas at the time of Gagarin's launch. What's more embarassing during a space race?; 1) getting into space in a sub-orbital launch OR 2) watching an astronaut burn-up and die on the pad? Even when they launched Glenn, many at NASA thought it would end badly. Many didn't think Atlas was ready. Political pressure is what forced Atlas into service prematurely. If you want to argue this point, read Glenn's bio first. Atlas was still a risk.
That argument could only be made by someone utterly ignorant of 'rocket science', as it's not
Space Ship One is already part of a two-stage system. The first stage is the White Knight. What you're talking about is adding a third stage
I never mentioned White Knight in my description of a 2-stage system because White Knight is a launch PLATFORM, not a booster or a stage. I was referring specifically to SS1, which could be scaled up and have a second stage added.
Wow. You know, 5-10 times more mass is kind of a lot. That sort of difference is significant in engineering on the ground, let alone in aeronautics. I don't think you're being realistic, here. White Knight is highly unlikely to be capable of lifting that much additional mass off the ground, let alone to launch altitude.
How, exactly am I not being realistic? The vehicle weight would definitely end up about 7x the weight of the current system (assuming they use a larger rocket engine of the same efficency). When did I say White Knight would lift this system? One could just as easily use a 747 or any other large aircraft to act as a launch platform. I am being quite realistic.
I may be going out on a limb here, but I expect that the thought has occured to the folks over at NASA. Why do you suppose they haven't done it?
Because NASA has always been a bureauracy and bureauraies don't necessarily make good decisions. Early on, they barely had the rocket power to get their tiny capsules into orbit. The culture evolved out of that. It was all about payload and lift
If you're going to be a smartass, at least be so with correct information. Mercury was just the CAPSULE. It had a re-entry rocket and cotrol thrusters. It was a can to hold humans.
When mercury was first launched, it was atop a Redstone booster. The Redstone never had the power or guidance systems for orbital insertion.
It wasn't till the 3rd, or 4th Mercury flight that they began using the Atlas booster, which COULD push the same exact Mercury can/capsule into orbit. Yes, an argument could be made that Redstone was only used to keep up with the Soviets, but then again an argument could be made that SS1 could be put into orbit if only it had a White Knight that took it to 180k feet. In other words, shit in one hand and wish in the other and see which gets filled first.The Atlas was as far away as an improved White Knight is today.
Taking SS1 and scaling it up to an orbital vehicle certainly is not an easy task, but it also isn't impossible, nor must it be expensive.
A scaled-up SS1 with a two-stage system could accomplish this goal in due time. It would be about 5-10 times as heavy as SS1, but it could definitely make the trip up.
The real difficulty is in getting back down, but there have been some very interesting theories on this topic as of late. Currently, orbital velicoty is shed by aerobraking on the way down, and turning that speed into heat. A few of the x-prize types have talked about carrying more fuel up, and slowing down more before you decend. The slower you enter the atmosphere, the less heat you generate. The only problem with this concept is carrying up extra fuel just to slow yourself down. (a payload reduction). That is the only topic I am aware of....how much more cost effective is the benefit of designing for a slower reentry (thus less heat ablation, structural tension, etc.) verses having to build large enough to carry braking fuel.
I think they need to make an announcement for the X-Prize 30 days in advance to the prize committee so they can have personnell on hand to witness the flight. I think this is just a very ambitious "test-flight".
Neither of these launch options is man-rated, but you make a good point. I don't think NASA is evil, I think congress is evil. Unfortunately, NASA must design their manned space program to please these mindless congressional masters....
CONGRESSPERSON SKYPACK: My district has a company that makes winglets for aircraft, contributed $5000 to my campaign last election. I want winglets on the new orbital spaceplane.
NASA ADMIN: But congressman, we are currently looking at a more cost effective capsule design, there are no wings.
CONGRESSPERSON SKYPACK: Well you had better rethink your short-sighted design. My constituent told me winglets are the latest thing on my last junket to Barbados with them. You NASA people should know that winglets add efficency to wingtips! You should at least be looking at them.
CONGRESSPERSON SMOOT: Yes, winglets are a good idea REP SKYPACK, they sound sexy. I would also like to see them use landing gear from manufacturer X.
