Hi dear friends,

I would like to ask some question. I have no doubt that scramjets,
dual engines, or some other more exotic tecnology will succeed. The
question is: when?

Do you believe that the American prize will push the things to the
point some really practical technology would appear?

I'm starting to get worried about developing. Imagine: in just 20
years the planes evolved from a fragile bycicle based artifact to
reliable planes. And in only 20 years since the V1 the man reached
the Moon. And now it has passed 35 years !!! since that brilliant
moment and nothing new had happened at all. What's going on?

Are the Americans going to wait for the Chinese to get rich and do
the job for them, next century :)

Regards,

Omar Vega

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "ANTIcarrot"
wrote:
> > From: Ian Woollard [mailto:ian.woollard@g...]
> > > > The [...] hybrid propulsion SpaceShipOne [...]
>
> > Check out the Skylon design. Orbital RLV with a hybrid engine.
>
> Sorry, should have used a more specific term than hybrid. ;) Skylon
does not
> use a misture of liquid oxidiser and solid fuel, like SS1 does.
Other forms
> of hybrid (ram/scram engines, dual-fuel rocket engines) could reach
orbit,
> but I've yet to see one that uses SS1's method of propulsion. ^.^
>
> > From: Xenophile [mailto:xenophile2002@y...]
>
> > That sounds rather defeatist. However, I note
> > the winking smiley, so perhaps you don't
> > really mean it.
>
> High speed in the air means high speed on the ground during take
off and
> landings, because with thin supersonic wings an aircraft cannot
control
> itself well or generate a safe level of lift at low speeds. This
puts more
> strain on the wheels and is just another reason why no one wants to
build
> another concorde. Let alone something that goes faster! ;)
>
> It might be worth noting that the orrigonal HOTOL design used a
rocket
> trolly for launch, because making the landing gear large enough for
take off
> killed the cargo capacity. I think this was a function of the
unusual intake
> more than anything else, as Skylon doesn't have this probem - but
it still

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Omar E. Vega" wrote:

> I'm starting to get worried about developing. Imagine: in just 20
> years the planes evolved from a fragile bycicle based artifact to
> reliable planes. And in only 20 years since the V1 the man reached
> the Moon. And now it has passed 35 years !!! since that brilliant
> moment and nothing new had happened at all. What's going on?

My 2 cents: low hanging fruit. As we endeavor to scale more ambitious
heights, so to speak, the physics becomes more demanding. With more
demanding physics, usually we're looking at more money, and then we
need to analyze the marginal benefit gained from spending the money.
Usually it doesn't make sense so efforts are directed at the easier
task - squeezing more performance from mature technology.

Look we're still using the internal combustion engine but today it is
much more efficient than generations ago. Same with aircraft.

Minimal technology is all that is required to get a job done. Only if
it adds value will new technologies be developed. The basic principles
of rocketry were cheaper and easier to figure out, the low hanging
fruit, than boosting ISP, composite construction, SSTO, VTOL, etc.
These breakthroughs will come at a higher cost.

Anyways, that what I think is going on.

TangoMan

"Omar E. Vega" wrote:

>I'm starting to get worried about developing. Imagine: in just 20
years the planes evolved from a fragile bycicle based artifact to
reliable planes. And in only 20 years since the V1 the man reached
the Moon. And now it has passed 35 years !!! since that brilliant
moment and nothing new had happened at all. What's going on?

Science and technology fuel our economy, but the numbers of young people
interested in studying science in America is in sharp decline.

>Are the Americans going to wait for the Chinese to get rich and do
the job for them, next century :)

Yes, I'm afraid so.