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

In article <4807a928.604678765@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Derek Lyons
<fairwater@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>"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 suspect that the wealth of riches and the Nobel Prize will require
conclusive proof. I have heard of plausible ideas for research:
1) Ion drive once you are in vacuum and in orbit - this pays off at
launch time in satellites if you can use it for station-keeping instead
of chemical thrusters and reduce the total mass that you need to lift to
orbit.
2) Skyhook/Space elevator/fountains of paradise, OK - this needs
something that is currently unobtanium, but there seems to be more
distance between what we can do now and what we think is theoretically
possible than there is with chemical rockets.
3) Alternate first stages. This is a whole spectrum from current
research (SCRAMJET and various launch-from-aircraft/balloon schemes) to
the SF (rail gun on the Andes/ launch from the top of Everest). I
suspect that if you set up the problem of launching a large number (to
amortise costs) of small (10kg) payloads to orbit, and that if those
payloads were as tough as artillery shell proximity fuses, and that if
you threw this problem at a super-intelligent optimisation program, so
as to make absolutely the best possible use of current technology, the
launch system that you got out wouldn't look much like Apollo.
4) Pure unobtanium - in other words, do thirty years of pure materials
science before returning to launch systems design.
>
>>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.
It's not cheap and never will be, but if our goal is to achieve the best
possible space technology in 50 years time, or to produce a large
improvement in capability, and not a series of publicity stunts, then it
is more efficient to pay for the research before building vehicles in
quantity, and not during or after.
-- 
A.G.McDowell