Civilian Space Flights

[Jim Thomas]

At the risk of sounding like a curmudgeon (which I probably am), I
need to ask this question:

What is the big deal about Rutan's suborbital flight? Why is this such
a history-making achievement?

The regulars on this newsgroup might recognize me from earlier posts
as a former USAF and contractor test pilot. No one appreciates the
significance (and joy) of doing something in aviation that hasn't been
done before more than I do.

That said, and given that the flight was a piece of technical
brilliance and a demonstration of courage by Mr. Melville, what was
the historic value?

It proved that private industry could put a man into space. The hype
is that this heralds the impending commercial use of space, and of
commercial space exploration. Let's put that into perspective.

First, I contend that nearly all the important explorations on earth
were financed by governments. Columbus' voyage (Queen of Spain) and
Lewis and Clark (US Government) come to mind, never mind the space
program. There doesn't seem to be anything intrinsically bad about
that. By and large, explorations and experiments that are designed to
help all mankind require more money than the commercial world can
afford. And don't necessarily generate a profit for anyone.

Second, sending a man and two dummies into a very short suborbital
trajectory is nowhere near the problem of orbiting people and their
life support systems for extended periods. Which is what commercial
space use will require. Reentry from orbit, for example, isn't even a
factor in the present programs.

Third. who will finance such things? Right now, we have, if I read the
news correctly, a $20 million investment to win a $10 million prize.
Not a great return. I contend that American businesses, being
reasonable, will not invest money without a reasonable expectation of
a profit somewhere down the line. What is the income from a
three-person ballistic trajectory? There are only so many people who
will pay several thousand dollars for such a thrill.

I would like nothing better than to see this space achievement lead to
bigger and better things. Without government money, I just don't see
it happening.

Jim Thomas

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Thomas" > wrote in message
m...
>
> At the risk of sounding like a curmudgeon (which I probably am), I
> need to ask this question:
>
> What is the big deal about Rutan's suborbital flight? Why is this such
> a history-making achievement?
>
> The regulars on this newsgroup might recognize me from earlier posts
> as a former USAF and contractor test pilot. No one appreciates the
> significance (and joy) of doing something in aviation that hasn't been
> done before more than I do.
>
> That said, and given that the flight was a piece of technical
> brilliance and a demonstration of courage by Mr. Melville, what was
> the historic value?
>
> It proved that private industry could put a man into space. The hype
> is that this heralds the impending commercial use of space, and of
> commercial space exploration. Let's put that into perspective.
>
> First, I contend that nearly all the important explorations on earth
> were financed by governments. Columbus' voyage (Queen of Spain) and
> Lewis and Clark (US Government) come to mind, never mind the space
> program. There doesn't seem to be anything intrinsically bad about
> that. By and large, explorations and experiments that are designed to
> help all mankind require more money than the commercial world can
> afford. And don't necessarily generate a profit for anyone.
>
> Second, sending a man and two dummies into a very short suborbital
> trajectory is nowhere near the problem of orbiting people and their
> life support systems for extended periods. Which is what commercial
> space use will require. Reentry from orbit, for example, isn't even a
> factor in the present programs.
>
> Third. who will finance such things? Right now, we have, if I read the
> news correctly, a $20 million investment to win a $10 million prize.
> Not a great return. I contend that American businesses, being
> reasonable, will not invest money without a reasonable expectation of
> a profit somewhere down the line. What is the income from a
> three-person ballistic trajectory? There are only so many people who
> will pay several thousand dollars for such a thrill.
>
> I would like nothing better than to see this space achievement lead to
> bigger and better things. Without government money, I just don't see
> it happening.
>

Oh oh. You're in for it now.

[QDurham]

>> I would like nothing better than to see this space achievement lead to
>> bigger and better things. Without government money, I just don't see
>> it happening.
>>
>
>Oh oh. You're in for it now.
>
Justifiably. We can go from Galileo all the way up to the Wright brothers and
Lindbergh.. essentially no gov $.

[Jim Atkins]

The point is this is the beginning of the turn away from pure exploration to
commercial exploitation. Admittedly, governments are great at supporting
exploration (see Columbus, Cook, etc.) but their record at putting resources
to work is poor compared to the private sector. Efficiency is not a concept
that comes naturally to a government bureaucrat.

The point here (to rope things back to aviation) is to get a DC-3; a
spacecraft system that can make money without subsidy. I don't think any of
the X-Prize contenders are actually going to lead directly to a viable space
transport system, but they are intended to jumpstart efforts to head in that
direction.

--
Jim Atkins
Twentynine Palms, CA USA

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-Groucho Marx

[Jim Thomas]

(QDurham) wrote in message >...
> We can go from Galileo all the way up to the Wright brothers and Lindbergh.. essentially no gov $.

True, Lindbergh and the Wright brothers got the ball rolling, but it
took government money to make more airplanes (in the case of the
Wrights). And the space mission is arguably a couple of orders of
magnitude more complex than these.

And sometimes we forget: it wasn't the government that invented the
Space Shuttle, Saturn rockets, etc: it was private industry. But it
took government money to do it.

Jim Thomas

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"QDurham" > wrote in message
...
>
> Justifiably. We can go from Galileo all the way up to the Wright
> brothers and Lindbergh.. essentially no gov $.
>

Essentially no government money in what between Galileo and the Wright
brothers?

[QDurham]

> Justifiably. We can go from Galileo all the way up to the Wright
>> brothers and Lindbergh.. essentially no gov $.
>>
>
>Essentially no government money in what between Galileo and the Wright
>brothers?
>
Almost all of the groundbreakers in most fields have done their work
independent of government $.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"QDurham" > wrote in message
...
>
> Almost all of the groundbreakers in most fields have done their work
> independent of government $.
>

Most voyages of discovery were government sponsored.

[Regnirps]

"Steven P. McNicoll"

>> Justifiably. We can go from Galileo all the way up to the Wright
>> brothers and Lindbergh.. essentially no gov $.


>Essentially no government money in what between Galileo and the Wright
>brothers?

Some researchers were subsidized, but mostly for the cost of pencils and paper,
a logarithm book (or later, a slide rule) and a computer -- in the original
meaning, someone who computes for a living. They all hired them to do
calculations and generate tables.

-- Charlie Sprinegr