Author Topic: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken  (Read 46520 times)

Offline mme

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1510
  • Santa Barbara, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Virgo Supercluster
  • Liked: 2034
  • Likes Given: 5381
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #80 on: 04/21/2017 04:44 pm »
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.
1. Paper rockets always out perform real rockets.
2. Any more complexity to the Saturn V before Apollo 11 and we would not have met the "end of the decade" deadline.
Space is not Highlander.  There can, and will, be more than one.

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #81 on: 04/21/2017 04:54 pm »
@Clongton:  LOL.

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.

Plus, I can go out and watch boosters launch (and some come back and land.  What a trip!)

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #82 on: 04/21/2017 05:06 pm »
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.
So I guess the takeaway from this is that even people with quite specialized jobs can find other employment but they have to be a bit creative about realizing what skills can transfer over to private industry?

People talk about the workers dealing with the Shuttle tiles but IIRC both DC and the X37b use versions of those tiles. And IIRC all the workforce had some level of security vetting to do the job as well.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #83 on: 04/23/2017 09:57 am »
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.
...
Just one more reason why the STS program having a government-backed monopoly on launch was a terrible idea in the first place.
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.

I don't think all the commercial launches Orbital and SX have made have come close to putting as much cash in their development budgets as that programme has.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #84 on: 04/23/2017 11:36 am »
During the Columbia accident investigation, Robert Thompson, who had been Shuttle Program Manager from 1970 to 1981, testified (see p. 7 of the attachment) that
Quote 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_Composite

A contemporary report on the design is here
http://www.engwonders.byethost9.com/e022.html?i=1

Roughly 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. 
« Last Edit: 04/23/2017 11:58 am by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline tdperk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Liked: 152
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #85 on: 04/23/2017 12:59 pm »
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?

Absolutely so.   Finally engineering the systems that can drop the cost of LEO access below $100/lb instead of $5,000 to 10,000/lb?  It will be seen as a long delayed no-brainer.

Keep in mind that probably the biggest injection of cash into "New Space" has been CCCP, run by NASA.

No, the majority of the money going into SpaceX is private, from Musk, Google, or non-NASA customers.  Even if that were not so, the validation of the expenditure by NASA is that what they are getting they are getting at a far lower price than they could do it themselves by their Congressionally mandated business model.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #86 on: 04/23/2017 03:09 pm »
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.
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?
In 1969, the government launchers were better, because there was no commercial alternative. 

Quote

Quote
Commercial alternative?  None at the time and we're still waiting, five decades on.

I have serious doubts you are waiting for it.
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 oversight.  This method has worked for satellites since the late 1980s.  Now we will see how well it works for people. 

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 04/24/2017 12:25 am by edkyle99 »

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #87 on: 04/23/2017 10:10 pm »

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

It 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.
« Last Edit: 04/23/2017 10:10 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline mulp

  • Member
  • Posts: 72
  • merrimack, nh
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #88 on: 04/24/2017 07:10 am »

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

It 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.

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.

For space, what was done before 1980 was good enough. Real advances were unprofitable. Milking the status quo has been profitable.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #89 on: 04/24/2017 08:29 am »
For space, what was done before 1980 was good enough. Real advances were unprofitable. Milking the status quo has been profitable.
People tend to forget all the design decisions on STS were taken in the early 70's. What flew in the early 80's was spec'd in the early 70's.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline tdperk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Liked: 152
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #90 on: 04/24/2017 12:26 pm »
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??

It's been almost 40 years since Reagan was elected, and there was no successful attempt to do it cheaper or faster until about 15 years ago.  Before 15 years ago, all attempts were stopped by the crony capitalist cost plus Congress-critters using NASA as a catspaw.  Beal didn't fail because he didn't have a good idea, he failed because the government made it clear it did not want him to succeed.

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.

No, you have seen no such thing.

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.

And the reality is it is the cost plus business model enforced by pet Congresscrittters which brought about the abject lack of progress since Apollo prior to the last 15 years.

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.

Actually Musk and Bezos are both profit driven--they just have a longer time frame for acceptable ROI then most businessmen.  Musk built factories in the US so he could better control quality, it had nothing to do with abandoning a for profit business model.

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.

No, deploying it universally nationwide is unprofitable because it costs more than people are willing to pay for such an inflexible system.  And no, copper is not good enough.  You will not get GB/s out of twisted pair running for miles, and you can't leave the jack and take a walk and keep your signal.

For 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 real advances were successfully undertaken when private industry became convinced the government really meant it this time when they promised not to subsidize a government built competitor to private space access suppliers, and that progress has been seen within the last 15 years.

