Dale.Amon@FAS.RI.CMU.EDU (11/19/85)
I don't wish to get into a battle of experts, but I can say that Gary has some good people checking him on this. One very senior design person I have talked to has said, "Gary is the only one in the business doing it right". I unfortunately cannot give out his name because he is high up in one of the aerospace companies and they would not appreciate it. (the company is not Boeing). Although I cannot verify current details, I think much of the work will be subcontracted to places like General Dynamics, etc. Gary has an agreement with Vandenberg for test launches. As I said to someone recently in a discussion, I fully expect the Phoenix will be nowhere near as safe to fly in as a Boeing 747. It will probably be about as safe as a Ford Trimotor or earlier transport. But it will be the only way off planet for most of us. I really could care less about what NASA builds. If it doesn't get me off the ground, what use is it, and why should I pay for it? There are more than enough of us willing to take our chances, just as there were more than enough of our parents willing to fly the early airliners. The whole problem, Dani, is that you are talking about building a spaceship with the safety factors of a 1980's aircraft. We are not IN the 1980's of space flight. This is the 1920's of space (maybe event the 10's). For those who wish to wait sixty years for safety and luxury, you are more than welcome. Entrepreneurs take horrifying (to large stable companies) risks, use bunches of untested technology and make up for money with sweet equity of people who do it as a labor of love. Boeing has a union. Gary will have people practically paying HIM to work 15 hours a day 7 days a week 52 weeks a year. And if one crashes and kills a few test pilots, there will be a dozen more standing in line waiting for their chance to fly the hottest, fastest and most squirrelly thing going. Our generation is no less courageous than that of our fathers. The only doubt I have is that the funding can be found. If it can, I think about $500M and 10 years from now there will be LEO passenger service and a few new craters where some of our generations REAL heroes have bought the farm. Let the wimps get out of the way. People with real guts are coming through. What'sa matter? Ya wanna live forever or sumpin? Dale
dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz) (11/27/85)
> The whole problem, Dani, is that you are talking about building a spaceship > with the safety factors of a 1980's aircraft. We are not IN the 1980's of > space flight. I don't think ANYONE has ever built a spacecraft (or, at least, a launching vehicle) with the safety of a modern airliner. The shuttle has come too close to disaster too many times, and hasn't flown often enough to get out all the bugs. Someone (OMB? DOD?) estimated that 1 or 2 shuttles will crash in the next 400 shuttle flights. Perhaps we're in the 1930's of spaceflight, and the shuttle is the American Hindenberg (it certainly has enough hydrogen in it...).
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (12/05/85)
In article <8511262256.AA00949@s1-b.arpa> dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz) writes: > >Perhaps we're in the 1930's of spaceflight, and the shuttle is the >American Hindenberg (it certainly has enough hydrogen in it...). I'd say thats about right, except that I would say the shuttle is the Spirit of St Louis. A strained design intended solely to *prove a point*, that something is possible, but not actually do it *well*. Now that it has been shown to be possible there should be a rapid increase in *commercial* developement which will quickly get us to the next stage of space flight(the "50.s" :-)). -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa