Ill probablly never be riding one of thes planes. I think Boeing made a good choice with the 7E7. All the flights I have had in the past 6 years have been on a small jet, not a large one like the 747.
That's for the space shuttle, he's reffering to commercial launch vehicles like the Pegasus or Atlas/Delta Rockets.
And yes for the shuttle the reason its so expensive is because the thing basically has to be rebuilt every time its flown, and it takes a LOT of people to do that.
How about we do as you say and take all the nuclear proponents and place them next to a nuclear power plant. NOW!! Lets take all the anti-nuclear people and crowd them around Coal and Oil Plants!!
Yeah, I understand those problems. They are biggies and IMO anything short of a super shuttle or a space elevator isn't going to make the goods from an asteriod cheap to bring back. But still, there are industries that can develop in space with nearly unlimited resources. Personally I think that's something definetly worth pursuing. Also, we probablly COULD develop a super shuttle with 500kg deorbit capability, or send all the raw goods into LEO, and send up a big capsule with a cheap rocket to LEO to pick up the goods and bring them back down. Although both of those things might end up making the goods cost way too much. How about just keeping things in space and let people start living in space, develop new industries there.
As far as logistics go, they could be, in my opinion automated enough so that it would only take a minimal amount of ground crew to actually transport the goods.
Plus its not like in the 1600's when they were growing tobacco in the colonies they had cheap access back to england. But they did it and profited off of it!
Oo and the reminds me, one concept that NASA had was to use Mass drivers on the lunar surface to send lunar manufactured goods down to the earth. With strong enough heat resistant casings, you could easily send large amounts of cheap raw materials onto the earth.
AND Since the moon has 1/6 the earth's gravity and a negligible atmosphere, you could in theory actually bring down asteriods into a lunar crater and mine it there and then ship it straight off to a lunar mass driver.
My point still stands =) The majority of the cost is in the logistics and engineering of the thing.
Personally I can't wait until SpaceX can get the FalconV launched, with the promised $/lb ratios they have, that thing is going to be a hit if it is very reliable.
The DC-X was also an awesome project that NASA shouldn't have cancelled, althought it wouldn't have been capable of heavy lift it could certainly have worked very well and cheaply for the launch of humans, not to mention it could work as a lunar/mars lander(send the cargo in super heavy lift vehicles). Because of this im also really interested in what Blue Origin(Owner of Amazon's company) is going to be doing. A bunch of their engineers were from the DC-X project and considering that the Owner of Blue Origin is reach as heck, they might be able to do something very very interesting.
Just curious, any more info on this company you are starting up?
Your an idiot, there doesn't need to be a major advancement in launch propulsion. You wanna take a guess as to how much the fuel for a Delta IV heavy costs? Less then a million dollars. The problem is an engineering and logistics problem not propulsion.
Also SPACE IS NOT PROFITABLE??? Yeah sure... Trillion Dollar asteriods are certainly not profitable right right right???
He knows, but a baryton engine requires(this is what the grandparent assumed) a working fluid to get the heat energy of the nuclear reactor to power a turbine.
The shuttle isn't the problem... Not to mention, the shuttle is getting retired in 5 years right after it finishes getting the ISS "Core Complete(all the US stuff up there basically)"
The problem is the gap between 2010 and 2014 when there won't be a shuttle or a man rated CEV to get us into space. Thankfully the new NASA administrator Michael Griffin is fully aware of that problem and is working his butt off to eliminate that problem. That's why I love the new NASA administrator and whoever is president 4 years from now, I swear if they change the NASA administrator, im going to kick their ass!
where to start... let me start with your last one...
"Just think, what kind of tech did they have back in the Apollo moon landing? Computers? Hardly. Look what we have now, and look how we ignore to use it. They didnt."
They DONT NEED faster computers to run the space ships, what they need is redundant computers.
"The russians have a damned good idea there. They actually fly, knowing the risks. They also are MORE CAPITALISTIC as they actually accept chaperoned flights from 'thrill seekers'."
