Nibb31

Of the 4 nuclear cargo ships ever built, 1 was American, 1 was Russian, 1 was German, and 1 was Japanese. Three Mile Island was operated by a private corporation. French nuclear plants were built by government-owned power company. The US government has also been responsible for stuff like this: http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/23/5742800/did-kitty-litter-just-kill-the-most-successful-nuclear-waste-facility Nuclear accidents happen out of neglect. Governments and corporations from all countries are capable of screwing up. Assuming that an installation is inherently safe simply because it's operated by a US corporation and not by a foreign government agency is reckless. It's the rules and regulations around the operation of a nuclear facility that makes it safe, not the entity that's operating it.

It is still possible to travel on board cargo ships nowadays. Most freighters have a couple of passenger cabins. It's slow, cheap, and lonely though. You eat with the crew, but you'd better bring your own entertainment because there isn't much to do on board.

NS Savannah was the first nuclear merchant ship: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah But there have been a few others, but none were very successful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion#Civilian_nuclear_ships

Which is typical paranoid conspiracy crackpot behavior. "If folks are refuting my ideas, it must be because they're part of a plot against those ideas". Conspiracy theories and other crackpot theories like "Ancient Aliens" are popular because people like going against mainstream knowledge. They usually get this information from folks who are even more ignorant than them, but it makes them feel smarter than they are, like they are part of some kind of privileged group that is into the secret. After that, confirmation bias does the rest, because it's easier to accept all the made-up evidence found on conspiracy web sites rather than to admit that you were ignorant.

It is half covered in solar panels. The other side acts as a radiator. What are you wondering about? The trunk is disposable, so cost is the driving factor here. These panels are cheaper and more reliable than the foldable panels with their disposable covers.

Ever heard of Occam's Razor ?

Yes, but that's not what "SSTO" means. If you mean "reusable", then say the damn word "reusable", not "SSTO", which means something else than "reusable". And reusable only cuts back on cost if there is demand for a high launch rate that makes reusing worthwhile. Current flight rates do not make reusable spacecraft worthwhile. When you only host a single party for 50 people every year, it makes sense to buy disposable plates and cups instead of investing in a full porcelain dinner set for 50 people and washing the dishes afterwards. If you will be hosting 50 people every night, then it's more economical to buy and maintain the dinner set.

No, it should be considered speculation. To be considered valid, a hypothesis needs evidence. I can speculate that there are pink unicorns flying around in teapots on Pluto. I have zero evidence, it is unlikely, but it is not impossible. However, nobody will accept to take my theory into consideration, and rightly so, because it is mere speculation. Just like your ancient civilization.

If it has multiple stages, then it is not an SSTO rocket. In addition, SpaceX plans to do a multiple stage rocket where all stages are reusable. SSTO != reusable. The difference is that there was actual demand for fast transatlantic transportation before it existed. There was a destination on the other end of the journey, with stuff to see, things to do, people to meet, business trips, trade, tourism, friends, relatives, business contacts... For public transportation to exist, people need to have a reason to travel. The demand for transportation to LEO is low because it is not an actual destination. There is nothing there. For most people, there isn't anything to do except float around in zero-g and stare out of a porthole. Us space geeks might find that fascinating, but for most people, that gets old after a day or two and is not worth the ticket.

A camera would be useless. You wouldn't see anything. It would be like flying through thick orange fog.

It'll be a lot less sexier when it comes back all charred from plasma heating. I wonder if the "same-day turnaround" includes a new paint job.

You might be referring to Omega: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_%28navigation_system%29

Crewed Dragon V2 will be flying before there is a cargo Dragon V2, so by that time, Dragon V2 should be quite robust.

Let me rephrase that: How many people can afford a $20 million ticket and are willing to spend a week floating in a tin can instead of chilling in Barbados or on a luxury yacht. It takes a certain type of geek to want to go to orbit... Your average thrill-seeking jetsetter might find some appeal in the Virgin joyride, luxury hotel and champaign included, but they would probably get fed up with staring through a Dragon porthole after the first half hour. "An easily sufficient number" isn't good enough.

SSTO simply means that you put the entire vehicle into orbit. It doesn't mean it's reusable or any cheaper. You are confusing reusability, single-stage to orbit, spaceplanes, and rockets. SSTO is quite easy (The old Mercury-Atlas was SSTO, and the Titan I first stage could also orbit itself if they wanted to). You can have multi-stage reusable rocket-powered spaceplaces and you can have single-stage expendable ramjet-powered missiles, and just about any combination of the above.

