Space review: The vision thing

John Penta wrote:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:16:29 +0200, "Kaido Kert"
wrote:


Like some said, for shuttle it was "cheaper space flight". Well, for Joe
Average it doesnt mean squat. So what if Delta V will cost ten times less
than its precedessor, Joe still cannot even imagine going to space himself.


You assume Joe WANTS to go to space.

Newsflash: Most people, 99%, would never want to. Very few would ever
care if they could or not. They'd be damn happy to have some other guy
do it.

From where did you pull these statistics?


--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...

2000 launches in 10 years is 200/yr, which is only twice the rate that the
Soviets consistently sustained during their busiest launch years. And
much of that traffic was Semyorkas -- fairly complex rockets with a long
checkout/launch cycle. (You wouldn't think anyone would build an ICBM
with a countdown longer than the B-52 flight time from Maine to Plesetsk,
but that's exactly what they did...)

It's not merely remotely feasible, it's clearly and straightforwardly
feasible. Good design in the launcher and the ground-support facilities
will certainly help, but the only part that's *necessary* is ample money.

Henry, will you please take a moment and actually listen to your own
rhetoric?

You just said that a flight rate that has *never* been achieved *anywhere*,
under any political or economic system, and is in fact twice that of the
nearest analog, is "clearly and straightforwardly feasible".

There's *no way* you can make that assertion, amigo. None.

*Possible*, maybe, given all the handwaved requirements you spelled out.

But *clear*, *straightforward* and *feasible*?!?

Look bro, nobody wants a robust space infrastructure more than you and I,
but it's still a pipe dream and will be for decades *at best*, unless we
find a way to dump our chemical rocket dependency. And if that happens, who
knows whether we'll even need SPS anymore, we may find something orders of
magnitude better and cheaper.

--
Terrell Miller


"Very often, a 'free' feestock will still lead to a very expensive system.
One that is quite likely noncompetitive"
- Don Lancaster

"Kaido Kert" wrote in message
...

But selling a better future for people or their children,

NASA's been flying the Spinoffs flag for decades. People stopped
believing
them years ago.
I didnt mean spinoffs. I meant as direct benefit from what is being done
in
space.

that's an even dicier argument than the spinoffs thing...

either through
potential for clean energy sources from space ( SPS) ,

Bull****. utter bilge. SPS as a ground-based power supply is a massive
boondoggle.
Even if it will turn out to be "utter bilge" ( which i dont think it
will),
its worth a try. ( I never said a word about launching all the stuff from
earth, for SPS )

but that kind of handwaving is what SPS proponents always have to fall back
on. Sure, SPS is economical if you're slinging the materials up from the
moon instead of Earth (that is, if you don't have to pay anything to get to
the lunar materials, which turns out not to be the case). Basically all
you're saying with that argument is that SPS is totally unaffordable given
any remotely feasible technological base. We won't have large-scale mining
and assembly operations on the moon anytime in the next 50 years, if that.

You completely, entirely, with absolute certainty missed the entire point
of
my post.

No, I read you perfectly. I'm explaining to you why chasing this particular
dream is orders of magnitude too expensive to undertake.

I wasnt pitching another pet project, i wasnt pitching an solution
or destination. I dont care about endless circular arguments whether space
solar power, space tourism, space resources, or mars colonization could
technically be made to work. Any of those things might work, and it might
not. At least it doesnt mean we definitely should not try.

"Doesn't work" is one thing. "Hundreds of billions of dollars wasted for
nothing", unfortunately, is quite another.

I was merely trying to find a .. fundamental drive for a space effort,
that
lots of people could get behind. An overarching goal.

what about the profit motive?

Like some said, for shuttle it was "cheaper space flight".

that was just the rationalization for Joe Taxpayer. The real motive for the
shuttle was just so NASA could keep its funding while not really
accomplishing anything to make other federal agencies look bad.

Now economic, and to somewhat lesser extent, ecologic benefits are
something
that Joe could understand. So if you sell him the idea of thriving space
thrill ride industry after a decade is out, he actually might get
interested. If you sell the idea of clean power from space for his
children,
he might get interested.

until you tell him that said power will cost him anywhere from 40-60% more
than what he's paying right now...

economic or ecologic benefit ( of course forgetting current remote sensing
and communications satellites ), or we cant have that before we have those
other things ( cheap access, moonbases, whatever ). Well i just think
selling a simple destination as a reason itself for having a space effort,
will not work anymore.

You need to have a clear, believable reason for going there. And it has to
have a direct, traceable benefit for Joe or his children. Otherwise, you
wont get much support.

exactly

--
Terrell Miller


"Very often, a 'free' feestock will still lead to a very expensive system.
One that is quite likely noncompetitive"
- Don Lancaster

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:06:36 -0700, Hop David
wrote:



John Penta wrote:

Newsflash: Most people, 99%, would never want to. Very few would ever
care if they could or not. They'd be damn happy to have some other guy
do it.

