Re: Space funding (was Re: Hillary needs to quit)

"A.G.McDowell" <mcdowella@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>If the lack of progress in chemical rockets is
>excused by fundamental limits, then why are we planning to throw money
>at it? Couldn't we throw money at technologies that haven't yet
>approached their fundamental limits?

If you know of one that isn't a) a hideous environmental disaster or
b) doesn't require unobtanium plating for the handwavium reaction
chamber, a wealth of riches and a possible Noble Prize awaits you.

>I applaud, for instance, the idea of "cheap access to space", but I
>would like to point out that (very loosely) there are two ways of
>getting cheap access to space - you can reduce the cost, per kilogram,
>of putting hardware in earth orbit, or you can reduce the kilogram
>weight of hardware necessary to achieve any required function.

The first is easy and uses nothing but well understood industrial,
engineering, financial, and management techniques.  The main barrier
is the massive up front investment.

The second is very hard and involves working at the bleeding edge of
virtually every field involved.  The main barrier - working at the
bleeding edge is never cheap.

D.
-- 
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL