Author Topic: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken  (Read 15579 times)

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5386
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 660
  • Likes Given: 3726
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #140 on: 04/28/2017 03:20 PM »
Actually even without them, I think they'd have done quite well.  Their biggest advantage was their intent and approach.
And I'd agree with you. A TSTO ELV with a GG cycle RP1/LOX engine set is very far from the leading state of the art.

OTOH how it has been designed and manufactured has very much been at the SoA in the rocket engineering business.
Funny, getting the cost down is SpaceX's main motive factor.  Not all companies have the same terribly (stupidly) short timeframes over which ROI is required.  Same things drives the short sellers nuts about Tesla, too.

In case you did not realize it SX is not quoted on the NYSE. It therefor does not need to fear having its stock price fall by people selling its stock and becoming a takeover target (and likewise it's senior management's personal wealth shrink due to the fall in that stock price).

Companies that do tend to be much more cautious in their planning.
Quote from: tdperk
" That will need Bigelow to actually launch a destination first. "

Only trivially true, a tautology.
Not if you're being asked to put down $Xm for the privilege of staying there it's not.
To go by their history SpaceX will succeed in building the ITS in 5 to 10 years, since they began the effort about 2 years ago and have a far better cash flow than they have previously.
When asked by an MIT Professor did he think ITS (or BFR) was possible in 6 years Musk replied (I think that's a little optimistic")
Hint. When the CEO and Chief Designer of the company wanting to build ITS says 6 years is too short to build ITS he is
a)Expressing an opinion based on his (very) well informed judgement about what's involved
b)Conducting a strategic deception to mislead SX's business rivals.
I will leave you to think about which one of these options is the more plausible.
FH, which conceptually is a much simpler upgrade(same materials, same engines, no cross feed), is 3 years over its first announcement and may slip to 4.

ITS needs a new engine (currently only tested to 1/4 full scale), major new tanks in a completely different material to what SX is used to using and needing some serious new infrastructure to launch it and/or transport it.
And whether the demo LOx tank for the ITS which was tested to destruction recently by SpaceX went as expected or early, they have retired risk in that regard.  It's either now a known unknown, or a known known--to them.
Partly retired as there is no way to test it through it's full flight range.
Interesting factoid #2. NASA found that hitting a composite tank could reduce it's ability to carry a pressurized load by 30% without any obvious visible signs of damage.

Slamming a composite tank into the ground will definitely give a shock load to such a tank. Hopefully they will have on board test and repair equipment to spot such damage and fix it.
Quote from: tdperk
Mr. Musk's stated timelines are not fabulations, they are a management strategy.  No delays of unaccounted origin are tolerable.
How interesting. That suggests SX had done a lot more science (delays of unaccountable origin) than I ever imagined.
Quote from: tdperk
If all goes well, I think it will be 5 years.  10 is at the outside.
Atkins first law. Engineering is done with mathematics. Engineering without mathematics is opinion.
IOW when you think SX can do ITS in 5 years, Musk says 6 is optimistic, FH is 3 years behind schedule and ITS is much harder most people will look at the evidence and conclude you're wrong.
http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html
« Last Edit: 04/28/2017 03:29 PM by john smith 19 »
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4203
  • Liked: 2522
  • Likes Given: 3528
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #141 on: 04/28/2017 04:55 PM »

Quote from: tdperk
If all goes well, I think it will be 5 years.  10 is at the outside.
Atkins first law. Engineering is done with mathematics. Engineering without mathematics is opinion.
IOW when you think SX can do ITS in 5 years, Musk says 6 is optimistic, FH is 3 years behind schedule and ITS is much harder most people will look at the evidence and conclude you're wrong.
http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html

Adding a few numbers into your text is not mathematics... your statement is pure opinion (as is that of tdperk).
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5386
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 660
  • Likes Given: 3726
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #142 on: 04/28/2017 09:01 PM »
Adding a few numbers into your text is not mathematics... your statement is pure opinion (as is that of tdperk).
Those "few numbers"  are the actual delays for a real system SX has built (and FH has still not flown yet) and Musk's lower bounds on ITS.

