NationStates Jolt Archive

Just curious, found this story about a commercial space flight co ready to start launching soon. http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/06/13/blue.origin/index.html

There are others out there with the same intentions also. Would you or do you feel safe enough to go up in one of these flying gas cans? I can just see the morning paper now after one of these accidents.

I would imagine something is going to go wrong on one of the first flights. Unfortunately, in space, any hole in the ship will be ripped open and the entire contents of the damaged area (Air, luggage, shoes, people, etc) will gradually be sucked out through the hole. I forsee a Hindenburg incident.

Commercial Space Flight - is it necessary ? All a waste of resources and money IMO. "Look mommy, I can see South-East-Asia, wow you can even see the results of the tsunami from up here! Geez... Say, mommy, wouldn't people over there be happy if they knew we're flying in a multi-million-dollar spacecraft right above their hunger-struck region?"

well we do alot of things that are a waste of money. There are always starving people out there. Did you buy your coffee this morning? Didnt need that im sure. Could have sent that money to buy food in Sudan or take your pick country.

I haven't tried it yet, I'll let you know when I do :D

well we do alot of things that are a waste of money. There are always starving people out there. Did you buy your coffee this morning? Didnt need that im sure. Could have sent that money to buy food in Sudan or take your pick country.

Depending on which brand you buy, coffee is a major supporter of the economies of several developing nations.

Who cares if it is safe. Every new mode of transportation has been unsafe, if we listen to the naysayers everytime and wait and wait and wait for sometime to be completely safe then we will never do it.
Invest in space, heavily, now! That is my motto. It is a poor motto with no rhyme or meter but I am sticking with it.

I think it's to early to say wether it's safe or not. Since there isn't realy a commercial spaceflight thing yet. I mean, how many people can even afford a trip like that?

It might not be safe, but the tickets will be very expensive at first, so rich people can be the guinea pigs.

Nothing in life is ever 'safe'. No matter where you are or what you're doing, be it travelling in a commercial space shuttle or sat at home typing on your computer, there is always a risk that something will go wrong and you'll get hurt/killed.

I think it should be up to people to decide whether or not to take the risk. Whenever you board a plane, you're well aware that plane crashes can and do happen, and so you put your life in the hands of the pilot for a few hours. It'd be the same thing with commercial space travel.. you know theres a risk, and you take that risk knowing full well what could possibly happen.

Besides, wouldn't commercial space shuttles have to pass rigorous safety checks on Earth before they'd be allowed to carry passengers?

BHB
xxx

It might not be safe, but the tickets will be very expensive at first, so rich people can be the guinea pigs.

I hadn't thought of that. . .it makes me feel kinda happy.

If you gave me a free ticket I'd sell it. Although looking down at earth from space would be neat, there are things I could do with the money that I value more. If you gave me a free ticket with the condition that I couldn't sell it, then I'd go despite the risk, because danger is my middle name. (Phylum Danger Chordata.)

Now we don't have a large enough sample size to draw reliable estimates of how safe the space shuttle is, but a 2% chance of death per flight seems a reasonable rough estimate. I would be very surprised if a better designed craft wouldn't cut that risk by at least half. A one in a thousand chance of death per flight could be possible currently, but I doubt it would be better than that. And it would take a lot of flights to demonstrate its reliability.

I would guess you'd have customers, although I don't know how large the market would be.

I wonder if the craft would have a crew or be automated. Remember, each crewmember is one less seat you have for a paying customer.

Yeah it's kinda crappy that rich people get to blow their dough doing silly things while the rest of us don't, but there's no point bitching about it.

A long time ago I was shocked and disgusted about the whole idea of 'space tourism' for the well-heeled, but I got over it. I don't care what the motivations involved are, I'm just happy to see somebody, anybody, continuing to make a greater presence off-planet.

Whether it's government, private interests, or some other group we've yet to consider, we need to be up there. We need to be in space. Because at least at this point anyway, you don't get to other planets without travelling through space. And that means a lot more than a few multi-millionaires taking snapshots of themselves drunk in free-fall.

