14.12.1972

Discussion regarding the Outsider webcomic, science, technology and science fiction.

Moderator: Outsider Moderators

User avatar
Trantor
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:52 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

14.12.1972

Post by Trantor »

Today it´s been 40 years since Apollo 17s LM Challenger fired up it´s main engine, and humanity left the moon and everything beyond the Van Allen radiation belt to probes and machines.

What´s left of it? The famous pic of our "Blue Marble" (shot on that very mission), of few pounds of lunar rock, and our desire for more.
sapere aude.

User avatar
GeoModder
Posts: 1038
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:31 pm

Re: 14.12.1972

Post by GeoModder »

40 years isn't enough of a milestone this century. Come back in a decade or so. :P
Image

Dragoon
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:28 pm
Location: US North Carolina: Eastern standard Time Zone
Contact:

Re: 14.12.1972

Post by Dragoon »

Unfortunately the leading nation in the space race... That's Be US, decided to shove it's head up it's own narcissistic back passage.

Unfortunately any penny that isn't paying for Goodies to win the politicians votes come election time, Is slated for "Practical" things.

On top of that NASA is failure averse, anything that isn't safe and planned out to the millionth degree is "too risky"

In the current atmosphere and culture of the space program the Apollo missions would have been nixed as too, expensive, complex, unsafe, untried, and too likely to fail.

Victor_D
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:46 am
Location: Czech Rep., European Union

Re: 14.12.1972

Post by Victor_D »

The era of "Apollo-like" projects is gone, I am afraid. Unless China decides to challenge the US openly in this area, there won't be another like this.

I am about 50% convinced that the first "settlement" on the Moon will be largely a commercial venture, most likely as part of a public-private partnership with one or more space agencies.

Absalom
Posts: 718
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:33 am

Re: 14.12.1972

Post by Absalom »

Nah, full-private "moon safari". Unless the Chinese are actually serious about moving into space, but I think they'll have economic problems first.

Victor_D
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:46 am
Location: Czech Rep., European Union

Re: 14.12.1972

Post by Victor_D »

Absalom wrote:Nah, full-private "moon safari". Unless the Chinese are actually serious about moving into space, but I think they'll have economic problems first.
I doubt they're worse off economically than the Soviets were when they attempted to go for the Moon.

There is a space race going on in Asia. So far it has been mostly in terms of probes and satellites, but it is conceivable that China might at some point want to demonstrate its status of a rising power by sending people to the Moon, or even to Mars (much later). They have a lot of catching up to do, that's for sure, but if Apollo showed something, it's that you can land people there with 1960s-level technology.

I'd of course want us to go to the Moon for nobler/more practical reasons (to mine water at the poles and set up huge exoplanet-finding telescope arrays), but I can't exclude another "space race", this time with different actors.

Michael
Posts: 243
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 6:51 pm
Location: England

Re: 14.12.1972

Post by Michael »

Kinda wish Britain had something in the way of a space program...Then again, giving the economic sh*t going on here, we'd probably have dropped any ways
CJ Miller: How many millions must be banned before we stop having pointless arguments on the Internet?
fredgiblet: ALL OF THEM! Our banhammers will blot out the sun!
CptWinters: Then we will troll in the shade.!
Image
Image
Image

User avatar
Smithy
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 6:10 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Re: 14.12.1972

Post by Smithy »

Michael wrote:Kinda wish Britain had something in the way of a space program...Then again, giving the economic sh*t going on here, we'd probably have dropped any ways
Well Michael, as I'm sure Voctor_D can attest to, due his avatar being none other than the Reaction Engines "Skylon"

We are doing our bit too, for the advancement of Mankind to the stars!

http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20510112

Victor_D
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:46 am
Location: Czech Rep., European Union

Re: 14.12.1972

Post by Victor_D »

UK has recently established a proper space agency, though of course the funding leaves a lot to be desired. Britain is also part of ESA, which is a bit closer to a proper space programme.

Skylon would be a glorious thing, a radical shift in how we go about orbital space travel. It would probably put most commercial expendable launch vehicles out of business very soon. I really hope it will eventually be built.