CP SKYPACK: Yes, Manufactuirer X is in your district right SMOOT? They make tires for cars. Why, they would need at least 15 million to develop an aircraft grade landing system don't you think? Good idea...if you'll vote for my winglets I'll....
SMOOT: Sounds great! OK!
NASA Administrator: Gentlemen, we will require neither winglets or landing gear for our capsule. We can make it safer and cheaper without them. Don't you understand?
SKYPACK: I understand that your system better have wings and tires ADMIN, or you'll get no approval from THIS committee. In addition, I am going to cut your development budget while adding these two features to your design to make me look fiscally responsible, and don't you dare go over budget!
NASA ADMIN: Where is a gun, I need to shoot myself immediately.
SMOOT: Theres a firearm manufacturer in my district ADMIN, if you could purchase....
I am not going to provide charity in the form of a $20K flight I don't want to take.
But you seem to hate the guy who is going to pay for the development and industry that will get you there (which you are unwilling to pay)
good job on shooting a billionaire around the world. Next time do it without the spacecraft
Not sure what that says, but I am sure there is some contradiction going on. Frankly, I have always been of the mind that If you want something, you need to sacrifice/invest in it. I'm not going to count on the billionaires to get me there, because they might not show up. As soon as I can afford a ticket, I'm going. You can thank me 20 years from now when you check in to the Lagrange Hilton.:)
The first sections of the Space Station assembled themselves (automatic docking). Also, I guarantee you that a commercial company would be able to build you on-orbit housing for a human assembly crew for the remaining 400 million saved by not using a BDB (Big dumb booster).
How exactly does that fit into the topic of discussion? We are all going to die anyway. The amount we spend globally on space exploration is not even 1% of what we spend on medical research. I agree with you that we definitely should be spending more, but please don't dredge up that old argument that we should never leave the planet to help more starving people. People were starving before we had a space program, and they continue to starve and die from disease. I agree that we should be trying to get to places, but orbit is also just a forst step. My point is that you have a better chance of living or vacationing at a lagrange point with commercial development than you do with a government program. Consumer demand drives commercial endeavors. If I have to spend 20K to keep it running and then spend another 200K 20 years from now to retire on the L5 colony, I'll do that. If you wait around for them to get you where you want to go, they might never get there. You have to be committed now, and later. Spend the 20K as soon as you can, and then put the 180K in a muni find. You'll have your 20K back and more by the time they build L5 Hilton or Moonbase Hilton.
I was at a JPL happy hour about a month ago. One of the engineers I talked to was a friend of Rutan's. The cost to build White Knoght was about 2.2 mill. The cost of SS1 (not counting engine) was 2,1 mill. Throw in another mill for the cost of the engine and that's the figure I gave. I have no idea what the continuing operations cost on a monthly basis, but the fact that they got the bulk of this done for less than 6 mill is pretty impressive.
If the 1-ton commercial launcher becomes a 10 ton commercial launcher, you can lift segments into orbit for 10 mill a piece and lift 100 tons for 100 mill. If you do it with a BDB (Big Dumb Booster) developed by NASA, the cost for the same 1-launch 100 ton spaceshot will be $500 mill.
You can multi-thread spaceships just like computers. 10 launches at 10 mill a piece will always be cheaper than 1 launch at 500 mill, unless there is some new math I am forgetting.:) On-orbit assembly has been around too long to assume you have to lift it all at once.
Remember, we are talking about commercial space travel starting from the same point as NASA's Mercury program. They are taking evolutionery steps just like NASA did. Currently, the X-Prize is for a sub-orbital system. Once that has been accomplished, I have heard that they plan on offering a $20 mill prize for the first orbital flight.
Just like the beginning fo powered flight, governments have held all the cards and technology till now. What you are seeing is the highly efficent start of commercial space ventures. They will evolve through vehicles much faster than NASA did because they already have more knowledge to build on, and they also have the ability to make changes and adjustments faster and cheaper than a bureauracy like NASA. NASA isn't projected to have a new man-rated vehicle for another decade, and at the cost of BILLIONS. It is likely that before they accomplish that, the commercial industry will catch up and have a 4-man orbital vehicle by the end of this decade.
