Article View: sci.space
Article #7147Re: DC-1 eventual construction question...
From: Edward V. Wright
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 05:03
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 05:03
68 lines
3215 bytes
3215 bytes
In <1993Jan27.020909.11819@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >For the forssable future, I think it is. Fortunately, your opinions are not acts of God. :-) >>Lockheed was ready to proceed with an >>SSTO using its own money, if the government was willing to get out >>of the way. >What do you mean by out of the way? I'm only repeating what I heard, but I think it's fairly obvious they were talking about regulation (and maybe a guarantee that the government would not build something to compete with them). >>Grumman was prepared to go ahead with the development >>of a smaller, commercial SSTO (Frequent Flyer) using its own funds, >>if SDIO had selected its proposal for the suborbital demonstration >That is news to me. Grumman was not one of the Phase I contractors. Grumman's bid was declared ineligible because it was not technically single-stage-to-orbit. (It's air-launched from a 747.) >>Boeing is prepared to go ahead with an SSTO project, if it >>can be shown what the markets are. >Sure. The operative words are 'if it can be shown what the markets are'. >They won't settle for expected space tourism or other applications which >may or may not happen. Please tell me what else was said at the meeting, Allen. I don't recall hearing that. >>That's because you're looking at the wrong market. >I am looking at the existing launch market. There are no others. Oh? Really? I could have sworn I saw an ad in this morning's paper for flights to Australia. And that Society Expeditions collected quite a few reservations for LEO tourist flights, just a few years back. Guess the memory does play tricks at my age. >>There is a market for fast transportation, for people >>as well as cargo. >I agree. The problem is that this cannot be proven to the degree needed >to justify the opportunity cost of funding development. I can't prove Santa Claus exists. As for Federal Express... give me your address and I'll have the evidence on your desk at 10:00 tomorrow morning. >If you don't agree, show us your business plan. Sorry, it's not my plan. If you want to see it, you'll have to talk to the copyright holder. (Yes, I know, I'm a terrible fussbudget about these things. Comes from being a professional writer.)
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<ewright.728111025@convex.convex.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!ames!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!eff!news.oc.com!convex!ewrightReferences:
<1993Jan21.141726.1@max.u.washington.edu> <1993Jan26.024338.10181@iti.org> <ewright.728027076@convex.convex.com> <1993Jan27.020909.11819@iti.org>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!ames!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!eff!news.oc.com!convex!ewright
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: DC-1 eventual construction question...
Sender: usenet@news.eng.convex.com (news access account)
Message-ID: <ewright.728111025@convex.convex.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 05:03:45 GMT
References: <1993Jan21.141726.1@max.u.washington.edu> <1993Jan26.024338.10181@iti.org> <ewright.728027076@convex.convex.com> <1993Jan27.020909.11819@iti.org>
Nntp-Posting-Host: bach.convex.com
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
not necessarily those of CONVEX.
Lines: 69