Armstrong lauds another spaceman

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Alain Fournier wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: "Paul F. Dietz" wrote:
:
: :Nonsense. Many many things have become affordable because
: f advances not specifically directed at those things.
:
: If you think it's nonsense, please tell us just what technologies you
: think are sufficiently 'dual use' to Mars flights and something else
: (and what that something else is) so as to drive down the costs of
: Mars flights.
:
:
:New stronger materials (a dual use, airplanes and others), electronics
dual use home computers and others),

This doesn't NECESSARILY drive down costs. I seem to recall that a
decade and more ago some folks arrived at the conclusion that using
swaged steel for the body of an expendable launcher was more
economical than using more exotic materials that would be stronger and
lighter.

Sure. But even that gets cheaper with time -- high strength steel
is increasingly used in mundane applications like tell buildings
and automobiles, so even it will get cheaper with time. For that
matter, steel production itself will become more efficient with
time, as mills are increasingly optimized and automated.

I repeat: your position would require that the technologies for
Mars vehicles be completely disjoint from those used in the rest
of the technosphere.

Paul

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Alain Fournier wrote:
:
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : "Paul F. Dietz" wrote:
: :
: : :Nonsense. Many many things have become affordable because
: : f advances not specifically directed at those things.
: :
: : If you think it's nonsense, please tell us just what technologies you
: : think are sufficiently 'dual use' to Mars flights and something else
: : (and what that something else is) so as to drive down the costs of
: : Mars flights.
: :
: :
: :New stronger materials (a dual use, airplanes and others), electronics
: dual use home computers and others),
:
: This doesn't NECESSARILY drive down costs. I seem to recall that a
: decade and more ago some folks arrived at the conclusion that using
: swaged steel for the body of an expendable launcher was more
: economical than using more exotic materials that would be stronger and
: lighter.
:
:Sure. But even that gets cheaper with time -- high strength steel
:is increasingly used in mundane applications like tell buildings
:and automobiles, so even it will get cheaper with time. For that
:matter, steel production itself will become more efficient with
:time, as mills are increasingly optimized and automated.

But not much. Looking at 40 years worth of steel prices (1959-1998),
one does see a declining trend in price (hot rolled steel bar in
constant 1992 dollars) from around $27/100 lb down to $16/100 lb.
While there are a bunch of jumps UPWARD during the 1970's the general
trend line looks fairly constant, judging by eye. So the price is
dropping about two bits per year per 100 lbs of steel.

This is hardly a change that is going to drive down the price of
anything in a hurry and at some point it has to taper off, as I doubt
that steel is ever going to become free.

:I repeat: your position would require that the technologies for
:Mars vehicles be completely disjoint from those used in the rest
f the technosphere.

You can repeat it all you like, but you haven't shown it to be true.
That takes real data and real examples.

The data so far seem to indicate that things aren't getting cheaper
very fast at all. Certainly not fast enough to make much difference
during our lifetimes.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

Fred J. McCall wrote:

:I repeat: your position would require that the technologies for
:Mars vehicles be completely disjoint from those used in the rest
f the technosphere.

You can repeat it all you like, but you haven't shown it to be true.
That takes real data and real examples.

And the evidence that you have presented for your original
position is...?

'Spin-on' technologies occur *all the time*. That's why we
have rockets in the first place -- all sorts of mundane technologies
that were developed for other reasons, but enabled the production
of spacecraft. Why should this suddenly stop? You are proposing
a sea change in how technology progresses, with no supporting
evidence whatsoever.

Paul

Paul F. Dietz wrote:
'Spin-on' technologies occur *all the time*. That's why we
have rockets in the first place -- all sorts of mundane technologies
that were developed for other reasons, but enabled the production
of spacecraft. Why should this suddenly stop? You are proposing
a sea change in how technology progresses, with no supporting
evidence whatsoever.

A perfect case in point would be real time operating systems,
such as QNX or VxWorks. There is a huge market in RTOSs today
spanning a great many industries, including aerospace. It is
that market which drives and pays for the development of RTOS
technology, but aerospace vehicles very much benefit from it.

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote:

:Paul F. Dietz wrote:
: 'Spin-on' technologies occur *all the time*. That's why we
: have rockets in the first place -- all sorts of mundane technologies
: that were developed for other reasons, but enabled the production
: of spacecraft. Why should this suddenly stop? You are proposing
: a sea change in how technology progresses, with no supporting
: evidence whatsoever.
:
:A perfect case in point would be real time operating systems,
:such as QNX or VxWorks. There is a huge market in RTOSs today
:spanning a great many industries, including aerospace. It is
:that market which drives and pays for the development of RTOS
:technology, but aerospace vehicles very much benefit from it.

And yet the cost of missions goes nowhere but UP. That's some
'benefit'.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: :I repeat: your position would require that the technologies for
: :Mars vehicles be completely disjoint from those used in the rest
: f the technosphere.
:
: You can repeat it all you like, but you haven't shown it to be true.
: That takes real data and real examples.
:
:And the evidence that you have presented for your original
osition is...?

Price trends over the past 30+ years. Look at NASA's estimated price
for duplicating what we did in the 1960's. Even then I suspect some
of the numbers are being jiggered a bit to lower current costs
compared to what was necessary back then in the way of investment in
infrastructure.

