The shuttle was overbloated for it's limited capacity.I guess I did enjoy seeing the ISS getting constructed but it's nothing more than a tin can science lab. Astronauts do experiments, take urine samples and come back down.JPL has done all the real exploration with their rovers and probes.Massive paranoia over sending humans into deep space exists.I'm not sure what can be done to overcome it.
Well I agre spectre that it is speculative, but then so is SLS. If SLS is successful nothing will have changed we will still have launch systems costing 1 billion a pop which means that space development will be going nowhere fast. If ELon MUsk is successful it will the biggest leap forward in space exploration since the V1. SOmething worth supporting I think.
You are very negative Jim, this guy is trying something which will make a big difference if he is successful, you sound like someone who wishes him to fail. Why?
Realistic? You have no more idea of his chance of success than I do.
Well I am an engineer who worked for many years at a BAE systems developing missiles systems. So not a complete no nothing fool JIm what about you where did you learn to be such a cynic
NASA workforce for human spaceflight reduced by over 10,000 (closer to 14,000) since 2008. Reduction in knowledge and capability for remaining NASA workforce.
...Why exactly we should be sad about this particular workforce taking a hit?
Quote from: gospacex on 10/11/2011 06:43 pm...Why exactly we should be sad about this particular workforce taking a hit?Because having idle workers during a time of high unemployment (caused by lack of demand) is anti-stimulus. I hear ya when it comes to having a more efficient system, but giving people unemployment checks is far worse than giving them a job, since a job helps build experience, helps people psychologically (you can't tell me you wouldn't gladly work on Shuttle instead of sitting at home and just taking unemployment!)
Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/11/2011 07:02 pmQuote from: gospacex on 10/11/2011 06:43 pm...Why exactly we should be sad about this particular workforce taking a hit?Because having idle workers during a time of high unemployment (caused by lack of demand) is anti-stimulus. I hear ya when it comes to having a more efficient system, but giving people unemployment checks is far worse than giving them a job, since a job helps build experience, helps people psychologically (you can't tell me you wouldn't gladly work on Shuttle instead of sitting at home and just taking unemployment!)There is a third option, you know. Don't work on Shuttle, but DONT sit at home and just take unemployment benefits. That's exactly what I did last time I lost a job: I found another one, instead of whining how unfair this life is to me.
HSF is *not* about providing people with jobs. Even if you are an adherent of nanny state ideal where people are to be provided jobs by the state, NASA is the wrong agency for that!
All those companies are involved but none of them is currently tring to build totally reusable launch systems
Quote from: corneliussulla on 10/09/2011 05:11 pmAll those companies are involved but none of them is currently tring to build totally reusable launch systemsOne thing I find so clever about Spacex's is their incremental approach to reusability.This has allowed to them to get something flying still at a lower cost then the competition and put the naysayers to rest.Commercial space flight is no longer a laughable matter.
Quote from: alk3997 on 10/09/2011 07:55 pmNASA workforce for human spaceflight reduced by over 10,000 (closer to 14,000) since 2008. Reduction in knowledge and capability for remaining NASA workforce.I don't think the success of the HSF is measured by number of people employed.STS workforce knows how to maintain just one particular LV, which is incidentally is the most expensive LV on this planet, $40k/kg in LEO.This workforce knows little to nothing about development of new LVs (as evidenced by its failures to build a successor to STS).This workforce knows little to nothing about economically optimizing existing LV it maintains, either. (No wonder - it never had a real incentive to do that. You taxpayer $$$ at work...)Why exactly we should be sad about this particular workforce taking a hit?
However, They have changed merlin 4x. B was considered a bust.Always keep in mind that SpaceX could be barking up another wrong tree.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/11/2011 07:02 pmQuote from: gospacex on 10/11/2011 06:43 pm...Why exactly we should be sad about this particular workforce taking a hit?Because having idle workers during a time of high unemployment (caused by lack of demand) is anti-stimulus. I hear ya when it comes to having a more efficient system, but giving people unemployment checks is far worse than giving them a job, since a job helps build experience, helps people psychologically (you can't tell me you wouldn't gladly work on Shuttle instead of sitting at home and just taking unemployment!)There is a third option, you know. Don't work on Shuttle, but DONT sit at home and just take unemployment benefits. That's exactly what I did last time I lost a job: I found another one, instead of whining how unfair this life is to me.HSF is *not* about providing people with jobs. Even if you are an adherent of nanny state ideal where people are to be provided jobs by the state, NASA is the wrong agency for that!
