Community > Forum > All other competitions > PanAero

PanAero

Posted by: Irving - Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:31 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 3 posts ] 
PanAero 
Author Message
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:06 am
Posts: 147
Post PanAero   Posted on: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:31 pm
Some information regarding PanAero has been posted at the sci,space.policy newsgroup.

Excerpt:

"PanAero is shifting our focus back to orbit--particularly
toward our post-RASCAL F-14 satellite launch vehicle. We have
an expendable upper stage concept that should be able to put
about 200 kg into an Iridium orbit for significantly less than
RASCAL's recurring cost goal for a 75-kg payload. We hope
to publish this concept on our web site in a few days; the concept
currently shown calls for a higher-risk, more complex reusable booster
launched from the F-14. The newer expendable upper stage appears
to be significantly more promising. Incidentally--while we had
been forced to postulate extensive changes to the F-14 to meet
DARPA/RASCAL goals, our post-RASCAL appproach is much simpler,
and requires only modest modifications to the F-14."

http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl= ... com&rnum=9

[/url]


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:06 am
Posts: 147
Post    Posted on: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:36 pm
Additional Details:

"John, our trajectory for the Condor-X flies with lift
greater than thrust all the way up to 35 km (subsonically).
At extremely low wing loading, the basic problem of very
high altitude flight is one of lack of (airbreathing)
thrust, not lift. This trajectory results in lift being
greater than thrust for two-thirds of the powered flight,
and about 51 percent of powered flight with respect to
the altitude domain. "

http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=41076b36.1315567536%40news.west.earthlink.net&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Dsci.space.policy


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 2:25 am
Posts: 161
Location: DFW, Texas
Post    Posted on: Wed Feb 04, 2004 3:27 pm
I read the first link noted above and found the following:

Methinks you worry too much about technical barriers--and not enough about regulatory barriers. IMO, security regulations tend to encourage ENRON's and WorldCom's. However, they stop entreprenuers dead in their tracks. The emphasis should be on prosecution of fraud, not the impossible task of never allowing fraud to occur.

For one thing, I think our government should be able to trust taxpayers to take the incredible risk of investing perhaps ten percent of their tax bill in some crazy entrepreneurial space launch system as an alternative to the almost sure waste of collecting the money involuntarily to spend on something like a Space Shuttle--which was prima facie fraud from day one with respect to state cost goals.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
len@tour2space.com

I applaud PanAero's efforts and their prospective and experience in developing space technologies in the face of irrational government regulation and harrassment.

PanAero is worth consideration for any high-risk investment dollars. :lol:

Also, I noted the XPRIZE poll on the homepage.

"Should the space tourism industry be regulated by the government?"

9.52% Heavily
27.71% Moderately
31.63% Slightly
31.12% Not at all (That's 63% who believe government bureaucrats should get out of the way!) :wink:


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use