User avatar
Trantor
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:52 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: 14.12.1972

Post by Trantor »

SSO doesn´t work. Ask Tsiolkowsky.
sapere aude.

User avatar
Smithy
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 6:10 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Re: 14.12.1972

Post by Smithy »

Realistically now that the pre-cooler technology has been found to be successful, they believe Skylon could enter production as early a 2020.
Trantor wrote:SSO doesn´t work. Ask Tsiolkowsky.
With that spirit, no one would ever achieve single stage to orbit.

And so far building bigger and bigger rockets has understandably failed to work. Skylon is a spaceplane, and she works. I've already cited the link to the successful pre-cooler testing last month which was the major technical barrier. Which only vindicates the ESA's position a year ago http://www.bis.gov.uk/ukspaceagency/new ... -in-skylon. I knew the Chairman of Reaction Engines Ltd, and he told me that NASA unofficially supported it as well.
Victor_D wrote:UK has recently established a proper space agency, though of course the funding leaves a lot to be desired. Britain is also part of ESA, which is a bit closer to a proper space programme.
That's correct, though our universities have always been involved for example the Huygens titan probe was a British project

User avatar
Trantor
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:52 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: 14.12.1972

Post by Trantor »

Smithy wrote:Realistically now that the pre-cooler technology has been found to be successful, they believe Skylon could enter production as early a 2020.
Trantor wrote:SSO doesn´t work. Ask Tsiolkowsky.
With that spirit, no one would ever achieve single stage to orbit.
So? Who needs SSO?
Skylon is unflexible, complicated and expensive. It will never reach it´s proposed price, and there is no market to fill a 15 ton cargobay every two days.
Smithy wrote:And so far building bigger and bigger rockets has understandably failed to work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V
Smithy wrote:Skylon is a spaceplane, and she works.
Concorde "worked", too. And she was a formidable commercial failure.
Skylon will be the next commercial failure in a long row of british wrong decisions in aero/space, starting from the Brabazon Committee, the DH 106, the TSR and so on an so on.
sapere aude.

Victor_D
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:46 am
Location: Czech Rep., European Union

Re: 14.12.1972

Post by Victor_D »

Trantor wrote:SSO doesn´t work. Ask Tsiolkowsky.
I can't, he's dead. Has been for 77 years, but by all means, he *surely* could have foreseen *all* advances in technology that would occur in the next 100 years...
Trantor wrote:So? Who needs SSO?
SSTO is a must have if you want to have a future in space for humanity. Period.
Skylon is unflexible, complicated and expensive. It will never reach it´s proposed price, and there is no market to fill a 15 ton cargobay every two days.
Says you, surely an acclaimed expert on Skylon and SSTO development...? :|

Skylon, if working as currently proposed, would be far more flexible than expendable launchers, less expensive in terms of the price of getting a kilogram to orbit than anything that's currently flying, and Skylon itself is a disruptive technology that would actually create the market it needs. I suggest that you read the economic analysis of Skylon REL has had done by an independent market analysis company. Even if basically everything went wrong in the market, Skylon would still be competitive.

Your comparison with Concorde is so off the mark that it's actually funny.

discord
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:44 am
Location: Umeå, Sweden

Re: 14.12.1972

Post by discord »

trantor: if they manage to bring the cost/kg down by 25% or more there WILL be a market, you are aware there is a waiting list to get stuff up even at current prices?

User avatar
Trantor
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:52 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: 14.12.1972

Post by Trantor »

Victor_D wrote:
Trantor wrote:SSO doesn´t work. Ask Tsiolkowsky.
I can't, he's dead. Has been for 77 years, but by all means, he *surely* could have foreseen *all* advances in technology that would occur in the next 100 years...
*sigh*
Ok, a bit more specific for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsk ... t_equation

SSTO is a dead end. A wrong answer to the question.

Victor_D wrote:
Trantor wrote:So? Who needs SSO?
SSTO is a must have if you want to have a future in space for humanity. Period.
No, flexible systems is a "must-have" to react to the specific market demands.

Victor_D wrote:
Skylon is unflexible, complicated and expensive. It will never reach it´s proposed price, and there is no market to fill a 15 ton cargobay every two days.
Says you, surely an acclaimed expert on Skylon and SSTO development...? :|
I am. Space, space flight, rockets, big projects (and their f*ck-ups...), how it REALLY works and everything related are a hobby of mine for more than three decades now.