Quote from: corneliussulla on 10/09/2011 05:11 pmAll those companies are involved but none of them is currently tring to build totally reusable launch systemsCommercial space flight is no longer a laughable matter.
Have you worked out how many years (decades) it will take all of the commercial players combined to launch the same number of people who were launched on Shuttle at the projected launch rates?
This is where your money goes. If you want to save money then change requirements. Shuttle had changable requirements but losing another crew was not an option so if a requirement was perceived to add to safety it stayed and continued to cost money to implement (in most cases).
I'm curious how you all feel about the current state of NASA's HSF programs when compared to 2008. Personally, I feel we are better off now (the shuttle program end being a huge exception and unrelated to my focus here) than with the funding uncertainty and mismanagement problems that clouded CxP.
Quote from: alk3997 on 10/12/2011 01:53 amThis is where your money goes. If you want to save money then change requirements. Shuttle had changable requirements but losing another crew was not an option so if a requirement was perceived to add to safety it stayed and continued to cost money to implement (in most cases).I'm drifting slightly off-topic, but out of curiosity, were there any sort of assessments of how much particular requirements actually contributed to safety? It seems one could easily have scenarios where a dubious requirement might remain, simply because one didn't want to be blamed/fired if a potential accident occurred. Was there any sort of incentive for removing dubious requirements?
I found myself somehow annoyed by the use of 2008....probably because that year was more exciting than this year as we were actually flying shuttles.Quote from: PeterAlt on 10/07/2011 08:06 pmI'm curious how you all feel about the current state of NASA's HSF programs when compared to 2008. Personally, I feel we are better off now (the shuttle program end being a huge exception and unrelated to my focus here) than with the funding uncertainty and mismanagement problems that clouded CxP.And that's what's annoyed me. I thought Human Space Flight involved flying. You're saying this is better off now we're NOT flying?The plan is coming together, and that's gained a lot of responses, but let's not kid ourselves. NASA messed up the transition, badly - where we've got a more than capable vehicle (Endeavour) being signed off to a frakking exhibition today.Going to take a lot more than happy clapping commercial space advocates and NASA powerpoints to get us back into what was actually conducted in 2008.
Quote from: neilh on 10/12/2011 04:04 amQuote from: alk3997 on 10/12/2011 01:53 amThis is where your money goes. If you want to save money then change requirements. Shuttle had changable requirements but losing another crew was not an option so if a requirement was perceived to add to safety it stayed and continued to cost money to implement (in most cases).I'm drifting slightly off-topic, but out of curiosity, were there any sort of assessments of how much particular requirements actually contributed to safety? It seems one could easily have scenarios where a dubious requirement might remain, simply because one didn't want to be blamed/fired if a potential accident occurred. Was there any sort of incentive for removing dubious requirements?I can only answer that from my perspective. The culture was not one of "you'll be fired". It was more one of "you'll possibily contribute to the death of your friends and collegues on a Shuttle flight and end the program". You give me the choice of the two, I'll take the "fired" choice any day of the week.To answer your question specifically, you would look at things on a change-by-change basis. I'm not aware of a regular program-wide review to elmiinate unncessary testing (for instance) but we did do that on occasion - such as when a major modification was being done within a project. However anytime that was done, you had to overcome a lot of "fear and superstition". In other words, people would want to know the basis for getting rid of something that had supposedly been working for many years. It was much easier to add new requirements when something didn't work and so we would add more testing or checking.Edit: As I recall SSME was very good at deleting testing requirements when new versions of the SSME (Block I, Block II) came on-line. Reducing testing requirements was part of the justification for the money to make the upgrade.Again, it's much easier to delete testing requirements when discussing it on a forum than it is in real life where if you are incorrect, someone might die and the entire Shuttle program ended. However, when the ducks were in a row, it could be done.
And that's what's annoyed me. I thought Human Space Flight involved flying. You're saying this is better off now we're NOT flying?