Finally, the dollars will be there. Right now, if you asked NASA to get you into a sub-orbital launch, it would probably cost them $100 million minimum in development to get you there. Your price tag might be as high as 10-15 million. Rutan is doing it for less than 5 million (that's including vehicle development) and your price (once operable) will be about $80-100K per launch. Once these cheap methods are solidified, I could see an orbital flight dropping down to a $10-12K price tag for 4-5 orbits. If they get it that low, then space tourism will be the economic demand this industry is hoping. Hell, I would pay $20k to go into orbit!
What I am saying is that you need to be a little patient. These companies will get you there far cheaper than NASA, and in a much shorter amount of time. This is just the beginning, but all things will come.
An old NASA saying is "space is difficult", it should really be "space is easy, bureauracy is difficult".
I don't know how much more "efficient" we can make plants through genetic twisting. You have a very valid point. Of course, if we can increase bean yield per acre by 40%, it could also be considered energy efficency so long as the individual beans still yield the same amount of oil per bean.
The screensavers was interesting the first few times I watched it, but they honestly began repeating themselves after 6 months. Case mods, case mods, case mods. Ipod, nomad, ipod, nomad. Digital cameras, digital cameras, digital cameras. Oh, and lets not forget the countless game reviews. Maybe it's just me, but the topics just started blending in to one another. Nothing new.
I do watch a lot of TV, and I didn't cancel the channel, but had I the power, I would have. You see, while both you and I might both be geeks, I have a life other than tech. Sorry if that upsets you, but my opinion is still valid. When I was 19 and doing nothing but writing code, I probably would have enjoyed TTV more, but at the age of 38, I no longer eat, drink, and sleep the same 5 topics anymore. There's more to being an Obi- power-geek than the 5 topics TTV kept rehashing. They had two years to do something more, and they blew it.
I was in a college group that studied the biodiesel option, and we came to another conclusion, methane would be better. We can get it from our own societal waste products, it is much easier to store than hydrogen, and most vehicles can be converted to methane at a far lower price than any other conversion (hybrid/fuel cell/electric). There is an infrastructure in place that can be converted to dispense the product, and vehicles generally get a 3-8mpg improvement running on methane.
I have no idea why this idea has never been persued by a few corporations. All the technology is already in place, the program could be started today, and creating methane reactors for our bio-waste would actually be a simple prospect.
Goodbye who?
on
TechTV.com RIP
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I wonder why the current format wasn't setting the world on fire...hmmmmmm..lets look at it.
Screen-Savers 8 hours a day.
The LAME Robot Wars 2 hours a day.
Other non-original progamming that had very little to do with real "tech".
These guys coasted for a year on nothing interesting. I switched on the channel twice in the last 6 months. Once, they were building a mod case out of an Army ammo can (uh...couldn't afford a REAL case?) The other time, they were reviewing music players (for the 13th time). Hopefully, Comcast will actually keep it as "Tech"TV and then actually develop a few good series out of that instead of just rehashing the same 8 topics and the same 4 programs for the next 2 years. I liked the CONCEPT of TechTV, but I hated the REALITY of TechTV. Buh0Bye. Perhaps something good will come out of this (like a series where geek contestants test their knowledge of C++ for fabulous prizes, or they do a real, cooperative Gillagan's Island. They strand 7 geeks, and tell them there are hidden resources on the island they can use together to make things (radios, solar cells, etc) Anything would be better than watching those two middle-aged dorks cruise t the set in their mustang anymore. I was embarasesed for them.
Actually it is. Any Nuclear reactor can be tuned to produce Helium. I think they did this briefly at the Laurence Livermoor reactor for a short time before decomissioning it.
I'll agre it's important to maintain his right to continue to make his films. I do not agree that all his films are important, nor do I believe he backs up his claims with unbiased research or good sources.
Roger and Me was funny, but in the end, Moore was taking potshots at a CEO for killing his home town's economy, not because of his care for the noble common worker. He destroys that image of nobility by finding the most embarassing people in the town and editing them to look like idiots. Every corporation has the right to do their business as they see fit. Hacking at GM won't fix Ford, Mercedes, Chrysler, Honda , Toyota, or any other car maker deciding to outsource.
Columbine completely ignored the responsible gun owner. It completely ignored the real 2nd amendment debate. It completely ignored the REAL reasons behind Columbine. All it did was make fun of rural folks and make trite commentary about the 2nd Amendment. Here's a hint, you can't sum up this issue in an hour if the framers and Supreme Court have been analyzing it for 200 years without a conclusion.