Victor_D wrote:Skylon, if working as currently proposed, would be far more flexible than expendable launchers, less expensive in terms of the price of getting a kilogram to orbit than anything that's currently flying, and Skylon itself is a disruptive technology that would actually create the market it needs. I suggest that you read the economic analysis of Skylon REL has had done by an independent market analysis company. Even if basically everything went wrong in the market, Skylon would still be competitive.

Your comparison with Concorde is so off the mark that it's actually funny.
You don´t really understand the "space market". There is no market to fill the bays of a skylon every two days, or even every month.

For starters, different satellites need different orbits. So you would need an additional stage for your freight, which increases costs and closes the gap to a standard rocket quickly. If there will be a gap at all, which i certainly doubt.

Second, an ideal freight into orbit uses all of the capacity. But there are no 15-ton sats for LEO.
But multiple sat launches again need additional stages, see #1.

Then, launching a satellite is often a national matter. Could you imagine the Japanese, the Russians or the Germans launch their gear with your bird?
Aside them, how many nations of this world have the money for spaceflight at all? The first 25 maybe, and the most important of them have their own business.

As long as there´s no commercial goal for starting massive amounts of LEO-sats, there is no point in creating bulk cargo capacity.


And last but not least Britain really has a long history of wrong decisions and failures in technology (No wonder there´s nothing left of the empire). This skylon will be no exeption. And in 15 years maybe there will be another TV-feature with Jeremy Clarkson about a british invention that didn´t made it.
;)

discord wrote:trantor: if they manage to bring the cost/kg down by 25% or more there WILL be a market, you are aware there is a waiting list to get stuff up even at current prices?
The waiting lists are mainly because of the very specific business of space market/sat-transport, not for capacity-issues. See above.
Last edited by Trantor on Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
sapere aude.

User avatar
Smithy
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 6:10 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Re: 14.12.1972

Post by Smithy »

O ye, of little faith
Trantor wrote:Concorde "worked", too. And she was a formidable commercial failure.
US Congress had banned Concorde landings in the US only letting her land at Washington DC, and no other airport. She was limited by closed thinking, and an inability to fly the most profitable air routes, so in a way she was doomed from the beginning by direct action of the US government being afraid of the "sonic booms" despite the fact concord didn't fly super sonic over land. Not only this she had an impeccable safety record. The famous crash was caused by a huge lump of metal which had fallen from a Continental Airlines DC-10 which was found to of been serviced incorrectly. The Air france flight 447 A330-200 plunged into the sea in 2009 due to it's pitot tubes freazing over and stalling. But still their are orders for about 100 of them.

She was years ahead of her time. Concord's flight path was over our house, and she was glorious.
Saturn V is a triple stage rocket, and not reusable, as well as being hugely expensive to build and launch, coming in at $1.17 billion in today's money.
Trantor wrote:So? Who needs SSO?
Skylon is unflexible, complicated and expensive. It will never reach it´s proposed price, and there is no market to fill a 15 ton cargobay every two days.
It currently cost about $50 million and $400 million to put a satellite in orbit. Because a Skylon spaceplane can perform 200 flights, and has a projected unit cost of about £190 million. With no growth in the market the maths indicates that Skylon can put up to 15 tonne payloads (ie several satellites at once) for £5-6 million. Such as reduction in launch price, will undoubtedly increase the market size. Which could potentially push the price down considerably. Added also that satellites have a considerable wait time from manufacturing to launch due to the lengthy process of preparing a launch. Skylon would effectively undercut the entire market. But even with no market growth in the launch and service of satellites the economics of Skylon are sound.