I knew a man who was horrified by the prospect of the Japanese building an orbital hotel or senior's residence. He thought the money would be better spent on solving world hunger. I disagreed. I was horrified by the prospect of humanity turning its' back upon the stars.

Impasse. What to do? I dunno, but turning our backs isn't in our nature as a species - is it?

I hadn't thought of that. . .it makes me feel kinda happy.

Where's the smiley devil smilie when I need it?

There are others out there with the same intentions also. Would you or do you feel safe enough to go up in one of these flying gas cans? I can just see the morning paper now after one of these accidents.
Safe compared to what? Compared to getting into a two ton moving vehicle sharing a narrow road with thousands of other drivers whose capabilities and intentions you don't know? Then, yes, I think it's pretty safe.

Commercial Space Flight - is it necessary ? All a waste of resources and money IMO. "Look mommy, I can see South-East-Asia, wow you can even see the results of the tsunami from up here! Geez... Say, mommy, wouldn't people over there be happy if they knew we're flying in a multi-million-dollar spacecraft right above their hunger-struck region?"
Gosh, another poster that just can't follow the economics of work.

What does that money that is spent on a space program buy?
Goods and services.

Who provides those goods and services?
People.

What would those people do if they weren't being paid for the goods and services they produce?
They wouldn't have those jobs.

What does giving them jobs do?
It keeps them off the dole.

It is a poor motto with no rhyme or meter but I am sticking with it.
I think this is an even better motto!

snip

Funny thing is, one is safer opperating/riding in a aircraft than driving a car.

As for space flight, I know the FAA is going to give these space vehicles a very detailed inspection before certifying them for space flight. Things could go wrong as in any vehicle, but I will say that these will be one of the safer means of transportation.

Gosh, another poster that just can't follow the economics of work.

What does that money that is spent on a space program buy?
Goods and services.

Who provides those goods and services?
People.

What would those people do if they weren't being paid for the goods and services they produce?
They wouldn't have those jobs.

What does giving them jobs do?
It keeps them off the dole.

LOL! Oh how I love these "economic majors", always having the most obvious grasp of the most blatant fallacies - "goods and services", sure! Money that is spent on space programs is very well spent, if it is meant for scientific research. Which, IMO, it isn't when commercial space flight is installed - unless the space-tourists would not object being studied whilst featuring in all kinds of (possibly lethal) experiments. Furthermore, it's a blatant kind of conspicuous consumption that spits in the face of the have-nots. The same have-nots that, through their labour, provided our acclaimed space-tourist with the capital necessary to finance his little cosmos itinerary. Yay the world :rolleyes: (you know, that blue ball visible in through the left window)
My point: reach for the stars is fine, just make sure there's a planet worthy of returning to.

And another one:
well we do alot of things that are a waste of money. There are always starving people out there. Did you buy your coffee this morning? Didnt need that im sure. Could have sent that money to buy food in Sudan or take your pick country.
Way to "turn the tables on me" partner! Oh, how could I ever recover from this feverishly potent argument? Lucky for me, my 1$ cup of Max Havelaar coffee (which already supports third world countries, btw) is NOT NEARLY as expensive as that multimillion dollar spaceship... So, in my honest opinion, I really can't seem to agree with you.

Depending on which brand you buy, coffee is a major supporter of the economies of several developing nations.
But Capitalism is BAD!!! Don't buy their products. Just SEND them money. Then all the flowers will bloom and the deserts will be lush and everyone will be HAPPY!

*looks around for the puke smiley*

(no, this is not an attack on you, Oye...don't take it personally)

Lucky for me, my 1$ cup of Max Havelaar coffee (which already supports third world countries, btw) is NOT NEARLY as expensive as that multimillion dollar spaceship... So, in my honest opinion, I really can't seem to agree with you.

Um... a dollar a cup times thousands of cups... One multimillion dollar space ship ...thousands of jobs to build, launch, and maintain it...thousands of new jobs... Now, what doesn't add up?

