Armstrong lauds another spaceman

"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

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

(Derek Lyons) wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
:
:The sort of 'space stations' we're doing now don't do anything for a
:Mars mission so far as I can tell.
:
:Experience in long term operations, logistics, etc. (That's not to
:say that the ISS is the ideal (by any measure of ideal) platform.)

But 'long term operations' and logistics in Earth orbit with constant
resupply aren't even the same model you have to follow for a Mars
mission. How does this help?

What we've learned (from this station) so far seems to be that we
should count on the crew dying on the way to Mars as things break
faster than they can fix them, particularly with no constant
availability of spares.

Spending this much money to get THIS station is, to my mind, simply a
waste of resources that we could have spent elsewhere.

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

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:

(Derek Lyons) wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
:The sort of 'space stations' we're doing now don't do anything for a
:Mars mission so far as I can tell.
:
:Experience in long term operations, logistics, etc. (That's not to
:say that the ISS is the ideal (by any measure of ideal) platform.)

But 'long term operations' and logistics in Earth orbit with constant
resupply aren't even the same model you have to follow for a Mars
mission. How does this help?

No, they aren't the same model. That doesn't change the fact that we
are getting to test first generation systems at much less risk to the
crew. Nor does it change the fact that we are getting long term
exposure to microgravity across a base of individuals large enough to
amenable to statistical analysis.

What we've learned (from this station) so far seems to be that we
should count on the crew dying on the way to Mars as things break
faster than they can fix them, particularly with no constant
availability of spares.

We are also learning *what* is breaking, and *how* it's breaking...
All invaluable for future designs and logistics planning.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

In article ,
(Derek Lyons) wrote:

We are also learning *what* is breaking, and *how* it's breaking...
All invaluable for future designs and logistics planning.

Two excellent examples of this include things I had some indirect
connection with back on SSF - the Russian Elektron O2 generator (which
was touted as a proven, reliable system, relieving the U.S. of the
need to continue final development of our own independent OGA (Oxygen
Generator Assembly) as part of the U.S. ECLSS, and that weird,
hard-to-identify pressure leak which stemmed from a metal flex-hose
used to prevent inter-pane fogging of the window in the U.S. Lab. It
would have absolutely sucked had one of those hoses gone bad half-way
outbound to Mars with no replacements available. Yes, they stopped
the pressure loss by removing the hose and relying on the QD to seal
the system but what if the seal or the seat of the QD got nicked in
the process and started to leak, too? Stuff like that now will be
considered a lot more seriously - I remember having discussions with
my group Lead and my group manager at Boeing when they looked
incredulously at me at even suggesting a metal flex hose might develop
a leak on orbit. :-/

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D., GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"Pray: To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single
petitioner confessedly unworthy." -- Ambrose Bierce
http://dischordia.blogspot.com
http://www.angryherb.net

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

: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.

Yes, there is indeed, but you seem to be the one who is ignorant about
how it works. I'd suggest you'd be much more convincing if you
actually tried to support your position, or at least address what
you're disagreeing with, rather than merely making snide remarks such
as that above.

Where'd you get YOUR degree in economics from, Paul?

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Fred J. McCall wrote:

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

Yes, there is indeed, but you seem to be the one who is ignorant about
how it works. I'd suggest you'd be much more convincing if you
actually tried to support your position, or at least address what
you're disagreeing with, rather than merely making snide remarks such
as that above.

Where'd you get YOUR degree in economics from, Paul?

Unlike the message to which you are responding, I notice the complete
lack of any reasoned argument in your post.

I conclude you're just blathering and have lost the debate.

Paul

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

:Fred J. McCall 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.
:
:Launch, electronics, manufacturing, propulsion, electrical energy
roduction, and so on and so on.

Yet this doesn't seem to be happening with any great rapidity. Again,
compare the costs of half a century ago for going to the Moon with the
costs of repeating the trip now.

:The technologies involved in a Mars mission would have to be completely
:disconnected from the rest of the technosphere for Mars missions
:not to be helped by advances elsewhere.

Perhaps philosophically true, Paul, but again, THIS DOES NOT SEEM TO
BE HAPPENING.

I'm curious as to how you explain this apparent disconnect of reality
from your theory.

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