Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Private Spacecraft Prospects 99

Posted by michael from the book-a-ticket-now dept.
mwallis writes "Space.com has an article on the recent Space Access conference in Scottsdale a few weeks ago. The article talks about the (slowly) emerging commercial space transportation industry with interviews and quotes from Space Access Society's Henry Vanderbilt, XCOR's Aleta Jackson, Armadillo's John Carmack and many others."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Private Spacecraft Prospects More

Private Spacecraft Prospects

Comments Filter:

  • Hrmm (Score:3, Funny)

    by acehole ( 174372 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @10:02AM (#5909740) Homepage
    He gets bonus points if he makes his space outfit one like the space marine from doom.

  • Not impressed. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by moogla ( 118134 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @10:05AM (#5909764) Homepage Journal
    Why would you want to pay to sit in low-earth orbit for (any) period of time?

    We need:

    1) High-altitude high-speed space/planes to make the 3 hour trip from Chicago O'hare to Tokyo

    or

    2) Some sort of destination for the space trip, ala the moon.

    If it's weightlessness you want, I'm sure you can buy a vomit comit for much less than funding your own rocket program.

    Now, if your enterprise is purely geared towards privatizing small-scale space work, and gaining a foothold in that area, then I have to applaud that. If we're going to have an inter-sol-system trucking company we've gotta have pioneers. ^_^

    • Re:Not impressed. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @10:12AM (#5909820) Homepage Journal

      Why would you want to pay to sit in low-earth orbit for (any) period of time?
      Because it's space, man.

      Look, of course the eventual goal is to do more practical things with the technology -- high-speed suborbital flights, orbital manufacturing, Lunar hotels, etc. But it's a big mistake to try to develop that kind of thing without taking intermediate steps.
      If we're going to have an inter-sol-system trucking company we've gotta have pioneers. ^_^
      Agreed. But before the pioneers come the trailblazers. Right now, we're still at the Lewis & Clark stage; it will be a while before we can have a Space Homestead Act.

      • Re:Not impressed. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Wyatt Earp ( 1029 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @11:16AM (#5910327)
        "Right now, we're still at the Lewis & Clark stage."

        No we aren't.

        Right now we are at the Land Bridge from Asia to America and/or the Europe to America land bridge.

        When we have 5 million people in space and getting ready to send men further we will be at the Lewis and Clark stage.
        • Actually, right now we're more at the Leif Erickson stage, or Christopher Columbus if you prefer. But without people showing that is could be done, Lewis and Clark never would have gone further. The trail still needs blazing.

    • Re:Not impressed. (Score:5, Funny)

      by DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @10:26AM (#5909930) Homepage
      You'd be shocked at the crap that tourists pay big dollars to go see. Moldy old cathedrals, collections of teddy bears and thumbtacks from the 1910s, chamber pots from dead towns, buddha statues, cable cars, mountains you can't climb but only see, sea beasts swimming around...there's no limit to the idiocy that people will spend money on. Heck, NASA in Houston is a major tourist attraction in its own right, and the thing is 100% ground-based.
      • Vomit comit for the physical thrill, and space-planes to look down upon the earth like some sort of uber-god. Tourists won't miss out...

        You can do it, it's just I think duplicating the space shuttle or repurposing it is silly.
        • Well, of course you don't want to duplicate the space shuttle. You'd have to be stupid to want to do that. It's big, clumsy, and ludicrously expensive. What these people are trying to do (in the long run; right now it's all suborbital) is to build something better than the shuttle.

    • Re:Not impressed. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jellomizer ( 103300 )
      If it's weightlessness you want, I'm sure you can buy a vomit comit for much less than funding your own rocket program.

      Some people will be willing to pay a little more so they dont crash into the floor every 30 seconds. when the plane changes direction. It would be cool to have a fiew hours of weightlessness and a full view of the earth. Uninhibited with computer graphic representation or borders lines. Or a pixaly monitor view. If it was designed right it could be a very relaxing vacation. Free from t
      • "1) High-altitude high-speed space/planes to make the 3 hour trip from Chicago O'hare to Tokyo

        And SARS III kills humanity.

        "Free from the problems of the earth, you can just flot there without stress on your body. "

        Oh God, a new fetish, more depraved that furries or adult babies! Get into zero-G, zip you up in a specially made pink rescue ball -- viola! back to the womb for adult fetus fetishistes!

