Again, there were designs in the 1960's for large fully reusable rockets. Pegasus and Rombus that Phillip Bono designed. There was Sea Dragon. Even the booster for Saturn V had designs on the drawing board for parachute and ocean recovery. Saturn also had a design with the third stage (second stage on Saturn IB) with a plug nozzle engine (made from a J2 engine), to return and land for reuse. So even with a reusable booster and upper stage, Saturn could have been partially recovered, refurbished, and used again for far heavier payloads than shuttle could have made. If the reusable Saturn V components could have been made and used. In the long run, I think we could have had accomplished more by not going the Shuttle route. They even had plans for a Mars mission using Saturn V launches by 1986. NASA chose the most political route, because the Johnson Administration put NASA facilities all over the country, to keep it running with votes from those states and districts. Not efficient. Thus Shuttle and ISS instead of exploration. Research is fine in orbit, but it could have been done cheaper.
You pretty much described me. I was an Armor Officer, but got out after 16 years. I got a job in the defense simulation industry working on constructive simulations and I now have been doing that longer than I was in the Army (24 years). Even then, I moved 5 times and worked for 5 companies. But, even then I have now lived on Merritt Island since 1998. I am not a formally trained Engineer - I majored in History - but being a wargamer and having used simulations and wargaming since I entered the Army and having earned certificates in System Engineering and Modeling and Simulation from GA TECH, I have managed an enjoyable career that is actually more fun than work.
Quote from: clongton on 04/21/2017 01:31 pmThe skillsets most of them had are unique and highly specialized to the launch vehicles they support. When their jobs went away so did the opportunities for gainful employment - anywhere. ...Just one more reason why the STS program having a government-backed monopoly on launch was a terrible idea in the first place.
The skillsets most of them had are unique and highly specialized to the launch vehicles they support. When their jobs went away so did the opportunities for gainful employment - anywhere. ...
During the Columbia accident investigation, Robert Thompson, who had been Shuttle Program Manager from 1970 to 1981, testified (see p. 7 of the attachment) thatQuote from: Robert Thompson... in my judgment, it would have cost more per flight to operate the two-stage fully-reusable system than the one we built, even though the cost analysis didnʼt show that. When you get two complex vehicles like that and all one vehicle does is help you get up to staging velocity -- and the staging velocity is 12,000 feet per second -- when you build a booster that does nothing but fly up to 12,000 feet per second, youʼve built something wrong. I think thatʼs what the two-stage fully-reusable system was; and I think, had the agency tried to build it, we wouldnʼt have a Shuttle Program today.
... in my judgment, it would have cost more per flight to operate the two-stage fully-reusable system than the one we built, even though the cost analysis didnʼt show that. When you get two complex vehicles like that and all one vehicle does is help you get up to staging velocity -- and the staging velocity is 12,000 feet per second -- when you build a booster that does nothing but fly up to 12,000 feet per second, youʼve built something wrong. I think thatʼs what the two-stage fully-reusable system was; and I think, had the agency tried to build it, we wouldnʼt have a Shuttle Program today.
Seen through the telescope of 50 years of further history perhaps. But will the decisions made now seem any more sensible and rational to observers in 2067?
Keep in mind that probably the biggest injection of cash into "New Space" has been CCCP, run by NASA.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 04/20/2017 09:16 pmQuote from: gospacex on 04/20/2017 04:53 pmIt's not my fault that by a twist of Cold War history, US space program ended up running socialism-style launch vehicle development program, with corresponding results.The Apollo program began before any commercial satellites had been launched, let alone launch vehicles. (Early Bird flew in 1965. Apollo began in 1961. Pegasus, the first commercially developed orbital launcher, flew in 1990.) There was no "capitalist" space program, by your definition, at the time, anywhere on the planet.This is supposed to prove that "capitalist" launchers are not better than government ones... how exactly?
Quote from: gospacex on 04/20/2017 04:53 pmIt's not my fault that by a twist of Cold War history, US space program ended up running socialism-style launch vehicle development program, with corresponding results.The Apollo program began before any commercial satellites had been launched, let alone launch vehicles. (Early Bird flew in 1965. Apollo began in 1961. Pegasus, the first commercially developed orbital launcher, flew in 1990.) There was no "capitalist" space program, by your definition, at the time, anywhere on the planet.