Conventional rockets are also immensely expensive, complicated and inflexible. A reusable launch vehicle by it's definition is more flexible than a one launch rocket. Skylon is also human-rated giving the platform large potential benefits over it's more primitive rocket brethren. The technology to construct Skylon excluding the Pre-cooler heat exchangers has existed ever since Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird from 1966.
Trantor wrote:Skylon will be the next commercial failure in a long row of british wrong decisions in aero/space, starting from the Brabazon Committee, the DH 106, the TSR and so on an so on.
DH 106 was a failure in it's first few years, but it's failure meant that no jet plane would ever be built with square windows. She was the first commercial jet liner ever, and thus the most pioneering and rival manufacturers meanwhile heeded the lessons learned from the Comet while developing their own aircraft. Even so she actually flew (with oval windows) successfully for over 30 years. Not exactly a failure. The Bristol Brabazon only ever wen't too prototype but was considered to large for her time. For the BAC TSR-2 bit off more than it could chew, I'll simply leave you with this quote.

"The trouble with the TSR-2 was that it tried to combine the most advanced state of every art in every field. The aircraft firms and the RAF were trying to get the Government on the hook and understated the cost. But TSR-2 cost far more than even their private estimates, and so I have no doubt about the decision to cancel."
Denis Healey, then Minister of Defence

The British aerospace industry has been at the forefront of design for last century, so it should come as no surprise that there were a large number of failures, but every failure expands our knowledge and expertise. "A smooth sea never made a skilled sailor". Let's just list some of the British aerospace achievements.

Development and production of the first aircraft with an enclosed cabin (the Avro Type F),
The first jet aircraft to enter service for the Allies in the Second World War (the Gloster Meteor)
The first commercial jet airliner to enter service (the de Havilland Comet)
The first aircraft capable of supercruise (the English Electric Lightning)
The first supersonic commercial jet airliner to enter service (the Aérospatiale-BAC Concorde)
The first fixed-wing V/STOL combat aircraft to enter service (the Hawker Siddeley Harrier)
The first twin-engined widebody commercial jet airliner (the Airbus A300)*
The largest commercial aircraft to enter service to date (the Airbus A380)*

* Airbus UK designs and manufactures the wings of all airbuses. Airbus wing design and production was assigned to UK largely because of the advanced wing design of Hawker Siddeley Trident

---

Currently space is prohibitively expensive, using arguable the mot inefficient way of putting anything into orbit. British Aerospace has always been on the cutting edge, and Skylon is no different to that tradition.

Victor_D
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:46 am
Location: Czech Rep., European Union

Re: 14.12.1972

Post by Victor_D »

Trantor wrote:*sigh* Ok, a bit more specific for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsk ... t_equation
Oh great, this is the *first* time I hear about it :roll:
SSTO is a dead end. A wrong answer to the question.
No, it's not. Pure rocket SSTO is perfectly possible with today's tech, it just has an awfully low payload fraction to be practical.

Skylon circumvents this problem by extracting atmospheric oxygen to reach the first 1/4 of the orbital velocity, saving mass for the spaceplane's dry mass plus significant payload.
No, flexible systems is a "must-have" to react to the specific market demands.
And SSTO spaceplanes fit perfectly for that role, yes.
Victor_D wrote:I am. Space, space flight, rockets, big projects (and their f*ck-ups...), how it REALLY works and everything related are a hobby of mine for more than three decades now.
Which of course qualifies you to make dismissive comments here, got it. I guess then all the other people who are *actually working* on this are deluded fools who don't understand the problem. Why don't you send them a letter and explain to them the depth of their folly? I am sure they'd appreciate it.
You don´t really understand the "space market". There is no market to fill the bays of a skylon every two days, or even every month.
Yes, there is/will be once sufficiently cheap modes of transportation are introduced. Your argument is similar to those detracting the possibility of transoceanic passenger flights ("who would want to fly to America? Nobody would be able to afford it, and it would be dangerous and unpleasant. It's a non starter") in the early days of aviation. Nowadays they're something absolutely commonplace. It will be the same with space travel, just a bit more expensive due to the energy requirements.
For starters, different satellites need different orbits. So you would need an additional stage for your freight, which increases costs and closes the gap to a standard rocket quickly. If there will be a gap at all, which i certainly doubt.
You don't know much about SKYLON, do you? This is actually addressed by the Skylon Upper Stage, a recoverable stage that can lift the satellite from Skylon's standard low-Earth orbit (LEO) to geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) and return back to the vehicle for recovery since their orbits remain synced (I think they propose 7:1 resonance, don't remember exactly).