Now, of course, we have 9/11. Where Moore takes many disparate bits of half-truths and puts them together to form a path to a delusional conclusion that Bush knew about, and aided and abetted those that caused 9/11. When I got to watch this in rough cut, it felt like the psuedo-science used on Fox for their Moon Landing hoax and their Alien Autopsy "documentaries".Using Occham's razor, consider this RATIONALLY....What is more likely;
A: President and his staff miscalculate the determination of some Islamic radicals and get caught with their pants down in a modern Pearl Harbor. After the fact, they do some favors for their closest Arabic Middle East ally to get their help in tracking down the bad guys. They also kick out bin Laden's extended family because they may become targets of hatred, and the bin Laden family is close to the Saud Royals.
or B: The President decided that there is no way American citizens would ever discover his hand in a huge plot requiring 100+ operatives to pull off and KNOWINGLY decides to kill 10,000 + (remember, he would have had NO idea how many would die in a structure holding 40k) Americans so he could go to war in Iraq. In addition, he rewards the peple who helped him. Even though everyone would KNOW he helped them and it would increase his chances of being caught. Further, this President would have to assume these terrorists would only hit the targets they promise to hit, and that the terrorists would still do this if Bush asked them.
Yeah, B does sound a lot more like f-ing fiction when you put it in context. Moore is a once- entertaining filmmaker who has become angry and bitter. I would vigorously defend his right to make and show his films, but I won't go see them in theaters. They aren't MUST SEE, and he certainly isn't making "important" work anymore. He's a Netflix rental for me. One of about 20 programs I will see in a month. That's about the respect and value he deserves.
I just love people who think they are going to win a lot on online video poker against other players. You know who you are playing at those hold-em tables? 3-4 people who know eachother and are on the phone waiting for a sucker like you to come into their room. I know, I participated in a group like that once. You are playing against 2-4 people at what you think is an "open" table. In reality, they all bid up and then fold to the best of their four hands. Video poker is a fool's paradise. If you want to gamble for a living, make sure you can see the people you are gambling against, cause the online games are where marks get fleeced dude.
It's a space station. Big, fat, and ugly. Wouldn't it just be easier to drag along a small canvas cooler? Some of these case mods/. has been showing lately look like UNIVAC sheik.
I'd bring you along, I would invite you, but the mods we use would not excite you.
Slashdot Mirror
NOW they have a supercomputer! We had better build bomb shelters quickly, those commie bastards will likely be invading Los Angeles by the millions within a decade! Thank God we have happy-fun-ball to protect us. "Do not taunt Happy-Fun-Ball!"
Yep. Just like Mercury, SS1 requires a booster to get to it's goal. However, Mercury flew into two flight regimes, suborbital tests (at the bottom end) and orbital flights (at the top end). SS1 however flies in only one regime, suborbital (top end). So, already the SS1 isn't a 'commercial Mercury', but more of a 'commercial X-15'.
So by repeating your original argument with more verbage it's supposed to make it more valid? I was not talking intended design, I made it perfectly clear I was talking about significance. By your logic, Mercury was more capable simply because it had orbital capability after three launches. Of course, Mercury was a one-use tin-can, while SS1 is reusable and can be turned around in 12 days. Which is more capable? Let's not forget that both are designed to meet different, long-term, design criteria. We have no idea what the next intended iteration of SS1(SS2?) will be at Scaled Composites, but I am betting SS1 is just a first step in manned spaceflight for Rutan, just like Mercury was for NASA. If you wish to mince words, be obtuse, or smugly ignore the similarities between the two programs, be my guess.
Yep. Just like Mercury, SS1 requires a booster to get to it's goal. However, Mercury flew into two flight regimes, suborbital tests (at the bottom end) and orbital flights (at the top end). SS1 however flies in only one regime, suborbital (top end). So, already the SS1 isn't a 'commercial Mercury', but more of a 'commercial X-15'.
If it pleases you to compare it to the X-15 instead of Mercury, knock yourself out. Both are accurate, but the symbolism and significance favor a comparison to Mercury, not the X-15. You seem to care more about the nomenclature. So be it.
