1) These are "spaceships" the same way an Apple II is a computer.
There. I fixed that for you.:-)
If you're upset because Virgin isn't building the Starship Enterprise, get over it. You have to crawl before you can run. Do you think the first airplane ever built was a 747?
How does a company quietly put out a press release?
By releasing it after the close of business on Friday, prior to a three-day holiday. Better still, do it while another company is grabbing all the headlines.
Why are we building space ships for rich tourists, while real science languishes in the land of budget cuts and resource shortages?
Because these spaceships are orders of magnitude cheaper than previous rockets and will allow real scientists to do more real science than ever before, for less money? Leaving more for the poor and sick people you talk about?
I actually doubt that you are building spaceships for anyone, however.:-)
I know these aren't easy questions
Then you set the bar for your questions very low. Next time try something harder, like "Who's buried in Grant's Tomb?":-)
Source? You might be right -- likely are -- but it isn't a fact just because you say so, Derek.
BTW, there are two M's in summary. Before you complain about bad journalism...
"Well...NASA could use that seat to further its long term space health effects research...
It doesn't work that way. To do long-term health research, you need to stay in space long term -- i.e., rotate the crew *less* often.
Besides, there other space tourism options out there that don't require bumping legitimate astronauts from doing research on the ISS.
(Horrible analogy time! It's like if someone outbids someone else for a surgery slot just for the sake of it.
Do you really believe someone is "illegitimate" just because she isn't a government employee?
Are you going to drive on your next vacation instead of taking a plane? Because a surgeon might want to occupy that seat, so decency and humility require you to give it up? Or could the airline just sell the seat to whoever's willing to pay the most for it?
The money may not all be hers. She may have sponsorship. Some of the citizen explorers who've visited ISS previously had sponsors.
Also, those celebrity wealth lists are not always accurate. Rich people don't provide financial disclosure forms unless they're running for public office.
I had a dream that we would leave that childish concept of ownership back on earth, and that in space everyone would be provided for according to need.
So did the Soviets, until their economic system collapsed.
I think it is more like the difference between gliding and powered flight. Building a dedicated glider can teach you a few things applicable to powered flight... assuming that someone else doing powered flight hasn't already worked those particular details out.
These are not dedicated gliders. Scaled and XCOR have done powered flights in the past -- and Lynx will start with powered flight on its very first flight. The engine was the first component XCOR developed.
Some of the suboribital craft seem to achieve speeds almost an order of magnitude short of orbital velocity, which suggests a rather significant difference is needed for engines and reentry handling. There is already quite a bit known about the latter, and it seems like the baby-steps being taken are for financial reasons and not the technology learning curve. At the very least, that is less romantic than early pioneers taking the first few steps to learn new things, as opposed to trying to get some quick funding before moving on.
Again, there is a difference between merely getting into space and doing so affordable.
So, if someone can't afford to go into orbit, they should never go into space at all? Because it isn't romantic enough for you? Do you really believe that?
If Jobs and Wozniak couldn't afford to build a Cray 1, they should not have built any computer at all? Because people already knew how to build big computers?
If Orville and Wilbur couldn't afford to build a passenger Zeppelin, they shouldn't have built any sort of flying machine? Because "baby steps" are worthless? Unless something is the biggest, the best, and most expensive, it's not worth doing?
Of course, if you say suborbital is worthless because it isn't orbit, Bob Zubrin could say (and does say) that Earth orbit is worthless because it isn't Mars. And fans of the 100 Year Starship could say that Mars is worthless because it isn't Alpha Centauri. If everyone said that, no one would ever build anything.
Tell me, Anonymous, how many times have you, personally, been in orbit? Or even been to 100 kilometers? Somehow, it's always people who have never been in space who make that argument.
First of all, what the commercial space companies are doing is very exciting but only SpaceX is really on track to manned orbital flights.
What evidence do you have that Boeing and Sierra Nevada are not on track? (And why are manned orbital flights the only ones that count?)
Second, SpaceX profited from a huge amount of technology transfer and consulting engineers from NASA.
