Comments on: Invoking China to keep the shuttle alive http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/01/03/invoking-china-to-keep-the-shuttle-alive/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=invoking-china-to-keep-the-shuttle-alive Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway... Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:35:41 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38 By: RD Fisher http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/01/03/invoking-china-to-keep-the-shuttle-alive/#comment-431566 Wed, 09 Oct 2013 18:56:27 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/01/03/invoking-china-to-keep-the-shuttle-alive/#comment-431566 While it lasts, here is an update on China’s space plane ambitions:

http://www.janes.com/article/28083/chinese-us-russian-shuttle-concepts-suggest-start-of-three-way-space-race

Reusable space plane program was affirmed during the 64th IAC in Beijing.

]]> By: Monte Davis http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/01/03/invoking-china-to-keep-the-shuttle-alive/#comment-33167 Mon, 07 Jan 2008 22:52:16 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/01/03/invoking-china-to-keep-the-shuttle-alive/#comment-33167 Ever hear of Blackstar?

Yeah. Ever see it?

]]> By: gm http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/01/03/invoking-china-to-keep-the-shuttle-alive/#comment-33061 Sun, 06 Jan 2008 19:13:19 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/01/03/invoking-china-to-keep-the-shuttle-alive/#comment-33061 2.5 years ago I’ve already predicted that China will build Spaceplanes in this (September 15, 2005) article: www + gaetanomarano.it/spaceShuttle/spaceshuttle.html
just click to enlarge the funny image of the “Shenzhou 235″ at the end of the article… :) :) :)

]]> By: Vladislaw http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/01/03/invoking-china-to-keep-the-shuttle-alive/#comment-33009 Sun, 06 Jan 2008 08:17:30 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/01/03/invoking-china-to-keep-the-shuttle-alive/#comment-33009 TLE,
I wonder, when the dinosaurs saw the asteroid ready to slam into the earth and exterminate everything, thought “gosh, maybe we should have put our DNA another another planetary body in case this happened”

]]> By: TLE http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/01/03/invoking-china-to-keep-the-shuttle-alive/#comment-32990 Sun, 06 Jan 2008 05:30:49 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/01/03/invoking-china-to-keep-the-shuttle-alive/#comment-32990 The ‘stick’ doesn’t do anything yet, and besides, it’s just a booster.

I kind of like those lofted high acceleration profiles, you get up into the good view very quickly, while accelerations are still quite low, so you get to enjoy the ride. Operationally and developmentally, spaceplanes are just too complicated and expensive, when we all know there is little or no real justification for manned spaceflight anymore. Attaching ‘value’ to manned spaceflight is the only way you are going to keep it going in the future.

That’s going to require drama on an almost weekly basis.

]]> By: ... http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/01/03/invoking-china-to-keep-the-shuttle-alive/#comment-32987 Sun, 06 Jan 2008 04:41:37 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/01/03/invoking-china-to-keep-the-shuttle-alive/#comment-32987 Ever hear of Blackstar? What’s really stupid is using 70% of your fuel and oxidizer load for lift and 30% toward the delta v required for orbit like the “stick” does.

]]> By: Vladislaw http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/01/03/invoking-china-to-keep-the-shuttle-alive/#comment-32984 Sun, 06 Jan 2008 04:18:54 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/01/03/invoking-china-to-keep-the-shuttle-alive/#comment-32984 what exactly is “that’s” all boeing did was file a patent, they never put it into production. Did someone just file a “stupid” patent?

]]> By: ... http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/01/03/invoking-china-to-keep-the-shuttle-alive/#comment-32981 Sun, 06 Jan 2008 03:49:42 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/01/03/invoking-china-to-keep-the-shuttle-alive/#comment-32981 That’s as stupid as Boeing doing this.

]]> By: Vladislaw http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/01/03/invoking-china-to-keep-the-shuttle-alive/#comment-32978 Sun, 06 Jan 2008 03:06:16 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/01/03/invoking-china-to-keep-the-shuttle-alive/#comment-32978 Rand,
I was not suggesting that Burt is the Second Coming of Christ. But Paul Allen could have chosen to fund ANYONE and EVERYONE for the xprize.
He didn’t, he chose Scaled Composites. So it begs the question, WHY?
As I stated earlier, I believe Allen chose Scaled because of their history. I also stated the fact about contrails and that scaled should be considered a “usual suspect” considering what Rutan has already done and stated.

So again, it isn’t about cult of personality, technology, or funding but just what IS the “driver” bringing the sudden change. I am suggesting that it is the military need for a suborbital craft that doesn’t need permission from another country to use airspace, which I personally feel is LONG over due for our military and the modern war fighter.

]]> By: Vladislaw http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/01/03/invoking-china-to-keep-the-shuttle-alive/#comment-32969 Sun, 06 Jan 2008 01:30:18 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/01/03/invoking-china-to-keep-the-shuttle-alive/#comment-32969 Al, Because in that document they identify problems and solutions to how to move technology. This was first started in 1995-96, finished and presented in 1999. Peter first started talking about an Xprize in late 95′ adopted from the SPACECUB project. So I was suggesting that there was a connection in timing. The document talks about how you use commerical interests to mature technology FASTER then if the maturing process takes place ONLY through a government program.

So for me it looks like the government decided that maturing for a suborbital craft would happen faster in the commercial sphere then in a purely military sphere were everything has to go through so many hoops and funding cycles that it is less efficient to do it as a military project and you eliminate the “guns in space” arguement that happens EVERYTIME the military talks about space assets.

The point about the contrails is that nobody is owning up to them or their creation so we are left with who is making them. Personally, for me, I rule out aliens and believe that as you say the technology is already there for suborbital and so the government must be responsible for their creation.

Okay, I have this GREAT idea for a suborbital craft and I take my idea into the market for capital and the first billionaire asks me “so have you ever built ANYTHING REMOTELY like this before?” .. MY answer would be a toe of my shoe scuffling in the dirt, my head hung down and some whispered stammerings of “ah .. well ah .. you see ah… gosh.. ah .. no i haven’t ever built anything like this before”

But that same billionaire asking burt rutan if he has built something like this would probably be “Yes I worked on X, X, and X.”

Even though there were other “qualified” people who could have did something suborbitally Rutan was probably the only one who already HAD worked on something suborbitally. So that is why I say it was no surprise he won it and that he got the most funding.

hope this clears up my meanings.

]]>