Sure, they do have cheaper flights and have chaperoned flights for rich "thrill seekers." But, here in the US we are actually trying to get a private spaceflight industry up and running and the US Government is also trying to help that industry to get on its feet. If you don't believe me and think that the government is only into pork barrel politics and into funding Lockheed and Boeing, go watch this http://www.house.gov/science/webcast/index.htm Ch eck out the "Webcast of Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics - Hearing Future Market for Commercial Space"
And yes there are risks, everyone knows that. The thing NASA has is that they are trying to minimize the risks that they can so that they can prevent the loss of human life.
"Its now to the point that we're literally afraid to "fly" in space. Thanks to the shuttle entry-blow up, that's retarded apace-flight by how long? 2 years? 4 years? "Until it's safe?""
Yeah, its been 2 years since the US has been capable of sending men into space with its own equipment. But like ive said, they aren't Afraid of going into space, the problem is that they want to reduce all risks that can be reduced because the shuttle's are pretty damned expensive and they don't want to lose any of them.
" That we pretty much pull out of the space program and 'invest heavily' into fighting the bugaboo of the day. "
Well they aren't just dropping them straight down into the ground, correct me if im wrong but they use rockets to first slow the capsule down and then use a parachute to get them down. People use parachutes all the time, no biggie =)
Slashdot Mirror
I wait for the day when they ban SUVs and nothing changes... What will the extremist liberals whine about next?
Yeah because when the shuttle came out, it was only an incremental improvement right?
That's why I love my $45 flights from school to home with Jetblue =) Thank you European Taxpayers!
Ill probablly never be riding one of thes planes. I think Boeing made a good choice with the 7E7. All the flights I have had in the past 6 years have been on a small jet, not a large one like the 747.
Still looks like an awesome plane though =)
yeah, lets all become commies too and have our government own everything!!
heh =)
"BTW, fusion, even cold fusion, would still create neutron radiation, so all the problems with the shielding remain."
Depends on the fuel you use for Fusion =)
They say that the genetic difference between Aristotle and Einstein versus Average man is greater then the difference between Man and ape.
=)
That's for the space shuttle, he's reffering to commercial launch vehicles like the Pegasus or Atlas/Delta Rockets.
And yes for the shuttle the reason its so expensive is because the thing basically has to be rebuilt every time its flown, and it takes a LOT of people to do that.
I got an even better idea!!
How about we do as you say and take all the nuclear proponents and place them next to a nuclear power plant. NOW!! Lets take all the anti-nuclear people and crowd them around Coal and Oil Plants!!
PERFECT isn't it?!
Yeah, I understand those problems. They are biggies and IMO anything short of a super shuttle or a space elevator isn't going to make the goods from an asteriod cheap to bring back. But still, there are industries that can develop in space with nearly unlimited resources. Personally I think that's something definetly worth pursuing. Also, we probablly COULD develop a super shuttle with 500kg deorbit capability, or send all the raw goods into LEO, and send up a big capsule with a cheap rocket to LEO to pick up the goods and bring them back down. Although both of those things might end up making the goods cost way too much. How about just keeping things in space and let people start living in space, develop new industries there.
As far as logistics go, they could be, in my opinion automated enough so that it would only take a minimal amount of ground crew to actually transport the goods.
Plus its not like in the 1600's when they were growing tobacco in the colonies they had cheap access back to england. But they did it and profited off of it!
Oo and the reminds me, one concept that NASA had was to use Mass drivers on the lunar surface to send lunar manufactured goods down to the earth. With strong enough heat resistant casings, you could easily send large amounts of cheap raw materials onto the earth.
AND Since the moon has 1/6 the earth's gravity and a negligible atmosphere, you could in theory actually bring down asteriods into a lunar crater and mine it there and then ship it straight off to a lunar mass driver.
My point still stands =) The majority of the cost is in the logistics and engineering of the thing.
Personally I can't wait until SpaceX can get the FalconV launched, with the promised $/lb ratios they have, that thing is going to be a hit if it is very reliable.
