Exactly. I mentioned that passengers were an issue about this. Heck, when I was a child, I used to fly in 727s and DC-10 cockpit jump seats (it was 70's and my father was an AA pilot) and LOVED the feel at rotation on takeoff. Likewise, back then we would hit some major turbulence. Loved the drops. BUT a number of passengers did not.
If placed in the military AND in pure cargo, it will be a major fuel saver and will be bought by both fairly rapidly. More importantly, once that is done, then airliners WILL sooner or later buy the craft, and then simply build a small passenger area. That area will slowly be extended and ppl will learn what they like or do not like.
One thing I've heard though is that there's apparently something in the EELV contract the ULA has with the DOD which either prevents bidding on COTS-like contracts, or makes it much more difficult. Do you happen to know anything about this? Nope. But I have friends who work for ULA (I live in Highlands Ranch, CO), so will ask. As a SWAG, I would have to guess that they are prevented from taking major business risks with ULA money (currently, they are a monopoly; that will change when Falcon 9 is successful), or possibly it is just DOD's attitude toward NASA (DOD DESPISES NASA, esp the new space command) and said no. Sadly, there is SO much politics that goes on between NASA, DOD, and politicians. Heck, I was just thinking about the later. Nixon killed the moon colonization plans, Clinton killed the collider, W killed X-33 (and denied DOD the right to finish the project), and now Obama is looking to kill the moon shot (though it is fair to say that NASA has been severely underfunded for this for the last 5 years).
For example, not too long ago India announced that they were going to start producing unlicensed generic US medicines for their people. This story was lauded pretty highly on this site. The issue is, when this happens, they make no contribution to help pay for past or future research, development, and testing.
Yeah, I was NOT one of those lauding it. The reason that the drugs COSTS SO DAMN MUCH there is because India and China have their money FIXED against ours. India's rate is fixed at 47-48 rupees/dollar. To make things even worse, India has a trade barrier against western goods because they are trying to pull a China and get our companies to move manufacturing there. So, they have a 50-200% tariff on their goods, which includes these very drugs. If we would disallow countries like India and China from doing this (more so, when they are REQUIRED BY TREATIES AS WELL AS INTERNATIONAL LAW), then it would help EVERYBODY OUT. The whole issuing about stealing IP is TOTALLY related to the trade barriers as well as fixed money. Where those do not exist, you see relatively little IP theft.
OUCH. I saw that he was VP, but I totally missed the fact that he is on the panel. THAT may make a BIG difference in what will happen shortly. In particular, I am fairly certain that another round of "COTs" will be done (obviously different, but same effect). I would have bet on l-mart, scaled, and possibly scaled/northrup (ss3) as well as SpaceDev would have the inside tracks on lots of interesting item. Having that clout in there, MIGHT make a difference esp. when opposed to SpaceDev (though a lot to be said about Western or just American made).
SpaceX Dragon's isn't proven to be reusable, is it? And a capsule which flies 10 times instead of just one (a particular instance of VA flew 3 times to orbit during testing phase) could turn costing less. Actually, from what I understand, I believe the idea is to use the capsule once for a human launch, then for a cargo launch, then for a science launch (with no return). I do have to say though, that it seems like that is likely to change. One thing about Musk is that he is a salesman and tells you the BEST case (and yes, I am a big fan of his, but fair is fair). Though to be fair, he all of his endeavors have interesting ideas behind and through them.
Here I have to agree:( . The guys still have a long and winding road ahead of them. Will watch 'em tho'.
Likewise. I think that having more competition is a good thing. I really would like to see them succeed. But I have a sneaking feeling that Augustine's panel will be rolling the dice and it will be geared l-mart, northrup(scaled), spaceX and MAYBE SpaceDev. In addition, it is possible that Direct will shine in this, but......
MS, like many American companies, are fleecing the country. We are regularly charged top prices for drugs, Windows software, Iron, Labor, etc. Heck, the neo-cons passed a drug policy that has the US gov paying the TOP dollar for the drugs, rather than the bottom, even though we are the largest customer. Absolutely ridiculous.
A capsule that has not produced in 30 years as well as a new service module, and you think that in 4 years, they will have FLYING PAYING CUSTOMERS? Heck, the thing weighed 20 tonnes, not including the weapons that were on it (cannon and later missiles; Interesting about that).
