ISLAND ONE, a prime time family sitcom set on the High Frontier

--- In spacesettlers, Lucio de Souza Coelho wrote:

> Xenophile wrote:

>> I get "connection timed out" when I click on that. I'll try again
>> in the daylight.

> Weird. "Internet locality" working, I think. Loads instantly here.

Still not working for me. But I can google on it.

>> I picked PPR mainly because it is in _2081_. I think I might
>> actually prefer Africa, as they have some mountains in just the
>> right places.

> What do you need mountains for? A mass driver or something?

Yep. That big acceleration tunnel. Running it through a mountain
lets me make it tall and long.

> Anyway, the Andes stretch from Argentina to Mexico, and so there are
> very high mountains at the Equator in South America too - in
> Ecuador, to be precise.

Not only are there tall equitorial mountains in the Andes, but they
are taller than the mountains I'm eying in Africa. However, their
location means that I can't launch to the east without overflying
land. The added height means that this might not matter as much,
though, as the shuttlecraft will be pretty high when I run out of
mountain. Not sure if "pretty high" is "high enough."

> (...)

> The story: the funny touches (like Ly simulating spacing) are, well,
> funny - so I think that you are in the right path for a sitcom.

Thanks. None of the rest matters if it isn't funny. The audience
will forgive almost any tech blunder, but not a lack of funnyness.
Still, I want to avoid tech blunders, and make this sapphire-hard (if
not diamond-hard) science fiction. Which brings us to:

> The tech: I think that I have already mentioned here that I have a
> bias against lifting bodies; I think that the capsule design is the
> way to go.

There are many who agree with you. Capsules have certain advantages,
but so do wings, and so do lifting bodies. I really don't see how to
make my external tank reusable without either wings or a lifting body.
A capsule would have to be horrendously wide. But I will give some
thought to a lifting-body tank stage with a capsule orbiter. No
promises, mind you.

> Moreover, basically *all* scifi movies and series are obsessed with
> lifting bodies,

Huh. Even my description says that it looks sort of like "the
aircraft Steve Austin crashes in the opening credits of _The Six
Million Dollar Man_." So yeah, lifting bodies are old hat. Still
have advantages.

> so in terms of TV innovation I think that you would actually
> surprise the audience, giving them the feeling of seeing something
> beyond "yet another space show", by showing a big "passenger
> capsule" instead of a space shuttle descendant.

I did mention that might be dissapointed that the orbiter looks so
ordinary (and then gave them a flying saucer!). I guess a passenger
capsule could be the same way, only more so.

"That's not even a shuttle! Is this future or the WOAH! a flying
saucer!?"

> Perhaps it would also give them a feeling of a return to the golden
> age of space exploration in the sixties,

I wouldn't mind doing that. This is a very future-positive,
science-positive, technology-positive show. You won't hear any of the
Ching family declaing that "All this machinery take away my humanity!"

> but as an alien

AAAUUUGGGHHH!!!!!! ALIEN!! Don't abduct me! Keep that probe away!!!

OK, couldn't resist. I know what you mean, though: alien, foreigner;
not alien, extraterrestrial.

> I think that I don't understand enough the American psyche to be
> sure.

Well, we have some Americans around here. Let's ask them.

unfurles behind him and the music of "America the Beautiful" plays
softly in the background>

"My countrymen, what say you? Leaving aside technical questions of
capsules vs. wings vs. lifting bodies vs. whatever else, do you
believe that the use of a passenger capsule would invoke in an
American audience a feeling both of nostalgia for the Glory Days of
Apollo as well as a sense of a Grand Future?"

> BTW, have you done the calculations to see if the acceleration
> tunnel would actually save much fuel?

I haven't calculated (or asked somebody else to calculate for me)
exactly how much it would save, but I'd imagine that a non-trivial
amount of fuel goes into getting a megaton launch vehicle up to that
first Mach 3. Using the acceleration tunnel, that fuel can be left
off. And of course, if you leave off some of the fuel, the vehicle is
lighter, which means you can save a bit more. Mostly, I want the
acceleration tunnel to replace the solid rocket boosters.

Youve given me some stuff to think about. Thank you.