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.
« Last Edit: 04/24/2017 12:33 pm by tdperk »

Offline Hog

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2846
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 1700
  • Likes Given: 6866
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #91 on: 04/24/2017 01:25 pm »
During the Columbia accident investigation, Robert Thompson, who had been Shuttle Program Manager from 1970 to 1981, testified (see p. 7 of the attachment) that
Quote 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_Composite

A contemporary report on the design is here
http://www.engwonders.byethost9.com/e022.html?i=1

Roughly 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.
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".
Paul

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #92 on: 04/24/2017 02:42 pm »
Safe to say, the profit motive produces little progress.
The commercial satellite business seems to be progressing just fine.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 04/24/2017 02:42 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #93 on: 04/25/2017 12:12 am »
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".
If it was basically an uncrewed shell wrapped around a payload with the engines at the back you might have a point. That was basically the Shuttle C AKA pure cargo Shuttle. BTW the gross weight was closer to 240Klbs total.

For the rest of us the payload is what  you can put in the payload bay. Designed to be 66Klbs but IIRC never actually exceed 55Klbs.

Safe to say, the profit motive produces little progress.
The commercial satellite business seems to be progressing just fine.

 - Ed Kyle
The comm sat business is about the only section of space launch that does run more or less like a regular market.

Contracts are AFAIK not usually cost plus but paid on results and in stages. Failure to execute the stage means no payement, so failure is not rewarded. Also companies are less bothered about using "national carriers" Europeans will launch on US LV's, not Europeans will launch on Ariane while US sat operators have launched on Russian LV's.

His points seemed more directed at LV's, not their payloads.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #94 on: 04/25/2017 12:20 am »
I think we're veering into a lot of not very profitable areas... Reagan bashing? Govt vs private general diatribes? the usual suspects making their usual comments?

Please think before you post, ok? Make sure you're adding value and not adding a lot of general political stuff...

Thanks
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #95 on: 04/25/2017 12:23 am »

For 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
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.
There are 2 problems with lowering the cost of space access.
1) Lowering the $/lb
2) 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.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #96 on: 04/25/2017 02:05 am »
The paper rockets for Saturn V reuse and for Rombus and Pegasus were for alternatives to the shuttle.  The shuttle was chosen over the reusable Saturn V because congress thought you had to "fly" into space.  Shuttle's payload was only 20 tons of cargo.  A reusable Saturn V could have done about 100 tons.  Rombus could have done more, and Sea Dragon could have launched 500 tons.  Any could have been built or evolved, but NASA's budget was cut, and we ended up 10 years later with Shuttle.  We already had Saturn, and making it reusable would not have cost that much extra, and more payload. 

Again, the budget was cut.  Saturn was also supposed to have about 6 launches with assembly in space for a Mars trip by 1986.  Now we are getting expensive SLS, while private companies are developing reusable launchers, and getting into space cheaper. 

Government can get things done, but no always the best or cheapest route, but the best politically. 

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #97 on: 04/25/2017 08:44 am »
Government can get things done, but no always the best or cheapest route, but the best politically.
Yes, that's why part of my sig reads "STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time."  :(

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.   :(

That would mean getting that by setting requirement and standards (but not being able to compel the suppliers to change their hardware, although being able to observe what they are doing closely) NASA should be able to put crew back into orbit about 1825 days sooner than with a BAU government procurement solution, despite repeated under funding by Congress.

It could also be argued that not having a down select (as Congress seemed to want) has improved speed of response and maintained continuity of supply (at least in non crew goods).
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #98 on: 04/25/2017 02:28 pm »
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.   :(
I'm not a fan of these comparisons.  Crew to LEO is a different ball game than crew to deep space on a giant rocket, especially since the latter effort was resurrected in ad hoc fashion from a cancelled program and was then chronically underfunded.

Like you, I am not willing to wager on which year each of these programs will actually put people into orbit and safety return them.  Crewed spacecraft development has historically been full of mostly-bad surprises.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 04/25/2017 02:31 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline tdperk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Liked: 152
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: The U.S. Manned Space Gap Record is Now Broken
« Reply #99 on: 04/25/2017 03:00 pm »

For 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 have the impression he simultaneously believes something was wrong with the approach of "the '80's" and "Reagan" and approving of the "'70's" while not realizing they were one and the same approach and had similar results.

I agree with his description of the situation and I don't think he thought it was healthy.
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.
There are 2 problems with lowering the cost of space access.
1) Lowering the $/lb
2) 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.

Two concepts 1) tugs and 2) packet service.

I know of no reason any ITS will not in regular service lift full or close to full, and why non-bulk/single target orbit payloads would cost to the end user more than twice or so the least bulk rate.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1