Just curious, found this story about a commercial space flight co ready to start launching soon. http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/06/13/blue.origin/index.html

There are others out there with the same intentions also. Would you or do you feel safe enough to go up in one of these flying gas cans? I can just see the morning paper now after one of these accidents.

"Safe???" no. that's like asking if it's safe to cross the street, or drive in Seattle at rush hour. It's probably safer than wearing a tee-shirt that says "Eat PorK you Muslim !@$#@!#!!!" down the streets of Mecca, but it's likely more dangerous than deep-sea diving.
That's part of the attraction of space. going "Out there" where there is no air.

That's part of the attraction of space. going "Out there" where there is no air.

Going out there "where no man has gone before." :D

What does that money that is spent on a space program buy?
Goods and services. Yes, but some goods and services are more helpful than other goods and services. I would prefere it if rich people spent their money on eliminating disease, war, crime, and hunger than shooting themselves into space. However, currently my mind control powers are at a low ebb, so I'm afraid I'll have to let them shoot themselves in space if that's what they want.

The first people to venture into the Atlantic were taking an enormous risk, but over time they got good at it and it became faster, cheaper and easier to cross. Space exploration has been faltering and slow so far, but if we give up on it it goes from slow to non-existent. Space tourism will not do much for science, I grant you, but it will cause people to build bigger and faster and better spacecraft and then to start building destinations in space for them to go to rather than just flying around a bit and little by little we'll creep out into our solar system. Like it or loathe it, commercial aspirations drive this sort of thing. People didn't start exploring the Americas because they fancied a change, they did it to exploit the resources. That'll happen in space too, but only once people start going there privately and commercially rather than purely for government funded research.


Ooh, unstructured or what?

Yes, but some goods and services are more helpful than other goods and services. I would prefere it if rich people spent their money on eliminating disease, war, crime, and hunger than shooting themselves into space. However, currently my mind control powers are at a low ebb, so I'm afraid I'll have to let them shoot themselves in space if that's what they want.
When automobiles came out they were merely toys for the upper class. Now cars are a common vehicle that allows the lower class more range, and more opportunity. If those rich people had "better spent" their money to feed the hungry, cars would still be a luxury only for the rich.
You can look at planes the same way. Where once only the rich could afford it, now most anyone in the modern world can fly once in their lives.
Space travel will be the same way I'm sure.

Imagine a terrorist snuck a nuke onto the shuttle. Far fetched, but it's conceivable. If the thing goes off in the upper atmosphere, then the entire planet will be blanketed with radioactive particles, spread about by the jet stream, magnetic field, and other forces beyond my full comprehension. That would be bad.

Imagine a terrorist snuck a nuke onto the shuttle. Far fetched, but it's conceivable. If the thing goes off in the upper atmosphere, then the entire planet will be blanketed with radioactive particles, spread about by the jet stream, magnetic field, and other forces beyond my full comprehension. That would be bad.
Great, just what we need , something else to worry about :( try to exercise your imagination on the positive side. Thank You

Imagine a terrorist snuck a nuke onto the shuttle. Far fetched, but it's conceivable. If the thing goes off in the upper atmosphere, then the entire planet will be blanketed with radioactive particles, spread about by the jet stream, magnetic field, and other forces beyond my full comprehension. That would be bad.
Meh, Chernobyl was much worse than this scenario, and here we are.
Besides, an atomic bomb would leave that much radioactive waste behind. You are thinking more about a "dirty bomb".

Um... a dollar a cup times thousands of cups... One multimillion dollar space ship ...thousands of jobs to build, launch, and maintain it...thousands of new jobs... Now, what doesn't add up?

Well, I'd rather pay a thousand cups that put poor people in the third world in the position of having a steady income, then have several robotic factories in the already affluent West where a few dozen (not thousands) people are working. [Robotic factories, because a lot of the shipparts need to be manufactured by robots to insure the highest possible metrical quality, etc. Read that in National Geographic once.] That doesn't mean I dislike the concept of space-travel, just that there seem to be more urgent matters nowadays. I do, however, in that light very much dislike the concept of commercial space-travel, since there doesn't seem to be any scientific research attached to that.