2015 will be the absolute EARLIEST that it has a passenger. And even then, I seriously doubt it. I think that by 2013, SpaceX and Orion Lite will be running passengers to a BA space station. The reason is that when Augustine is done, we will see either Ares I dead, or slowed WAY up, and we will see 1, possibly 2 B allocated for private ventures. That will mean that we pay to speed up Orion Lite, Give Cots-D to SpaceX, and I am guessing that both Northrup/Scaled with SS3 and SpaceDev with DreamChaser will have money allocated to get their entries going. Finally, Bigelow will be given money so that there is a NEAR GUARANTEE for these private companies to have a paying destination, other than just NASA.
But I really doubt it. In fact, my bet is that if it was true, the first flight would be after 2015, which would be too late. By that time, spacex, scaled's SS3, Orion Lite, and bigelow BA-330 will be the place to be.
The lunar axis tilts about 1.5 (vs. our 23.5). That will mean that some of the poles will have seasonal adjustment, but most will not. The real concern is the day/night. Fortunately, a short pole going up can be used to redirect light. In fact that same pole can be used to collect heat as well.
Comcast is currently looking for lots of content to buy. They will then need to be able to cut WAY back on competing companies to force those companies to pay Comcast as well as their ISP. Now, lets see what the dems will do.
So, if all they ran were grow lights, that would be about 30 grow lights?
It would be silly to use this for loads of growlights, when you have places on the moon where you can obtain near total sunlight. You will have to raise some pipes up and redirect the sun down, but I am certain that a number of spots on the poles can be found to do that with.
This would only be useful on the poles, but the heat collector would be fairly light weight, and a similar one stuck in the ground behind a berm might work. Still, this like solar PV, is only good at the poles. You will still need nukes to move around.
The other thought is that any good heat collector would be needed to heat the base. They could get it from the nukes, but this could also work.
You laugh, but any good lunar vehicle is likely to be very similar. It will have to provide the ability to provide lots of energy to move the vehicle as well as living energy. Initally, the first vehicle will likely be a armadillo type vehicle. But that will likely be found to be too expensive to run (and will kick up too much dust around the moon), so, a nuclear powered wheeled vehicle will be developed.
Assume that a 100 MW reactor blew up and spread around the moon (and it would spread). It would contribute less radiation to the lunar surface each day than what the sun does each hour. So, what is the problem?
there is some good uranium on the moon. It is possible that down the road we will be able to mine it and process it. From there, that uranium (plutonium?) can be "thrown" off the moon and then used all over the solar system.
is that it really shows how much the dollar circulates vs. other moneys. Yuan and yen are spread all over the world (though China is pushing for it to be) which would explain why these are at the bottom.
As I pointed out, the BWB would have multiple doors in the leading edge. From some of the studies that Boeing did, it had the craft turned sideways at the terminal (kind of like a frisbee) and uses the current ramps. But even assuming that it requires a re-design, so what? As I pointed out, the airports have re-designed for a-380 for heavy use airports and then slow entry/exits for those that chose to not re-design.
Boeing is opposed to doing the BWB. BUT the Boeing engineers as well as NASA are fully in favor of it and pushing it. It is almost certain that the first version of this will be a military version followed by a civilian cargo version.
And yet, the B2, which is a similar aircraft, does just fine. In fact, America's first real experience with a BWB was the F-117. The major aircraft companies have decades worth of BWB experience. Sadly, Boeing does not want it because tube/wing is so much easier to sell (today).
The airport renovations for this aircraft would be less than what they have been for the 380. The reason is that the first craft out will not be the monster type, but would be a cargo craft. Keep in mind that for the 380, all new loading was developed. Finally, this aircraft (in a 737 size aircraft) would have a span less than a 747, weigh about 2/3-3/4 of what a 737 weighs, and would use about 1/3 to 1/2 of the fuel of a 737.
No, this is not fantasy. These are reality. Had MD not screwed up the MD-11 in terms of their engineering, then this craft would already be in production.
The 787 is less about the airframe and more about the outsourcing. Had Boeing stuck to the tried and true approach of iterative design, rather than trying to move to waterfall (and using contract engineers at that), the 787 would not be in the situation that it is today. The x-48 could be developed for the military and then later a civilian model created (actually, there is some discussion in the pentagon of doing just this for the new DOD tanker). In doing that approach, Boeing would not be using their current nightmare set-up. In fact, I am guessing that Boeing will NEVER again try to outsource like they have.
Slashdot Mirror
Fuel tender for destroyers, etc. That could generate fuel for many other ships that we have elected to not run as nukes.
You have noticed that China is becoming VERY friendly with the kingdom (and vice-versa). yes?
Of course, that nuke ship would lead to having ships that provide fuel for destroyers, etc. Basically, a true fuel tender.
Exactly. I mentioned that passengers were an issue about this. Heck, when I was a child, I used to fly in 727s and DC-10 cockpit jump seats (it was 70's and my father was an AA pilot) and LOVED the feel at rotation on takeoff. Likewise, back then we would hit some major turbulence. Loved the drops. BUT a number of passengers did not.
If placed in the military AND in pure cargo, it will be a major fuel saver and will be bought by both fairly rapidly. More importantly, once that is done, then airliners WILL sooner or later buy the craft, and then simply build a small passenger area. That area will slowly be extended and ppl will learn what they like or do not like.
One thing I've heard though is that there's apparently something in the EELV contract the ULA has with the DOD which either prevents bidding on COTS-like contracts, or makes it much more difficult. Do you happen to know anything about this?
Nope. But I have friends who work for ULA (I live in Highlands Ranch, CO), so will ask. As a SWAG, I would have to guess that they are prevented from taking major business risks with ULA money (currently, they are a monopoly; that will change when Falcon 9 is successful), or possibly it is just DOD's attitude toward NASA (DOD DESPISES NASA, esp the new space command) and said no. Sadly, there is SO much politics that goes on between NASA, DOD, and politicians. Heck, I was just thinking about the later. Nixon killed the moon colonization plans, Clinton killed the collider, W killed X-33 (and denied DOD the right to finish the project), and now Obama is looking to kill the moon shot (though it is fair to say that NASA has been severely underfunded for this for the last 5 years).
For example, not too long ago India announced that they were going to start producing unlicensed generic US medicines for their people. This story was lauded pretty highly on this site. The issue is, when this happens, they make no contribution to help pay for past or future research, development, and testing.
Yeah, I was NOT one of those lauding it. The reason that the drugs COSTS SO DAMN MUCH there is because India and China have their money FIXED against ours. India's rate is fixed at 47-48 rupees/dollar. To make things even worse, India has a trade barrier against western goods because they are trying to pull a China and get our companies to move manufacturing there. So, they have a 50-200% tariff on their goods, which includes these very drugs. If we would disallow countries like India and China from doing this (more so, when they are REQUIRED BY TREATIES AS WELL AS INTERNATIONAL LAW), then it would help EVERYBODY OUT. The whole issuing about stealing IP is TOTALLY related to the trade barriers as well as fixed money. Where those do not exist, you see relatively little IP theft.
OUCH. I saw that he was VP, but I totally missed the fact that he is on the panel. THAT may make a BIG difference in what will happen shortly. In particular, I am fairly certain that another round of "COTs" will be done (obviously different, but same effect). I would have bet on l-mart, scaled, and possibly scaled/northrup (ss3) as well as SpaceDev would have the inside tracks on lots of interesting item. Having that clout in there, MIGHT make a difference esp. when opposed to SpaceDev (though a lot to be said about Western or just American made).
SpaceX Dragon's isn't proven to be reusable, is it? And a capsule which flies 10 times instead of just one (a particular instance of VA flew 3 times to orbit during testing phase) could turn costing less.
:( . The guys still have a long and winding road ahead of them. Will watch 'em tho'. ......
Actually, from what I understand, I believe the idea is to use the capsule once for a human launch, then for a cargo launch, then for a science launch (with no return). I do have to say though, that it seems like that is likely to change. One thing about Musk is that he is a salesman and tells you the BEST case (and yes, I am a big fan of his, but fair is fair). Though to be fair, he all of his endeavors have interesting ideas behind and through them.
Here I have to agree
Likewise. I think that having more competition is a good thing. I really would like to see them succeed. But I have a sneaking feeling that Augustine's panel will be rolling the dice and it will be geared l-mart, northrup(scaled), spaceX and MAYBE SpaceDev. In addition, it is possible that Direct will shine in this, but
MS, like many American companies, are fleecing the country. We are regularly charged top prices for drugs, Windows software, Iron, Labor, etc. Heck, the neo-cons passed a drug policy that has the US gov paying the TOP dollar for the drugs, rather than the bottom, even though we are the largest customer. Absolutely ridiculous.
A capsule that has not produced in 30 years as well as a new service module, and you think that in 4 years, they will have FLYING PAYING CUSTOMERS? Heck, the thing weighed 20 tonnes, not including the weapons that were on it (cannon and later missiles; Interesting about that).
2015 will be the absolute EARLIEST that it has a passenger. And even then, I seriously doubt it. I think that by 2013, SpaceX and Orion Lite will be running passengers to a BA space station. The reason is that when Augustine is done, we will see either Ares I dead, or slowed WAY up, and we will see 1, possibly 2 B allocated for private ventures. That will mean that we pay to speed up Orion Lite, Give Cots-D to SpaceX, and I am guessing that both Northrup/Scaled with SS3 and SpaceDev with DreamChaser will have money allocated to get their entries going. Finally, Bigelow will be given money so that there is a NEAR GUARANTEE for these private companies to have a paying destination, other than just NASA.