Just as the aviation industry profited from a huge amount of technology transfer and consulting from the NACA. That is bad because...?
Third, the reason NASA is happy about this is that they can't get anything done anymore without getting overridden by congress and being forced into massive amounts of pork spending.
Sorry, now you're just whining. *Every* government agency is responsible to Congress (and, through Congress, to the taxpayers). If you don't want to be responsible to elected officials, you shouldn't be working for the government. Period.
In short, privatization is working out because NASA still does a lot of the fundamental research and private companies are free to build rockets without congressional bullshit.
Again, that's pretty much the way the NACA worked during the 1930's. The result was an American aircraft industry that was dominant the world over. And that's bad because...?
Oh, I see -- the general statement that companies shouldn't be allowed to take public funds and make a profit.
Sorry, but that's inane. Do you think government employees don't earn an income (i.e., profit) off public funds? Just because they say it's not for profit doesn't mean no one's making money off it. If the government does anything, someone is going to make a profit off it, whether it's Sergeant Joe Friday or the Friday Security Corp.
Your "analogy" is actually pretty close to the way Boeing builds F-15s and Lockheed is building the Orion capsule, but it has nothing to do with Virgin Galactic and XCOR. In order to be an analogy, it has to be analogous.
Exactly. Aviation did not start with nonstop flights from New York to Australia. It started with once or twice around the field.
And there were people who looked at the first airplanes and snickered. Airships were already making *much* longer flights, carrying *much* larger payloads. Cynics could see no value in a technology that promised to *someday* do what airships had done long ago.
It's the perennial battle between those who see what can be and those who see only what has been.
Hardly a similar comparison. We know what it takes to get to space.
Yes, and IBM, DEC, CDC, etc. knew how to build computers. So it *is* a "similar" comparison.
But there's a difference between merely "getting to space" (which was the goal in the 1960's) and getting to space affordably (which is the goal today).
If you just want to stuff an astronaut into a capsule and shoot him into space, regardless of cost or safety, that can be done pretty quickly. Especially if you buy the capsule from the Russians.
But that's not what we're looking for. The goal for companies like Virgin Galactic and XCOR is to create a low-cost revolutionize in spaceflight, as companies like Apple did in computing. So, it will take a bit longer -- just as it took Steve Wozniak longer to design and build than Apple II than it would to pick up the phone and order an IBM/360.
NASA is the only R&D shop working for the public benefit.
Really? That would come as a bit surprise to DARPA, NIST, etc. Do you know who invented the Internet?
Not to mention all the universities, astronomical observatories, private foundations, etc.
What "public benefit" do you think NASA should be working for, if you never want the results to be "funneled" to the public?
Mercury was orbital after only two flights because it was part of the Moon race -- a political statement. The motto was "waste anything except time."
If the goal had been to develop affordable, reliable, routine access to space, it would have taken longer.
What government paid to have SpaceShip Two and Lynx designed? What government paid for Scaled and XCOR's plants?
What's that? You don't know? You're just making this up?
On the other hand, the Federal government invested heavily in General Motors and Chrysler, which build police cars -- you do know that, don't you?
We've heard statements like that before, in the 1970's. "Apple's work is not something that can be applied to real computing.... The Wright Brothers' work is not something that can be applied to real transportation...."
Yes, and it' $50 to borrow a clip for 30 days.
The service is based on the Vanderbilt Television Archive, which has been providing a similar service since 1968. (They didn't start on the Internet, obviously.)
This is a service that will be of use primarily to the news media and PR professionals.
It isn't "all the TV news," either, by a long shot. I just tried searching for a small company that's made national news several times and got zero hits.
Slashdot Mirror
Scaled is now owned by Lockheed.
That will come as a big shock to Northrop Grumman.
1) These are "spaceships" the same way an Apple II is a computer.
There. I fixed that for you. :-)
If you're upset because Virgin isn't building the Starship Enterprise, get over it. You have to crawl before you can run. Do you think the first airplane ever built was a 747?
How does a company quietly put out a press release?