    • Re:Not impressed. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Azghoul ( 25786 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @11:02AM (#5910223) Homepage
      You claim you're not impressed, but then you admit the true goal in your second-to-last sentence. Isn't the whole point of this to be ABLE, in the future, to get out of Earth's atmosphere and go somewhere else?

      These companies are setting the stepping stones that others will follow. I hope to the gods of space and exploration that they make it before I die.

      As for your point #1, apparently the "need" that exists for such a trip does not outweigh the costs to get it set up. No one wants to make the investment. What can you do, other than give it a shot yourself?

    • Re:Not impressed. (Score:5, Funny)

      by WolfWithoutAClause ( 162946 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @11:19AM (#5910351) Homepage
      Why would you want to pay to sit in low-earth orbit for (any) period of time?

      Well, I was going to say, 'great view' or 'getting my astronaut wings' or 'exclusivity' or 'bragging rights' but how about:

      zero-g sex?

      :-)

      • Well, I was going to say, 'great view' or 'getting my astronaut wings' or 'exclusivity' or 'bragging rights' but how about:

        zero-g sex?

        I think you're a lot closer than you realize... ;-)
      • From what I've heard, gravity is one of the great assistors in that particular activity. If you can finish in the few minutes of microgravity most of these flights afford, you'll have a hard time finding partners...especially with the previous issue.
    • Why do people sail around the world? Theyre just going back to the point they started from. Why do people have sailboats at all? Why does civil aviation exist? why do people go for sunday drives? Have you ever seen the earth from space, or even seen pictures of the earth from space? We happen to be sitting on the biggest tourist attraction for light years in every direction. Earth has it all, oceans, deserts,auroras, volcanos, hurricanes, and the best way to see them all is from a couple of hundred mil
    • Why would you want to pay to sit in low-earth orbit for (any) period of time?

      Ok ... if you can get to orbit in a reusable ship, you can get anywhere on Earth in under an hour flying time. Beats your desired "3 hours to Tokyo" request. And you can also refuel and go to the Moon.

      The trick is to demonstrate reliable, reusable, reasonably priced space transportation. What you do with it is up to you.

      Me? I'd like to help build the first Lunar Settlement ... but then I've known I'm "different" for a looooong

  • Times article (Score:5, Informative)

    by Xilman ( 191715 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @10:05AM (#5909766) Homepage Journal
    Another nice article can be found at The Times [timesonline.co.uk]. Unlike the NYT, this Times doesn't insist on registration.

    Paul

  • For Your Viewing Pleasure: (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 08, 2003 @10:05AM (#5909767)
    Here we are, the top 10 ways that Star Trek would change if Slashdot replaced Starfleet. 10. "Mod me up Scotty" 9. New Starship designated: NX-31337 8. The Enterprise would mistakenly re-explore the same planets every few months 7. Parts of the crew would demand to rename the ship to GNU/Enterprise 6. Every time Kirk says anything, fifty people burst onto the bridge and repeat it 5. Open Source Shields not such a good idea 4. Captain's log full of bad grammar, typos, and poor spelling 3. Battle plans now consist of highest-moderated comments by crew 2. Q would be renamed to "root" 1. Borg would cite things as being "offtopic" rather than "irrelevant"
  • Fly me to the moon... Let me pay to see the stars

  • A whole new battlefield (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TopShelf ( 92521 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @10:09AM (#5909802) Homepage Journal
    How long before cheaper access to space leads to various parties messing around with satellites that are currently in orbit? If some baddie with vast financial resources (two immediately come to mind) had the gumption, he could probably wreak havoc with commercial and military communications networks.

    • Re:A whole new battlefield (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 08, 2003 @10:13AM (#5909830)
      Good point about the satellites! If you want a good idea of just how crowded it's getting up there, check this out:
      http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/RealTime/JTrack /3d/JT rack3D.html
    • How long before NASA gets funding in order to maintain tracking private vehicels, and offering flight plans?
    • Perhaps the DOD will see this as a need and use it as an impetus to space technology.

    • Re:A whole new battlefield (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 08, 2003 @10:46AM (#5910102)
      Ummm.... you really don't need space access to mess with satellites. In fact, matching orbits etc. is a real PITA - easier to do it from the ground.

      Satellites are, in some ways, pretty fragile beasts. What do you need in the way of a concentrated radio blast to deafen a satellite? Or in the way of a laser to blind its sensors? Yes, I'm sure the military is taking these things into account, but its easier to escalate the ground-based technology than it is to retrofit something in space.

