Starship simulator (was: VAX 11/780s...)

From: Ian Koller <>
Date: Thu Jan 10 15:23:24 2002


  I wish we had it all today too. I'm sure we would have
been much further along if they hadn't cut the budget
back so severely after the apollo program wrapped up. But
the shuttle is a good working vehicle. Launches of the
shuttle are so common now, you only hear a blurb on it
on the news. In addition to flying Glenn back into space,
I wish they would take Yeager up one time too, just to
thank him for the contributions he also made.

 There are some small private outfits trying to develop
their own programs too, either in CA or somewhere out
west. But it still takes a lot of money, just not as
much as NASA requires. On CNN this morn, I believe there
was mention of a launch, but the vehicle was still a
$500,000 vehicle. I bet if you searched google, you
might find one of the private projects, that you might
even be able to contribute help to.

 One concern I have though is that until there is actually
a good destination to go to ( where there is air and water,
even if it has to be extracted ) there may not be enough
of a reason to make it commercially viable. Short hops to
get halfway around the globe in record time would be good,
but true deep space travel may need a destination that will
support life. I liken it to sailing. Some people like to
take their boat out just to go sailing, but I kind of always
wanted a destination to sail to. Sailing halfway out into the
Atlantic, just to see it, and coming back just never excited
me. If Columbus hadn't found the "New World" how many would
have continued to voyage out across the atlantic.


Ben Franchuk wrote:
> Ian Koller wrote:
> >
> > Hello Ben,
> >
> > > I say dump this simulation idea and build the real thing!
> >
> > I doubt you'd want to, or be able to, commit the real level
> > of resources necessary for this.
> It is not a easy project, and definitely a team effort, but you
> still need one man/woman with a vision. Right now space travel
> in same field as computers in the early 1960's. They still would
> be mainframes on punch cards today had not the PDP-1 and PDP-5
> and PDP-11 been designed by a small team of people.
> > That's not the sole motivation there. I do not doubt that
> > large aerospace lobbying has some influence on project
> > funding, but the real reason their projects cost what they
> > do is the fact that they are held to very high standards.
> > People's lives and the taxpayers' money are at stake,
> > accountability to the US government and the american taxpayers,
> > etc. won't allow them to work like hobbyists or shadetree mechanics.
> Ha-Ha -- accountable that is funny. Too much red tape and kickbacks
> I bet to make it easy for a team of people to develop something.
> A hobbyist is somebody who does something with out getting paid
> for it. Talent is not == money. Since I don't have talent in that
> field of rocket hardware I may not design a warp drive :) but still
> could help out in other fields. The point is nobody wants to go into
> space if they have to do a little work.
> >
> > > a simple-reusable space craft
> >
> > I doubt that such a thing would ever really be "simple"
> >
> > I really hope that you were actually joking. This analysis
> > of the requirements is very innocent in it's point of view.
> > Much like a child's view of the world. And note that I'm
> > not calling you childish, just that simplistic statement
> > of the requirements for projects of this scope.
> NO joke!
> A space craft is hard to design because so many variables
> change exponentially. A 5% factor could cross a threshold
> wipe out this whole design. Simple is a relative term here.
> I like a simple two stage space-plane rail launched with
> only the 1st stage manned ( single pilot ). The second stage
> would fly to dock with a low orbit space station. Re-entry
> still needs more thought but one idea is dismantling the 2nd stage
> and having a return shuttle take down the peaces.
> > > putting ORDANARY people in space!
> >
> > This will happen someday soon though. Maybe another 30 to
> > 50 years?
> I am 42 come spring. I can't wait another 30 years. :)
> One view I have is since space travel is 10x harder than
> flying I expect payloads to be 1/10 of the what flying is.
> This is in the scale of 500 to 2000 LBS payloads.
> You have NASA's plan -- big projects done by a army of
> people -- my plan ordinary people on average wages bootstrapping
> themselves into space. Think small you can build big projects.
> Think big and you get small projects like NASA seems to be doing.
> > Seeing the work Henk has done, I'm sure that he has invested
> > a lot of time, and a fair amount of money, just in creating
> > such a well done simulator project of that scope.
> True. But then if he decides he wants to build a console
> for space craft to say MARS could he do it with out political
> problems.
> --
> Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
Received on Thu Jan 10 2002 - 15:23:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:34:54 BST