CEV to be made commercially available

wrote in message
oups.com...

Jeff Findley wrote:
"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
...
Alan Anderson wrote:
If the goal is more affordable spaceflight for people, there is a
compelling argument to be made for returning NASA to its NACA roots
and
getting it out of the spaceflight operations business.

You go right ahead and propose that to your Congresscritter. If there
was an *actual* space industry, it'd make sense. The NACA didn't form
before peopel needed it to improve airplanes... it formed *after*
there
were already airplanes buzzing around. A NACA-fied NASA would have no
customers and no reason to be.

No customers? What about all the startup companies looking to create
low
cost reusable (and semi-reusable) launch vehicles?

None of whom have flown to orbit.

Agreed. So, do you think that the startups could use the help of NASA in
much the same way as the early aviation industry used the help of NACA?

It's not too early for NASA to get out of the launch vehicle business.

When they can buy a flight that matches their needs (read: heavy lifter
applicable for moon missions), I'll agree.

That's not a need, that's a desire. The desire is to go back to the moon in
much the same way that Apollo did. You launch everything you can on a
single HLV. If you go back far enough, LOR wasn't the only option being
considered. It was seen as the fastest way to get to the moon, but EOR
might have been a more sustainable approach in the long term.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Jeff Findley wrote:

Agreed. So, do you think that the startups could use the help of NASA in
much the same way as the early aviation industry used the help of NACA?

Actually, no. The early aviators benefitting from NACA were gainign the
benefit of great improvements in engine and aerodynamic efficiency. But
rocket engiens are *already* effectively at the peak of their
efficiency. What's need now is not an improvement in performance -
which comes from giant research programs - but improvements in cost,
reliability and maintainability... which comes from *experience.*



It's not too early for NASA to get out of the launch vehicle business.

When they can buy a flight that matches their needs (read: heavy lifter
applicable for moon missions), I'll agree.

That's not a need, that's a desire.

No, it's a need. As in "mandated by Congress/President."

If you go back far enough, LOR wasn't the only option being
considered. It was seen as the fastest way to get to the moon, but EOR
might have been a more sustainable approach in the long term.

No good reason to assume that. EOR would have cost as much or more to
develop than LOR, and would have potentially cost more to operate.

" wrote in
message oups.com...

Jeff Findley wrote:

Agreed. So, do you think that the startups could use the help of NASA
in
much the same way as the early aviation industry used the help of NACA?

Actually, no. The early aviators benefitting from NACA were gainign the
benefit of great improvements in engine and aerodynamic efficiency. But
rocket engiens are *already* effectively at the peak of their
efficiency. What's need now is not an improvement in performance -
which comes from giant research programs - but improvements in cost,
reliability and maintainability... which comes from *experience.*

Partly, but lower cost also comes when you design for lower cost up front.
NASA could do a lot towards researching lower cost engines.

It's not too early for NASA to get out of the launch vehicle
business.

When they can buy a flight that matches their needs (read: heavy
lifter
applicable for moon missions), I'll agree.

That's not a need, that's a desire.

No, it's a need. As in "mandated by Congress/President."

Really? I wasn't aware that the Congress/President specified that NASA
launch missions to the moon with as few launch vehicles as possible.

If you go back far enough, LOR wasn't the only option being
considered. It was seen as the fastest way to get to the moon, but EOR
might have been a more sustainable approach in the long term.

No good reason to assume that. EOR would have cost as much or more to
develop than LOR, and would have potentially cost more to operate.

Or EOR could have cost more time and money to develop, but less to operate
due to economies of scale.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Jeff Findley wrote:

NASA could do a lot towards researching lower cost engines.

Ahhh.... no. NASA's collective head would explode.

It's not too early for NASA to get out of the launch vehicle
business.

When they can buy a flight that matches their needs (read: heavy
lifter
applicable for moon missions), I'll agree.

That's not a need, that's a desire.

No, it's a need. As in "mandated by Congress/President."

Really? I wasn't aware that the Congress/President specified that NASA
launch missions to the moon with as few launch vehicles as possible.

Non sequitur. The Pres has said "get to the moon." That's the "need."
They cannot buy a launch to the moon, as there's no such product
available. So, they have to pay to have such a product developed.


If you go back far enough, LOR wasn't the only option being
considered. It was seen as the fastest way to get to the moon, but EOR
might have been a more sustainable approach in the long term.

No good reason to assume that. EOR would have cost as much or more to
develop than LOR, and would have potentially cost more to operate.

Or EOR could have cost more time and money to develop, but less to operate
due to economies of scale.

Well, Apollo cost a bucket of money as it was, and the bulk of that was
spent prior to going to the moon, and the program was killed prior to
going to the moon. So if EOR cost *more* to develop up front, it would
have been an even *bigger* target for the budget axe.

If you developed the R&D and manufacturing infrastructure and only
build a few things and then kill the program, the unit cost is
astonishing. EOR would have been no better off here. Perhaps one or two
moon flights that cost *more* than Apollo.

" wrote in
message oups.com...

Jeff Findley wrote:
Really? I wasn't aware that the Congress/President specified that NASA
launch missions to the moon with as few launch vehicles as possible.

Non sequitur. The Pres has said "get to the moon." That's the "need."
They cannot buy a launch to the moon, as there's no such product
available. So, they have to pay to have such a product developed.

You're a smart guy Scott. NASA can buy launches to LEO and do earth orbit
assembly (likely mostly docking to avoid EVA's, since NASA still doesn't
consider them routine).