As for different inclinations in LEO, they're no problem for a Skylon, which can be launched in any inclination. A Skylon taking off from spaceport near the equator (such as the CSG in French Guyana) can launch a satellite to any orbit.
Second, an ideal freight into orbit uses all of the capacity. But there are no 15-ton sats for LEO.
Multiple sat launches again need additional stages, see #1.
See above. Due to the low price, it would still be profitable to launch even if the payload capacity wasn't fully used.
Then, launching a satellite is often a national matter. Could you imagine the Japanese, the Russians or the Germans launch their gear with your bird?
So, your market-based argument against Skylon has nothing to do with... markets? Thanks for clarification. Skylon is meant to be a commercial product. Other nations can buy them if they want, just as they buy Airbuses/Boeings without each developing their own airliners. The business model for Skylon is to build them for others who then operate them as they see fit for whatever purpose they wish.

Skylon would actually probably drive all low/medium-lift expendable launchers out of business (especially with little subsidy-dumping in the beginning). There would still remain a niche market for the heavy-lift vehicles (something on the order of SpaceX's Falcon Heavy and higher).
Aside them, how many nations of this world have the money for spaceflight at all? The first 25 maybe, and the most important of them have their own business.
Government-exclusive space is history, get used to it.
As long as there´s no commercial goal for starting massive amounts of LEO-sats, there is no point in creating bulk cargo capacity.
The demand for space is growing. It will explode once lower launch costs (Skylon and cheaper expendable launchers) make it affordable for a wide range of other commercial and public customers.
And last but not least Britain really has a long history of wrong decisions and failures in technology (No wonder there´s nothing left of the empire). This skylon will be no exeption. And in 15 years maybe there will be another TV-feature with Jeremy Clarkson about a british invention that didn´t made it.
;)
You have to lend me your crystal ball, I think you're not using it correctly ;)

User avatar
Trantor
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:52 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: 14.12.1972

Post by Trantor »

Smithy wrote:O ye, of little faith
Yes. Because i recognize a dreamer when i see one. That´s not meant ad hominem.

Smithy wrote:
Trantor wrote:Concorde "worked", too. And she was a formidable commercial failure.
US Congress had banned Concorde landings in the US only letting her land at Washington DC, and no other airport. She was limited by closed thinking, and an inability to fly the most profitable air routes, so in a way she was doomed from the beginning by direct action of the US government being afraid of the "sonic booms" despite the fact concord didn't fly super sonic over land.
C´mon, every Concorde-flight on approach to the US east cost was low on fuel, that´s why she always got a priority-landing. There is simply no "overland" after reaching the US and therefor no "profitable routes".

Smithy wrote:Not only this she had an impeccable safety record. The famous crash was caused by a huge lump of metal which had fallen from a Continental Airlines DC-10 which was found to of been serviced incorrectly.
No, do yourself a favour and the the BEA-report attentively. The small part of that DC-10 was only one part in the chain of errors. The F´up was bad maintenance (forgotten spacer that made the bird veer to side where the lost wear strip of the DC-10 was), bad organisation (plane was overloaded, COG was exceeded, etc) and bad airmanship (the flight engineer, who was illegally on board due to his expired medical, shut down the wrong engines).

If all, it was all Air France´s fault. Laissez Faire and technology are always on collison course.

Smithy wrote:The Air france flight 447 A330-200 plunged into the sea in 2009 due to it's pitot tubes freazing over and stalling.
Again Air France´s fault, and again bad airmanship.

Smithy wrote:Conventional rockets are also immensely expensive, complicated and inflexible.
They´re several magnitudes less complex.

Smithy wrote:A reusable launch vehicle by it's definition is more flexible than a one launch rocket.
For Joe Average maybe. Not for those who UNDERSTAND the space market.

Smithy wrote:Skylon is also human-rated
Which is unnecessary, and adds magnitudes more cost and complexity.

Smithy wrote:The first jet aircraft to enter service for the Allies in the Second World War (the Gloster Meteor)
A lame duck with the wrong tech from the start. Radial engines only serve well in turbo-props.
The Germans were right from the start with their axial-turbos.

