Quote from: nec207 on 07/06/2015 11:43 pm$20,000 in the 1920's is like cost of buying car today!!More like ten times the cost of buying a reasonably nice house. Inflation, remember?Quotespace planes and SSTO are just more costly no matter the size.That hasn't been shown. Shuttle was a first crack at the problem, and horribly underfunded and overconstrained to boot (it ended up multistage anyway, just with the manned spacecraft, heavy cargo module and main propulsion system combined into one piece. This actually was cheaper than the expendable route as long as all that capability was actually needed on a particular flight, which it often wasn't). The DC-X and X-33 didn't get very far, and neither one demonstrated very much. The problem is that radical solutions like that are more costly up front, leading to a small number of attempts and consequent sensitivity to politics, as well as to decisions in the large, mostly unexplored design space being informed by ignorance. HOTOL had this happen too; the chosen configuration seemed natural, but once it was locked in it just about killed the design single-handedly. Even though the fix was obvious in retrospect, the big players lost interest completely after the one design study and left the engineers to struggle on for a quarter century on their own.The indicated response is not to give up. It's to try harder. All we've done is poke at the problem a bit.Also, please note that while I think I understand what you mean, the terms "spaceplane" and "SSTO" are actually orthogonal (unless you're going by the TV Tropes definition of the former). Dream Chaser and Delta Clipper are two very different ideas...
$20,000 in the 1920's is like cost of buying car today!!
space planes and SSTO are just more costly no matter the size.
Also, please note that while I think I understand what you mean, the terms "spaceplane" and "SSTO" are actually orthogonal (unless you're going by the TV Tropes definition of the former). Dream Chaser and Delta Clipper are two very different ideas...
it was more costly in the end
A space plane is not true SSTO.
Quote from: nec207 on 07/07/2015 04:21 amit was more costly in the endNo, they never got to the end. It was more costly in the beginning, and no one cared enough to tough it out.The point designs they were working with, like VentureStar, might very well have been bad ideas. But that in no way implies that there are no good ideas in the same general class (especially since there have been propulsion innovations since then, like SABRE and TAN, that they weren't taking advantage of). Look at the beginning of the airplane era - huge number of designs, huge number of failures. I'm sure with sufficient analysis we can do better than that, but we're very far from being able to claim that the whole area is a dead end.Quote from: nec207 on 07/07/2015 04:33 amA space plane is not true SSTO.It can be. Skylon is one. So was HOTOL. So was VentureStar, for that matter (yes, it had wings by the end; it got bitten by the exact same issue as HOTOL).
QuoteNo. Colonization starts where value can be created. Most importantly in the form of (expected) profits. People going by themselves to look for a better place to live is only one form of colonization. And even in that case, most early attempts are paid for by the upper class/government/community.If people only look for a better place to live, Mars, or space in general, is the last place to go.You mixing two things up here that you can elaborate on.Reason for space Colonization1 Market or profit ( what you talking about)2 better place to live America was better place to live over Europe. You could own a home and vehicle than paying rent living in rooming house and walking or taking the city bus.Lack of Jobs and overcrowding and low income many reason Asians move to the US.For space Colonization has to be cheap enough, higher living standard and better quality of life for massive of people that would want to move!!If it cost millions of dollars to go by sea to America the Spaniards or British would never gone. And America be just home today of Native Indians!!
No. Colonization starts where value can be created. Most importantly in the form of (expected) profits. People going by themselves to look for a better place to live is only one form of colonization. And even in that case, most early attempts are paid for by the upper class/government/community.If people only look for a better place to live, Mars, or space in general, is the last place to go.
The Spanish went looking for a western trading route to China and India to get a slice from the profits of the massive trade in spices, silk, etc. The Italians still had plenty of contacts in the Ottoman empire to haul in massive profits, and the Portuguese hadn't finished sailing around Africa. If Spain hadn't found the Aztec and Inca empires, and looted their massive gold supplies, it's likely that England would not have bothered to invest in competing them. Not until another type of trade would have popped up, like the tobacco trade, exotic fruit, tea, and drugs.
QuoteEhm, I'm finding 20.000 on the longest stretches in the 1920's, before intercontinental travel was even possible, and 400 in the late 1930's.$20,000 in the 1920's is like cost of buying car today!!So it is like some one saying you got two option. One way trip ticket from New York to LA for $20,000 or buying new car.
Ehm, I'm finding 20.000 on the longest stretches in the 1920's, before intercontinental travel was even possible, and 400 in the late 1930's.
And $400 in the 1930's is cheap.
QuoteWell, we're back to basics because launches need to be cheap. Big-ass trailers aren't cheap. Whether 'less complex' means 'preloaded, single stage, low temperature return' (Skylon) or 'stack vertically, two stages with twice as much failure points and heat shield, extra mass and failure points for recovery' (everything else) is still being debated. In another thread, mind you.The only thing we know is: if it would be possible to reuse a rocket, there could be major cost reductions. How to do this best, is still up for grabs.It not Big-ass trailers or big spacecraft aren't cheap it is that space planes and SSTO are more costly than a rocket with two or three stages with space capsule.space planes and SSTO are just more costly no matter the size.
