Space Forum / Space Policy / September 2003

Back in the the sixties there were three new spacecraft in 10 years. Now we
might get one in the next ten years. Is the difference just caused by
funding, or are there some other things that have changed this? Thanks,
David

Sorry for posting this rather late, we're a little disorganized...
-------------------
The Canadian Space Society is proud to announce the 2003 Space Summit
Featuring Canadian Mars and Micro Satellite Missions. This is an

I have another column this week on why space stuff costs so
much--because we expect it to:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98228,00.html

Firstly, could someone please explain to me why a space elevator is a
good idea, period, I just do not get it.  I can not help but see a space
elevator in the same class as the space shuttle, and like.  Why do
people believe in it when the numbers seem so wrong?

i found this news from a failed rocket launch:
http://china-spacenews.com/News/news_detail.asp?id=6958
Unfortunately it is in chinese and the Bablefish translation is not quite
good. Can anyone with proper knowledge of chinese language please translate

Anybody know about this?
From: Space Environment Center
Date: Wed Sep 24, 2003 10:35:12 AM US/Eastern
To: sec-announcement-send@dawn.sec.noaa.gov

In today's Star Ledger (and likely many other papers) there was an
article about how ISS is "an accident waiting to happen".  Because of
poor communication between American and Russian engineers.

The recently reviewed Orbital Space Plane Level II Requirements
http://www.ospnews.com/osp_srr.pdf (executive summary) make no mention
of reusability. Given also the six month on orbit requirement, cargo
and four person capability OSP appears to be no more than a stretched

Although it would be very nice to have a very heavy launcher like
Saturn V or Energia, there is little market for it.  The small market
doesn't justify development or the infrastructure for it.  The market
can handle various smaller launchers.  Is there any way to use

DARPA and various companies including Scaled Composites are
looking at a carrier aircraft that would fly to Mach 3.1
and 200,000 feet(!) to deploy a two-stage rocket which
would carry up to 50-130 kg into orbit.

What happened to the anti-nuke crowd that used to come out of the woodwork
whenever there was a Cassini fly-by? About how the plutonium could kill
'millions'?
Where were the screeds bewailing the contamination of a pristine planet with

Submitted for your amusement.
My voice alone was insufficient to get them to change the FAQ.
This is from a leading renewable energy advocacy group's FAQ
Try and picture what this would look like :)

http://www.geocities.com/nasascam
NO COMMENT :)

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/08/31/sprj.colu.space.sedan.ap/index.html
The OSP program  is on a crash schedule to get it flying within 5 years. The
Shuttle will be dumped, just like I predicted since it's tainted by the
smell of death.

According to Justin Ray's Spaceflightnow report at
"http://www.spaceflightnow.com/pegasus/scisat1/status.html",
about today's (8/12/2003) planned Pegasus XL launch:  
"The launch costs are $21.6 million. The price tag for the