But I really doubt it. In fact, my bet is that if it was true, the first flight would be after 2015, which would be too late. By that time, spacex, scaled's SS3, Orion Lite, and bigelow BA-330 will be the place to be.
The lunar axis tilts about 1.5 (vs. our 23.5). That will mean that some of the poles will have seasonal adjustment, but most will not. The real concern is the day/night. Fortunately, a short pole going up can be used to redirect light. In fact that same pole can be used to collect heat as well.
Comcast is currently looking for lots of content to buy. They will then need to be able to cut WAY back on competing companies to force those companies to pay Comcast as well as their ISP. Now, lets see what the dems will do.
So, if all they ran were grow lights, that would be about 30 grow lights?
It would be silly to use this for loads of growlights, when you have places on the moon where you can obtain near total sunlight. You will have to raise some pipes up and redirect the sun down, but I am certain that a number of spots on the poles can be found to do that with.
This would only be useful on the poles, but the heat collector would be fairly light weight, and a similar one stuck in the ground behind a berm might work. Still, this like solar PV, is only good at the poles. You will still need nukes to move around.
The other thought is that any good heat collector would be needed to heat the base. They could get it from the nukes, but this could also work.
You laugh, but any good lunar vehicle is likely to be very similar. It will have to provide the ability to provide lots of energy to move the vehicle as well as living energy. Initally, the first vehicle will likely be a armadillo type vehicle. But that will likely be found to be too expensive to run (and will kick up too much dust around the moon), so, a nuclear powered wheeled vehicle will be developed.
Radiation is sent up SEPARATE and in a special expensive heavy container. It will survive any explosion, crash, etc.
Because we have VASMIR coming. Combine that with a nice nuclear reactor and we are looking at some good speeds.
Assume that a 100 MW reactor blew up and spread around the moon (and it would spread). It would contribute less radiation to the lunar surface each day than what the sun does each hour. So, what is the problem?
there is some good uranium on the moon. It is possible that down the road we will be able to mine it and process it. From there, that uranium (plutonium?) can be "thrown" off the moon and then used all over the solar system.
is that it really shows how much the dollar circulates vs. other moneys. Yuan and yen are spread all over the world (though China is pushing for it to be) which would explain why these are at the bottom.
As I pointed out, the BWB would have multiple doors in the leading edge. From some of the studies that Boeing did, it had the craft turned sideways at the terminal (kind of like a frisbee) and uses the current ramps. But even assuming that it requires a re-design, so what? As I pointed out, the airports have re-designed for a-380 for heavy use airports and then slow entry/exits for those that chose to not re-design.
I re-read what I wrote, and I meant to say 1/3 to 1/2 LESS fuel, which is still significant. It is estimated that in the near term a blended wing body aircraft could see increased fuel conservation of 33 percent as compared to that of currently available aircraft. MD internal study said by using composites (the study was from a decade ago) that fuel savings would be 50%.
Boeing is opposed to doing the BWB. BUT the Boeing engineers as well as NASA are fully in favor of it and pushing it. It is almost certain that the first version of this will be a military version followed by a civilian cargo version.
And yet, the B2, which is a similar aircraft, does just fine. In fact, America's first real experience with a BWB was the F-117. The major aircraft companies have decades worth of BWB experience. Sadly, Boeing does not want it because tube/wing is so much easier to sell (today).
The airport renovations for this aircraft would be less than what they have been for the 380. The reason is that the first craft out will not be the monster type, but would be a cargo craft. Keep in mind that for the 380, all new loading was developed. Finally, this aircraft (in a 737 size aircraft) would have a span less than a 747, weigh about 2/3-3/4 of what a 737 weighs, and would use about 1/3 to 1/2 of the fuel of a 737.
No, this is not fantasy. These are reality. Had MD not screwed up the MD-11 in terms of their engineering, then this craft would already be in production.
The 787 is less about the airframe and more about the outsourcing. Had Boeing stuck to the tried and true approach of iterative design, rather than trying to move to waterfall (and using contract engineers at that), the 787 would not be in the situation that it is today. The x-48 could be developed for the military and then later a civilian model created (actually, there is some discussion in the pentagon of doing just this for the new DOD tanker). In doing that approach, Boeing would not be using their current nightmare set-up. In fact, I am guessing that Boeing will NEVER again try to outsource like they have.