http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...or_3&printer=1
This could be cool....if it worked
Printable View
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...or_3&printer=1
This could be cool....if it worked
I'm having Transformers flashbacks...
I don't think there's enough space traffic now to make it worthwhile. I think the space traffic has to come *first*, then the elevator comes along to decrease the cost, and this spurs still more space traffic.
Also, I'm not sure such a thing could be completed in fifteen years, or with the technology we have.
Highly ambitious -- maybe too ambitious.
But I thought we were already trying to decrease the cost of space traffic. Space program of the 60s was prohibitive in its costs, and I always thought the idea of a reusable orbital shuttle was, at least in part, intended to be an affordable alternative. Obviously that didn't entirely work, even though the shuttle program has had a noble history.
Additionally, I thought the whole idea behind the recent spaceplane project was to produce cheap, reliable orbital insertion options to make earthspace more accessible and more affordable. Don't really know much about the specifics, but I thought that was the logic of it all.
I really don't see how increased space traffic can be viable until skyrocketing costs can be managed. I don't know. maybe it's a "chicken vs the egg" question.
*shrugs*
Strictly Speaking
Instead of having government fund it; propose it to the private industries. If they figure it to be worthwhile (and their investors don't run for the hills) then its a go. As a taxpayer I'd be very surprised if the government could complete anything within their budget and their time constraint. Hell I also work for our government and have yet to see one project completed on time and within the budget allocated...:rolleyes:
I think private industry is the future of manned spaceflight, but I also think it'll be way more than 15 years before it becomes worthwhile for private industry...
Trouble is Private Industry will still slap such a high price tag on space traffic, in the name of the all mighty "profit"margin, "cheap" orbital insertions still won't exist. You'll still run around $20 000/ Kg. Private Industry is all about $$$, not the advancement of mankind.
15 years will put us almost at 2020, bring on Cyberpunk!!
Well, if corporations ever have the desire to explore it, they'll certainly explore options that maintain low costs on their ends. If they found it feasible to pursue, they'd be doing it for their own interests. And they'd minimize their own costs as much as possible.Quote:
Originally posted by Phantom
Trouble is Private Industry will still slap such a high price tag on space traffic, in the name of the all mighty "profit"margin, "cheap" orbital insertions still won't exist. You'll still run around $20 000/ Kg. Private Industry is all about $$$, not the advancement of mankind.
Strictly Speaking
Hmm certainly interesting but the biggest single thing which will bring down space costs is if Nasa pulls it's finger out and develops a reuseable spacecraft! Not throwing away several hundred tonnes of refined and precision engineered aluminium and titanium EVERY time you want to go to space will help allot! :)
Exactly, however, low cost on the corporate side does not mean low price for the final consumer. Just look at the pharmaceutical industry, most pills cost in the cents to produce, and yet the people who need the medication are paying in the hundreds of dollars.Quote:
Originally posted by strict31
Well, if corporations ever have the desire to explore it, they'll certainly explore options that maintain low costs on their ends. If they found it feasible to pursue, they'd be doing it for their own interests. And they'd minimize their own costs as much as possible.
Strictly Speaking
It does when there's competition. The problem is, industry isn't interested *just* in going into space. There has to be some reason to go there -- resources, tourism, whatever it might be, it doesn't exist yet.Quote:
Originally posted by Phantom
Exactly, however, low cost on the corporate side does not mean low price for the final consumer.
I *really* don't want this to become a political thread, so I will simply say that this is a more complex situation than you make it out to be, and leave it there.Quote:
Originally posted by Phantom
Just look at the pharmaceutical industry, most pills cost in the cents to produce, and yet the people who need the medication are paying in the hundreds of dollars.