The cheapest way to get to orbit is going to be SpaceX. They claim it will cost $20 million per seat. How many rich people can afford that? Probably not enough to justify the expense of creating a space tourism industry.

Wear out? They are not reusing the Dragon V1s yet. I don't know if they will reuse them at this point. As you can see, they are in a sorry state (and Dragon V2 will look like this after landing too). They have been dunked in seawater, scorched, parachutes blown, and would need complete refurbishing. It is probably still cheaper to build new ones until they have built up confidence with the reusability. They will probably keep flying Dragon V1s for cargo, because they are the only vehicle at this point that can bring up and bring down ISPR racks, which is the main way of sending up new science experiments. ISPRs can only fit through CBM ports, so Dragon V2 cannot carry them. To make a cargo version of Dragon V2, they would need to fit a CBM, but that would require a whole different nose arrangement.

It is absolutely amazing. You were so quick on this. You even got the landing gear placement right! However, just like your DragonV1 and your Falcon 9, it is vastly overpowered. Your Dragon has enough dV to go to the Mun and back, which is pretty unrealistic. You should really only put 400 units of Monopropellant in the Dragon itself. After testing myself, that's more than enough to rendez-vous, dock, and do a propulsive landing. If folks need more for a specific mission, they can always put a tank or two in the trunk. I would also suggest putting a specific offset node on the trunk for the nose like this: node_stack_nose = 0.0, 2.197, 1.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0 And in the nose cone cfg: node_stack_bottom = 0.0, 0.02, 1.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0 This would make attaching everything in the VAB less confusing. It would be nice also to open/close the nosecone in the VAB and the landing gear doesn't seem to work with the G key.

Sorry, I hadn't finished my crappy sketch when I hit reply. Edited.

I know that the rotated trunk interferes with some people's OCD (including me), but when you think about it, it's basically a quite clever cost saving measure: In arrangement a (Dragon V1), both left and right panels are the same. All panel segments are identical. The panel is thinner and has less moving parts. In the arrangement b (which is similar to Soyuz), you have a left and right panel. Because the axis goes through the middle of the folded panel, the first segment has to be half size, which means that you have to source 2 different types of panels, which means twice the inventory, sourcing, higher manufacturing costs, etc. The arrangement also requires more hinges, including left and right side hinges, which increases the weight, the thickness of the folded panel, and the number of moving parts. More moving parts equals lower reliability. Apparently Dragon V2 will have an even cheaper and simpler trunk with no folding/rotating panels. They probably figured that plastering the trunk with flexible panels (even if half of them are only used at a time) is lighter and cheaper and more reliable than maintaining the folding/rotating mechanism and covers.

But the delays have been costing a lot of Money. Arousing interest is one thing, but they have been spending a lot of money in what is a suborbital dead-end. If Branson wanted to go orbital, he could have invested in a system that at least had the potential of going orbital in the future. I think he is simply banking on ignorance by claiming to be able to send them to space when all he is doing is putting them above the Karmann line for a few seconds. I also think it's going to bite him in the butt.

Even if they partnered with Endemol and half the TV channels in the World, they wouldn't be able to raise the money for an unmanned probe, let alone a manned trip. The obstacles are financial, technical, and ethical. People have got to let it go, it's not going to happen.

Hub motors increase the unsprung mass. On the other hand, they offer independent power distribution and braking on each wheel, which offers a great increase in safety and performance. And you can do away with the old disk brakes altogether.

A ticket with Virgin costs $200000. A ticket on Dragon will cost $20000000.

The Chevrolet Volt (or Opel or Vauxhall Ampera in Europe) has been on the market since 2011. The electric motors drive the wheels and a generator provides extra charge when you're away from home on a long trip. The generator is not a gas turbine, but a conventional internal combustion engine that runs at a constant optimal rpm. BMW and Volvo offer a similar system called a "range extender" as an option on their electric cars. Other manufacturers might do the same... As I said, there's a wide offering of electric cars nowadays from major car manufacturers (Renault, Ford, GM, VW, Mercedes, etc...). These are aimed at average consumers like you and me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electric_cars_currently_available Really folks, EVs are here, they're available, they work, and they're affordable. For example, Renault sells its Zoe at pretty much the price of a high-end Clio. You rent the batteries for a monthly fee and the charging cost goes on your electricity bill. Battery rental plus charging cost is much lower than your monthly fuel bill.