Here we again see where the SS1 falls short of being a 'commercial Mercury'. The Atlas flights were not follow ons, or after thoughts, but the actual intended flights of the capsule. Once SS1 hits 100 klicks, there is no follow on. It simply cannot go higher or faster without considerable redesign.
Actually, the Atlas was the ONLY vehicle originally intended to lift Mercury. Unfortunately, Atlas had a nasty habit of blowing up on the pads, and was nowhere near being a man-rated booster as it'a development went over schedule. The Redstone option was introduced almost halfway through Mercury's development due to political pressure, the failures of Atlas, and the evolving idea that sub-orbital would be a good "first-step". The design of Mercury's bottom end was even modified to fit the Redstone. We can argue history ad infinitum if you please, but it really has nothing to do with my original point, which is still valid. This launch is at least as significant as Mercury's first sub-orbital launch.
That arguement would only be made of someone utterly ignorant of space history. The suborbital flights were planned early on, well before we knew we were going to be in a race. (Though IIRC Redstone was substituted because the Atlas was viewed as not being ready.) Had we been worried about 'keeping up', we would have jumped straight to Atlas flights after Gagarin's launch. We didn't, but stuck with the program even though the Atlas was arguably ready. (Risky, pherhaps too much so, but ready.)
I'll ignore the ignorance comment for now. The pressure to launch with Redstone was based on the factors I named above. There was a political component, AND a developmental component. And no, we would have NEVER jumped straight to Atlas at the time of Gagarin's launch. What's more embarassing during a space race?; 1) getting into space in a sub-orbital launch OR 2) watching an astronaut burn-up and die on the pad? Even when they launched Glenn, many at NASA thought it would end badly. Many didn't think Atlas was ready. Political pressure is what forced Atlas into service prematurely. If you want to argue this point, read Glenn's bio first. Atlas was still a risk.
That argument could only be made by someone utterly ignorant of 'rocket science', as it's not
Space Ship One is already part of a two-stage system. The first stage is the White Knight. What you're talking about is adding a third stage
I never mentioned White Knight in my description of a 2-stage system because White Knight is a launch PLATFORM, not a booster or a stage. I was referring specifically to SS1, which could be scaled up and have a second stage added.
Wow. You know, 5-10 times more mass is kind of a lot. That sort of difference is significant in engineering on the ground, let alone in aeronautics. I don't think you're being realistic, here. White Knight is highly unlikely to be capable of lifting that much additional mass off the ground, let alone to launch altitude.
How, exactly am I not being realistic? The vehicle weight would definitely end up about 7x the weight of the current system (assuming they use a larger rocket engine of the same efficency). When did I say White Knight would lift this system? One could just as easily use a 747 or any other large aircraft to act as a launch platform. I am being quite realistic.
I may be going out on a limb here, but I expect that the thought has occured to the folks over at NASA. Why do you suppose they haven't done it?
Because NASA has always been a bureauracy and bureauraies don't necessarily make good decisions. Early on, they barely had the rocket power to get their tiny capsules into orbit. The culture evolved out of that. It was all about payload and lift
If you're going to be a smartass, at least be so with correct information. Mercury was just the CAPSULE. It had a re-entry rocket and cotrol thrusters. It was a can to hold humans.
When mercury was first launched, it was atop a Redstone booster. The Redstone never had the power or guidance systems for orbital insertion.
It wasn't till the 3rd, or 4th Mercury flight that they began using the Atlas booster, which COULD push the same exact Mercury can/capsule into orbit. Yes, an argument could be made that Redstone was only used to keep up with the Soviets, but then again an argument could be made that SS1 could be put into orbit if only it had a White Knight that took it to 180k feet. In other words, shit in one hand and wish in the other and see which gets filled first.The Atlas was as far away as an improved White Knight is today.
ROFLMAO...smugly
Taking SS1 and scaling it up to an orbital vehicle certainly is not an easy task, but it also isn't impossible, nor must it be expensive.
A scaled-up SS1 with a two-stage system could accomplish this goal in due time. It would be about 5-10 times as heavy as SS1, but it could definitely make the trip up.
The real difficulty is in getting back down, but there have been some very interesting theories on this topic as of late. Currently, orbital velicoty is shed by aerobraking on the way down, and turning that speed into heat. A few of the x-prize types have talked about carrying more fuel up, and slowing down more before you decend. The slower you enter the atmosphere, the less heat you generate. The only problem with this concept is carrying up extra fuel just to slow yourself down. (a payload reduction). That is the only topic I am aware of....how much more cost effective is the benefit of designing for a slower reentry (thus less heat ablation, structural tension, etc.) verses having to build large enough to carry braking fuel.