      Cheaper space access may increase the worries, but a dedicated ground-based enemy could still damage a fair chunk of your space assets fairly cheaply. Of course, they would be bombed into the stone age immediately thereafter, but the damage woudl already be done.

      • Re:A whole new battlefield (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        How hard is is really to get a 55 gal drum of bb's into orbit?
        Heck, how hard is it to build a railgun that could shoot a bb into orbit once a minute? (errr maybe once a second would be preferable. Oh wait! Just build 60 of them!!)

      • Not all satellites are owned by the USA government. What about commercial satellites, like telecommunications? How cheap would it be to damage a competitor's satellites, what are the risks of being caught, and what laws would apply?

    • And then he could demand a ransom of... one million dollars.
    • It will happen as soon as a country without any satellites develops the ability to launch them and use them as weapons. Because if a space war ever starts, basically everything gets taken out. I'm sure the US is working on electromagnetic weapons and defenses, maybe even lasers? But, if someone comes up with a good kinectic satellite weapon, all bets are off.

      Anyways, the coutries that could do something like this (US, Russia, China) will not, because they have too much too lose. Although the US uses satell

  • Need funding... go with the entertainment industry (Score:5, Interesting)

    by zakezuke ( 229119 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @10:12AM (#5909818)
    I've always felt that one aspect of the computer revolution was not so much their fuctional value, but their entertainment value. From what i've observed, a computer marketed for entertainment resulted in more sales then those marketed for trivial little tasks like word processing.

    People like my self have been waiting for years for this to happen, something out there that would generate money to advance the space program... and I think we have a winner. Not only will it fund R&D into manned space vehicels, but will renew an interest in the space program in general.

    Let's face it, the last moonshot i'm aware of was 30 years ago, and the shuttle has proven to be most inadquate for any sorta high orbit depoyment and recovery. The private sector could provide funding to make a *real* space program possible, rather like how Atari and Commodore actually got people to buy their products, cause it's fun!

    • Re: entertainment industry + space + geeks = (Score:4, Funny)

      by WegianWarrior ( 649800 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @11:06AM (#5910252) Journal

      Tonight on Scrapheap Challenge: Two teams build and launch manned suborbital capsules - from what they can find on the scrapheap!

    • Look at the people who are funding these projects - toy makers and game makers. People who are imaginative and playful.

      Look at the people who are part of the entertainment industry. Rerun, rehashes and sequels. Beyond Jim Carrey, dreadfully serious.

      I, for one, would not want space travel controlled by someone who had a contract with an RIAA or MPAA memb


    • ...a computer marketed for entertainment resulted in more sales then those marketed for trivial little tasks like word processing. ... rather like how Atari and Commodore actually got people to buy their products, cause it's fun!

      Yes, and to really drive the point home, look at how fantastically successful Atari and Commodore have been, compared to IBM and Microsoft.
      • look at how fantastically successful Atari and Commodore have been

        I am looking at how successful they *were*. In contrast to microsoft, there is NO contest... microsoft wins hands down. But Microsoft couldn't sell a home solution in 1981.

        Apple, Commodore, Atari all sold home computers pre 1985 to a world that never experenced them before. The apple till has a massive userbase, dispite being an obsolete standard, but apple still makes computers. Atari as a corp got out of the gamming business, where C

        • I am looking at how successful they *were*. In contrast to microsoft, there is NO contest

          Well, of course that's what you were talking about -- otherwise it would be just too weird. And yes, entertainment value often provides a large part of the initial impetus to get something off the ground. [*1]

          But that doesn't mean that an entertainment-oriented approach will be more sucessful in the long run than the more serious/practical type of enterprise. If your point is just that it's what will spur the initi


  • Imagine this: NY USA to Sidney Australia via Shuttle. AKA Yesterday Delivery.

    • Sydney to NY would be yesterday delivery. Silly Australians, always getting everything backwards.

      • Especially the toilet water...

        Quote from [2F13] Bart vs. Australia [snpp.com]

        -- Hello, Joker, "Bart vs. Australia"

        The room at the embassy where the family get to stay is luxurious.

        Homer: Oh, yeah, this is the life! Boy, next summer can you commit some fraud in Orlando, Florida?

        Bart: I'm way ahead of you, Dad.

        Conover: [walking in] Kno-ock! Simpsons, I'd like you to meet our ambassador, the honorable Avril Ward.

