If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Civilian Space Flights
At the risk of sounding like a curmudgeon (which I probably am), I
need to ask this question: What is the big deal about Rutan's suborbital flight? Why is this such a history-making achievement? The regulars on this newsgroup might recognize me from earlier posts as a former USAF and contractor test pilot. No one appreciates the significance (and joy) of doing something in aviation that hasn't been done before more than I do. That said, and given that the flight was a piece of technical brilliance and a demonstration of courage by Mr. Melville, what was the historic value? It proved that private industry could put a man into space. The hype is that this heralds the impending commercial use of space, and of commercial space exploration. Let's put that into perspective. First, I contend that nearly all the important explorations on earth were financed by governments. Columbus' voyage (Queen of Spain) and Lewis and Clark (US Government) come to mind, never mind the space program. There doesn't seem to be anything intrinsically bad about that. By and large, explorations and experiments that are designed to help all mankind require more money than the commercial world can afford. And don't necessarily generate a profit for anyone. Second, sending a man and two dummies into a very short suborbital trajectory is nowhere near the problem of orbiting people and their life support systems for extended periods. Which is what commercial space use will require. Reentry from orbit, for example, isn't even a factor in the present programs. Third. who will finance such things? Right now, we have, if I read the news correctly, a $20 million investment to win a $10 million prize. Not a great return. I contend that American businesses, being reasonable, will not invest money without a reasonable expectation of a profit somewhere down the line. What is the income from a three-person ballistic trajectory? There are only so many people who will pay several thousand dollars for such a thrill. I would like nothing better than to see this space achievement lead to bigger and better things. Without government money, I just don't see it happening. Jim Thomas |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Thomas" wrote in message m... At the risk of sounding like a curmudgeon (which I probably am), I need to ask this question: What is the big deal about Rutan's suborbital flight? Why is this such a history-making achievement? The regulars on this newsgroup might recognize me from earlier posts as a former USAF and contractor test pilot. No one appreciates the significance (and joy) of doing something in aviation that hasn't been done before more than I do. That said, and given that the flight was a piece of technical brilliance and a demonstration of courage by Mr. Melville, what was the historic value? It proved that private industry could put a man into space. The hype is that this heralds the impending commercial use of space, and of commercial space exploration. Let's put that into perspective. First, I contend that nearly all the important explorations on earth were financed by governments. Columbus' voyage (Queen of Spain) and Lewis and Clark (US Government) come to mind, never mind the space program. There doesn't seem to be anything intrinsically bad about that. By and large, explorations and experiments that are designed to help all mankind require more money than the commercial world can afford. And don't necessarily generate a profit for anyone. Second, sending a man and two dummies into a very short suborbital trajectory is nowhere near the problem of orbiting people and their life support systems for extended periods. Which is what commercial space use will require. Reentry from orbit, for example, isn't even a factor in the present programs. Third. who will finance such things? Right now, we have, if I read the news correctly, a $20 million investment to win a $10 million prize. Not a great return. I contend that American businesses, being reasonable, will not invest money without a reasonable expectation of a profit somewhere down the line. What is the income from a three-person ballistic trajectory? There are only so many people who will pay several thousand dollars for such a thrill. I would like nothing better than to see this space achievement lead to bigger and better things. Without government money, I just don't see it happening. Oh oh. You're in for it now. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I would like nothing better than to see this space achievement lead to
bigger and better things. Without government money, I just don't see it happening. Oh oh. You're in for it now. Justifiably. We can go from Galileo all the way up to the Wright brothers and Lindbergh.. essentially no gov $. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The point is this is the beginning of the turn away from pure exploration to
commercial exploitation. Admittedly, governments are great at supporting exploration (see Columbus, Cook, etc.) but their record at putting resources to work is poor compared to the private sector. Efficiency is not a concept that comes naturally to a government bureaucrat. The point here (to rope things back to aviation) is to get a DC-3; a spacecraft system that can make money without subsidy. I don't think any of the X-Prize contenders are actually going to lead directly to a viable space transport system, but they are intended to jumpstart efforts to head in that direction. -- Jim Atkins Twentynine Palms, CA USA Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. -Groucho Marx |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"QDurham" wrote in message ... Justifiably. We can go from Galileo all the way up to the Wright brothers and Lindbergh.. essentially no gov $. Essentially no government money in what between Galileo and the Wright brothers? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Justifiably. We can go from Galileo all the way up to the Wright
brothers and Lindbergh.. essentially no gov $. Essentially no government money in what between Galileo and the Wright brothers? Almost all of the groundbreakers in most fields have done their work independent of government $. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"QDurham" wrote in message ... Almost all of the groundbreakers in most fields have done their work independent of government $. Most voyages of discovery were government sponsored. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Space Elevator | Big John | Home Built | 111 | July 21st 04 04:31 PM |
Hubble plug to be pulled | John Carrier | Military Aviation | 33 | March 19th 04 04:19 AM |
OT (sorta): Bush Will Announce New Space Missions | Dav1936531 | Military Aviation | 0 | January 9th 04 10:34 AM |
Strategic Command Missions Rely on Space | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 30th 03 09:59 PM |