Space Plutonium: US Once Again Producing Fuel for Deep-Space Missions

a reply to: intrptr
My apologies. I misread.

a reply to: Phage

It's a question of economics, one that it is clearly not understood by the majority of people.

They will benefit from SpaceX's work and take new risks resulting in even better understanding of the technologies involved.

What concerns me most is if SpaceX is glaringly successful, it will likely be nationalized and we will fall back into the stagnation that we have been experiencing.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Phage

It's a question of economics, one that it is clearly not understood by the majority of people.

They will benefit from SpaceX's work and take new risks resulting in even better understanding of the technologies involved.

What concerns me most is if SpaceX is glaringly successful, it will likely be nationalized and we will fall back into the stagnation that we have been experiencing.

This is one of my biggest fears: that SpaceX will just become another NASA.

a reply to: greencmp

They will benefit from SpaceX's work and take new risks resulting in even better understanding of the technologies involved.

Yes. That's possible.
It's also possible that they will avoid any such venture and direct their resources elsewhere. Not every company has an Elon Musk at the helm.

This can only be good news. Cant wait to see where NASA and SpaceX take us

a reply to: Phage

Well, that's what happened with every other technological innovation isn't it?

The pioneers failed so no one ever dared venture down those paths ever again.

a reply to: greencmp

Well, that's what happened with every other technological innovation isn't it?

Nope. Not every one. Obviously. But some.

Concorde was a wonderful thing.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: greencmp

Well, that's what happened with every other technological innovation isn't it?

Nope. Not every one. Obviously. But some.

Concorde was a wonderful thing.

And it was government that restricted its commercial use.

a reply to: greencmp

And it was government that restricted its commercial use.

No. That was not actually the problem. It was the cost. Of course, the crash didn't help either.

But now you're sliding the goalposts.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: greencmp

Well, that's what happened with every other technological innovation isn't it?

Nope. Not every one. Obviously. But some.

Concorde was a wonderful thing.

And it was government that restricted its commercial use.

What on earth are you on about? My wife's parents flew on it three times. I cant recall them ever having any difficulty in getting a ticket.

Cost. Cost is what killed it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: greencmp

And it was government that restricted its commercial use.

No. That was not actually the problem. It was the cost. Of course, the crash didn't help either.

But now you're waffling.

Waffling? I think I'm pretty consistent actually.

Whatever the specific reason cited, it was regulated into oblivion.

Noise being the most publicized factor.

a reply to: greencmp

Concorde wasn't restricted for commercial use. It was restricted from going supersonic within 250 miles of land, because the sonic booms were so bad from it. Not many airlines were interested in it because of the costs involved, and because it was a niche market.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: greencmp

Well, that's what happened with every other technological innovation isn't it?

Nope. Not every one. Obviously. But some.

Concorde was a wonderful thing.

And it was government that restricted its commercial use.

What on earth are you on about? My wife's parents flew on it three times. I cant recall them ever having any difficulty in getting a ticket.

Cost. Cost is what killed it.

So, a new experimental technology was expensive and had safety issues?

What a surprise.

If government had done it (it was heavily subsidized), I suppose it would have been cheap and safe.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: greencmp

Concorde wasn't restricted for commercial use. It was restricted from going supersonic within 250 miles of land, because the sonic booms were so bad from it. Not many airlines were interested in it because of the costs involved, and because it was a niche market.

Precisely, and this is the single example chosen to refute my position.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: greencmp

And it was government that restricted its commercial use.

No. That was not actually the problem. It was the cost. Of course, the crash didn't help either.

But now you're waffling.

Waffling? I think I'm pretty consistent actually.

Whatever the specific reason cited, it was regulated into oblivion.

Noise being the most publicized factor.

No it wasnt. other than not being allowed to go supersonic over land.

And this is why

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: 3danimator2014

See above post.

a reply to: greencmp

And it wasn't restricted for commercial use. Two airlines were interested in it, before they restricted it to not going supersonic over land. TWA, Pan Am, and American all canceled their orders because it was going to be too expensive to maintain, or price tickets so high only a very few people could fly on it, which is exactly what happened. Even with not going supersonic over land, the time savings were well worth it for business travelers, but it required over a 50% load on every flight to break even, and it wasn't cutting it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You should go back and see what we were talking about.

a reply to: greencmp

So now, despite talking about the Concorde being restricted for commercial use, you WEREN'T talking about the Concorde being restricted for commercial use.

Got it.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: 3danimator2014

See above post.

I saw it...still dont get what you are saying