A sample text widget
Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis
euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.
Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan.
Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem,
suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.
|
This article covers Richard Branson’s rebuffed attempts to buy at least one of BA’s soon-to-be-retired Concordes, the idea being to continue operating it in passenger service on long-distance routes. Branson argues that he can do so profitably, but the airline (and the heritage manufacturer, Airbus) argue that the Concordes are too old to continue flying as passenger aircraft.
But what about an alternative?
The market for overnight and second-day delivery is large and healthy. But what about going one better, by exploiting the same-day delivery niche via refurbished cargo Concordes? Purchase the entire BA fleet, set aside two or three planes for cannibalization, and strip the interiors from the remaining planes and fit them out to carry mail and small parcels. Granted, it would be difficult to work out a profitable business plan within the limitations imposed by the number of planes available, the cost per flight, and the ability (or lack thereof) to fly over or near land at supersonic speeds.
However, if it could be done — even on an experimental basis — it could have a profound effect on space commercialization. Whether or not the Concorde-based venture turns a profit, it would likely whet the appetites of those who could use such a service, and thereby open a market the various suborbital startups could exploit.
Mark Whittington at Curmudgeons Corner (sorry, no permalink, scroll to the posts for 5/29) tackles John Carter McKnight’s latest Spacefaring Web essay.
Funny, I don’t seem to be getting the Spacefaring Web mailings anymore. (And John still hasn’t fixed his website.)
Clark Lindsey of HobbySpace has an interview with Constance Adams, top architect on the TransHab project.
It’s both disappointing and inspiring. Disappointing, in that this promising new technology was shelved so NASA could feed the ISS white elephant, and inspiring, in that it is clearly something that will make exploration and settlement of space that much easier, when the time comes.
SpaceDaily.com has a very interesting three part op-ed by Phillip K. Chapman, concerning the abject failure of NASA as a space agency.
It’s very much worth reading for the historical analysis, and his recommendations are thought provoking and touch on something that has been occupying my attention lately: property rights. This issue seems to be a hot topic in various quarters lately — perhaps the right climate is developing to finally junk the proto-tranzi treaties barring private ownership, and work on something more conducive to human settlement of space. Cleaving the agency into a NACA-like R&D body and a human spaceflight promotion office has a certain appeal to it, especially given what NACA was able to do for aeronautics and the aircraft industry.
On the other hand, I disagree that the Shuttle needs to be grounded permanently and the ISS mothballed. I can sympathize with his arguments in favor of this, and with his preferred use of the Shuttle/ISS budget money, don’t get me wrong. But lousy though it is, I think it’s better to stick with what we have a little bit longer, until we can segue gracefully to an alternative. It makes no sense to throw away the only manned spacecraft we have, when at best we are maybe 3-5 years from flying a new one — to do so (especially without reform of the anti-market sentiment at NASA, to which Chapman refers) runs the risk of a “temporary” spaceflight hiatus becoming a permanent retreat.
A new “spin” on an old idea: Clemson Inflatable Fabric Airlock Breezes Through Initial Tests.
Inflatable airlocks aren’t a new idea (Alexei Leonov used one on the first-ever spacewalk), but this new approach is much more advanced. The inflatable airlock is a two layer tube, bounded at either end by metal caps (where, presumably, the inner and outer hatches are). The outer layer (carrying the load of the internal pressure) is a structural braid wound on the world’s largest braiding machine, and the internal pressure is contained by an inner bladder layer. The weight and volume are appreciably less than those of the hard-shell airlock in use on the ISS.
This, along with the related TransHab concept, are the sort of ideas that we ought to be testing in space. Forget space science — we ought to be focusing our activities in LEO on space engineering, specifically in those areas such as inflatable structures which have a high payoff with respect to manned exploration and settlement of the Moon and Mars.
An Atlantic Monthly article by Gregg Easterbrook carried in the Australian Financial Review uses a profile of Sea Launch to examine the recent history of the commercial space launch industry.
Of course, near the end he throws in the usual “conventional wisdom”:
Talk of returning to the moon or of people exploring Mars will remain whimsy until someone figures out a much less expensive means of putting pounds into space.
Ah, yes, the old bootstrapping problem.
HobbySpace takes a poke at the article, and sums up my own thoughts on it quite well, calling it “a space transportation article created with his usual weird mix of keen insights and half-truths, right-on comments and silly one-liners, extensive research and huge holes in that research”. Worth a read for the interesting history bits, but take his conclusions with a grain of salt.
After years of trying, Brazil is poised to join the list of countries capable of putting satellites in orbit.
The low price tag and advantageous launch inclination ought to make their (potential) service attractive for small spacecraft. But…who’s launching anything these days?
A New Way To Explore The Surface Of Mars
An idea with possibilities. One wonders whether they could combine the tumbleweed probe idea with the airbag design used to land Pathfinder and the upcoming MERs. That is, design a lander which would bounce to the surface like a beach ball, and then be blown around from place to place like the tumbleweed probe.
Also, I’d be a little leery of using a design like that shown in the accompanying images. Assuming that those curved tubes are inflated, it seems likely that one puncture could incapacitate the probe. If the tubes are divided at crossings into individual cells, a puncture would still leave a flat spot which could impede the rolling of the probe.
It’s a neat idea, though, and it’s interesting to imagine a follow-on design more literally modeled on the branched structure of a tumbleweed, with plenty of independent and redundant contact points.
Rand Simberg comments on the latest outbreak of the “We could have saved Columbia” meme.
He makes a good point regarding the notion of using Atlantis for a rescue mission. Sure, the launch preparation procedures could have been junked and Atlantis fired off, if the necessity had been recognized early enough and the order to do so had been given. But there would have been as much or more of a chance of losing both orbiters thereby as there would have been of successfully rescuing the Columbia crew before time ran out. And had that happened, it could have easily meant the end of the U.S. manned space program (at least for a good long while).
Which makes me all the more concerned that the accident will have no serious, positive impact on the “quest” for a replacement for the Shuttle…that business-as-usual will continue at NASA until we lose yet another orbiter.
Leonard David has a good overview of the current status of OSP conceptifying: The Next Shuttle: Capsule or Spaceplane?
|
|