Well, we're back to basics because launches need to be cheap. Big-ass trailers aren't cheap. Whether 'less complex' means 'preloaded, single stage, low temperature return' (Skylon) or 'stack vertically, two stages with twice as much failure points and heat shield, extra mass and failure points for recovery' (everything else) is still being debated. In another thread, mind you.The only thing we know is: if it would be possible to reuse a rocket, there could be major cost reductions. How to do this best, is still up for grabs.
Quote from: high road on 07/07/2015 08:48 amThe Spanish went looking for a western trading route to China and India to get a slice from the profits of the massive trade in spices, silk, etc. The Italians still had plenty of contacts in the Ottoman empire to haul in massive profits, and the Portuguese hadn't finished sailing around Africa. If Spain hadn't found the Aztec and Inca empires, and looted their massive gold supplies, it's likely that England would not have bothered to invest in competing them. Not until another type of trade would have popped up, like the tobacco trade, exotic fruit, tea, and drugs.This vision of value set by trade I think that is not completely correct.First, you forget easily that America already has humans. Native americans show America as valuable. The value of the things is relative and subjetive to the people that live there.
That it is the reason because I think that robots has a lot of sense. Trade routes on space are expensive by complexity, specially if involve deep gravity wells. So I think that the key is develop good local economies enough to build these enough quality life. For complex goods or rare elements like platinum group materials could have sense trade. And on orbit trade like for little gravity bodies like asteroids and big space colonies could have too. But I think that it is not the key for make a successful colonization.
Quote from: nec207 on 07/06/2015 10:28 amBut it did not cost millions of dollars on a one way trip from New York to London. If it did airliners would not be possible.Ehm, I'm finding 20.000 on the longest stretches in the 1920's, before intercontinental travel was even possible,
But it did not cost millions of dollars on a one way trip from New York to London. If it did airliners would not be possible.
Belatedly:Quote from: high road on 07/06/2015 12:52 pmQuote from: nec207 on 07/06/2015 10:28 amBut it did not cost millions of dollars on a one way trip from New York to London. If it did airliners would not be possible.Ehm, I'm finding 20.000 on the longest stretches in the 1920's, before intercontinental travel was even possible,Can you provide a source for that? That's more then the purchase price of many entire aircraft of the era.
Quote from: Paul451 on 07/07/2015 12:59 pmBelatedly:Quote from: high road on 07/06/2015 12:52 pmQuote from: nec207 on 07/06/2015 10:28 amBut it did not cost millions of dollars on a one way trip from New York to London. If it did airliners would not be possible.Ehm, I'm finding 20.000 on the longest stretches in the 1920's, before intercontinental travel was even possible,Can you provide a source for that? That's more then the purchase price of many entire aircraft of the era.Actually, in the 1920's it cost hundreds of dollars, sometimes upwards of $1000 for Air Travel across the Atlantic. (the last one was for first class passage). Due to inflation, this would be roughly the equivelent of several hundred thousand or more today. (as a inflation example, some 70 odd years ago, when my fathert was a young child, people could buy a cheese burger for ten cents. (And THAT was at a Boardwalk amusment park!) While Air Travel didn't cost millions of dollars, it was usually priced far outside of the average person's budget.
While Air Travel didn't cost millions of dollars, it was usually priced far outside of the average person's budget.
Quote from: Spaniard on 07/07/2015 09:37 amQuote from: high road on 07/07/2015 08:48 amThe Spanish went looking for a western trading route to China and India to get a slice from the profits of the massive trade in spices, silk, etc. The Italians still had plenty of contacts in the Ottoman empire to haul in massive profits, and the Portuguese hadn't finished sailing around Africa. If Spain hadn't found the Aztec and Inca empires, and looted their massive gold supplies, it's likely that England would not have bothered to invest in competing them. Not until another type of trade would have popped up, like the tobacco trade, exotic fruit, tea, and drugs.This vision of value set by trade I think that is not completely correct.First, you forget easily that America already has humans. Native americans show America as valuable. The value of the things is relative and subjetive to the people that live there.Those natives got there by migration: each generation going a few miles further in search for food. Not exactly what the Europeans were looking for when they got to the new world. (though it is what they found: potatoes, corn,...). If we need to get to Mars to get more food, we're screwed.QuoteThat it is the reason because I think that robots has a lot of sense. Trade routes on space are expensive by complexity, specially if involve deep gravity wells. So I think that the key is develop good local economies enough to build these enough quality life. For complex goods or rare elements like platinum group materials could have sense trade. And on orbit trade like for little gravity bodies like asteroids and big space colonies could have too. But I think that it is not the key for make a successful colonization.There are three ways to sustain a colony: trade for what you can't produce (yet), gather money from a (religious) community to sustain the colony, or accept to live less affluently. Combinations are possible.edit: reading advice: I agree to everything I don't respond to.
