if you were able to lengthen the engine duration significantly, then it could easily get to orbit and past
There's nothing easy about getting in orbit. You need an order of magnitude more energy, and that takes fuel, and then you need energy to accelerate all that fuel, which takes more fuel. In the end you'll discover that fuel = C * exp(payload mass). So, it becomes import to reduce that 'C', which means switching to a different fuel/oxidizer mix, and a new engine design. It also means lowering the mass, which means getting rid of the wings, finding new materials for the hull, and a heatshield that can withstand reentry. And it means designing a much bigger mothership to carry it up. In other words, you have to completely redesign everything.
"the earliest evidence of a crank and connecting rod mechanism"
But why go back to the earliest crank and rod, when we already have rockets that go into orbit, to the Moon and to Mars. Why not use those as a basis for further developments ? All you need to do is take the best rocket we have, make it 1% better, and you have a business case for some really useful applications that make real money.
Are you sure the space program was not about the military getting access to rockets that could fly a warhead from Iowa to Moscow in the shortest possible time ?
No. What actually happens is that people design a sawmill and hope to get a good sawmill. In some cases, this process leads to other interesting discoveries, like an automobile. But spending your time and energy on constructing a sawmill, when you don't need a sawmill, but you do need an automobile is just stupid.
That's why I like Space-X much better. Their goal is to take existing rocket technology that works, and make it better and cheaper. They are just as likely to stumble upon useful spin-off technology, but even in the event that fails, they are still on their way to complete their useful primary goal.
sitting around waiting for a random asteroid to wipe out all life on this little blue planet...
As you said, one of the most dangerous things quite a lot of humans do every single day is step inside a car. In comparison, the risk of getting killed by an asteroid is a lot smaller.
Concorde has shown that only very few people are willing to pay significantly more for a shorter travel time. And travel time for many people isn't really all that much shorter, if you only have a few aircraft in your schedule, from a limited number of airports. The Concorde travelling really quickly between Paris and New York doesn't help you all that much if you need to go from Rome to Dallas, or from Seattle to Beijing. It even doesn't help you if you're already in Paris, but it's 6 pm and the next flight leaves at 11 am.
This is the sort of thing that leads to further understanding and optimizations of underlying technologies.
We already have the understanding. We know how to make proper orbital rockets, so why not optimize those (like Space-X is doing), rather than going back 60 years in time with a design that is only leading to a dead end.
Getting to the upper atmosphere is only 10% of the effort required to get in orbit. The other 90% is building enough orbital velocity to stay there. And once you get in orbit, you'll need a good heat shield to come down. Wings help you a bit with the first few % and the last few %, but the rest of the time, they just add useless mass, and extra complexity.
Everything was, at some point in time, a novelty. That doesn't mean they are all equally useful. Even if some people took a plane to just go up and down, most people knew they could take a plane to take them from A to B quickly and efficiently. In contrast, the SS2 has been designed only to go from A to A with a short thrill ride in between.
Please nobody tell this guy how many people died building the Empire State Building
According to records: 5 people died in the construction of the Empire State Building, and the result was a huge amount of office space in a highly desirable location. Not a bad score compared to ScaledComposites with 4 deaths for a rollercoaster ride.
Slashdot Mirror
Solid state means that it doesn't have a spinning hard drive.
I'm afraid the distinction is lost on the individual in the car wreck.
if you were able to lengthen the engine duration significantly, then it could easily get to orbit and past
There's nothing easy about getting in orbit. You need an order of magnitude more energy, and that takes fuel, and then you need energy to accelerate all that fuel, which takes more fuel. In the end you'll discover that fuel = C * exp(payload mass). So, it becomes import to reduce that 'C', which means switching to a different fuel/oxidizer mix, and a new engine design. It also means lowering the mass, which means getting rid of the wings, finding new materials for the hull, and a heatshield that can withstand reentry. And it means designing a much bigger mothership to carry it up. In other words, you have to completely redesign everything.