So anyone thinking ITS will fly in 5 years when the CEO and Chief Designer thinks 6 is optimistic is, to put it bluntly, delusional.
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline tdperk

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 105
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #143 on: 04/28/2017 10:16 PM »
FH, which conceptually is a much simpler upgrade(same materials, same engines, no cross feed), is 3 years over its first announcement and may slip to 4.

BTW, I should very much like to see you name any reason, backed by a fact, to claim it will slip past the current date for any reason other than weather or some other vehicle taking priority over the range.

Offline tdperk

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 105
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #144 on: 04/28/2017 10:31 PM »
Wayne Hale has noted that the gap between manned U.S. Space missions from U.S. soil with American spacecraft is now greater than that between Apollo & Shuttle! Depressing... Not much to say about that. :(

I feel there is this to say about it.

As the concurrent late and terribly expensive development of the SLS shows, this gap shows the contrast to be all but universally expected in the results from when free enterprise is not interfered with by political concerns, between that free enterprise and efforts where politics are paramount.

What we get out of this gap is at least one (depending on timing and how generous you are with it, three) systems based on US soil which can launch human payloads with greater reliability than the Shuttle produced, and two of which can do so at far lower cost per pound than the Shuttle ever did on it's best day.

If the Saturn's use was going to be curtailed after Skylab, a "gap" was inevitable.  We didn't get a sensible vehicle after the end of that gap.  After the end of this one, we have one or two.  It's a good thing.

Offline tdperk

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 105
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #145 on: 04/28/2017 10:35 PM »
Actually even without them, I think they'd have done quite well.  Their biggest advantage was their intent and approach.
And I'd agree with you. A TSTO ELV with a GG cycle RP1/LOX engine set is very far from the leading state of the art.

OTOH how it has been designed and manufactured has very much been at the SoA in the rocket engineering business.
Funny, getting the cost down is SpaceX's main motive factor.  Not all companies have the same terribly (stupidly) short timeframes over which ROI is required.  Same things drives the short sellers nuts about Tesla, too.

In case you did not realize it SX is not quoted on the NYSE. It therefor does not need to fear having its stock price fall by people selling its stock and becoming a takeover target (and likewise it's senior management's personal wealth shrink due to the fall in that stock price).

Companies that do tend to be much more cautious in their planning.
Quote from: tdperk
" That will need Bigelow to actually launch a destination first. "

Only trivially true, a tautology.
Not if you're being asked to put down $Xm for the privilege of staying there it's not.
To go by their history SpaceX will succeed in building the ITS in 5 to 10 years, since they began the effort about 2 years ago and have a far better cash flow than they have previously.
When asked by an MIT Professor did he think ITS (or BFR) was possible in 6 years Musk replied (I think that's a little optimistic")
Hint. When the CEO and Chief Designer of the company wanting to build ITS says 6 years is too short to build ITS he is
a)Expressing an opinion based on his (very) well informed judgement about what's involved
b)Conducting a strategic deception to mislead SX's business rivals.
I will leave you to think about which one of these options is the more plausible.
FH, which conceptually is a much simpler upgrade(same materials, same engines, no cross feed), is 3 years over its first announcement and may slip to 4.

ITS needs a new engine (currently only tested to 1/4 full scale), major new tanks in a completely different material to what SX is used to using and needing some serious new infrastructure to launch it and/or transport it.
And whether the demo LOx tank for the ITS which was tested to destruction recently by SpaceX went as expected or early, they have retired risk in that regard.  It's either now a known unknown, or a known known--to them.
Partly retired as there is no way to test it through it's full flight range.
Interesting factoid #2. NASA found that hitting a composite tank could reduce it's ability to carry a pressurized load by 30% without any obvious visible signs of damage.