If you go back far enough, LOR wasn't the only option being
considered. It was seen as the fastest way to get to the moon, but
EOR
might have been a more sustainable approach in the long term.

No good reason to assume that. EOR would have cost as much or more to
develop than LOR, and would have potentially cost more to operate.

Or EOR could have cost more time and money to develop, but less to
operate
due to economies of scale.

Well, Apollo cost a bucket of money as it was, and the bulk of that was
spent prior to going to the moon, and the program was killed prior to
going to the moon. So if EOR cost *more* to develop up front, it would
have been an even *bigger* target for the budget axe.

Possibly, but there would have been broader applications for the technology
developed. For example, launching comsats into LEO separately from their
geosynch kick stage, eventually using a reusable LEO to GEO space tug to do
the work. This, in conjunction with better development of EVA equipment and
procedures, could have lead to cheaper, servicable GEO comsats, rather than
the expensive, one use only comsats we have today.

If you developed the R&D and manufacturing infrastructure and only
build a few things and then kill the program, the unit cost is
astonishing.

Exactly. That's one reason why Saturn V was killed. Another reason it was
killed was because it was a NASA specific launch vehiclt that was too big to
be of use by anyone else.

EOR would have been no better off here. Perhaps one or two
moon flights that cost *more* than Apollo.

This is where we disagree. I happen to think that the technologies (LEO
EVA, automated rendezvous and docking, orbital storage of cryogenic
propellants, and etc.) and smaller launch vehicles intended for EOR would
have had broader applications than just going to the moon. Because of this,
canceling the lunar program (after a landing or two), need not have resulted
in the cancellation of the launch vehicle(s) too. The fact is that Saturn V
was just too damn big and expensive for *anything* reasonably affordable and
sustainable program. And no, I don't consider the shuttle program
reasonable and sustainable in terms of costs, otherwise, the Shuttle II
proposals would have gotten funding, but instead, NASA is looking at smaller
capsules again.

I believe the same to be true of the proposed SDHLV. It's just too big and
expensive to be used for anything but going to the moon and Mars, making it
more vulnerable to cancellation than existing (smaller) US launch vehicles.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Jeff Findley wrote:


Well, Apollo cost a bucket of money as it was, and the bulk of that was
spent prior to going to the moon, and the program was killed prior to
going to the moon. So if EOR cost *more* to develop up front, it would
have been an even *bigger* target for the budget axe.



Possibly, but there would have been broader applications for the technology
developed. For example, launching comsats into LEO separately from their
geosynch kick stage, eventually using a reusable LEO to GEO space tug to do
the work. This, in conjunction with better development of EVA equipment and
procedures, could have lead to cheaper, servicable GEO comsats, rather than
the expensive, one use only comsats we have today.



Problem: the EOR system was to use a series of unmanned and unreusable
tankers to top up the lunar vehicle in Earth orbit. EVAs were not to be
a big part of the mix, and the tanekrs were not "tugs" as such. Some
fairly detailed design work had been completed on these systems.



If you developed the R&D and manufacturing infrastructure and only
build a few things and then kill the program, the unit cost is
astonishing.



Exactly. That's one reason why Saturn V was killed.


Take the low-cost launch vehicle of your choice, from Falcon to T-Space
to whatever. Build one or two, then cancel it. Per-unit cost is
astonishingly high as a result.



EOR would have been no better off here. Perhaps one or two
moon flights that cost *more* than Apollo.



This is where we disagree. I happen to think that the technologies (LEO
EVA, automated rendezvous and docking, orbital storage of cryogenic
propellants, and etc.) and smaller launch vehicles intended for EOR would
have had broader applications than just going to the moon. Because of this,
canceling the lunar program (after a landing or two), need not have resulted
in the cancellation of the launch vehicle(s) too. The fact is that Saturn V
was just too damn big and expensive for *anything* reasonably affordable and
sustainable program.


But EOR was to use the Saturn I (derivative thereof, actually). Saturn I
got canned with V.





--
"The only thing that galls me about someone burning the American flag is how unoriginal it is. I mean if you're going to pull the Freedom-of-speech card, don't be a hack, come up with something interesting. Fashion Old Glory into a wisecracking puppet and blister the system with a scathing ventriloquism act, or better yet, drape the flag over your head and desecrate it with a large caliber bullet hole." Dennis Miller

On 10 Nov 2005 09:21:03 -0800, in a place far, far away,
" made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

What's need now is not an improvement in performance -
which comes from giant research programs - but improvements in cost,
reliability and maintainability... which comes from *experience.*

Which won't come from flying giant vehicles two or three times a year.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 10 Nov 2005 09:21:03 -0800, in a place far, far away,
" made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

What's need now is not an improvement in performance -
which comes from giant research programs - but improvements in cost,
reliability and maintainability... which comes from *experience.*

Which won't come from flying giant vehicles two or three times a year.

Really? Well, then perhaps we should fly the HLLV a dozen times per
year instead. Still, 2-3 times per year is substantially better'n
Shuttle, so...

Plus, the HLLV will help set up places for the DinkyRockets to go to.
Single launch space stations, a lunar base in one or two shots, you
name it.

On 22 Nov 2005 14:39:15 -0800, in a place far, far away,
" made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

What's need now is not an improvement in performance -
which comes from giant research programs - but improvements in cost,
reliability and maintainability... which comes from *experience.*

Which won't come from flying giant vehicles two or three times a year.

Really? Well, then perhaps we should fly the HLLV a dozen times per
year instead.

Yeah, *that* would be affordable...