"the earliest evidence of a crank and connecting rod mechanism"
But why go back to the earliest crank and rod, when we already have rockets that go into orbit, to the Moon and to Mars. Why not use those as a basis for further developments ? All you need to do is take the best rocket we have, make it 1% better, and you have a business case for some really useful applications that make real money.
This was something the Tulsa company had never done before; carbon fiber for space travel
They're still not making carbon fiber for space travel. They're making carbon fiber for a fancy rollercoaster ride.
It is still useful for other things.
Like what ? It's probably less useful than a luxury yacht for the rich.
Even worse. Some people try to immigrate, and fail the necessary requirements, but are allowed to stay and get free healthcare just for being sick.
Europe isn't just UK. Go look in the other countries.
Are you sure the space program was not about the military getting access to rockets that could fly a warhead from Iowa to Moscow in the shortest possible time ?
Read your own comment. A sawmill is "useful", SpaceShipTwo is not "useful". There's the difference.
Normal people spend their money on food and drink that makes them fat and sick. Not very good for the economy.
No. What actually happens is that people design a sawmill and hope to get a good sawmill. In some cases, this process leads to other interesting discoveries, like an automobile. But spending your time and energy on constructing a sawmill, when you don't need a sawmill, but you do need an automobile is just stupid. That's why I like Space-X much better. Their goal is to take existing rocket technology that works, and make it better and cheaper. They are just as likely to stumble upon useful spin-off technology, but even in the event that fails, they are still on their way to complete their useful primary goal.
Instructions unclear. You propose to build a bus stop at the top of a parabolic arc ?
sitting around waiting for a random asteroid to wipe out all life on this little blue planet...
As you said, one of the most dangerous things quite a lot of humans do every single day is step inside a car. In comparison, the risk of getting killed by an asteroid is a lot smaller.
Concorde has shown that only very few people are willing to pay significantly more for a shorter travel time. And travel time for many people isn't really all that much shorter, if you only have a few aircraft in your schedule, from a limited number of airports. The Concorde travelling really quickly between Paris and New York doesn't help you all that much if you need to go from Rome to Dallas, or from Seattle to Beijing. It even doesn't help you if you're already in Paris, but it's 6 pm and the next flight leaves at 11 am.
Transporting people (and goods!) brings food on the table.
So you are arguing that the best way to design an automobile is to start with a sawmill and hope you stumble upon something useful ?
This is the sort of thing that leads to further understanding and optimizations of underlying technologies.
We already have the understanding. We know how to make proper orbital rockets, so why not optimize those (like Space-X is doing), rather than going back 60 years in time with a design that is only leading to a dead end.
Getting to the upper atmosphere is only 10% of the effort required to get in orbit. The other 90% is building enough orbital velocity to stay there. And once you get in orbit, you'll need a good heat shield to come down. Wings help you a bit with the first few % and the last few %, but the rest of the time, they just add useless mass, and extra complexity.
Wouldn't it be great if someday we could have safe and affordable suborbital flights available to ordinary people?
Yes, that would be great. But rockets are neither safe nor affordable.
No, you forgot the part about the price. If the 4 hours travel time would cost me 1000 times as much, the 32 hours sounds a lot better.
Everything was, at some point in time, a novelty. That doesn't mean they are all equally useful. Even if some people took a plane to just go up and down, most people knew they could take a plane to take them from A to B quickly and efficiently. In contrast, the SS2 has been designed only to go from A to A with a short thrill ride in between.
It doesn't sound like a smart business strategy to go in the wrong direction, hoping that you stumble on something that may yield something useful.
Please nobody tell this guy how many people died building the Empire State Building
According to records: 5 people died in the construction of the Empire State Building, and the result was a huge amount of office space in a highly desirable location. Not a bad score compared to ScaledComposites with 4 deaths for a rollercoaster ride.
Bullshit, of course. Travel is mainly driven by business interests, not vacation trips. What's the business interest in sub-orbital hops ?