When automobiles came out they were merely toys for the upper class. Now cars are a common vehicle that allows the lower class more range, and more opportunity. If those rich people had "better spent" their money to feed the hungry, cars would still be a luxury only for the rich.
You can look at planes the same way. Where once only the rich could afford it, now most anyone in the modern world can fly once in their lives.
Space travel will be the same way I'm sure.

Yes I'm sure that, barring disaster, lots of neat stuff will be done with space travel in the future. But if rich people in the U.S. had invested their money in eliminateing hook worm in the South rather than on cars, then maybe the United States would be 10% richer today. (Yes I realize I am pulling this figure out of my butt, it's for illustrative purposes only.) The development of cars would have been retarded at first, but then would have picked up as all those poor southeners improved their economic and educational performance as a dehibilitating disease was removed and bought cars, became automotive engineers and so on.

If you asked me what would help space travel the most, sending people to mars in ten years time or eliminating malaria in ten years time, I would say eliminating malaria, because if we eliminate malaria it will free up more minds from poverty and disease and they will go on to develop things that will assist space travel more than mars program now would.

Getting more human brains up to a point where they can contribute to technological progress is an important investment.

But commercial space travel is commercial space travel. If someone wants to spend their money to be shot into space, that's their affair. However, I would suggest the company spend a percentage of all ticket sales on helping people in absolute poverty. It's good P.R. and will make you feel better as you look down at Africa from orbit.

Well, I'd rather pay a thousand cups that put poor people in the third world in the position of having a steady income, then have several robotic factories in the already affluent West where a few dozen (not thousands) people are working. [Robotic factories, because a lot of the shipparts need to be manufactured by robots to insure the highest possible metrical quality, etc. Read that in National Geographic once.] That doesn't mean I dislike the concept of space-travel, just that there seem to be more urgent matters nowadays. I do, however, in that light very much dislike the concept of commercial space-travel, since there doesn't seem to be any scientific research attached to that.

Okay, you want urgent? There is a finite supply of materials, here on earth. Raw Materials. We do not have, however, a negative-balance on Population growth. Are you with me so far?
There is also a finite amount of useable surface here on earth. Further, one five-mile rock and humanity as a species is toast-because unless it's got one hell of a lot of albedo, it won't be detected in time (and even then, it's unlikely that the obselecent machinery used in space flight could do anything to stop it!)

Right now, we've got all our eggs in one (poorly managed) basket. Government Exploration will continue to be anemically funded and resource-starved now that there is no more cold-war. This is why NASA is flying antiquated shit, and why those russian fellas had to sit up there in microgravity for over a year while the Soviet Union turned into the CIS.

Commercial space is as valuable and important to Space Travel, as Commercial Aviation was to Air-Travel, and Commercial Shipping was to Sea-Travel.
In a non-competitive environment, technology advances at a crawl where it doesn't halt entirely or even decline.
The Solar system is packed full of minerals that are expensive props to support human-rights-abusing third world dictators-who, incidentally, are the recipients of most of that cash you're spending to "Help the Third World". Somehow, I don't think the next Pinochet clone really needs your dollars to gold-plate his limousine or pay his mercenary bodyguards.

Everywhere on Earth, the land is in someone else's name. There is no more frontier here, no place safe from interference, where new ideas can grow, or old ones be preserved. If Space isn't opened up, we'll soon be truly wallowing in our own shit, penned in like factory-chickens, grateful for our little slice of Soylent Green and living with rotting infrastructures and no freedom, waiting for the next Extinction-level Event to wipe things clean.

Governments, for the most part, have little interest in exploration. The automated 'exploration' by proxy has cost valuable time and money, while fencing off the Solar system with the 1967 Moon Treaty and 1979 OST has effectively made the First World dependent on bannana republics for materials like Tungsten, Aluminum, Titanium, Manganese... I'm sorry, but buying sweatshop doesn't support the workers, it supports the dictators who exploit them, and the regimes that abuse them.