I think they need to make an announcement for the X-Prize 30 days in advance to the prize committee so they can have personnell on hand to witness the flight. I think this is just a very ambitious "test-flight".
Neither of these launch options is man-rated, but you make a good point. I don't think NASA is evil, I think congress is evil. Unfortunately, NASA must design their manned space program to please these mindless congressional masters....
CONGRESSPERSON SKYPACK: My district has a company that makes winglets for aircraft, contributed $5000 to my campaign last election. I want winglets on the new orbital spaceplane.
NASA ADMIN: But congressman, we are currently looking at a more cost effective capsule design, there are no wings.
CONGRESSPERSON SKYPACK: Well you had better rethink your short-sighted design. My constituent told me winglets are the latest thing on my last junket to Barbados with them. You NASA people should know that winglets add efficency to wingtips! You should at least be looking at them.
CONGRESSPERSON SMOOT: Yes, winglets are a good idea REP SKYPACK, they sound sexy. I would also like to see them use landing gear from manufacturer X.
CP SKYPACK: Yes, Manufactuirer X is in your district right SMOOT? They make tires for cars. Why, they would need at least 15 million to develop an aircraft grade landing system don't you think? Good idea...if you'll vote for my winglets I'll....
SMOOT: Sounds great! OK!
NASA Administrator: Gentlemen, we will require neither winglets or landing gear for our capsule. We can make it safer and cheaper without them. Don't you understand?
SKYPACK: I understand that your system better have wings and tires ADMIN, or you'll get no approval from THIS committee. In addition, I am going to cut your development budget while adding these two features to your design to make me look fiscally responsible, and don't you dare go over budget!
NASA ADMIN: Where is a gun, I need to shoot myself immediately.
SMOOT: Theres a firearm manufacturer in my district ADMIN, if you could purchase....
And the stupidity continues.
So let me see if I understand your logic...
:)
I want to go now.
But
I am not going to provide charity in the form of a $20K flight I don't want to take.
But you seem to hate the guy who is going to pay for the development and industry that will get you there (which you are unwilling to pay)
good job on shooting a billionaire around the world. Next time do it without the spacecraft
Not sure what that says, but I am sure there is some contradiction going on. Frankly, I have always been of the mind that If you want something, you need to sacrifice/invest in it. I'm not going to count on the billionaires to get me there, because they might not show up. As soon as I can afford a ticket, I'm going. You can thank me 20 years from now when you check in to the Lagrange Hilton.
The first sections of the Space Station assembled themselves (automatic docking). Also, I guarantee you that a commercial company would be able to build you on-orbit housing for a human assembly crew for the remaining 400 million saved by not using a BDB (Big dumb booster).
Were all dead too
How exactly does that fit into the topic of discussion? We are all going to die anyway. The amount we spend globally on space exploration is not even 1% of what we spend on medical research.
I agree with you that we definitely should be spending more, but please don't dredge up that old argument that we should never leave the planet to help more starving people. People were starving before we had a space program, and they continue to starve and die from disease. I agree that we should be trying to get to places, but orbit is also just a forst step. My point is that you have a better chance of living or vacationing at a lagrange point with commercial development than you do with a government program. Consumer demand drives commercial endeavors. If I have to spend 20K to keep it running and then spend another 200K 20 years from now to retire on the L5 colony, I'll do that. If you wait around for them to get you where you want to go, they might never get there. You have to be committed now, and later. Spend the 20K as soon as you can, and then put the 180K in a muni find. You'll have your 20K back and more by the time they build L5 Hilton or Moonbase Hilton.
I was at a JPL happy hour about a month ago. One of the engineers I talked to was a friend of Rutan's. The cost to build White Knoght was about 2.2 mill. The cost of SS1 (not counting engine) was 2,1 mill. Throw in another mill for the cost of the engine and that's the figure I gave. I have no idea what the continuing operations cost on a monthly basis, but the fact that they got the bulk of this done for less than 6 mill is pretty impressive.
