TGD(ver 1.0) Waste of Time

Hi Al,

The reason Ariane is expensive is that it is basically a pre-shuttle
vehicle based on the old UK Bluestreak of the 60s souped up several
times since. A number of the early versions were flying in the 70s
before you guys even got to the Shuttle. The vehicles I was talking
about were designed in the 80s. It is your theory that doesn't fit the
data.

You say, "Any number of people have made these kinds of claims in the
past. Some of them with no connection to the US. None have produced."
I've just told you why those developed over here were not produced. The
URL NASA told you is Professor Patrick Collins' site.

You say, "NASA has not yet figured out that space tourism is a really
good thing." That is in direct contradiction of their report. You also
say, "Yelling and screaming at them may or may not get you what you
want." (1) I am not yelling and screaming at NASA, just pointing out
that they have been economical with their own truth. (2) Even if I did
yell and scream at NASA, I would never expect it to get me anything I
want. It is not NASA's job to provide me, as a UK citizen, with anything
I or anybody else over here may or may not wish for. That is the job of
the BNSC - the British National Space Centre, the UK NASA-equivalent
that has never put a penny into any kind of launch development
whatsoever. You also say, "Letting your representatives know that space
tourism is important and you want it may be useful. The congressman I
talked to had never even heard of the concept." As I have now been a
space activist for 45 years I think those UK politicians with an
interest in space are well aware of my views. Those who don't won't of
course, but you cannot expect everyone to be interested in everything,
and even politicians are human, some into one thing and others into
another.

You say, "Working hardware in this business (human space flight) is made
by large teams of extremely high-quality engineers with very rigorous
quality-control. It's not a personal-computer in the garage kind of
business." - When David Ashford designed 'Spacebus' he had just
completed work with the Concorde team and was still working for British
Aerospace - but then perhaps you regard them as "a personal-computer in
the garage kind of business."

You go on, "I would love to fund every crazy idea out there, and I think
we have the money to do it, but institutionally, NASA will have a hard
time handing out $100 million or so to small time launch vehicle
people." Nobody here is looking for any money from NASA - not one penny!
What I am after is a change of attitude to manned spaceflight by the UK
Government. Right now they don't put a penny into ESA's manned space
program nor into any non-military launch development. I want that to
change. As far as I understand it NASA is on my side in this. They also
want that to change.

Best wishes, Andy Nimmo.

Al Globus wrote:

>
> andy-nimmo wrote:
>
> > Hi Al,
> >
> > The price of launch has risen because US politicians wanted it to do
>
> > so. They wanted it because it kept their voters in this State or
> that
> > in jobs - and to hell with the rest of the world - or at least that
> is
> > how it has seemed over here.
> >
> Then explain why the European Araine launch vehicle, which has about
> half of the market, is comparably priced. Even the Russian and
> Chinese
> launchers, while cheaper, are not ten times cheaper. Furthermore,
> this
> is probably because you can get excellent Russian and Ukrainian rocket
>
> engineers for a few thousand dollars year. That won't last forever.
> Your theory doesn't fit the data.
>
> The U.S. did make a huge mistake by mandating the shuttle as the sole
> launcher in the '80s. That's one major reason the Europeans have
> about
> half the commercial launch market today.
>
> > Other people in other lands had plans for cheaper launchers that
> they
> > were not permitted to develop due to US pressure on their
> governments
> > that this should not be permitted to happen. I know of one
> particular
> > vehicle using what was off-the-shelf tech then that could have been
> > developed 15 years ago but was not, just for that reason. If David
> > Ashford's 'Spacebus' had been given proper backing (2 billion -
> about
> > the same as Concorde {which he helped design}) when he designed it
> and
> > asked for support back in 1986, in 10 years we would have had a
> fleet
> > of 72 of these. By 1996 we would have had space hotels already up
> > there. Had it been developed in the way planned, it would presently
> > cost $10,000 per head to put a man in space for a week and space
> > tourism would already be up there and running.
>
> Any number of people have made these kinds of claims in the past.
> Some
> of them with no connection to the US. None have produced. This sort
> of
> behavior is not confined to space launch, you see it in the commercial
>
> and government world all the time. Note that even the Chinese
> launchers
> aren't all that cheap.
>
> > NASA claims it supports space tourism, but has failed to publish its
>
> > own report on the subject.
>
> You can find that report at
>
> ttp://www.spacefuture.com/archive/general_public_space_travel_and_tourism.shtml.
>
> There's a link from http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/, a
> site I'm closely connected with. When I asked the NASA Ames librarian
>
> for this report, she provided me with these URLs and a hard copy.
>
> > Indeed, had it not been for economics Professor Patrick Collins -
> who
> > works for NASDA in Japan, we wouldn't even know about that report.
> It
> > said space tourism could start any day and would become an enormous
> > space business.
>
> What *can* start today, according to the report, is space related
> tourism: theme parks, flights in a vomit comet (which are available
> today), training at Star city (which is available today), and
> extremely
> high and tourism such as Dennis Tito -- who has a good chance of
> flying
> in October.
> .
> NASA has not yet figured out that space tourism is a really good
> thing.
> Yelling and screaming at them may or may not get you what you want.
> Letting your representatives know that space tourism is important and
> you want it may be useful. The congressman I talked to had never even
>
> heard of the concept. Space tourism is popular with the general
> public.
> Space colonization is not. I think that space tourism is by far our
> best bet, but implementation will require reliable, inexpensive
> launchers -- hardware, not promises and paper. Working hardware in
> this
> business (human space flight) is made by large teams of extremely
> high-quality engineers with very rigorous quality-control. It's not a
>
> personal-computer in the garage kind of business.
>
> I would love to fund every crazy idea out there, and I think we have
> the
> money to do it, but institutionally, NASA will have a hard time
> handing
> out $100 million or so to small time launch vehicle people. NASA
> intends to spend the few billion dollars over the next three years
> developing new launchers. Most of that will probably go to the big
> aerospace corporations, but there is a new administration in the White
>
> House and there's a window of opportunity to make some changes.
>
> --
> Al Globus
> aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
> http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
>
> The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an
> accident.
> Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.
>
> I think we should:
>
> 1. Devote half of NASA's budget ($7 billion) to reaching NASA's 2020
> goal of
> reducing launch costs to Low-Earth-Orbit to $220/kg with a 0.01%
> failure
> rate.
> This should enable space tourism. The resulting orbital hotels will
> need
> to
> develop efficient orbital life support and other necessary
> technologies.
>
> 2. Build orbital space colonies. The materials in the largest asteroid
>
> are
> sufficient for orbital colonies with a combined surface area about 500
>
> times
> greater than Earth's. Eros alone could make over ten thousand space
> colonies,
> each with about about 10 square kilometers of 1g living area.
>
> 3. After a few generations of orbital living, people won't need their
> colony
> to be near Sol. Then small groups of colonies with populations in the
> tens-of-thousands can set out on multi-decade journeys to nearby
> stars.
>
> Except the launch goals, none of this is even a little bit official.
>
[www.debticated.com]