By releasing it after the close of business on Friday, prior to a three-day holiday. Better still, do it while another company is grabbing all the headlines.
Why are we building space ships for rich tourists, while real science languishes in the land of budget cuts and resource shortages?
Because these spaceships are orders of magnitude cheaper than previous rockets and will allow real scientists to do more real science than ever before, for less money? Leaving more for the poor and sick people you talk about?
I actually doubt that you are building spaceships for anyone, however. :-)
I know these aren't easy questions
Then you set the bar for your questions very low. Next time try something harder, like "Who's buried in Grant's Tomb?" :-)
Source? You might be right -- likely are -- but it isn't a fact just because you say so, Derek. BTW, there are two M's in summary. Before you complain about bad journalism...
ISS was not "built for science in the first place." It was built for foreign-policy reasons -- "midnight basketball for the Russians."
"Well...NASA could use that seat to further its long term space health effects research...
It doesn't work that way. To do long-term health research, you need to stay in space long term -- i.e., rotate the crew *less* often.
Besides, there other space tourism options out there that don't require bumping legitimate astronauts from doing research on the ISS.
(Horrible analogy time! It's like if someone outbids someone else for a surgery slot just for the sake of it.
Do you really believe someone is "illegitimate" just because she isn't a government employee? Are you going to drive on your next vacation instead of taking a plane? Because a surgeon might want to occupy that seat, so decency and humility require you to give it up? Or could the airline just sell the seat to whoever's willing to pay the most for it?
The money may not all be hers. She may have sponsorship. Some of the citizen explorers who've visited ISS previously had sponsors.
Also, those celebrity wealth lists are not always accurate. Rich people don't provide financial disclosure forms unless they're running for public office.
News stories aren't always accurate, either.
I had a dream that we would leave that childish concept of ownership back on earth, and that in space everyone would be provided for according to need.
So did the Soviets, until their economic system collapsed.
NASA does not own space. They don't even own the International Space Station (note the name). They certainly don't own Soyuz.
But businesses don't do exploration. The risk is too great for the bottom line.
Oh? Google "Chevron Oil Exploration." Or "Muscovy Company." Or "Explorers Club."
I think it is more like the difference between gliding and powered flight. Building a dedicated glider can teach you a few things applicable to powered flight... assuming that someone else doing powered flight hasn't already worked those particular details out.
These are not dedicated gliders. Scaled and XCOR have done powered flights in the past -- and Lynx will start with powered flight on its very first flight. The engine was the first component XCOR developed.
Some of the suboribital craft seem to achieve speeds almost an order of magnitude short of orbital velocity, which suggests a rather significant difference is needed for engines and reentry handling. There is already quite a bit known about the latter, and it seems like the baby-steps being taken are for financial reasons and not the technology learning curve. At the very least, that is less romantic than early pioneers taking the first few steps to learn new things, as opposed to trying to get some quick funding before moving on.
Again, there is a difference between merely getting into space and doing so affordable.
So, if someone can't afford to go into orbit, they should never go into space at all? Because it isn't romantic enough for you? Do you really believe that?
If Jobs and Wozniak couldn't afford to build a Cray 1, they should not have built any computer at all? Because people already knew how to build big computers?
If Orville and Wilbur couldn't afford to build a passenger Zeppelin, they shouldn't have built any sort of flying machine? Because "baby steps" are worthless? Unless something is the biggest, the best, and most expensive, it's not worth doing?
Of course, if you say suborbital is worthless because it isn't orbit, Bob Zubrin could say (and does say) that Earth orbit is worthless because it isn't Mars. And fans of the 100 Year Starship could say that Mars is worthless because it isn't Alpha Centauri. If everyone said that, no one would ever build anything.
Tell me, Anonymous, how many times have you, personally, been in orbit? Or even been to 100 kilometers? Somehow, it's always people who have never been in space who make that argument.
Non sequitur. GM is not building Space Two or Lynx. So, your complaints are not relevant to the subject of this thread.
First of all, what the commercial space companies are doing is very exciting but only SpaceX is really on track to manned orbital flights.