It's not my fault that by a twist of Cold War history, US space program ended up running socialism-style launch vehicle development program, with corresponding results.
QuoteCommercial alternative? None at the time and we're still waiting, five decades on.I have serious doubts you are waiting for it.
Commercial alternative? None at the time and we're still waiting, five decades on.
I am waiting, expectantly. We are within a year or two of seeing the first commercially contracted astronaut launches - to low earth orbit. It is NASA (government) money making it happen, and the destination is a giant government-funded and built station, but it is being done without NASA's direct over-site. This method has worked for satellites since the late 1980s. Now we will see how well it works for people. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 04/23/2017 03:09 pmI am waiting, expectantly. We are within a year or two of seeing the first commercially contracted astronaut launches - to low earth orbit. It is NASA (government) money making it happen, and the destination is a giant government-funded and built station, but it is being done without NASA's direct over-site. This method has worked for satellites since the late 1980s. Now we will see how well it works for people. - Ed KyleIt is more correct to say that NASA money is making it happen NASA's way... I have no doubt that either company or others could have produced a safe craft (possibly slower, but maybe not in all cases) for human transportation to the ISS at a much lower price point. NASA's money, but more importantly, NASA's destination and imprimatur are the prize. The only way to get them is NASA's way.
For space, what was done before 1980 was good enough. Real advances were unprofitable. Milking the status quo has been profitable.
Based on the private space human launch during the three decades of "let the free market do it cheaper and faster for profit" since Reagan was electted??
I'm nearing 70, so I lived through the debate of public void private funding for R&D in the 70s and 80s. I've seen the conservatives win cuts in public funding coupled with ever increasing focus on profits as the primary criteria for good science.
Safe to say, the profit motive produces little progress. Google has been profitable, but that was and still isn't the driving force. The voting structure ensures wall Street profit where's can't run Google into the ground.
Elon Musk is not driven by profit, nor Bezos, so neither has made any profit in industries that have immense labor costs to build capital. Bezos warehouses and data centers. Musk factories. Built in the US.
Google has tried to do what At&t/Bell labs/WE planned in the 80s: fiber to the home. Verizon is the reconstructed Bell system, Fios that 80s R&D, but deploying it is unprofitable under the since Reagan public policy. Thus it is not rolling out like copper did in the 20s and 30s most everywhere. The cost is the same as copper, except copper is paid for and good enough.
Quote from: Proponent on 04/20/2017 08:51 pmDuring the Columbia accident investigation, Robert Thompson, who had been Shuttle Program Manager from 1970 to 1981, testified (see p. 7 of the attachment) thatQuote from: Robert Thompson... in my judgment, it would have cost more per flight to operate the two-stage fully-reusable system than the one we built, even though the cost analysis didnʼt show that. When you get two complex vehicles like that and all one vehicle does is help you get up to staging velocity -- and the staging velocity is 12,000 feet per second -- when you build a booster that does nothing but fly up to 12,000 feet per second, youʼve built something wrong. I think thatʼs what the two-stage fully-reusable system was; and I think, had the agency tried to build it, we wouldnʼt have a Shuttle Program today.Let's look at that. One of the few actual "composite" aircraft that have ever flown was the Short Mayo composite consisting of the Maia Mothership (a flying boat) and the Mercury mail carrier (a seaplane)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Mayo_CompositeA contemporary report on the design is herehttp://www.engwonders.byethost9.com/e022.html?i=1Roughly speaking Maia GTOW in launch mode was 25000 lb to launch the Mercury, weighing 21 000lb carrying a payload of 1000lb of mail.So in round numbers a composite designed in the mid 1930's could carry 1000/(25000+21000) or 1/46 or 2.17% of it's total GTOW as payload. On that basis a 30 tonne (66 000 lb) payload would need a 1380 tonne composite.Yes that's a huge pair of aircraft (basically 4x 777-800, or 2.4x A380) but thrust wise it would need to be no more than 1/3 to 2/3 of that number. Worst case that's 920 tonnes of thrust needed. But the sea level thrust of an SSME was 186 tonnes, that of the F1 677 