Things look like they could get ugly for NASA

[cjolley]

True, it would compete with the worlds yearly output of McDonalds Hambergers.
But no one said it would be cheap anyway.
chuck

[Gurm]

Sure it could. The tensile strength of these new materials is phe-friggin-nomenal. However, you'd have to extrude the cable from... the geosynchronous satellite. That might prove to be a problem...

- Gurm

[K6-III]

A larger capsule is better than an X-38 because you don't need to carry your lifting body with you. Also, being non-reusable is actually cheaper due to the fact that people-hours required for safety make up most of the cost in a reusable vehicle.

The europeans demonstrated quite well with Hermes that a spaceplane is not the way to go.

Inflatable structures are also being looked at by Bigelow Aerospace of Las Vegas, Nevada...

[Jon P. Inghram]

Just imagine the electrical problems they'd have... besides the fact that it would be a rather impressive lightning rod, there's this little thing called the Earths magnetic field. Then you've got solar radiation which would just add to the problem of surface charging (and worse things too.) Then you have to deal with accidents, breakdowns, sabotage, the fact that the Earth wobbles, the serious problem with constructing the thing in the first place... no way something like that will be made with our technology. Maybe with Star Trek grade "force fields" and whatnot.

Oh, and repairs, how do they plan to do that? Is this material 100% resistant to fatigue?

[K6-III]

And then there is the problem of winds at high altituds, applying something known as torques....

[cjolley]

All of those doubts are correct.
I give up.
We should just walk.
chuck

PS Listen to you whiny lot!

[Jon P. Inghram]

Hey, I'll all for it if it would work... I'm just annoyed when mad scientists like that get FUNDING for their pipe dreams.

[cjolley]

The only time I resent the “Mad Scientist" thing is when scientific analysis shows that their invention would violate an established scientific law.
Once scientific analysis shows that is theoretically possible, then it is time to begin experimenting on the engineering side.
Naturally no one would suggest that a thing like be built cold.
chuck

[K6-III]

Due to its great potential to change our world, and the fact that it isn't guaranteed not to work, surely it is worth some investment....

However, in the meantime we need to beat the Chinese back to the moon. This time we'll need to stay there....

[Greebe]

K6-III do you know why we haven't returned to the moon since Apollo?

Obviously not

[K6-III]

What is your explanation for us not returning, other than a lack of political support spurned by the Vietnam War...

[Brian R.]

I don't know, but I would guess it's because we don't have any Saturn V rockets nor Apollo spacecraft any more.

New programs have a high activation energy to establish/fund.

[Dr Mordrid]

You don't need a Saturn V to go to the moon.

With inflatable craft starting from the space station and using a smaller booster from orbit the improved power/weight ratio alone should create a much more efficient system. You might even be able to use the same vehicle for transit and landings.

Dr. Mordrid

[Gurm]

We lost interest, mostly.

- Gurm

[Dr Mordrid]

Not really.

What happend was a screwed up set of priorities. In the last 60's to late 70's we went on a socialistic bender, during which it was decided the money was better spent creating President Johnsons "Great Society" and its McGovern inspired sucessors to the exclusion of far too many other things.

Only recently did those paying attention come to realize that the more such entitlements the state offers the more people will drop out of the economy to take advantage of them instead of contributing to the GNP.

Now that we seem to have learned that lesson perhaps it's time to give real science its own fixed percentage of the GNP instead of one that has an ever reducing percentage.

Dr. Mordrid