If the 1-ton commercial launcher becomes a 10 ton commercial launcher, you can lift segments into orbit for 10 mill a piece and lift 100 tons for 100 mill. If you do it with a BDB (Big Dumb Booster) developed by NASA, the cost for the same 1-launch 100 ton spaceshot will be $500 mill.
:)
You can multi-thread spaceships just like computers. 10 launches at 10 mill a piece will always be cheaper than 1 launch at 500 mill, unless there is some new math I am forgetting.
On-orbit assembly has been around too long to assume you have to lift it all at once.
Remember, we are talking about commercial space travel starting from the same point as NASA's Mercury program. They are taking evolutionery steps just like NASA did. Currently, the X-Prize is for a sub-orbital system. Once that has been accomplished, I have heard that they plan on offering a $20 mill prize for the first orbital flight.
Just like the beginning fo powered flight, governments have held all the cards and technology till now. What you are seeing is the highly efficent start of commercial space ventures. They will evolve through vehicles much faster than NASA did because they already have more knowledge to build on, and they also have the ability to make changes and adjustments faster and cheaper than a bureauracy like NASA. NASA isn't projected to have a new man-rated vehicle for another decade, and at the cost of BILLIONS. It is likely that before they accomplish that, the commercial industry will catch up and have a 4-man orbital vehicle by the end of this decade.
Finally, the dollars will be there. Right now, if you asked NASA to get you into a sub-orbital launch, it would probably cost them $100 million minimum in development to get you there. Your price tag might be as high as 10-15 million. Rutan is doing it for less than 5 million (that's including vehicle development) and your price (once operable) will be about $80-100K per launch. Once these cheap methods are solidified, I could see an orbital flight dropping down to a $10-12K price tag for 4-5 orbits. If they get it that low, then space tourism will be the economic demand this industry is hoping. Hell, I would pay $20k to go into orbit!
What I am saying is that you need to be a little patient. These companies will get you there far cheaper than NASA, and in a much shorter amount of time. This is just the beginning, but all things will come.
An old NASA saying is "space is difficult", it should really be "space is easy, bureauracy is difficult".
I don't know how much more "efficient" we can make plants through genetic twisting. You have a very valid point. Of course, if we can increase bean yield per acre by 40%, it could also be considered energy efficency so long as the individual beans still yield the same amount of oil per bean.
The screensavers was interesting the first few times I watched it, but they honestly began repeating themselves after 6 months. Case mods, case mods, case mods. Ipod, nomad, ipod, nomad. Digital cameras, digital cameras, digital cameras. Oh, and lets not forget the countless game reviews. Maybe it's just me, but the topics just started blending in to one another. Nothing new.
I do watch a lot of TV, and I didn't cancel the channel, but had I the power, I would have. You see, while both you and I might both be geeks, I have a life other than tech. Sorry if that upsets you, but my opinion is still valid. When I was 19 and doing nothing but writing code, I probably would have enjoyed TTV more, but at the age of 38, I no longer eat, drink, and sleep the same 5 topics anymore. There's more to being an Obi- power-geek than the 5 topics TTV kept rehashing. They had two years to do something more, and they blew it.
I was in a college group that studied the biodiesel option, and we came to another conclusion, methane would be better. We can get it from our own societal waste products, it is much easier to store than hydrogen, and most vehicles can be converted to methane at a far lower price than any other conversion (hybrid/fuel cell/electric). There is an infrastructure in place that can be converted to dispense the product, and vehicles generally get a 3-8mpg improvement running on methane.
I have no idea why this idea has never been persued by a few corporations. All the technology is already in place, the program could be started today, and creating methane reactors for our bio-waste would actually be a simple prospect.
With just a little help, soy production could be enhanced (along with mileage) to make it a sustainable fuel.
With the right fertilizers and perhaps some genetic engineering, soy if more feasible than fuel-cells or fusion at this point.
Water = a necessary item to remain living
Gas = a handy (but not essential) commodity
I wonder why the current format wasn't setting the world on fire...hmmmmmm..lets look at it.
Screen-Savers 8 hours a day.
The LAME Robot Wars 2 hours a day.
Other non-original progamming that had very little to do with real "tech".
These guys coasted for a year on nothing interesting. I switched on the channel twice in the last 6 months. Once, they were building a mod case out of an Army ammo can (uh...couldn't afford a REAL case?) The other time, they were reviewing music players (for the 13th time).
