That would all make sense if we didn't already know how to get into space.
I don't know if you've notice, but we do. We don't need to take baby steps to get there, we can already go. This isn't a scheme to figure out how to get into space, it's a thrill ride for rich people.
The people who are actually trying to get into space aren't doing anything like this. They are building things that actually go into space.
That's going to take a seriously huge ship, which will be very different from the SpaceShipTwo, not to mention the gigantic plane to carry both of them up.
More energy, yes. And more energy means more fuel. More fuel means more mass. More mass means even more energy. And so on. To scale up to the point where you can actually reach orbit will require a vastly different design, far bigger and heavier. And at that point, what you learned from the SpaceShipTwo no longer really applies much.
Like the other guy says, reaching orbit is hard. We're not going to suddenly have a miraculous development that gives us super-powerful engines that makes it possible for something like the SpaceShipTwo to reach it. And if we did, anything the SpaceShipTwo had learned would pale into utter insignificance compared to the massive possibilities of that miracle engine.
Since Lindbergh didn't use a jet your analogy makes no sense.
Not really. I'm saying we have rockets that can actually take us into space right now, and we've had them for a long time. The SpaceShipTwo is nowhere near in their league, and saying that we can learn something about going into space from the puny little ship that can't do it, rather than from the ones we've been sending up there for over half a century, is about as ludicrous as saying that we would learn something useful for commercial airliners by flying a propeller plane over the Atlantic.
So? The Wright brothers weren't trying to achieve that. They had plenty of much more reasonable goals to achieve instead.
And, you know, we've been going to space for over half a century. We're not exactly at the Wright brothers state of experimentation any more. If you built a Wright flyer today, you wouldn't go around saying "Yes but think how much we can learn from it!"
True, but the Wright Flyer couldn't be used for a lot of things either nor could Goddard's rockets reach space; but they were important first steps. Aviation is built on incremental steps and who knows where SpaceShip Two will lead? I have no idea where it will go but that is no reason not to try and see.
We took those first steps over half a century ago. If you'r building a Wright Flyer TODAY, you're not going to be learning much, are you?
So? Many early flights were for thrills (and money) as well. By your logic, Lindbergh's flight was just for thrills since we already knew how to reach France by boat.
"By my logic" nothing. What I am actually saying that if we had jets crossing the Atlantic already, then yes, Lindbergh's flight would be just for thrills and we wouldn't learn a damn thing from it.
It does not, at all. It's not like we're struggling to reach space now. We have spacecraft. We know how to make them. We're working on making them better. They are not novel, and they are not waiting to be discovered by random chance.
The SpaceCraftTwo has very little bearing on any of that work. It's a design that can't reach orbit, no matter how hard you try. There are much more fruitful avenues to pursue if you want to improve spaceflight.
And, we already have space travel, in case you missed it. We also have companies actually working on making it more affordable and convenient. SpaceCraftTwo does nothing for that.
Can, maybe. But if you're actually trying to make another kind of craft, you should be experimenting on that, not a completely different kind and hoping that maybe by chance you'll find something useful.
The underlying technologies of the SpaceCraftTwo are completely and woefully underdimensioned for actually reaching orbit. It's just not feasible to develop it into a craft that can do that. You need a completely different solution to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
No, being a kinetic weapon it would gain a lot of destructive power by not being in a nearby orbit. The satellite would slam into it at orbital speed.
That would all make sense if we didn't already know how to get into space.
I don't know if you've notice, but we do. We don't need to take baby steps to get there, we can already go. This isn't a scheme to figure out how to get into space, it's a thrill ride for rich people.
The people who are actually trying to get into space aren't doing anything like this. They are building things that actually go into space.
An anti-satellite rocket does not need to achieve orbital velocity, though.
That's going to take a seriously huge ship, which will be very different from the SpaceShipTwo, not to mention the gigantic plane to carry both of them up.
Because I have not said a single thing that is not actually true?
If you want to discuss things, learn how to behave in polite conversation. I have zero interest in ever talking to you again now.
More energy, yes. And more energy means more fuel. More fuel means more mass. More mass means even more energy. And so on. To scale up to the point where you can actually reach orbit will require a vastly different design, far bigger and heavier. And at that point, what you learned from the SpaceShipTwo no longer really applies much.
We sure have better space travel than the SpaceShipTwo could ever provide, though.
Like the other guy says, reaching orbit is hard. We're not going to suddenly have a miraculous development that gives us super-powerful engines that makes it possible for something like the SpaceShipTwo to reach it. And if we did, anything the SpaceShipTwo had learned would pale into utter insignificance compared to the massive possibilities of that miracle engine.
Is that carbon fiber worth dying for, then?
Since Lindbergh didn't use a jet your analogy makes no sense.
Not really. I'm saying we have rockets that can actually take us into space right now, and we've had them for a long time. The SpaceShipTwo is nowhere near in their league, and saying that we can learn something about going into space from the puny little ship that can't do it, rather than from the ones we've been sending up there for over half a century, is about as ludicrous as saying that we would learn something useful for commercial airliners by flying a propeller plane over the Atlantic.
What
They either won't reach orbit either, or they will be drastically different craft, not based on the SpaceShipTwo at all.
So? The Wright brothers weren't trying to achieve that. They had plenty of much more reasonable goals to achieve instead.
And, you know, we've been going to space for over half a century. We're not exactly at the Wright brothers state of experimentation any more. If you built a Wright flyer today, you wouldn't go around saying "Yes but think how much we can learn from it!"
Well aren't you a pleasant person.
What.
True, but the Wright Flyer couldn't be used for a lot of things either nor could Goddard's rockets reach space; but they were important first steps. Aviation is built on incremental steps and who knows where SpaceShip Two will lead? I have no idea where it will go but that is no reason not to try and see.
We took those first steps over half a century ago. If you'r building a Wright Flyer TODAY, you're not going to be learning much, are you?
So? Many early flights were for thrills (and money) as well. By your logic, Lindbergh's flight was just for thrills since we already knew how to reach France by boat.
"By my logic" nothing. What I am actually saying that if we had jets crossing the Atlantic already, then yes, Lindbergh's flight would be just for thrills and we wouldn't learn a damn thing from it.
I trust that makes the point rather well.
It does not, at all. It's not like we're struggling to reach space now. We have spacecraft. We know how to make them. We're working on making them better. They are not novel, and they are not waiting to be discovered by random chance.
The SpaceCraftTwo has very little bearing on any of that work. It's a design that can't reach orbit, no matter how hard you try. There are much more fruitful avenues to pursue if you want to improve spaceflight.
And never. That design just can not reach orbit, no matter how hard you try.
No, it is not. It is a dead end.
And, we already have space travel, in case you missed it. We also have companies actually working on making it more affordable and convenient. SpaceCraftTwo does nothing for that.
Can, maybe. But if you're actually trying to make another kind of craft, you should be experimenting on that, not a completely different kind and hoping that maybe by chance you'll find something useful.
And Ariane rockets are a completely different thing than SpaceShipTwo. Ariane rockets are the Titanic, SpaceShipTwo is a roller coaster.
When that roller coaster ride takes us a step further to space travel becoming normal and reachable for a lot more people FUCK YEAH.
But it doesn't. The SpaceShipTwo will never reach orbit. It can not possibly do this, it's designed for a completely different purpose.
Sure. But the SpaceShipTwo can't do that. It's not designed for that. It won't get developed into that.
The underlying technologies of the SpaceCraftTwo are completely and woefully underdimensioned for actually reaching orbit. It's just not feasible to develop it into a craft that can do that. You need a completely different solution to do it.