        Ward: Hello. Now, everything is all set for Bart's apology. Mr.

  • Here is an idea... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WegianWarrior ( 649800 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @10:33AM (#5909994) Journal

    I'm all for civilians building and launcing their own suborbital or orbital crafts, but it'll never recapture the thrill of the early spaceflights. Unless, off course, someone with money gets the same idea as I just got as I read the article:

    The Gusmobile, better known as Gemeni [astronautix.com], is close to the perfect 'light spaceship'. All around the Gemini was considered the ultimate 'pilot's spacecraft', and it was also popular with engineers because of its extremely light weight. It ought to be possible with todays advances in electronics and metalurgy to build a replica - or better; a fleet of replicas - that are semiautomatic and reusable. Bring back the Rogallo wing (basicly a cross between a paraglider and a hangglider) it was intended to have in the first place to fasilitate GPS guided landings on dry land. Launch it with a semi-reusable rocket (first stage reusable, possible solid, second stage disposable).

    Now here is the core of the idea; don't offer people just a ride with five or ten minutes of microgravity. Offer them some basic training to let them control the attitude of their craft during non-vital parts of the flight (vital parts should be guided by a onboard computer or from the ground), and offer them a day or a week in space. It won't be cheap, but it'll give people a change to really experience the thrill of spaceflight.

    Off course, I don't have the money to realise this idea, and it probaly ain't that original anyhow. But I'll place it in the public domain - if anyone reading this wants to do it, you have my blessing and my best wishes.

    • I don't understand why we aren't taking the Gemini and Apollo and Agena systems, retrofitting the designs with modern electronics and using those for trips to ISS or for supply up there.

      STS has a place and a use, but it's not being a Space Taxi.

      • Re:Here is an idea... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by JimPooley ( 150814 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @11:30AM (#5910455) Homepage
        I don't understand why we aren't taking the Gemini and Apollo and Agena systems, retrofitting the designs with modern electronics and using those for trips to ISS or for supply up there.

        Ahem [spaceref.com].That's what NASA are doing. They've been evaluating bringing back Apollo capsules, firstly a modified version to act as a lifeboat for the ISS, but then going on to use them to deliver astronauts to the ISS.
        A panel investigated this in March and decided the idea had several merits, being cheaper than developing a new winged vehicle, and using tried and tested design.

        (Not to mention I submitted this very news story to Slashdot a few days ago and it was rejected...)
        • Thanks for the info, that is great.

          Apollo Command Module and Service Module would be great for this.

          Is the Apollo Landing Module next to come out of the garage?
    • Maybe. Lighter materials (to some extent; they had the budget back then to use expensive stuff), lighter electronics, most importantly lighter batteries. That might free up some room for people to move around a little; those capsules were cramped. Simpler mechanisms all around; no spacewalks needed.

      I'm not so sure about the wing, though; chutes are cheap, dumb, and reliable, and known to work. My ex-NASA buddy tells me the wing wasn't accurate enough to land on a specified bit of real estate, so they just

    • Accually that could be a good ideal for a fairy craft of course the new gemni would have to have a prseeurised docking setup which would make it a cross with apollo. I bet the apollo would be dirt cheap to build toowith todays technology. another good ideal would be to add an apollo modified for 6 crew mebers as the emergacy return craft
  • to Howard Carmack? Privately organized space travel funded by spam revenue...too...conflicted...must...speak...with.. .dramatic...laboured..words

  • main contender in the uk (Score:3, Informative)

    by orbitalia ( 470425 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @11:06AM (#5910253) Homepage
    For those interested check out the UKs main contender for the x-prize here [starchaser.co.uk]
    the general opinion seems to be that steve bennett actually tries to shoot himself up into space on the top of one of his rockets it'll be the last we hear from him...

    • That's a trifle unfair, apparently 14 out of 16 of his tests have been successful, and he recently tested a very respectable large liquid fuelled rocket engine.

      Whilst he did seem a bit naive when he started, he certainly seems to be learning, and like any of the groups trying to do this stuff, he may well succeed at not dying.

  • Plan Ahead (Score:5, Funny)

    by SEWilco ( 27983 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @11:20AM (#5910366) Journal
    That's all well and good, but can they schedule the Conference in 2020 to be in Luna City?