Are we better off today than we were in 2008 or not? Vote 'yes' or 'no' or voice your opinion?
And as far as economically optimizing a LV, have you ever done that?
Do you have those figures or are your sentences just baseless statements (statement without supporting facts - by the way $40k/kg is meaningless without other supporting information such as how it was computed and what other launch vehicles computed the exact same way come out to)?
Quote from: gospacex on 10/11/2011 07:29 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 10/11/2011 07:02 pmQuote from: gospacex on 10/11/2011 06:43 pm...Why exactly we should be sad about this particular workforce taking a hit?Because having idle workers during a time of high unemployment (caused by lack of demand) is anti-stimulus. I hear ya when it comes to having a more efficient system, but giving people unemployment checks is far worse than giving them a job, since a job helps build experience, helps people psychologically (you can't tell me you wouldn't gladly work on Shuttle instead of sitting at home and just taking unemployment!)There is a third option, you know. Don't work on Shuttle, but DONT sit at home and just take unemployment benefits. That's exactly what I did last time I lost a job: I found another one, instead of whining how unfair this life is to me.HSF is *not* about providing people with jobs. Even if you are an adherent of nanny state ideal where people are to be provided jobs by the state, NASA is the wrong agency for that!Not that it is any of your business, but I haven't taken a single penny of unemployment and I actually resent your implication that all of us former Shuttle workers are lazy.
Your costs are driven by your requirements. If your requirements state that 8 people need to watch an operation, then you're paying 8 salaries. You may have other things for those 8 people to do between operations (good business practice dictates that) but you're still going to need those 8 people at some point. Why do you need 8 people? Maybe because it's a human rated vehicle and the loss of a crew is unacceptable. That is again a dollars trade-off - how safe is safe enough?
Quote from: alk3997 on 10/12/2011 01:46 amAnd as far as economically optimizing a LV, have you ever done that?No, I didn't. However, I did not promise to create a system for cheap and frequent access to LEO: NASA did. How close STS is to the promised figures?QuoteDo you have those figures or are your sentences just baseless statements (statement without supporting facts - by the way $40k/kg is meaningless without other supporting information such as how it was computed and what other launch vehicles computed the exact same way come out to)?Crudely: STS requires $4bn per year. STS flies 4-5-6 times par year. Useful payload is ~20 tons max (sorry, wings and TPS are not payload, so don't bother pulling that trick). That means $40k/kg in LEO.....
Quote from: alk3997 on 10/12/2011 01:53 am....QuoteHave you worked out how many years (decades) it will take all of the commercial players combined to launch the same number of people who were launched on Shuttle at the projected launch rates?I sure hope they will succeed in the key metric - they will do it for MUCH LESS than STS, creating a *sustainable* HSF, not dependent on public funds for survival - the thing NASA failed to do.
....QuoteHave you worked out how many years (decades) it will take all of the commercial players combined to launch the same number of people who were launched on Shuttle at the projected launch rates?I sure hope they will succeed in the key metric - they will do it for MUCH LESS than STS, creating a *sustainable* HSF, not dependent on public funds for survival - the thing NASA failed to do.
....Bait and switch.....STS has failed to achieve its promised cost, by more than an order of magnitude. Now you are retroactively changing the goalposts. You are cheating.
Have you looked at the cost of flying Shuttle at the beginning of the program and at the end? Maybe look at it per pound of payload (hint - we could carry much more payload at the end of the program than at the beginning) and don't forget to normalize for altitude/inclination.
But again, people complained when Apollo ended that all we would have is low Earth orbit to go to and no lunar flights. Well we took care of those complaints - now you can't even get to low Earth orbit in the U.S. anymore.
Quote from: alk3997 on 10/15/2011 04:08 amBut again, people complained when Apollo ended that all we would have is low Earth orbit to go to and no lunar flights. Well we took care of those complaints - now you can't even get to low Earth orbit in the U.S. anymore.Better LEO in 5 years and BEO in 10 than LEO for another 40.
