Technotranscendence wrote:
> On Saturday, December 30, 2000 12:08 PM Adrian Tymes wingcat@pacbell.net
> wrote:
> > (This is why, if I ever do a space
> > company, I will try to have a home-built launcher that I've actually
> > flown *before* going out for funding. A development process that
> > requires $millions before doing the first non-simulated test is not as
> > likely to produce results as one that does not.)
>
> Sounds like a capitol idea to me. I don't see why these guys don't use
> off-the-shelf boosters, engines, and such.
<shrugs> I can certainly see the appeal, and *potential* return, in
more efficient engines. For instance, if one could, say, boost electric
rockets' (ion/plasma/etc.) performance to make a usable launcher out of
one, then that gets rid of a lot of maintenance headaches re: plumbing
the rocket. But focussing entirely on that aspect, and ignoring the
fiscal realities of development, leads to...well, the very boondoggle
that NASA and its subcontractors face today, which inspired the indies
to begin with. To quote XCOR, "Many tests on a small motor are better
than no tests on a large one."
> > > Go nanotech!
> >
> > Go buisness model! I honestly don't see where the material and
> > manufacturing tech ever held these ventures up, so much as the fact
> > that they never got around to *using* even the cheap stuff that's out
> > there.
>
> I agree. While I'm very enthusiast for nanotechnology, I don't make it into
> my mantra for whenever I get into a bind. (The same applies to the
> Singularity.)
Same here. In fact, I am increasingly growing convinced that not
relying on the future before it arrives - but taking full advantage of
it once it is present reality - is the best, possibly the only, way to
create the future.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:44 MDT