Hopefully, Comcast will actually keep it as "Tech"TV and then actually develop a few good series out of that instead of just rehashing the same 8 topics and the same 4 programs for the next 2 years. I liked the CONCEPT of TechTV, but I hated the REALITY of TechTV. Buh0Bye. Perhaps something good will come out of this (like a series where geek contestants test their knowledge of C++ for fabulous prizes, or they do a real, cooperative Gillagan's Island. They strand 7 geeks, and tell them there are hidden resources on the island they can use together to make things (radios, solar cells, etc) Anything would be better than watching those two middle-aged dorks cruise t the set in their mustang anymore. I was embarasesed for them.
Actually it is. Any Nuclear reactor can be tuned to produce Helium. I think they did this briefly at the Laurence Livermoor reactor for a short time before decomissioning it.
I'll agre it's important to maintain his right to continue to make his films. I do not agree that all his films are important, nor do I believe he backs up his claims with unbiased research or good sources.
Roger and Me was funny, but in the end, Moore was taking potshots at a CEO for killing his home town's economy, not because of his care for the noble common worker. He destroys that image of nobility by finding the most embarassing people in the town and editing them to look like idiots.
Every corporation has the right to do their business as they see fit. Hacking at GM won't fix Ford, Mercedes, Chrysler, Honda , Toyota, or any other car maker deciding to outsource.
Columbine completely ignored the responsible gun owner. It completely ignored the real 2nd amendment debate. It completely ignored the REAL reasons behind Columbine. All it did was make fun of rural folks and make trite commentary about the 2nd Amendment. Here's a hint, you can't sum up this issue in an hour if the framers and Supreme Court have been analyzing it for 200 years without a conclusion.
Now, of course, we have 9/11. Where Moore takes many disparate bits of half-truths and puts them together to form a path to a delusional conclusion that Bush knew about, and aided and abetted those that caused 9/11. When I got to watch this in rough cut, it felt like the psuedo-science used on Fox for their Moon Landing hoax and their Alien Autopsy "documentaries".Using Occham's razor, consider this RATIONALLY....What is more likely;
A: President and his staff miscalculate the determination of some Islamic radicals and get caught with their pants down in a modern Pearl Harbor. After the fact, they do some favors for their closest Arabic Middle East ally to get their help in tracking down the bad guys. They also kick out bin Laden's extended family because they may become targets of hatred, and the bin Laden family is close to the Saud Royals.
or B: The President decided that there is no way American citizens would ever discover his hand in a huge plot requiring 100+ operatives to pull off and KNOWINGLY decides to kill 10,000 + (remember, he would have had NO idea how many would die in a structure holding 40k) Americans so he could go to war in Iraq. In addition, he rewards the peple who helped him. Even though everyone would KNOW he helped them and it would increase his chances of being caught. Further, this President would have to assume these terrorists would only hit the targets they promise to hit, and that the terrorists would still do this if Bush asked them.
Yeah, B does sound a lot more like f-ing fiction when you put it in context. Moore is a once- entertaining filmmaker who has become angry and bitter. I would vigorously defend his right to make and show his films, but I won't go see them in theaters. They aren't MUST SEE, and he certainly isn't making "important" work anymore. He's a Netflix rental for me. One of about 20 programs I will see in a month. That's about the respect and value he deserves.
Hi Darl! Looks like things are getting mighty slow in Utah. Glad you could join us!
I just love people who think they are going to win a lot on online video poker against other players. You know who you are playing at those hold-em tables? 3-4 people who know eachother and are on the phone waiting for a sucker like you to come into their room. I know, I participated in a group like that once. You are playing against 2-4 people at what you think is an "open" table. In reality, they all bid up and then fold to the best of their four hands. Video poker is a fool's paradise. If you want to gamble for a living, make sure you can see the people you are gambling against, cause the online games are where marks get fleeced dude.
Get UFO. If you liked Space 1999, rent the UFO series DVD's. They were the precursor, and are just as good IMHO.
It's a space station. Big, fat, and ugly. Wouldn't it just be easier to drag along a small canvas cooler? Some of these case mods /. has been showing lately look like UNIVAC sheik.
I'd bring you along,
I would invite you,
but the mods we use would not excite you.