From Orbit, it doesn't take a lot of thrust to make it anywhere in the Solar system. Developing the means to do this was supposed to be the purpose of having a government-funded Space Programme in the first place. Like All Government Monopolies, it has deviated significantly from its original purpose, and cost more than it ought to have in doing so.
People supported the Moon programme all the way up to the point where they realized that it would never develop to the level where an average joe could go.

Commercial Space Flight changes this equation by introducing the concepts of competition, and development, along with a relatively open access.

There was a time when it was believed that only eight computers of 64kb would be needed to serve the needs of the whole world. I would wager your laptop is more powerful than that by an exponential degree.
This is what Competition in the private market allows-when Government was the primary developer, computers remained enormous, energy-hogging banks of analogue parts that required trained specialists merely to operate.

As with the example of Motorcars, and Aeroplanes, so it is that as commercial entities break into Orbit, the methods will be cheaper, more reliable, faster, and the development curve will be faster as well. Burt Rutan's little X-Prize winner uses an environmentally friendly fuel that doesn't explode easily or catastrophically, in a reuseable chassis. His entire project cost less than the first Mercury Redstone in adjusted dollars, and utilizes an approach pioneered by the X-15 programme in the 1950's.
An improved model is rumoured to be in the works. Eventually, we may see Air-launch type vehicles hefting sattelites, or moving larger numbers of passengers at a fraction of the cost of the ballistic-jobs-programme missiles and disintegrating totem-pole boosters in use currently.

I half-expect the next big step will come from France or Russia. France is more probable, though the Argentines may steal a march on everyone and show up with something unexpected, neat, and reliable to actually reach orbit-at a fraction of the real cost that even the Chinese and old Soviets have managed.

Very good post CG.

For those of you who think the "rich" should spend their money on something other than space travel, I have a couple of questions. Obviously, you are not living in a third world country as you own or have access to a computer. Do you understand that by third world standards you are rich? Do you know that computer you are using costs more than many third world people earn in several months? Do you know that CD you buy costs more than most third world people earn in a day or a week? Did you know that the cup of coffee you bought at Starbucks would buy a whole family enough food for a day?

So, before you complain about "rich" people spending their money on a space adventure, ask yourself how much you are willing to give up. Are you willing to give up your computer, your CD, that cup of coffee? After all, you don't need that computer, as there are free books in the library. You don't need that CD, you can always sing to yourself, and you don't need that coffee, as there is plenty of water you can drink.

Commercial Space Flight - is it necessary ? All a waste of resources and money IMO. "Look mommy, I can see South-East-Asia, wow you can even see the results of the tsunami from up here! Geez... Say, mommy, wouldn't people over there be happy if they knew we're flying in a multi-million-dollar spacecraft right above their hunger-struck region?"
What the fuck are you doing wasting your time on the NationStates forum? Shouldn't you be spending all your free time feeding the starving people of the world? It's not your money that's being spent here.

If you asked me what would help space travel the most, sending people to mars in ten years time or eliminating malaria in ten years time, I would say eliminating malaria, because if we eliminate malaria it will free up more minds from poverty and disease and they will go on to develop things that will assist space travel more than mars program now would. You want to put an end to malaria? End the ban on DDT.

You want to put an end to malaria? End the ban on DDT.

You will need more than that. You will need an organization that is both globalized and highly motivated in order to go through the process of terminating the mosquito vectors of malaria.

Very good post CG.

For those of you who think the "rich" should spend their money on something other than space travel, I have a couple of questions. Obviously, you are not living in a third world country as you own or have access to a computer. Do you understand that by third world standards you are rich? Do you know that computer you are using costs more than many third world people earn in several months? Do you know that CD you buy costs more than most third world people earn in a day or a week? Did you know that the cup of coffee you bought at Starbucks would buy a whole family enough food for a day?

So, before you complain about "rich" people spending their money on a space adventure, ask yourself how much you are willing to give up. Are you willing to give up your computer, your CD, that cup of coffee? After all, you don't need that computer, as there are free books in the library. You don't need that CD, you can always sing to yourself, and you don't need that coffee, as there is plenty of water you can drink.

