Posted on 02/01/2003 8:02:03 PM PST by Destro
Would you like to get on-board for this great business opportunity I'm working on? We're developing a disposable car; you *throw it away* after one trip. Imagine all the savings ... no oil changes, no expensive repairs, typically you don't even need to visit a gas station (we sell it with a full tank of gas). And it only costs 40% of what a reusable car costs! Amazing! We think we'll revolutionize the automotive industry. What do you think?
The only way space travel is going to become routine or efficient is through the development of reusable vehicles. The shuttle is a first-generation reusable vehicle flying 30-year-old technology that cut some questionable corners (for budgetary reasons) when it went up the first time. Like most first-generation techologies, it has quite a few problems. The solution is to develop the second-generation technology, not retreat back to a technology that is ultimately a dead end.
The Russian Soyuz vehicle is 40+ year-old technology for the most part, by the way, not at all "a generation ahead" of anything.
After all look at there last interesting aircraft.
Of course if auroa is ready to be unvieled that technology could easily be transfered to a space vehicle.
Space exploration is only possible with disposable vehicles.
I love Star Trek too, but we ain't there yet.
any other public paid for conveyance with that miserable of a safety record.
If Bush wanted a spaceplane, all we have to do is offer a 1 billion dolar bonus plus an order for 20 spaceplanes @ 300 million each.
Boeing and McDonnel-Douglas would be all over that in a heartbeat.
It's beats funding AIDS to the tune of 15 billion dollars that's for sure.
Yes. And? Claiming economy in comparison with the shuttle is like claiming compassion in comparison to Stalin.
I know the Space Shuttle looks good on a poster but it is not a good program.
Actually, it is not a good launch system. It is a jack-of-all-trades, and master of none.
I cannot imagine any private company that would attempt this for a mere 15% return on investment.
I could .... can you imagine how much other large companies would pay to have their corporate logos and flags planted on Mars??? Then think of advertising and other marketable factors of the landing / voyage et cetera.
You could also put all the spare seats up for bid .... Microsoft Computer specialist ... err .. Sun MicroSystems Computer Specialist. Exxon geologist, Proctor and Gamble biologist ... ad nauseum.
The return from the feds should be cost + 50% and NO corporate income taxes for 10 years for the companym (and employees) that does it. THAT would get results.
From autos to trains to planes, they all have one thing in common: practicality. These things were dreamed up and built by individuals to be useful.
Spacecraft are developed by government and practicality and economics are never considerations. The overall shuttle design is not a product of engineering or necessity, but politics. Once the bureaucrats were finished, they handed the engineers a list of requirements that looked like they were strung together by sugared up third graders after watching cartoons all day.
There are ways of making spaceflight safer and more economical, and that should be the goal.
"Having overcome a major engineering hurdle, local space engineers have begun designing a low-cost rocket that will launch satellites into low-Earth orbits after having been dropped from a transport plane.
Blueprints for the rocket will be completed this year and the new two-stage Polyot rocket is to be manufactured and launched into space as soon as mid-2003, said Anatoly Karpov, president of the Moscow-based Air Launch Corp.
Karpov said the corporation will charge as little as $5,000 for each kilogram of payload, just 40 percent of what Western launch companies charge.
Robert Ivanov, Air Launch`s deputy general designer, said Tuesday that designers had solved a key problem on how to drop the 100-metric-ton rocket from a transport plane.
Initially, the corporation`s engineers had planned to build an 80-ton rocket and drag it out from the hold of an An-124-100 Ruslan cargo plane using a set of special parachutes, he said at a news conference.
However, it turned out that the largest parachutes available could pull only 20 tons out of an airborne plane, the designer said. Also, the corporation decided last year to increase the lift-off weight of the rocket from 80 tons to 100 tons to boost its cost-efficiency, Ivanov said.
``We were in a dilemma of whether to use five parachutes and face the risk of them getting caughtup in each other or to find a safer way of dropping the rocket,``Ivanov said.
Rather than struggle with parachutes, the corporation chose to develop a new technology to push the rocket out of the plane, he said.
This boils down to having air pressure push the rocket out of the plane, Ivanov said. He said the rocket will be put in a special container that will be integrated into the plane.
Ivanov said air pressure will be swiftly raised inside the container to literally push the rocket out into the sky at the appropriate time. Simultaneously, the plane will reach the top of a swift upward maneuver, when gravity is minimal, to ease the dropping of the rocket, he said.
The rocket will be able to deliver a payload of up to 3 tons to polar orbits of about 200 kilometers and up to 4 tons to equatorial orbits also of about 200 kilometers. Ultimately, the rocket will also be able to launch up to 400 kilograms to geostationary orbits, Ivanov said.
Air Launch vice president Sergei Mashurov said in a recent interview that his corporation needs some $120 million to complete the Air Launch project. He said his company is negotiating with U.S., European and South Asian investors to have them shoulder the costs, but would not provide any names.
Mashurov said each Polyot launch will be priced at around $20 million with a potential demand for up to 11 launches every year. Mashurov said the costs of the project will be recovered in as little as four years if 11 launches are sold annually.
The corporation, which was set up in May 1999 by Polyot airlines and the Design Bureau of Chemical Automatics, which are both based in Voronezh, central Russia, has just sent out technical requirements to its contractors and the latter are already at work on the project, Ivanov said.
Among these contractors is rocket space corporation Energia of Korolyov, outside Moscow, which is to design and assemble the entire rocket and the launch container, Ivanov said. Energia is also to provide a low-temperature engine for the launcher's second stage, he said. The first-stage engine will be provided by the Kuznetsov Scientific Technical Complex of Samara, central Russia, Ivanov said in a telephone interview.
The Antonov design bureau of Kiev, which designed the Ruslan plane, is responsible for converting two of these cargo planes to accommodate Polyot launch containers, Ivanov said.
Also the Pilyugin Scientific Production Bureau of Automated Engineering of Moscow is designing and will manufacture control systems for the rocket, he said. TsSKB-Progress of Samara will integrate spacecraft into the rocket, Ivanov said.
Mashurov said he expects the would-be Air Launch system to win a decent share of the market for light-weight spacecraft launches. He said some 1,800 of such craft are expected to be launched between 2000 and 2015 for a total of anywhere between $10 billion to $15 billion."
(source: Moscow Times, May 24, 2000)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.