tonnes. So the worst case thrust could be met by 2 F1s (already on the shelf) or 5 SSME (at their actual SL thrust level). BTW the Maia carrier was still configured as a passenger carrying flying boat in it's own right, suggest the Payload fraction of the composite could be raised further. Yes the composite mass is very big. But assuming full funding both stages would be optimized to their relevant speed range. A key feature would have been to work the problem backwards. How big would the "Upper Stage" have to be to carry the 65 x 15 payload bay? How big would the wings need to be? How much propellant storage in mass and volume would you need (and it would have been smart to ask did you really need LH2) ?Then design the booster to carry that, obviously avoiding such features as inward canting tailplanes, such as those on the SR71, which caused so much trouble in the D21 drone tests. I'll also note that not all conventional aircraft design rules apply. Could some sort of ground based launch assist supply the first vital 10-20m/s? Could you build them full size but launch both partly empty (like the SR71) and use in flight refueling to load most of the propellant post takeoff? The boosters mission is accelerated the composite to about M10.75 (the 12000fps mentioned in the CAIB report) at a suitable altitude, separate and return to land (not necessarily even to base, although that would be ideal). It would only cruise if it was being in flight refueled. At 1/4 g (common VTO launch acceleration) that would be reached in 25 minutes at most. Yes they'd be big, but at the end of the day 1380 (or whatever it turned out to be. I think 3% would be possible IE 1000 tonnes to carry a 30 tonne payload) is just a number. For reference the STS stack in the end was about 4Mlb to carry a 55Klb payload, roughly 1.375% of GTOW.
Safe to say, the profit motive produces little progress.
1.375% if you consider the 55,000lb payload the only payload, some might consider the 250,000lb of Orbiter and it's capability as part of the "payload".
Quote from: mulp on 04/24/2017 07:10 amSafe to say, the profit motive produces little progress. The commercial satellite business seems to be progressing just fine. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: mulp on 04/24/2017 07:10 amFor space, what was done before 1980 was good enough. Real advances were unprofitable. Milking the status quo has been profitable.No, what was done prior to the '80s is utterly unacceptable going forward, there was no progress to be seen in the STS (which was merely partially remanufacturable as opposed to gas-and-go), and yes milking the status quo is unacceptable.
The for profit business model you decry will result in the development of fully re-usable gas-and-go to LEO at $50 to $15 per pound pricing (when things like the ITS are a mature system), and this is nothing that what led to Apollo or descended from it could produce--certainly, it had 40 years to do it and failed miserably, killing 14 astronauts along the way while holding the cost of LEO access to north of $5,000/lb.
Government can get things done, but no always the best or cheapest route, but the best politically.
It's still pretty amazing that while the first Commercial Crew launch is expected in 2018 the first crewed SLS won't be till at least 2023, another 5 years away, although obviously both of those dates could slip further flying in 2018 should mean NASA could avoid paying for anymore seats on Soyuz.
Quote from: tdperk on 04/24/2017 12:26 pmQuote from: mulp on 04/24/2017 07:10 amFor space, what was done before 1980 was good enough. Real advances were unprofitable. Milking the status quo has been profitable.No, what was done prior to the '80s is utterly unacceptable going forward, there was no progress to be seen in the STS (which was merely partially remanufacturable as opposed to gas-and-go), and yes milking the status quo is unacceptable.I think you're mistaking his description of the situation with his approving of it.
I agree with his description of the situation and I don't think he thought it was healthy. Quote from: tdperk on 04/24/2017 12:26 pmThe for profit business model you decry will result in the development of fully re-usable gas-and-go to LEO at $50 to $15 per pound pricing (when things like the ITS are a mature system), and this is nothing that what led to Apollo or descended from it could produce--certainly, it had 40 years to do it and failed miserably, killing 14 astronauts along the way while holding the cost of LEO access to north of $5,000/lb.There are 2 problems with lowering the cost of space access. 1) Lowering the $/lb2) Delivering that price in a unit that people can afford. Maybe ITS will deliver 1, but if all you and to do is put a 5 tonne comm sat in GTO that's still going to cost a shedload of cash.