Quote from: nec207 on 07/06/2015 11:28 pmQuoteNo. Colonization starts where value can be created. Most importantly in the form of (expected) profits. People going by themselves to look for a better place to live is only one form of colonization. And even in that case, most early attempts are paid for by the upper class/government/community.If people only look for a better place to live, Mars, or space in general, is the last place to go.You mixing two things up here that you can elaborate on.Reason for space Colonization1 Market or profit ( what you talking about)2 better place to live America was better place to live over Europe. You could own a home and vehicle than paying rent living in rooming house and walking or taking the city bus.Lack of Jobs and overcrowding and low income many reason Asians move to the US.For space Colonization has to be cheap enough, higher living standard and better quality of life for massive of people that would want to move!!If it cost millions of dollars to go by sea to America the Spaniards or British would never gone. And America be just home today of Native Indians!!What you are calling colonization is actually just migration. Colonization is moving to somewhere where you everything needs to be built from the start. Before there were cars. Before wages were higher, although expected profits and land claims were bigger, to compensate for the big risk of dying from disease, fights with the natives, starvation, storms while at sea, etc. The Americas were badlands for quite a while after colonization started, when compared to Europe.The Spanish went looking for a western trading route to China and India to get a slice from the profits of the massive trade in spices, silk, etc. The Italians still had plenty of contacts in the Ottoman empire to haul in massive profits, and the Portuguese hadn't finished sailing around Africa. If Spain hadn't found the Aztec and Inca empires, and looted their massive gold supplies, it's likely that England would not have bothered to invest in competing them. Not until another type of trade would have popped up, like the tobacco trade, exotic fruit, tea, and drugs.Be assured that the first exploration ventures (that's before colonization took place), when calculated in todays value, cost millions. Or maybe even billions if you want to use 'average incomes' rather than 'real value' to correct for money depreciation and social evolution.
You forgetting one thing!! If the weather was really bad and nothing grew in America it would be empty today. People that found the new world where amazed.Remember natives Indians and your mom and kids can set up farm and grow food. Take trees down to build a house!! Used wood to cook your food and keep you warm. You can't do this on mars.It requires skilled people and lots of money.Your next door neighbor with no high school with luck can build sale boat and go from US to Europe with luck you may get there and not drown. You can't do this in space. You need very skilled people, lots of money to test and build your rocket and lots of money to get into it and go.You need technology to keep you alive to get there and well you are there. All costly lots of money.If space was water oceans and the earth was flat thus very easy to get into space no technology needed to get into space it would be very different today.But getting into space is hard and extremely costly and space is a hostile environment.
Quote from: nec207 on 07/07/2015 10:52 pmYou forgetting one thing!! If the weather was really bad and nothing grew in America it would be empty today. People that found the new world where amazed.Remember natives Indians and your mom and kids can set up farm and grow food. Take trees down to build a house!! Used wood to cook your food and keep you warm. You can't do this on mars.It requires skilled people and lots of money.Your next door neighbor with no high school with luck can build sale boat and go from US to Europe with luck you may get there and not drown. You can't do this in space. You need very skilled people, lots of money to test and build your rocket and lots of money to get into it and go.You need technology to keep you alive to get there and well you are there. All costly lots of money.If space was water oceans and the earth was flat thus very easy to get into space no technology needed to get into space it would be very different today.But getting into space is hard and extremely costly and space is a hostile environment. For these reasons, do you think it would be better to terraform Mars before we start a colony? That's what they did in the movie "Red Planet". They nuked the poles to free up water and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to heat it up then introduced a photosynthetic organism once it was warmer. The photosynthetic organism then made oxygen.
I just wanted to add, that according to wikipedia, there is around 10^15 m^3 of CO2 in both poles of Mars. If we were to melt and sublime all of that with nuclear bombs, it would make 10^18 gaseous m^3 of CO2, enough to make a 1 atm atmosphere on Mars up to 10 000 m.
The amount resources need to terraform Mars is staggering, but it is possible.
Actually, in the 1920's it cost hundreds of dollars, sometimes upwards of $1000 for Air Travel across the Atlantic.
Due to inflation, this would be roughly the equivelent of several hundred thousand or more today.
Quote from: Paul451 on 07/07/2015 12:59 pmCan you provide a source for that? That's more then the purchase price of many entire aircraft of the era.I don't remember the exact words I googled, so I can't find the exact site anymore. However, the sites I do find with this number, place it in the 1930, and already adjusted for inflation. That explains a lot. [...] I was googling on my smartphone when writing that post, so I didn't do as much fact-checking as I should have.
Can you provide a source for that? That's more then the purchase price of many entire aircraft of the era.
and such high fares before regular airlines were erected seemed strange.