Lucrative liftoffs lined up

Danny, Dallas, TX — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 05:36:42 GMT

Actually Pixel will be used for the Level 2 contest since it has more fuel capacity. The new MOD vehicle will be used in the Level 1 contest since in only has to stay aloft for 90 seconds.

Lucrative liftoffs lined up

Alan Boyle — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 06:18:39 GMT

Thanks, Danny, I did type that wrong ... missed that in all the back and forth over Pixel, Texel and the Modules. I've corrected the reference in the item above. Sorry about the mistake.

Addendum / erratum: I also bungled a reference to the Quad's thruster system. Four tanks, plus attitude control jets, but one engine and not four thrusters. Other folks called me on it in comments added below.

Lucrative liftoffs lined up

Dr. W, Orbis Tertius — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:46:27 GMT

I'm all in favor of stepping up robotic space exploration, despite a nostalgia for the "old" dream of doing it with manned ships. Robots are cheaper, since (as a source in one of your earlier articles pointed out) robots don't care whether they return from a mission. On the other hand, excluding humans from space exploration (ex-cept as Earth-based engineers and programmers), removes all the heroism associated with the enterprise.

As for the tethers for those robotic "space elevators," they would not only have to be incredibly long, but incredibly strong, too. What would they be made of? Titanium or some other hard metal (which are expensive, and would also have to be sent up as a payload) or some kind of plastic/synthetic composite (which probably would be less expensive and easier to transport, but would probably not be as durable? Also, how would the robotic cargoes be "loaded"? Would both ends of the tether have to be secured, from an orbiter to the surface? How could that be done?

As for the automated vehicles idea, I'm leery of it, though it's been around in fiction for quite a while (Heinlein and Niven come to mind). To make automated cars a reality on a large scale, the system would have to be almost 100% fool-proof, otherwise few people would accept it. For one thing, driving is one of the individual freedoms all Americans look forward to and enjoy. For another, I'd think most people would rather risk being injured or killed and have some control over a car than take the same risks and have no control. Of course, millions of people fly in air-planes each year, so maybe I'm wrong. I just don't like it when anybody else is driv-ing or piloting except me. At least on an airliner, you know there's a real pilot at the controls, not just some computer (which, like the robot space explorers men-tioned above) couldn't care less whether its passengers arrive at their destination in one piece.

Lucrative liftoffs lined up

Daniel — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:12:21 GMT

One further correction concerning Pixel. It is a Quad-tank design not a "quadruple-thruster". There is but one main truster. The four cold gas attitude control jets don't count either.

Lucrative liftoffs lined up

mthomas — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:47:06 GMT

If humans are ever to survive we had better start exploring other planets and the solar system NOW !

But with today's lame propulsion technology I wouldn't build your hopes and it seems as the people in space research as well as private companies just dont get it.

Here is a propulsion technology that will save mankind.

http://nlspropulsion.net

enjoy

Lucrative liftoffs lined up

Wayne, Alamogordo, NM — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:46:38 GMT

It's encouraging to see the level of commitment these groups have in their participation in all the different advance technology contests. Private industry is going to be what gets our space program back on line. China, Russia, Japan, India, and other space race countries don't have the private sector backing that we have here in the US to support their space programs. As we slowly shift to more corporate funding versus whole-sale government funding of space programs, I think, in the long-term, we will come out on top as the dominate player in near-orbit space operations and far-reaching space exploration. For those countries that choose to work with us as a team, they'll reap the benefits as well. For those that don't, I believe that their government funded space programs won't be able to keep up the pace they are currently going. The thing to remember about a space race is that it's not important who's currently ahead, it's who can make it to the finish line.

Lucrative liftoffs lined up

Bill Hensley — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:14:18 GMT

Alan, I believe Pixel has four tanks but only one engine.

Lucrative liftoffs lined up

steve smyth lynn ma — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:47:31 GMT

here's the solution...
http://www.smythspace.tv/howto.html
it has more to do with Humanity's hopes and dreams than it does with NASA's plans...but, they could help if they chose...the more the merrier...
less than a million $, if NASA will provide the ride as a gesture of good will...it will cost them absolutely zero...when's the last time they had an offer like that...?

Lucrative liftoffs lined up

Todd, Billerica, MA — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:30:24 GMT

Steve Smyth...What does a cheap foam satelite have to do with the future or developing new technology to get us there?

As far as the Lunar Lander Challenge, I hope Armadillo can make it happen this year.

Lucrative liftoffs lined up

steve smyth lynn ma — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:18:00 GMT

Todd...you make it sound kinda cheesy...don't you think that garnering NASA's assistance in projecting a ray of hope would be a boon to makind?
Besides, even if it is a cheap, cheesy, logo plastered, foam satellite, there ain't no other ones like it...kind of a sculpture in space...a landmark...a beacon...a roadside attraction...good for the tourist trade...like the golden arches...what have you...
Also, if you'd read the rest of the website, you'd see that the pic is just one possible configuration...and...repeat...and...the vehicle can return to Earth without ablative or dissipative damage...don't you think that might be worthwhile?
Thank you for your interest...
Steve

Lucrative liftoffs lined up

Todd, Billerica, MA — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:05:22 GMT

Steve,

I applaud your thinking, but your comments sound like you suggest that you believe your way is the only way.

Lend some constructive and appreciative comments to those other ideas that are being worked on. Like Armidillo's lander and the hard work and innovative thinking they have put into it, Like Bigelow's inflatable modules that may have originated from NASA but they have made many modifications and have many patents from their own hard work.

Lucrative liftoffs lined up

steve smyth lynn ma — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:19:08 GMT

again, Todd...you need to catch up here...when Bigelow first announced, I suggested an inflatable version of Gaia Two be launched like a Givens Life Buoy...the fabric would be coated on the inside with a catalyzed resin, which would cure when the action of the balloon popping open in the vacuum of space initiates the process...again...the vehicle could be recovered...nobody else has even come close to that... Branson's returnable whirlygig is a high flying aircraft...not a spacecraft. [...]

Lucrative liftoffs lined up

Todd, Billerica, MA — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:47:41 GMT

Again. An all me kinda statement. I think I have ascertained what you are. (Place my own add here and put up my blinders)