I just wanted to add, there is a site (wish I had the URL), where you plug in your yearly income and it gives you the percentage you're in compared to the entire world's yearly income. We are by no means wealthy, but we came in at the top 1%. Everyone I know did. It puts a lot of perspective on things when you complain because you can't have something. When you realize that you lead an average life, and 99% of the worlds population has it worse off than you.

You will need more than that. You will need an organization that is both globalized and highly motivated in order to go through the process of terminating the mosquito vectors of malaria.

I hope you are not suggesting the globalized and not so highly motivated UN for this task. :D

You want to put an end to malaria? End the ban on DDT.You end the ban on DDT. Aint no ban on it here.

I just wanted to add, there is a site (wish I had the URL), where you plug in your yearly income and it gives you the percentage you're in compared to the entire world's yearly income. We are by no means wealthy, but we came in at the top 1%. Everyone I know did. It puts a lot of perspective on things when you complain because you can't have something. When you realize that you lead an average life, and 99% of the worlds population has it worse off than you.

If you find that site please post it. I couldn't find it using Google. :(

You end the ban on DDT. Aint no ban on it here.

What country do you live in? Been banned in the US for a long time.

You will need more than that. You will need an organization that is both globalized and highly motivated in order to go through the process of terminating the mosquito vectors of malaria.
WHO could that be? WHO could that be? If at least there was such an organization that had fought disease like, I don't know, polio, or smallpox... but WHO? WHO?

WHO could that be? WHO could that be? If at least there was such an organization that had fought disease like, I don't know, polio, or smallpox... but WHO? WHO?

Like the man said, "highly motivated", couldn't be refering to WHO, so WHO could do it? :D

WHO could that be? WHO could that be? If at least there was such an organization that had fought disease like, I don't know, polio, or smallpox... but WHO? WHO?

I admit, I overlooked the possibility of the World Health Organization. But in this case, I refer to an administrator who could oversee the operation on a coordinated simultaneous scale. I do believe that there was originally one person who was behind a huge movement to battle malaria and he did come close. However, a certain book came out, I believe it was Silent Spring, which resulted in a political movement that eventually saw its banning. Additionally, corruption where ground crews used diluted forms of DDT further plagued his work.

Eventually, the lack of instant results, not gradual results, and the continued campaigning by environmental fronts saw to the end of the work and his organization was disbanded.

I do believe that near at the end, one of his quotes when asked who would be his ally was "Malaria will be my ally now"

An improved model is rumoured to be in the works. Eventually, we may see Air-launch type vehicles hefting sattelites, or moving larger numbers of passengers at a fraction of the cost of the ballistic-jobs-programme missiles and disintegrating totem-pole boosters in use currently.
Well... not all satellites are put into orbit by using gigantic disposable cigars!

I used to work for a subsidiary of Orbital Sciences (ORBCOMM). They use a modified Lockheed commercial aircraft, that goes at an altitude of 40,000 feet, and then launches a very small, missile-like 3-stages rocket that flies up. This small rocket is called the Pegasus. It's a very cost effective way of putting small loads into LEO (Low Earth Orbit), and someday we will send humans in space this way.

The Pegasus delivers satellites into orbit in a little over 10 minutes.
The payload must 1000 pounds or less.
It can carry 2 satellites at a time.

Well... not all satellites are put into orbit by using gigantic disposable cigars!

I used to work for a subsidiary of Orbital Sciences (ORBCOMM). They use a modified Lockheed commercial aircraft, that goes at an altitude of 40,000 feet, and then launches a very small, missile-like 3-stages rocket that flies up. This small rocket is called the Pegasus. It's a very cost effective way of putting small loads into LEO (Low Earth Orbit), and someday we will send humans in space this way.

The Pegasus delivers satellites into orbit in a little over 10 minutes.
The payload must 1000 pounds or less.
It can carry 2 satellites at a time.

