The "REAL" X-Prize - Or how commercial manned space in possible within our lifetimes.

On 22 Oct 2003 22:07:19 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(garfangle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

I am not saying that innovation has to just come from government
contracts. What I mean is that dupicating what has already been
proven and done seems to me a waste of time and money.

Then what you mean is that you don't have any concept of the problem
of access to space. The issue is not whether or not we can do
suborbital hops. The issue is whether or not we can do them in a
repeatable, affordable (to a non-government) manner.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

(garfangle) wrote in message . com...

I am not saying that innovation has to just come from government
contracts. What I mean is that dupicating what has already been
proven and done seems to me a waste of time and money. We do not need
to confirm that rockets can lift people into suborbital space, at
whatever price point you are looking at, because it has already been
accomplished 40 years ago.

You're dismissing the price as of no consequence. I take it you have
no interest in actually going to space yourself. That, or you have $20
mil burning a hole in your pocket.

Now, if the X-Prize was for some unique
effort, like developing composites for a "space elevator" then that
would be worth while, as it would be cutting edge and novel.

So being 'cutting edge' and 'novel' is what makes a thing worthwhile?
What do you do for a living, buy modern art?

least have to deal with them. If the government decides to 'outlast
them,' odds are the squatters will happily set up camp and start
mining whatever resource they want, and then sell it, government
notwithstanding.

How can a handful of colonists assert any authority/independence when
they'd be completely dependent on Earth for the foreseeable future?

That's a pretty unlikely situation...but it sounds like a great book
idea! Thanks!

(How can a handful of colonists assert any authority/independence when
they'd be completely dependent on mother England for the forseeable
future?)
I want to get to space as much as you do, just I think there is a more
efficacous plan.

That efficacous plan being . . ?

Check out my original post.

Your 'efficacious plan' is to rewrite the Outer Space treaty?
Hahahaha. That's a meaningless document that no one uses anyway. It
was a political goodwill gesture when it was written and it's an
obscure footnote right now anyway. Even more defuct than Kyoto or the
ABM treaty.

Here's mine.
Personally I prefer the government to "open" new areas like Mars,
Moon, asteroids, etc.

How is compatible with the X-prize?
Keep the government focused on areas beyond LEO. That leaves a lot of
room for private industry, at least for the forseeable future.

My arguement is not that individuals can't pursue what the X-prize
represents. Whatever floats your boat. I am just making the analysis
that there might be a more fruitful approach to space exploration
That depends on what fruit you're trying to grow. From here it looks
like maybe squash. I think most people want space to be the eventual
opening of a frontier, not the exploration and leaving alone of a new
frontier.

Tom Merkle

Rand Simberg wrote:

On 22 Oct 2003 22:07:19 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(garfangle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

I am not saying that innovation has to just come from government
contracts. What I mean is that dupicating what has already been
proven and done seems to me a waste of time and money.

Then what you mean is that you don't have any concept of the problem
of access to space. The issue is not whether or not we can do
suborbital hops. The issue is whether or not we can do them in a
repeatable, affordable (to a non-government) manner.

It isn't clear to me that an X-Prize winner will demonstrate that we
can do suborbital hops in a repeatable, affordable manner. However,
it should be a step on the way.

Mike Walsh

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 17:50:04 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael
Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Then what you mean is that you don't have any concept of the problem
of access to space. The issue is not whether or not we can do
suborbital hops. The issue is whether or not we can do them in a
repeatable, affordable (to a non-government) manner.

It isn't clear to me that an X-Prize winner will demonstrate that we
can do suborbital hops in a repeatable, affordable manner. However,
it should be a step on the way.

It has to at least be repeatable, or they won't be an X-Prize winner
by definition...

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 17:50:04 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael
Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Then what you mean is that you don't have any concept of the problem
of access to space. The issue is not whether or not we can do
suborbital hops. The issue is whether or not we can do them in a
repeatable, affordable (to a non-government) manner.

It isn't clear to me that an X-Prize winner will demonstrate that we
can do suborbital hops in a repeatable, affordable manner. However,
it should be a step on the way.

It has to at least be repeatable, or they won't be an X-Prize winner
by definition...

Quite true. I should have paired repeatable and affordable more
clearly. There is also the matter of practical usability as a test
vehicle that demonstrates taking 3 (or equivalent of 3) people up
and back twice in two weeks does not necessarily indicate
economic viability.

However, it should be a step on the way.

Mike Walsh

On 23 Oct 2003 06:10:55 -0700, (Tom Merkle) wrote:

Your 'efficacious plan' is to rewrite the Outer Space treaty?
Hahahaha. That's a meaningless document that no one uses anyway. It
was a political goodwill gesture when it was written and it's an
obscure footnote right now anyway. Even more defuct than Kyoto or the
ABM treaty.

Sadly, this is not so. The U.S. signed the Outer Space Treaty, the
U.S. Senate ratified it, and it is very much in force. The State
Department recently pointed to the Outer Space Treaty in rejecting a
claim on 433 Eros (some guy sent NASA a $20 invoice for 100 years
storage of NEAR-Shoemaker, and NASA and State had to formally
respond).

-R

--
Tip Of The Day:
Never Pet A Burning Dog.
--Lance M. Bryant, Capt USMC