Slamming a composite tank into the ground will definitely give a shock load to such a tank. Hopefully they will have on board test and repair equipment to spot such damage and fix it.
Quote from: tdperk
Mr. Musk's stated timelines are not fabulations, they are a management strategy.  No delays of unaccounted origin are tolerable.
How interesting. That suggests SX had done a lot more science (delays of unaccountable origin) than I ever imagined.
Quote from: tdperk
If all goes well, I think it will be 5 years.  10 is at the outside.
Atkins first law. Engineering is done with mathematics. Engineering without mathematics is opinion.
IOW when you think SX can do ITS in 5 years, Musk says 6 is optimistic, FH is 3 years behind schedule and ITS is much harder most people will look at the evidence and conclude you're wrong.
http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html

I'm quite aware SpaceX's ROI is internal and you will surely not quote anything where I claimed it is traded?  Why did you throw that out here, if not to distract from your weak argument?  The ROI of SpaceX is primarily to the satisfaction of Musk.  This does not detract from his timeframe for it being much longer than usual, as with Tesla which I mentioned and is traded.

No one is being asked to put down any money to stay on a Bigelow which isn't here yet, are they?  And yet, when they are orbited, do you doubt there will be takers?

Some of those 6 years have already elapsed, I beleive well over a year has.  The considered judgement on the forums here is that the test article is 1/3 scale, and SpaceX already brought to your attention they built and tested to destruction a full scale ITS tank.  Also, where'd you get the very foolish idea they are going to slam it into the ground?  Do you also pretend Falcon are slammed into the ground?

And yes, SpaceX has done a great deal more work than most of it's detractor admit.  They have been given nothing by NASA which they could use as is, they cut all their own metal and did the work of designing how to cut it.

I'm stating 5 to 10 years from now, you and AncientU seem possessed of the delusion that the 6 years has not already started, and there are no more mathematics to your opinion than there are to mine...

...And I do show more awareness of the apparent facts.
« Last Edit: 04/28/2017 10:53 PM by tdperk »

Online Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3803
  • Liked: 1186
  • Likes Given: 1003
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #146 on: 04/28/2017 10:38 PM »
We are so far from the original topic, with so many very long posts.

The gap between the end of the Shuttle program and the first occupied flight of either Orion or Dragon or CST-100 is longer than the gap between Apollo and Shuttle.

It is what it is for a hundred reasons.  As far as I can see none of them involve ITS, as it surely won't be the vehicle to end the gap.  It doesn't matter what could have been, or what might be along some alternate path.  The issue is when one of those three vehicles will do it and why it is taking so long.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8059
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 247
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #147 on: 04/29/2017 01:41 AM »
{snip}
The fact that there were now TWO suit development programs drew criticism from US Congress (and rightly so IMO) because those two programs paralleled each other to a large extent. It took NASA six years to finally figure out that having two suit development projects was not in the best general interest and they finally terminated the CxP suit development project in 2016, six years after CxP itself got canned. Now, NASA is back to just one suit development program, with still no quarantee of an operational replacement suit by the time EMU is to be phased out. So the redundancy argument does not hold either.

With COTS NASA changed its rules on equipment development. This was the start of parallel launch vehicle  development.

The NASA Office of Inspector General seems to think that there are 3 Space Suits in development.
"While maintaining the existing fleet of EMUs for use on the ISS, the Agency has also spent almost $200 million on three spacesuit development efforts to enable human exploration in deep space, including missions to Mars:  the Constellation Space Suit System ($135.6 million), Advanced Space Suit Project ($51.6 million), and Orion Crew Survival System ($12 million). "
https://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY17/IG-17-018.pdf

Online TomH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1924
  • CA
  • Liked: 633
  • Likes Given: 193
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #148 on: 04/29/2017 06:27 AM »
NASA has lacked direction for years.  The directors have allowed congress to pick and choose what should be done lately.