  • Carmack's Version will never fly (Score:3, Funny)

    by cordsie ( 565171 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @12:06PM (#5910800)
    Of course, Caramck's version will involve a device whereby you point the launcher at the ground and fire to propel yourself into upper orbit. It'll never quite work the way you'd think. Fair play for trying, though.

  • Adventure Markets and Their Limits (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Baldrson ( 78598 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @12:13PM (#5910866) Homepage Journal
    In order for privately capitalized launch services to work, there needs to be market support. Presently asset ownership is so centralized that the market is being reduced to servicing those who hold net assets. What could the few people who have all the net assets want? An obvious answer is adventure. I think this is the source of the predominance of talk of "space tourism" as a driver of capitalization of entrepreneurial space ventures.

    However there is an especially insidious reason to believe this market will be quite limited this time around, compared even to the depression of the 1930's, and that is the nature of the individuals in whose hands the net assets are concentrated.

    When Greenspan decided to depart from his gold standard by keeping interest rates high relative to gold during the crash [capmag.com] he in effect decided to concentrate net asset ownership [clanarchy.com] in the hands of people who don't necessarily have the best of characters [geocities.com] -- indeed they are far from the ideal of heroic capitalists [gold-eagle.com] so promoted by Alan Greenspan himself when he was a devotee of Ayn Rand's [usagold.com].

    As I stated in a white paper posted to sci.space in 1992 [geocities.com] (resulting from having spent a few years doing politics in Washington to promote commercial incentives for space launch companies [geocities.com]):

    Just as important, capital welfare severely distorts the
    optimization of asset ownership in society by placing, as a
    matter of public policy, ever more assets under the control of
    those who already have the most assets. Capitalism expresses its
    worst potentials when capital welfare debilitates the character
    of the wealthy while it gives them ever more economic authority.
    This asset centralization impoverishes the population at large,
    ending with a collapse in consumer demand. Supply-side theory
    fails to predict this collapse because it fails to deal with the
    fact that the wealthy are just as prone to character erosion by
    welfare as are the poor. It is even more destructive than
    welfare for the poor because it corrupts the decision makers in
    the economy. In the face of collapsing consumer demand and
    capital welfare, acquisition of more capital assets is promoted
    over the productive use or investment of those assets.

    Political rhetoric defining "the rich" or "the wealthy" as those
    with high levels of income or capital appreciation, focuses
    public sentiment against the most productive members of society
    and away from the centralization of net assets as the underlying
    problem.

    The incentive for productivity in the economy, left after the
    disincentives of capital welfare are subtracted, is the long-term
    economic growth rate minus the interest rate on the national
    debt. When the interest rate being paid on the national debt
    equals the growth rate of the economy, the fruits of all
    productivity are being confiscated to pay capital welfare and the
    incentives for productive investment and labor disappear. When
    the incentives for productivity become negative due to capital
    welfare in excess of the economic growth rate, wealth is
    structurally centralized at the expense of others in the economy.
    The absolute level of net assets owned by the general population
    actually decreases so as to increase the net assets of the
    wealthy. This not only removes all incentives for production and
    entrepreneurial investment from the economy, but consumer demand
    collapses as credit is liquidated to pay for necessities.
    Depression ensues. It is under these circumstances that demands
    for socialist intervention in the economy via "pub

    • ..that all these capitalists seem to actually be putting their money where their mouth is.

      Could it be that "capitalists" are people like just anybody else, and they are as prone as anybody to love adventure and new frontiers? Seems so to me.

      Oh and btw, asset centralization is bunk - these new space entrepreneurs are very blatantly CREATING assets, namely suborbital hoppers, that simply would not exist otherwise. Capitalism isn't a zero-sum-game of money accumulation, but rather consists of creating wealth
      • all these capitalists seem to actually be putting their money where their mouth is.

        The fact that the current economic environment has not eliminated all capitalists of virtue is obviously a subtext although hardly to the point. They just need to be more realistic. I'm afraid a realistic appraisal of their markets is hard to do for the obvious reason that money is going to be part of their ego structure and it simply isn't true that all money is equal.

    • After reading this last post, it got me to wondering [livingreflections.com] that if I make a post [yahoo.com] in slashdot [slashdot.org] with lots of random random [google.com] references and questionable assertions [nationalenquirer.com] will I get moded [slashdot.org] up because it looks like I am smart [mensa.org]?
  • i hope someone will be setting up a affordable space transport program soon.
    I wodent mind being one of the first ones to live on the moon ( i dont care what kind of work it wood involve, im gonna get there if it kills me in the proses)

  • Space Mutual funds (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bigattichouse ( 527527 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @03:17PM (#5912540) Homepage
    I want to see various space mutual funds, of various "riskiness", attached to all these little companies... I'd like to put a few dollars on the line to further such concepts.
    • I want to see various space mutual funds

      Well, that's a nice idea, but how many investors do you think would buy these shares to finance projects so extremely risky for returns? How long before there could be reasonable assessments of which projects had potential? Would there be enough money to go around? Which projects should get funded and which left to wither?

  • Conference Itself Had a Different Focus (Score:4, Informative)

    by HopeOS ( 74340 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @04:01PM (#5913063)
    Having attended the conference, I'd like to add a couple points.

    Few people who presented at the conference have any doubt that they will be able to obtain their objectives. Many pointed out that financing is a hassle, but the single obstacle that everyone had collectively in mind was that of FAA licensing. No license, no launch. Period.

    It does not matter if you launch from Florida, the ocean, or Australia. If you are a U.S. citizen, you must obtain a launch license from the FAA. Failure do so will land you fines and probably even jail time.

    Now the good news. Obtaining a license is less complicated than many of us previously believed. As of yet, no licenses have been granted for civialian, manned, suborbital flights. XCOR is in the queue and pushing heavily; I believe that they will likely be the first to receive one, and more power to them. Meanwhile, groups like Armadillo Aerospace have recently begun the process, and I expect that they will be able to draft behind XCOR through the obvious portions of the licensing procedure.

    The FAA itself has over 80 people dedicated to making civilian space access work. The delay is in determining how to properly balance the needs of the budding civilian space industry with the very serious safety needs of the people living down-range. This is very uncharted territory, and the FAA (AST) [faa.gov] is no hurry to reach any conclusions. The policy is literally being formed as the applicants complete the process since the laws as specified are not sufficiently complete. Anyone wishing to be part of this process is encouraged to attend the COMSTAC meeting on May 21st. [faa.gov] This is effectively a town-meeting for civilian space access.

    The real bottleneck is the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). All the groups who are seeking launch licenses are being held up on environmental impact issues. Plus, where you launch from will ultimately determine when you launch since the environmental impact studies for some sites are not complete. Launching from White Sands would be preferable to the Oklahoma "spaceport" as the White Sands studies were completed years ago.

    If anyone has any questions about the conference, I'd be happy to reply them. Overall, I think many of the people at the conference will either die in the process or entirely fail to get off the ground. Someone will succeeded however and in a couple years, probably even me.


    -HopeOS

  • idea: one-way tourism (Score:3, Funny)

    by axxackall ( 579006 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @05:43PM (#5914088) Homepage Journal
    Most of people want to live. Many would like to live even forver. But some of want to die having various reasons for that. In many countries it's illegal to help people to die. But it doesn't stop some inventors to invent suicide plastic bags specially for such cases.

    Well, while mid-class people buy guns or special plastic bags (poor people use bridges and other free-of-charge methods), top class people look for something that can satisfy their ambitions at last seconds or minutes. But how about days or weeks or even months?

    Eject such guys to the orbit or to the moon, where they can enjoy their last days-weeks-months before they are running of money and air. Or they fail down to burn in the athmosphere. Or just fail down and crash to the moon. I thing many multi rich people would like to enjoy such an end. People, who are still alive, will enjoy they payment. So, everybody would be happy.

    ... I think I should patent the idea ... or at least GPL it :)

  • US Comerce Dept. Report on Private Suborbitals (Score:3, Informative)

    by Thag ( 8436 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @06:44PM (#5914614) Homepage
    The US Commerce Department released an interesting report on private suborbital development. [doc.gov] It's a little out of date now (doesn't mention Rutan's SS1, which is now an X-Prize front-runner), but is still an interesting read.

    Jon Acheson
  • I'm supprised noone has wanted to partener with the russian and restart the MAKS program. The russians had a project for a mini shuttle that would easily fill the needs for sending crew to ISS and space tourism rides. Basicly the craft was a blended wing design that used an antov 124 cargo plane to carry it to 45,000 feet and 500mph. It then would burn fuel in a large drop tank first lox and kerosene and then switch to lox hydrogen with it's tripellant engines. The orbiter had a crew of two and could carry

Slashdot Top Deals

It is not every question that deserves an answer. -- Publilius Syrus

Close