Smithy wrote:The first commercial jet airliner to enter service (the de Havilland Comet)
..which killed over 100 people.

Smithy wrote:The first aircraft capable of supercruise (the English Electric Lightning)
Not bad for it´s time. But still outdated quickly.

Smithy wrote:The first supersonic commercial jet airliner to enter service (the Aérospatiale-BAC Concorde)
A huge commercial success... 8-)

Smithy wrote:The first fixed-wing V/STOL combat aircraft to enter service (the Hawker Siddeley Harrier)
Indeed an interesting aircraft.

Smithy wrote:The first twin-engined widebody commercial jet airliner (the Airbus A300)*
The largest commercial aircraft to enter service to date (the Airbus A380)*
C´mon. To pretend they´re british is as odd as saying they were german. :roll:
(And btw, i was part of the 380 rescue)

Smithy wrote:British Aerospace has always been on the cutting edge, and Skylon is no different to that tradition.
Yes, which means that it´ll be a commercial failure very sure. scnr.

True, british inventors were great, but where is britain now? You invented the locomotive, and today? For the 60163 Tornado you had to buy the boiler from, well, us Germans. Gosh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A1_Steam_Locomotive_Trust

Or cars. Where is the british industry today? Last time i checked, Rolls-Royce is owned by BMW. And Bentley by VW. The Mini - no successor. The new Mini? A BMW. A Golf-competition from Britain? Nope.

Computers. Colossus. A remarkable thing. Winning the war for you, saving 100000 british souls at least. Denied, forgotten, it´s inventors driven into poverty (Flowers) and suicide (Turing).

Really, you Brits have an extraordinary streak to f*** up tech. A truly sad image for an anglophile like me.




Edit: Haha, i just read the wikipediaarticle about the Loco again, and obviously some chauvinist removed the fact that the boiler is "Made in Germany". How pathetic is that?
Last edited by Trantor on Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
sapere aude.

User avatar
Trantor
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:52 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: 14.12.1972

Post by Trantor »

Victor_D wrote:
Trantor wrote:*sigh* Ok, a bit more specific for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsk ... t_equation
Oh great, this is the *first* time I hear about it :roll:
It is a difference to just look on it, or to really understand the implications.

Victor_D wrote:
SSTO is a dead end. A wrong answer to the question.
No, it's not. Pure rocket SSTO is perfectly possible with today's tech, it just has an awfully low payload fraction to be practical.
Which is why nobody uses SSTO at all.

Victor_D wrote:Skylon circumvents this problem by extracting atmospheric oxygen to reach the first 1/4 of the orbital velocity, saving mass for the spaceplane's dry mass plus significant payload.
That remains to be seen. I say it won´t work.

No, flexible systems is a "must-have" to react to the specific market demands.
And SSTO spaceplanes fit perfectly for that role, yes
Nope.

Victor_D wrote:
I am. Space, space flight, rockets, big projects (and their f*ck-ups...), how it REALLY works and everything related are a hobby of mine for more than three decades now.
Which of course qualifies you to make dismissive comments here, got it.
I also sport an engineers degree. ;)

Victor_D wrote:I guess then all the other people who are *actually working* on this are deluded fools who don't understand the problem.
Either that, or they cash in tax money from deluded fools.

Victor_D wrote:Why don't you send them a letter and explain to them the depth of their folly? I am sure they'd appreciate it.
And i´m sure they won´t. I´m experienced, i was sued for action like that before the cargolifter debacle surfaced by f*ckface von Gablenz himself.
No, i usually don´t repeat mistakes, i´d rather lean back and enjoy the show. ;)

Victor_D wrote:
You don´t really understand the "space market". There is no market to fill the bays of a skylon every two days, or even every month.
Yes, there is/will be once sufficiently cheap modes of transportation are introduced.
Uh-hu. Tell me about them.

Victor_D wrote:Your argument is similar to those detracting the possibility of transoceanic passenger flights ("who would want to fly to America? Nobody would be able to afford it, and it would be dangerous and unpleasant. It's a non starter") in the early days of aviation.
No, the "early days of aviation" were before WW2. After WW2 and the huge progress in tech it was plain to see for everyone that aviation over the pond IS the next big thing.
No point for you, sry.