This is perhaps the most stunningly uninformed comment I have ever read on this site. Whom do you know in any field who does not allow their bosses to tell them what to do? How in heaven's name could you envision NASA leadership telling congress, You are wrong; we are going to do what we think we should rather than following your instructions? How do you think that would actually go over?

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5386
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 660
  • Likes Given: 3726
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #149 on: 04/29/2017 07:08 AM »
I'm quite aware SpaceX's ROI is internal and you will surely not quote anything where I claimed it is traded?  Why did you throw that out here, if not to distract from your weak argument?  The ROI of SpaceX is primarily to the satisfaction of Musk.  This does not detract from his timeframe for it being much longer than usual, as with Tesla which I mentioned and is traded.
I'm not sure where or what you're reading as a reference to ROI.
Quote from: tdperk
No one is being asked to put down any money to stay on a Bigelow which isn't here yet, are they?  And yet, when they are orbited, do you doubt there will be takers?
Quote from: tdperk
Bigelow has said a key driver is cost of getting people too and from the modules. As a unique destination he should have a market. The question remains is the market big enough at the price point for transport that he can get.
Some of those 6 years have already elapsed, I beleive well over a year has.  The considered judgement on the forums here is that the test article is 1/3 scale, and SpaceX already brought to your attention they built and tested to destruction a full scale ITS tank.  Also, where'd you get the very foolish idea they are going to slam it into the ground?  Do you also pretend Falcon are slammed into the ground?
I don't believe. I know exactly.
It was September 25th 2014. 
Here's the video at around 0:15:20, shortly after he said upper stage reuse is off the table for F9 based hardware.

Quote from: tdperk
And yes, SpaceX has done a great deal more work than most of it's detractor admit.  They have been given nothing by NASA which they could use as is, they cut all their own metal and did the work of designing how to cut it.
Apart from the run of NASA's extensive library, it's specialist machinery centres and if necessary (but paid) access to its research specialists, as well as being able to license its TPS. And of course its funding through CCC

These are significant benefits and as Musk has stated SX's progress would not have been possible without NASA

It would be interesting to see which NASA centres have been most and least cooperative with SX. Johnson, where CC originated from, have probably been very helpful as they have a real need to get crew on ISS.
Quote from: tdperk
I'm stating 5 to 10 years from now, you and AncientU seem possessed of the delusion that the 6 years has not already started, and there are no more mathematics to your opinion than there are to mine...

...And I do show more awareness of the apparent facts.
And you'd be wrong. The clock started September 25th 2014. No I don't expect to seen an ITS in Mars orbit by 2020. I don't expect to see it flying by then. I'd like to see something in orbit by 2022 but I wouldn't hold my breath.

As always time will tell the winners from the losers, the skeptics from the doubters and the doubters from the fanbois.
« Last Edit: 04/29/2017 07:14 AM by john smith 19 »
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5386
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 660
  • Likes Given: 3726
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #150 on: 04/29/2017 07:15 AM »
This is perhaps the most stunningly uninformed comment I have ever read on this site. Whom do you know in any field who does not allow their bosses to tell them what to do? How in heaven's name could you envision NASA leadership telling congress, You are wrong; we are going to do what we think we should rather than following your instructions? How do you think that would actually go over?
And yet that's pretty much Jeff Greason's comment on the conclusions of the Augustine II committee's view of CxP. That in fact Congress did not authorize NASA to do this. It decided to do it.

I do think NASA has had a very long running problem in communications with Congress regarding what Congress wants and needs and NASA wants and needs.  :(
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5386
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 660
  • Likes Given: 3726
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #151 on: 04/29/2017 07:24 AM »
Returning to the thread topic I think SX will be the first to put a crew on a US space vehicle into LEO again, Boeing will follow and at some point NASA will launch SLS with an Orion on it.