Hmmm, its still a disposable cigar though. Just not as large. I think the ideal type was with no material wastage aside from fuel costs.

The group's rocket would be comprised of a propulsion module and a crew capsule. Hydrogen peroxide and kerosene are to be used as propellants.

Kerosene!? :eek:

Now I'm no rocket fuel expert, but does this strike anyone else as a particularly bad idea?

Meh...besides that, I'm completely in favor of commercial space flight. The sooner, the more often, the better.

We're going to need the resources space has to offer sooner or later...more likely sooner! As long as space travel remains solely in the hands of governments, nothing is going to get done in terms of the advances necessary to allow humanity to exploit space.

So cheers to those rich bastards and their joy-rides! With luck, it'll get the ball rolling! :p

Kerosene!? :eek:

Now I'm no rocket fuel expert, but does this strike anyone else as a particularly bad idea?

Meh...besides that, I'm completely in favor of commercial space flight. The sooner, the more often, the better.

We're going to need the resources space has to offer sooner or later...more likely sooner! As long as space travel remains solely in the hands of governments, nothing is going to get done in terms of the advances necessary to allow humanity to exploit space.

So cheers to those rich bastards and their joy-rides! With luck, it'll get the ball rolling! :p

Actually hydrogen peroxide/kerosene make a very simple and safe motor. With a solid propellant to seal the tanks until ignition, the solid propellant will pre heat the chamber enough to sustain the burn without a catalyst to break down the oxygen stream. No valves, or plumbing to worry about.

Liverbreath']Actually hydrogen peroxide/kerosene make a very simple and safe motor. With a solid propellant to seal the tanks until ignition, the solid propellant will pre heat the chamber enough to sustain the burn without a catalyst to break down the oxygen stream. No valves, or plumbing to worry about.

Erhm...ok! :)

Erhm...ok! :)
What are the alternatives for rocket propulsion? Any propellent that produces enough energy to launch a useful payload is also a pretty powerful explosive if it's mishandled. We just aren't going to launch a rocket on good intentions.

What are the alternatives for rocket propulsion? Any propellent that produces enough energy to launch a useful payload is also a pretty powerful explosive if it's mishandled. We just aren't going to launch a rocket on good intentions.

Well, the closest thing that we have to date would probably be a scaled up version of the mass driver systems the US navy is working on for their new all-electric destroyers.

I wonder if they managed to solve the issue of barrel degradation though?

I just hope Russia and other space players will end up using less toxic rocket fuel.

I have seen stunning images of children deformities in Kazakhstan, this is horrible. And it seems to be caused by the rocket fuel fallout, poisoning the land. (perchlorate byproducts?)

Same problem in the US, but at a much smaller (and manageable) scale.

Read the article:

http://www.space.com/news/fuel_contamination_050112.html

Well, the closest thing that we have to date would probably be a scaled up version of the mass driver systems the US navy is working on for their new all-electric destroyers.

I wonder if they managed to solve the issue of barrel degradation though?
I looked at what I found by googling a couple terms. It looks like it's just for launching projectiles, isn't it? I couldn't find any articles about sustaining power with any kind of mass driver, but it sounds interesting.

Have any links?

Thanks.

I looked at what I found by googling a couple terms. It looks like it's just for launching projectiles, isn't it? I couldn't find any articles about sustaining power with any kind of mass driver, but it sounds interesting.

Have any links?

Thanks.

Well, there's this.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2003/05/mil-030512-navsea04.htm

But the primary reasoning for using mass drivers is to launch the projectile at enough speeds so that it will leave orbit on its own velocity rather than relying on sustained thrust.

Well, there's this.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2003/05/mil-030512-navsea04.htm

But the primary reasoning for using mass drivers is to launch the projectile at enough speeds so that it will leave orbit on its own velocity rather than relying on sustained thrust.
The article didn't mention the size of the projectile, but it would stand to reason it isn't any bigger than a 5 inch shell. Maybe 30-40 pounds mass? 30 Megawatts to fire one is a lot of energy. That can probably be improved with time and technology.