From where did you pull these statistics?

For chrissake, it was to make a point.

slams head against wall

John

On 12 Nov 2003 22:56:20 GMT, Andrew Gray wrote:

In article , John Penta wrote:

Somehow, I
doubt many average people (assuming "average" physical fitness) could
sustain the G-forces of launch without either getting themselves
killed, or hurting themselves.

Hmm. What are the G-forces pulled on launch? I suspect from vague memory
they're nothing that a reasonably average (ie, not clinically obese,
asthmatic, or suffering any other notable problems) adult couldn't
handle with a modicum of training and possibly some assistance - padded
couch, or the like. (Aborts may be more interesting, though)

On a normal ascent, the shuttle gets up to 3 Gs, within a couple minutes before
MECO. The main engines are throttled down as the 3-G limit is reached, so as to
not go above the limit.

--
Michael R. Grabois # http://chili.cjb.net # http://wizardimps.blogspot.com
"People say losing builds character. That's the stupidest thing I ever
heard. All losing does is suck. " -- Charles Barkley, 9/29/96

"Kaido Kert" wrote in message ...

You completely, entirely, with absolute certainty missed the entire point of
my post. I wasnt pitching another pet project, i wasnt pitching an solution
or destination. I dont care about endless circular arguments whether space
solar power, space tourism, space resources, or mars colonization could
technically be made to work. Any of those things might work, and it might
not. At least it doesnt mean we definitely should not try.

I was merely trying to find a .. fundamental drive for a space effort, that
lots of people could get behind. An overarching goal.

IMHO, everyone who has weighed in on this thread has missed the boat.
You are lamenting the difficulties of forging a national space policy.
It seems to me that there's a good reason it's difficult: it doesn't
make sense any more. The reason it's difficult is that there
shouldn't BE a national space policy, any more than there should be a
national ocean policy or a national air policy. The fact that the
various constituencies, including the general public, can't decide on
a single vision, is a signal that there are a number of different
visions out there to be served. Sounds to me like a problem looking
for a free market solution.

Having a national space policy, an overarching goal, made sense when
only the national government could go to space. That time has passed;
let freedom ring. Now that private industry is getting into the game,
it's time to get the national government out of the space business,
and let the *market* decide what visions will succeed and which will
fail.

-R

Terrell Miller wrote:
"Henry Spencer" wrote:
2000 launches in 10 years is 200/yr, which is only twice the rate that the
Soviets consistently sustained during their busiest launch years. And
much of that traffic was Semyorkas -- fairly complex rockets with a long
checkout/launch cycle. (You wouldn't think anyone would build an ICBM
with a countdown longer than the B-52 flight time from Maine to Plesetsk,
but that's exactly what they did...)

It's not merely remotely feasible, it's clearly and straightforwardly
feasible. Good design in the launcher and the ground-support facilities
will certainly help, but the only part that's *necessary* is ample money.

Henry, will you please take a moment and actually listen to your own
rhetoric?

You just said that a flight rate that has *never* been achieved *anywhere*,
under any political or economic system, and is in fact twice that of the
nearest analog, is "clearly and straightforwardly feasible".

There's *no way* you can make that assertion, amigo. None.

*Possible*, maybe, given all the handwaved requirements you spelled out.

But *clear*, *straightforward* and *feasible*?!?

Yes.

One: Is a rocket necessarily more complex or difficult to manufacture
than a jet airliner or bomber? No. What was Boeing's peak production
of aircraft post-war? I'm looking for some better statistics, but in
the 2003 year to date, arguably one of the worst years for air transport
purchases in a long time, it's 174 aircraft. 14,000 since 1954,
which works out to an annual average of around 280 aircraft.

Two: Is there anything about rocket operations which are inherently
difficult to launch at a rate of one per day, on the launch side?
No. The Russians' limitations on launch rates were due to their
vehicle assembly limits, not their pad facilities. And their rockets
were just sort of well designed for rapid launch from the pad.
Designs done with operability as the major goal from step one
would do much better. The Soyuz flight history, going from the
list in Iaskowitz 3rd edition (1979 onwards) includes quite a
few multiple launches in one day, many more launches with 2 or 3
flying one per day for that many days in a row.

And these are with conventional complicated rockets, albeit well
engineered robust models. BDBs could use 2 orders of magnitude
fewer parts; RLVs will eventually operate with aircraft-like
maintenance requirements.

No credible examination of the historical data and engineering
issues involved can avoid the conclusion that high flight rates
are supportable if there are sufficient payloads. Just looking
at the US experience, and failing to note the real lessons of
the Soviet program, are not credible examinations. What the
Soviets proved was that they could build the infrastructure
for a given flight rate, could expand that on demand, could
build as many rockets as they needed for demand up to about
100 flights a year, and keep their operational tempo and quality
going over the course of a year or longer flying several flights
a week on the average.

The additional infrastructure, rocket production and assembly
capabilities, and staff to support 200 versus 100 flights
per year would be merely incremental. And designing rockets
to be cheaper and easier to assemble and stack and launch
would make it even easier than that.


-george william herbert

George William Herbert wrote:
Terrell Miller wrote:
"Henry Spencer" wrote:
2000 launches in 10 years is 200/yr, which is only twice the rate [...]

It's not merely remotely feasible, it's clearly and straightforwardly
feasible. Good design in the launcher and the ground-support facilities
will certainly help, but the only part that's *necessary* is ample money.

But *clear*, *straightforward* and *feasible*?!?

Yes.

I would like to follow this up a bit.

I can't really go into details without violating MTCR,
however, a field of apparently 25-odd companies,
including my business, bid on a recent DARPA/US Air Force
R&D project towards building a low cost high flight rate
space launch / ICBM program, the FALCON project.

While an actual annual flight rate of 200 per year
exceeds the rate which the specifications required,
meeting some of the other specifications basically
required a system which could easily fly 200 flights
per year.

Some of the bidders on FALCON were bidding equipment
that is already in development or partially flying.
Many others were bidding new proposals. Many of the
names involved will be very familiar to those following
the field.

I didn't win; I believe I know who did, though there has
been no official announcement yet. But it's probably
going to be more than 5 winners on the launch vehicle
side, and that means that the USAF and DARPA have
found at least 5 credible winning proposals out of
a field of 25 or so submitters, who believe that they
can build a system which should be capable of, among other
things, flying 200 or so missions a year as a logical
extension of some of the other requirements, if that
many payloads were to show up.

It's not that someone thinks they can fly that often;
it's that *everyone* thought they could match the specs.
Including all of the usual big aerospace suspects,
all of the usual suspects small aerospace companies,
and quite a few out of nowhere startups.


-george william herbert

wrote in message
om...
"Kaido Kert" wrote in message
...

You completely, entirely, with absolute certainty missed the entire
point of
my post. I wasnt pitching another pet project, i wasnt pitching an
solution
or destination. I dont care about endless circular arguments whether
space
solar power, space tourism, space resources, or mars colonization could
technically be made to work. Any of those things might work, and it
might
not. At least it doesnt mean we definitely should not try.

I was merely trying to find a .. fundamental drive for a space effort,
that
lots of people could get behind. An overarching goal.

IMHO, everyone who has weighed in on this thread has missed the boat.
You are lamenting the difficulties of forging a national space policy.
It seems to me that there's a good reason it's difficult: it doesn't
make sense any more. The reason it's difficult is that there
shouldn't BE a national space policy, any more than there should be a
national ocean policy or a national air policy. The fact that the
various constituencies, including the general public, can't decide on
a single vision, is a signal that there are a number of different
visions out there to be served. Sounds to me like a problem looking
for a free market solution.

Having a national space policy, an overarching goal, made sense when
only the national government could go to space. That time has passed;
let freedom ring. Now that private industry is getting into the game,
it's time to get the national government out of the space business,
and let the *market* decide what visions will succeed and which will
fail.

Under your plan, the Chinese vision will win. If NASA concentrates on the
moon, that would leave low Earth orbit available for private companies.
That would allow us to try your plan while at the same time keeping a backup
plan just in case your plan fails.

In article ,
Andrew Gray wrote:
Somehow, I
doubt many average people (assuming "average" physical fitness) could
sustain the G-forces of launch without either getting themselves
killed, or hurting themselves.

Hmm. What are the G-forces pulled on launch? I suspect from vague memory
they're nothing that a reasonably average (ie, not clinically obese,
asthmatic, or suffering any other notable problems) adult couldn't
handle with a modicum of training...

The long-standing rule of thumb is that an untrained healthy adult should
be able to take 3G without difficulty. Not coincidentally, that is the
highest acceleration the shuttle experiences, barring catastrophic
accidents -- even the aborts stay within that, except perhaps for
transient upward accelerations in a very hard landing.

You could probably go somewhat higher if you were willing to be a little
fussier about "healthy" and a bit more generous about "untrained" and
"without difficulty".

Even Apollo went no higher than about 4G in a normal launch, although the
escape system was a much less pleasant story. (But then, activation of
the escape system was understood to be strictly reserved for terrible
emergencies, in which there is significant risk by definition...)
--
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. |