The DC-X was also an awesome project that NASA shouldn't have cancelled, althought it wouldn't have been capable of heavy lift it could certainly have worked very well and cheaply for the launch of humans, not to mention it could work as a lunar/mars lander(send the cargo in super heavy lift vehicles). Because of this im also really interested in what Blue Origin(Owner of Amazon's company) is going to be doing. A bunch of their engineers were from the DC-X project and considering that the Owner of Blue Origin is reach as heck, they might be able to do something very very interesting.
Just curious, any more info on this company you are starting up?
bet you don't even know what a meltdown is...
=) You: 0 Science: 1
Your an idiot, there doesn't need to be a major advancement in launch propulsion. You wanna take a guess as to how much the fuel for a Delta IV heavy costs? Less then a million dollars. The problem is an engineering and logistics problem not propulsion.
Also SPACE IS NOT PROFITABLE??? Yeah sure... Trillion Dollar asteriods are certainly not profitable right right right???
He knows, but a baryton engine requires(this is what the grandparent assumed) a working fluid to get the heat energy of the nuclear reactor to power a turbine.
yeah, lets just forget about the millions of people that died in Russia becasue of the government...
They were doing it to be "nice"
Funny how easy it is to forget things isn't it?
you got the wrong indians there buddy.
Sure, hes only been teaching at an American University for the past 10 years...
I stand corrected.
I love borat =)
I just didn't get the joke at first heh.
"If she cheat on me, I will CRUSH HER"
Ummmm these things were always in the news, you just never paid attention to them...
What fear?, seems to me your the only one afraid of space.
It's definetly not the answer. The answer involves everyone, not just the private industry.
More open-minded people are good, but theres always a balance that needs to be taken when making decisions that cost billions and billions of dollars.
The shuttle isn't the problem... Not to mention, the shuttle is getting retired in 5 years right after it finishes getting the ISS "Core Complete(all the US stuff up there basically)"
The problem is the gap between 2010 and 2014 when there won't be a shuttle or a man rated CEV to get us into space. Thankfully the new NASA administrator Michael Griffin is fully aware of that problem and is working his butt off to eliminate that problem. That's why I love the new NASA administrator and whoever is president 4 years from now, I swear if they change the NASA administrator, im going to kick their ass!
where to start... let me start with your last one...
h eck out the "Webcast of Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics - Hearing
"Just think, what kind of tech did they have back in the Apollo moon landing? Computers? Hardly. Look what we have now, and look how we ignore to use it. They didnt."
They DONT NEED faster computers to run the space ships, what they need is redundant computers.
"The russians have a damned good idea there. They actually fly, knowing the risks. They also are MORE CAPITALISTIC as they actually accept chaperoned flights from 'thrill seekers'."
Sure, they do have cheaper flights and have chaperoned flights for rich "thrill seekers." But, here in the US we are actually trying to get a private spaceflight industry up and running and the US Government is also trying to help that industry to get on its feet. If you don't believe me and think that the government is only into pork barrel politics and into funding Lockheed and Boeing, go watch this http://www.house.gov/science/webcast/index.htm
C
Future Market for Commercial Space"
And yes there are risks, everyone knows that. The thing NASA has is that they are trying to minimize the risks that they can so that they can prevent the loss of human life.
"Its now to the point that we're literally afraid to "fly" in space. Thanks to the shuttle entry-blow up, that's retarded apace-flight by how long? 2 years? 4 years? "Until it's safe?""
Yeah, its been 2 years since the US has been capable of sending men into space with its own equipment. But like ive said, they aren't Afraid of going into space, the problem is that they want to reduce all risks that can be reduced because the shuttle's are pretty damned expensive and they don't want to lose any of them.
"
That we pretty much pull out of the space program and 'invest heavily' into fighting the bugaboo of the day.
"
How are we doing that?
Well they aren't just dropping them straight down into the ground, correct me if im wrong but they use rockets to first slow the capsule down and then use a parachute to get them down. People use parachutes all the time, no biggie =)