:'Spin-on' technologies occur *all the time*. That's why we
:have rockets in the first place -- all sorts of mundane technologies
:that were developed for other reasons, but enabled the production
f spacecraft. Why should this suddenly stop? You are proposing
:a sea change in how technology progresses, with no supporting
:evidence whatsoever.

Paul, it's quite simple. Look at the cost of the original trip to the
moon. Now look at the cost of getting back. Even if you buy that
NASA's numbers aren't just a bit rigged, the price reduction over all
those decades is just pretty damned small.

Look at the cost of currently getting a pound of stuff to orbit back
in the 1960s. Look at the cost of doing the same now. Again, the
price reduction over all those decades is just pretty damned small.

So you can 'spin on' all you like. The facts don't seem to bear out
your contentions. They do seem to support mine. The fact that you
don't like that doesn't change it.

Neither does your claim that I've presented no evidence when I have
done precisely that and you have not.

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

Fred J. McCall wrote:

:And the evidence that you have presented for your original
osition is...?

Price trends over the past 30+ years. Look at NASA's estimated price
for duplicating what we did in the 1960's.

This was quickly debunked right here on this group.

Even then I suspect some
of the numbers are being jiggered a bit to lower current costs
compared to what was necessary back then in the way of investment in
infrastructure.

"The numbers didn't agree with my prejudice, therefore they must
be wrong."


Paul, it's quite simple. Look at the cost of the original trip to the
moon. Now look at the cost of getting back. Even if you buy that
NASA's numbers aren't just a bit rigged, the price reduction over all
those decades is just pretty damned small.

It's there, though. Small != zero.

Look at the cost of currently getting a pound of stuff to orbit back
in the 1960s. Look at the cost of doing the same now. Again, the
price reduction over all those decades is just pretty damned small.

Um, no. The cost of getting to orbit is down quite a bit,
particularly if you buy Russian launchers.

Paul

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: :And the evidence that you have presented for your original
: osition is...?
:
: Price trends over the past 30+ years. Look at NASA's estimated price
: for duplicating what we did in the 1960's.
:
:This was quickly debunked right here on this group.

Well, no, it wasn't. As I said, go ahead and use the numbers the
'debunker' posted, if you like.

: Even then I suspect some
: of the numbers are being jiggered a bit to lower current costs
: compared to what was necessary back then in the way of investment in
: infrastructure.
:
:"The numbers didn't agree with my prejudice, therefore they must
:be wrong."

Again, if you want to use those numbers, by all means use them. Even
THOSE numbers support my contention and debunk yours.

: Paul, it's quite simple. Look at the cost of the original trip to the
: moon. Now look at the cost of getting back. Even if you buy that
: NASA's numbers aren't just a bit rigged, the price reduction over all
: those decades is just pretty damned small.
:
:It's there, though. Small != zero.

So we only need wait another half a millennia or so for things to
eventually come down in price to the point where what you say makes
sense?

: Look at the cost of currently getting a pound of stuff to orbit back
: in the 1960s. Look at the cost of doing the same now. Again, the
: price reduction over all those decades is just pretty damned small.
:
:Um, no. The cost of getting to orbit is down quite a bit,
articularly if you buy Russian launchers.

Compare apples to apples, Paul. Getting cheaper prices because of a
currently weak economy and a hunger for convertible currency in Russia
doesn't precisely support your case. Neither does using LOW
TECHNOLOGY, OLD launchers support your 'the ever advancing
technosphere' claims.

Care to try again?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Fred J. McCall wrote:

:Um, no. The cost of getting to orbit is down quite a bit,
articularly if you buy Russian launchers.

Compare apples to apples, Paul. Getting cheaper prices because of a
currently weak economy and a hunger for convertible currency in Russia
doesn't precisely support your case.

Sure it does. There's this thing called 'the market', Fred. You
might want to learn about it.

Paul

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in
:

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: :And the evidence that you have presented for your original
: osition is...?
:
: Price trends over the past 30+ years. Look at NASA's estimated price
: for duplicating what we did in the 1960's.
:
:This was quickly debunked right here on this group.

Well, no, it wasn't. As I said, go ahead and use the numbers the
'debunker' posted, if you like.

Most of the numbers I posted came from the Congressional Budget Office, a
source generally considered credible on financial matters and not generally
noted for its friendliness toward NASA.

Furthermore, the few numbers I posted that came from me rather than the CBO
tend to make Apollo look cheaper. For example, I compared CBO's figure of
$63.8 billion for NASA's new moon program to my figure of $77.9 billion for
the Apollo program (both programs truncated at first lunar landing, and
expressed in constant-year 2005 dollars). My Apollo figure was derived
from the current-year figures published in Dethloff and adjusted for
inflation using the GDP (Chained) Price Index published by the GPO with
each year's federal budget.

The CBO, using a different price-inflation index, arrived at a figure of
$100 billion for the Apollo program through first lunar landing. So by
their math, the new program is even more cheap than Apollo than my initial
comparison showed.

So far you have provided little justification for anyone to accept your
numbers over the CBO's numbers.

: Paul, it's quite simple. Look at the cost of the original trip to the
: moon. Now look at the cost of getting back. Even if you buy that
: NASA's numbers aren't just a bit rigged, the price reduction over all
: those decades is just pretty damned small.
:
:It's there, though. Small != zero.

So we only need wait another half a millennia or so for things to
eventually come down in price to the point where what you say makes
sense?

Well, at least you're no longer claiming that NASA's figures show that the
new program will be *more* expensive than Apollo. I will take progress
where I can get it.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.