Subject:
|
Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Jun 2004 01:00:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
836 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Laswell wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
> > Rutan says he's going for orbit once this step is perfected.
>
> With a completely new design, or with a modified version of this one? At the
> very least he'd need to add manouvering thrusters to make reentry possible.
>
> > I don't think that a ten year timeline for that is at all aggressive
> > considering what the last ten years have provided.
>
> Ten years to achieve what, exactly? Low orbit? High orbit? Moon-landings?
> Privately owned Space Shuttle equivalent? It took NASA less than 8 years to go
> from breaching the 50-mile barrier to putting a man on the moon.
I'm reading between the lines, but I think only a little: new design, high orbit
Yes, but let's imagine that Rutan can do it for $60M. What did NASA spend? (Of
course, they were pioneering the technology!)
> Since my parents haven't retired yet, I doubt I qualify as "old". Only time
> will tell on the other point. If Rutan can put a man on the moon in 5 years, or
> achieve the heavy lift capability of the Space Shuttle in 12 years, I'll believe
> that privatized spaceflight can completely supplant NASA.
What if it's double those times but 1/10 the cost?
> > I'd love to see NASA become a superfluous organ of the state.
>
> I wouldn't. It's hard to feel patriotic about commercial ventures.
Yeah, but more tech and more options for more people and more ventures at lower
cost is way, way, way more important to me than feeling patriotic.
> but I'd hope that
> there are still a lot of great things that can be accomplished by a nation
> rather than just a bunch of shareholders.
I hope that we're finally on the cusp of seeing how a bunch of shareholders can
accomplish great things that a nation cannot (or, more accurately, will not).
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?
|
| (...) Is that for development or launch? (...) NASA is also a governmental agency, and therefore bound by red tape. In other words, they have to spend money to spend money. The government has been cited as spending $300 on a hammer, but the hammer (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?
|
| (...) I heard a statistic indicating that the amount of energy needed to go into low orbit is about 70X the energy needed for this touching-the-face-of-God launch, so there are many difficulties to overcome, perhaps more daunting than the obstacles (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?
|
| (...) With a completely new design, or with a modified version of this one? At the very least he'd need to add manouvering thrusters to make reentry possible. (...) Ten years to achieve what, exactly? Low orbit? High orbit? Moon-landings? Privately (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
81 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