Quote from: Jason1701 on 10/15/2011 04:16 amQuote from: alk3997 on 10/15/2011 04:08 amBut again, people complained when Apollo ended that all we would have is low Earth orbit to go to and no lunar flights. Well we took care of those complaints - now you can't even get to low Earth orbit in the U.S. anymore.Better LEO in 5 years and BEO in 10 than LEO for another 40.How about LEO in 10 and BEO in 25 - 40? Still better? You got nothing right now and any number you throw out is just a guess as to the future. And, there is no real plan right now either. It's just numbers people come-up with based on no plans. We don't even know have a good guess at a budget right now.
....You mean what it was promised to do?In May 1971, they were estimating operational costs of only $27~ million per launch in 2010 dollars for Shuttle.Even by 31 January 1977, despite the shuttle now being only minimally reusable, the estimates were still pretty low -- the "NASA Recommendations" by the Carter-Mondale Transition Planning Group had STS cost per launch being $50~ million per launch in 2010 dollars.The original specs were 65,000 lbs to 210 nm.i at 28.5 deg inclination; that's $415~/lb in 2010 dollars using the 1971 estimates; and $769~/lb in 2010 dollars using the 1977 estimates.But whoops! In the end shuttle cost a mighty $450~ million per flight; for $6,923~/lbBy contrast, the full up Saturn V stack could deliver about 240,000~ lbs to that same orbit and inclination according to the Saturn V Payload Planner's Guide by Douglas Aircraft; for a cost of about $1 billion in 2010 dollars; or about $4,166/lb.....
Using only one performance criteria to judge the many obvious differences in the respective capabilities and missions of the various launcher/spacecraft combinations is utter one dimensional nonsense.
Quote from: alk3997 on 10/15/2011 04:34 amQuote from: Jason1701 on 10/15/2011 04:16 amQuote from: alk3997 on 10/15/2011 04:08 amBut again, people complained when Apollo ended that all we would have is low Earth orbit to go to and no lunar flights. Well we took care of those complaints - now you can't even get to low Earth orbit in the U.S. anymore.Better LEO in 5 years and BEO in 10 than LEO for another 40.How about LEO in 10 and BEO in 25 - 40? Still better? You got nothing right now and any number you throw out is just a guess as to the future. And, there is no real plan right now either. It's just numbers people come-up with based on no plans. We don't even know have a good guess at a budget right now.Commercial Crew in 2016 seems reasonable. Do you think 2021 is a better estimate?Even if we stick to the SLS, a manned flight around the moon in 2021 is a worst-case scenario. Throwing around 2036-2051 before we go BEO is ridiculous.Perhaps you should decrease your uncertainty by reading some of this site's articles on SLS plans and CC milestones.
I love the Saturn V/Apollo Spacecraft and the Space Shuttles. I also recognize the obvious fact that they had very different capabilities and missions to do in helping America, and its allies, and our opponents 'win' the Cold War. NASA human spaceflight was and is primarily about international politics and some of the peaceful and important aspects of our broadly defined national security. Rocket technology is great, but without the political money we won't see Mr. and Ms. Buck Rogers turning Lunar polar ice into rocket propellent anytime soon.The LEO space taxis and the SLS/Orion capabilities and missions will be different than those of the Space Shuttles and the Saturn V/Apollo Spacecraft. Using only one performance criteria to judge the many obvious differences in the respective capabilities and missions of the various launcher/spacecraft combinations is utter one dimensional nonsense. Payloads/spacecraft are expensive, whatever they may contain, and can drive up the mission costs more than the launcher. Both the Saturn V/Apollo Spacecraft and the Space Shuttles were retired at least five years too early. Throwing away an important national asset with valuable capabilities before you even have a reliable replacement is quite foolish. ...