What evidence do you have that Boeing and Sierra Nevada are not on track? (And why are manned orbital flights the only ones that count?)
Second, SpaceX profited from a huge amount of technology transfer and consulting engineers from NASA.
Just as the aviation industry profited from a huge amount of technology transfer and consulting from the NACA. That is bad because...?
Third, the reason NASA is happy about this is that they can't get anything done anymore without getting overridden by congress and being forced into massive amounts of pork spending.
Sorry, now you're just whining. *Every* government agency is responsible to Congress (and, through Congress, to the taxpayers). If you don't want to be responsible to elected officials, you shouldn't be working for the government. Period.
In short, privatization is working out because NASA still does a lot of the fundamental research and private companies are free to build rockets without congressional bullshit.
Again, that's pretty much the way the NACA worked during the 1930's. The result was an American aircraft industry that was dominant the world over. And that's bad because...?
What "general situation" is that?
Oh, I see -- the general statement that companies shouldn't be allowed to take public funds and make a profit.
Sorry, but that's inane. Do you think government employees don't earn an income (i.e., profit) off public funds? Just because they say it's not for profit doesn't mean no one's making money off it. If the government does anything, someone is going to make a profit off it, whether it's Sergeant Joe Friday or the Friday Security Corp.
Your "analogy" is actually pretty close to the way Boeing builds F-15s and Lockheed is building the Orion capsule, but it has nothing to do with Virgin Galactic and XCOR. In order to be an analogy, it has to be analogous.
Exactly. Aviation did not start with nonstop flights from New York to Australia. It started with once or twice around the field.
And there were people who looked at the first airplanes and snickered. Airships were already making *much* longer flights, carrying *much* larger payloads. Cynics could see no value in a technology that promised to *someday* do what airships had done long ago.
It's the perennial battle between those who see what can be and those who see only what has been.
Hardly a similar comparison. We know what it takes to get to space.
Yes, and IBM, DEC, CDC, etc. knew how to build computers. So it *is* a "similar" comparison.
But there's a difference between merely "getting to space" (which was the goal in the 1960's) and getting to space affordably (which is the goal today).
If you just want to stuff an astronaut into a capsule and shoot him into space, regardless of cost or safety, that can be done pretty quickly. Especially if you buy the capsule from the Russians.
But that's not what we're looking for. The goal for companies like Virgin Galactic and XCOR is to create a low-cost revolutionize in spaceflight, as companies like Apple did in computing. So, it will take a bit longer -- just as it took Steve Wozniak longer to design and build than Apple II than it would to pick up the phone and order an IBM/360.
NASA is the only R&D shop working for the public benefit.
Really? That would come as a bit surprise to DARPA, NIST, etc. Do you know who invented the Internet? Not to mention all the universities, astronomical observatories, private foundations, etc. What "public benefit" do you think NASA should be working for, if you never want the results to be "funneled" to the public?
Mercury was orbital after only two flights because it was part of the Moon race -- a political statement. The motto was "waste anything except time." If the goal had been to develop affordable, reliable, routine access to space, it would have taken longer.
What government paid to have SpaceShip Two and Lynx designed? What government paid for Scaled and XCOR's plants? What's that? You don't know? You're just making this up? On the other hand, the Federal government invested heavily in General Motors and Chrysler, which build police cars -- you do know that, don't you?
We've heard statements like that before, in the 1970's. "Apple's work is not something that can be applied to real computing.... The Wright Brothers' work is not something that can be applied to real transportation...."
Yes. I'm having bad luck with keyboards today.
Yeah, that was a typo, but technically it is correct. The powered segment of the flight will be powered by a glide back to landing.
Yes, and it' $50 to borrow a clip for 30 days. The service is based on the Vanderbilt Television Archive, which has been providing a similar service since 1968. (They didn't start on the Internet, obviously.) This is a service that will be of use primarily to the news media and PR professionals. It isn't "all the TV news," either, by a long shot. I just tried searching for a small company that's made national news several times and got zero hits.
The video was recorded by an amateur astronomer, so it's up to him to decide what, when, and if he wants to release.