Victor_D wrote:Nowadays they're something absolutely commonplace. It will be the same with space travel, just a bit more expensive due to the energy requirements.
A "bit". Let´s rather say some magnitudes.

Victor_D wrote:
For starters, different satellites need different orbits. So you would need an additional stage for your freight, which increases costs and closes the gap to a standard rocket quickly. If there will be a gap at all, which i certainly doubt.
You don't know much about SKYLON, do you? This is actually addressed by the Skylon Upper Stage, a recoverable stage that can lift the satellite from Skylon's standard low-Earth orbit (LEO) to geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) and return back to the vehicle for recovery since their orbits remain synced (I think they propose 7:1 resonance, don't remember exactly).
And with that magic carpet there´s still 15 tons payload? 8-)

Victor_D wrote:As for different inclinations in LEO, they're no problem for a Skylon, which can be launched in any inclination. A Skylon taking off from spaceport near the equator (such as the CSG in French Guyana) can launch a satellite to any orbit.
No, equatorial bases are only good for GTO, or equatorial LEO.

Victor_D wrote:So, your market-based argument against Skylon has nothing to do with... markets?
No, read again.

Victor_D wrote:Thanks for clarification.
No need to get b*tchy. ;)

Victor_D wrote:Skylon would actually probably drive all low/medium-lift expendable launchers out of business (especially with little subsidy-dumping in the beginning). There would still remain a niche market for the heavy-lift vehicles (something on the order of SpaceX's Falcon Heavy and higher).
Dream on. ;)

Victor_D wrote:
Aside them, how many nations of this world have the money for spaceflight at all? The first 25 maybe, and the most important of them have their own business.
Government-exclusive space is history, get used to it.
Sure. 8-)

Victor_D wrote:
As long as there´s no commercial goal for starting massive amounts of LEO-sats, there is no point in creating bulk cargo capacity.
The demand for space is growing. It will explode once lower launch costs (Skylon and cheaper expendable launchers) make it affordable for a wide range of other commercial and public customers.
There is no application for that magnitude of capacity.

Victor_D wrote:
And last but not least Britain really has a long history of wrong decisions and failures in technology (No wonder there´s nothing left of the empire). This skylon will be no exeption. And in 15 years maybe there will be another TV-feature with Jeremy Clarkson about a british invention that didn´t made it.
;)
You have to lend me your crystal ball, I think you're not using it correctly ;)
No crystal. Just an extrapolation. 8-)
sapere aude.

User avatar
GeoModder
Posts: 1038
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:31 pm

Re: 14.12.1972

Post by GeoModder »

Trantor wrote:For starters, different satellites need different orbits. So you would need an additional stage for your freight, which increases costs and closes the gap to a standard rocket quickly. If there will be a gap at all, which i certainly doubt.

Second, an ideal freight into orbit uses all of the capacity. But there are no 15-ton sats for LEO.
But multiple sat launches again need additional stages, see #1.
Reaching LEO is still the biggest hurdle (either technical or financial). And the free tonnage could be used for a booster to bring a payload up to the required orbit.
Trantor wrote:Then, launching a satellite is often a national matter. Could you imagine the Japanese, the Russians or the Germans launch their gear with your bird?
Aside them, how many nations of this world have the money for spaceflight at all? The first 25 maybe, and the most important of them have their own business.
There's plenty of payload crossovers already in classic rocket launches.
Trantor wrote:As long as there´s no commercial goal for starting massive amounts of LEO-sats, there is no point in creating bulk cargo capacity.
Dunno, but such a plane could be used as a cheaper and more "on the spot" vehicle to bring up spares and technicians to fix stuff in orbit (the Hubble maintenance flights come to mind).
Trantor wrote:And last but not least Britain really has a long history of wrong decisions and failures in technology (No wonder there´s nothing left of the empire). This skylon will be no exeption. And in 15 years maybe there will be another TV-feature with Jeremy Clarkson about a british invention that didn´t made it.
;)
Well, there's two British-invented technologies I could mention that made another country powerful beyond means: the steam catapult, and the canted flight deck...
Image

Post Reply