Quote from: alk3997 on 10/15/2011 04:08 amYup, that makes sense. You don't have a Saturn V and now you don't have a Shuttle. You got nothing. Sure makes sense to me (not really, for anyone who might miss the sarcasm).Considering the alternative is continuing to fly an experimental craft that killed two complete crews; and eats up so much of NASA's budget that there's no money to develop anything new.....QuoteYour numbers on a Saturn V are wrong anywayStages to Saturn gives the cost for SA-501 (Apollo 4) as being $135m (1967); which works out to $881~ million in 2010.The Apollo 15 Press kit gives the cost for SA-510 as being $185m (1971); which works out to $966~ million in 2010.But hey, let's just use the 300 n.mi curve in the attached image (about 220 klbs) to be super conservative, along with a $1 billion in 2010 USD launch tag.That gives us a price of $4,545/lb; a pretty hefty reduction compared to Shuttle's $6,923/lb.Before you start harping about the higher inclinations needed for space stations such as Skylab...Study of an Evolutionary Interim Earth Orbit Program dated 6 April 1971 gives the payload parameters for a two stage Saturn V to the orbital parameter of 235 nautical miles high and 50 degree inclination used by Skylab as being 197,000 pounds -- actual payload to that position would be 170,000~ lbs to account for shroud mass and to provide a safety margin in case of an underperforming booster.The costs given for SAT-INT-21 in Nuclear Shuttle Definition Study, Phase III Final Report -- Volume I Executive Summary were $107 million in FY1971 dollars; or $576~ million in 2010 dollars.Essentially, $3,388/lb~ to Skylab orbit, if you don't need the even more expensive S-IVB, or have to do all the extra checks to provide safety for a manned launch.
Yup, that makes sense. You don't have a Saturn V and now you don't have a Shuttle. You got nothing. Sure makes sense to me (not really, for anyone who might miss the sarcasm).
Your numbers on a Saturn V are wrong anyway
Quote from: HappyMartian on 10/15/2011 05:24 amUsing only one performance criteria to judge the many obvious differences in the respective capabilities and missions of the various launcher/spacecraft combinations is utter one dimensional nonsense.Except the whole rationale for the Space Shuttle program was to provide cheap, routine flights to orbit. It did neither.It really had only two major points going for it, compared to prior spacecraft families:1.) The ability to land on land, reducing mission operational costs, since you didn't have to pay $$$ to the Navy for diverting warships etc; but this is not a clear advantage, since there were many Gemini/Apollo studies aimed at providing land landing capability.2.) The capability to bring back significant amounts of mass down. This is shuttle's only real advantage; and was never really quite used in the shuttle program, other than a couple of one shot missions such as STS-51A.
Considering the alternative is continuing to fly an experimental craft that killed two complete crews...
Welcome to the site's forum jramsey1.Sorry you had to read what I class as armwaving, and to those people (thread edited back a bit), watch your mouths when bringing up dead crews etc. It's clear that's needed to shout anti-shuttle opinion on here, but it's a fast way to ensure it's the last thing you do on this site.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 10/15/2011 07:16 pmWelcome to the site's forum jramsey1.Sorry you had to read what I class as armwaving, and to those people (thread edited back a bit), watch your mouths when bringing up dead crews etc. It's clear that's needed to shout anti-shuttle opinion on here, but it's a fast way to ensure it's the last thing you do on this site.Thanks Chris - and as a former military officer I couldn't agree more - our progress as a nation was built upon their shoulders and ultimately their last full measure of devotion. May we never forget.
On #2 - really? 10s of Spacelab flights, MPLMs, LDEF, Eureca, JHU (Japanese Flying Unit), tonnes of middeck experiments, etc. I think you need to research what we did with the downweight. You might be surprised.
Quote from: jramsey1 on 10/15/2011 08:58 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 10/15/2011 07:16 pmWelcome to the site's forum jramsey1.Sorry you had to read what I class as armwaving, and to those people (thread edited back a bit), watch your mouths when bringing up dead crews etc. It's clear that's needed to shout anti-shuttle opinion on here, but it's a fast way to ensure it's the last thing you do on this site.Thanks Chris - and as a former military officer I couldn't agree more - our progress as a nation was built upon their shoulders and ultimately their last full measure of devotion. May we never forget. Going back to school isn't easy, so congratulations! Welcome here and I wish you the best.Getting back on topic - you going back to school to join the ranks of those trying to make human spaceflight better would be a positive of 2011 over 2008. Best of luck!AndyP.S. While I can't talk about Apollo 1 or STS-51L directly, don't think of 107 as negligence. It was more of having too many balls in the air at once. That we missed the warning sign on STS-112, was because of all the other issues going-on at the same time. I believe (my opinion only) that STS-112 was our chance to have prevented the accident but we didn't make the connection with running into 500+ mile per hour foam and RCC damage while the program was looking at BSTRA balls, flowliners, SRB sep motor debris, and a whole host of other things.