As for the delay IIRC Marshall is responsible for propulsion and structures for rockets. If their last major role was Shuttle that implies they have not built a govt designed (and designed to be operated by government) system for a generation. This suggests they may have had to spend a substantial amount of time either re-learning old skills or educating a new generation of engineers in what to do and how to do it.

Then again maybe that was CxP and SLS is the "Second system" as FE Brooks put it.  :(
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2995
  • Liked: 510
  • Likes Given: 575
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #152 on: 04/29/2017 08:10 AM »
You know that when ex-Soviet people were first able to travel abroad en masse, they were *shocked* by what they saw in Western supermarkets? They could barely believe these things can exist: EVERYTHING is available, and it is ALWAYS available! Un-fcsking-believable.

"Profit motive produces little progress". Gosh....
Unfortunately the profit motive works when when customers can make money going to that destination.

Historically the 2 big customers with serious money to spend have been either governments (who spend taxpayers money so don't really care what it costs as long as it's as reliable as possible) and communications satellites who (likewise) did not really care what they spent as long as they got reliable launch. Because the only way to go to orbit was by an ELV.

I don't think you are right about comsat companies. They were happy to use cheaper launchers, as soon as those appeared as a viable alternative when after Soviet Union fall, Russians started to offer their LVs. They even accepted somewhat lower reliability of Russian tech in exchange.

And today, SES is quite explicit in its statements that they like and support SpaceX not because they are Musk fanboys, but for the very pragmatic reason that they like cheaper launch service.

Offline jgoldader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 639
  • Liked: 189
  • Likes Given: 123
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #153 on: 04/29/2017 01:24 PM »
I don't see a separate thread for the OIG space suit report; should there be one?  I'm not surprised at the state of SLS, but reading the space suit report was kind of shocking.

(Actually, some sort of main space suit thread would be interesting.)
« Last Edit: 04/29/2017 01:25 PM by jgoldader »
Recovering astronomer

Online AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #154 on: 04/29/2017 01:55 PM »
I don't see a separate thread for the OIG space suit report; should there be one?  I'm not surprised at the state of SLS, but reading the space suit report was kind of shocking.

(Actually, some sort of main space suit thread would be interesting.)

See: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42824.0

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5386
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 660
  • Likes Given: 3726
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #155 on: 04/30/2017 08:08 PM »
BTW, I should very much like to see you name any reason, backed by a fact, to claim it will slip past the current date for any reason other than weather or some other vehicle taking priority over the range.
What you need is to learn the difference between criticism of SX and polite skepticism SX will meet their schedule.

People are doubtful SX will meet their stated schedule because SX have a history of not meeting their schedule. What they are not (or should not be) doubtful of is SX's tenacity to pursue their goal and to eventually achieve it.

Maybe it will launch on the stated date this time round, maybe it won't. I don't think anyone doubts it will eventually.
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline tdperk

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 105
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #156 on: 05/11/2017 12:32 PM »
BTW, I should very much like to see you name any reason, backed by a fact, to claim it will slip past the current date for any reason other than weather or some other vehicle taking priority over the range.
What you need is to learn the difference between criticism of SX and polite skepticism SX will meet their schedule.

People are doubtful SX will meet their stated schedule because SX have a history of not meeting their schedule. What they are not (or should not be) doubtful of is SX's tenacity to pursue their goal and to eventually achieve it.

Maybe it will launch on the stated date this time round, maybe it won't. I don't think anyone doubts it will eventually.

I don't think I need to learn anything you suggest, because I don't think you know the difference between skepticism based in reality and what you evince, which is not.  I believe Musk's announced, presuming if nothing goes wrong schedules are a management tool designed to try to get the best performance out of his human resources.  It has nothing to do with being a deception or with being unrealistic, and if you were being realistic you would understand the significance of the flight hardware being test fired.

Absent a failure requiring a RTF after a pause to understand and fix it, the FH will launch this year and within a month of the current date--and you have no expressed factual reason to think otherwise.

Tags: