A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Science Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Space Program Needs The Right Stuff



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 20th 03, 11:55 PM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Space Program Needs The Right Stuff

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 14:51:18 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:40:50 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Mostly because they were so heavily regulated, they weren't really
commercial, and no innovation was allowed. That was the cost of the
Price-Anderson act.

Mostly because the Price-Anderson act lead to the political failure of
the industry, and has absolutely zero bearing on the operator and
designer failures I noted.


It was the direct cause. Once the industry gave up its autonomy in
exchange for freedom from liability, there was no room for innovative
techiques.


Right. And innovation would have prevented Fermi 2 how? (Since that
Fermi 2 was a fabrication error.) How would innovation have prevented
Browns Ferry? (Since Browns Ferry was a management and common sense
failure.) How would innovation have prevented TMI? (Since TMI was a
managment and operational error.)


By designing so that meltdown is impossible. Dyson has discussed
this.

If Price-Anderson prevented
innovation, why is virtually every reactor in the country built to
different designs? Why is there a constant increase in the size of
the plants?


They're not that different. They're all based on the same principle
and philosophy.

These are serious questions BTW.

We've seen the same thing in the aircraft industry, in
which the FAA tells everyone how to design and operate aircraft.


Even before the FAA, we saw airplanes lost to operator, maintenance,
design, and construction problems. After the FAA, we see airplanes
lost to the same cause. The FAA has changed what exactly?


Increased costs, and suppressed innovation.

  #22  
Old December 20th 03, 11:57 PM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Space Program Needs The Right Stuff

"Lou Adornato" wrote:
You're ignoring the crucial fact that NASA walked away from this technology
and refused to even reconsider it because it would make subsequent decisions
look bad.


Which technology? Air dropped spaceplanes? Air dropped launchers?
Hybrid engines? Which?

(To be fair, I have long been on record for criticizing NASA for
choosing Max Faget over building on the X-15.)

This sort of situation doesn't exist in a competitive market -
any company that refuses to face reality about failing projects will
eventually go out of business.


A meaningless comparison as NASA isn't in a commercial market.

It's not all that strange that it took a bunch of bootstrap organizations 40
years to catch up to the state-of-the-art, with NASA effectively blocking
all commercial incentive to do so and thereby driving away any potential
investors.


So what happened to all the rocketry pioneers in the twenties,
thirties, and forties... Years before NASA came along, not a one made
a serious attempt at commercial space, manned or unmanned.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

  #24  
Old December 21st 03, 04:39 AM
Tom Merkle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Space Program Needs The Right Stuff

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..

failure.) How would innovation have prevented TMI? (Since TMI was a
managment and operational error.)


By designing so that meltdown is impossible. Dyson has discussed
this.

impossible to melt down==impossible to design, at least for
water-cooled reactors. Better to say "would not melt down given a
design worst-case scenario failure."

If Price-Anderson prevented
innovation, why is virtually every reactor in the country built to
different designs? Why is there a constant increase in the size of
the plants?



IMO the effect of most US nuclear industry regulation is to encourage
centralization of resources and increasing unit cost, with little
difference between the cost of a small plant and a big one. Thus the
ever growing size of the plants. Too bad, because my experience with
small PWRxs makes it clear to me that there are some big safety
advantages to limiting the MW rating of the reactor--many small,
distributed reactors would probably be safer and more economic than
the massive centralized behemoths we have today.

They're not that different. They're all based on the same principle
and philosophy.

These are serious questions BTW.

We've seen the same thing in the aircraft industry, in
which the FAA tells everyone how to design and operate aircraft.


Even before the FAA, we saw airplanes lost to operator, maintenance,
design, and construction problems. After the FAA, we see airplanes
lost to the same cause. The FAA has changed what exactly?


Increased costs, and suppressed innovation.


A good example is the Visionaire Vantage.

Tom Merkle

  #26  
Old December 22nd 03, 03:29 PM
Sander Vesik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Space Program Needs The Right Stuff

In sci.space.policy Kaido Kert wrote:
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
That's Fox News' title for my column. I just called it "Daring."

The third in a trilogy, and I think that I'm overwraught, or at least
overWrighted...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,106062,00.html

No mas.


concept works, practical application
Automotive: Daimler-Benz ( 1886 ) Ford Model - T ( 1908 )


Uhh.. this is gross misstatement of the car business. Ford didn't
really make cars be widespread.

Aviation : Wright ( 1903 ) Glenn Curtis ( ~1909 ~1911 )
Space : Rutan ? ( 2004-5? ) blank ( 200x ? )

I wonder who will fill in the blank and when ?
BTW, there were equivalents of STS, EELVs etc. both in aviation and
automotive as well. Aviation: dirigibles, Langley & Co. hot air balloons,
steam cars and whatnot.

-kert


--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

  #27  
Old December 22nd 03, 04:37 PM
Frank Scrooby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Space Program Needs The Right Stuff

Hi

"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...

much snipped

concept works, practical application
Automotive: Daimler-Benz ( 1886 ) Ford Model - T ( 1908 )


Uhh.. this is gross misstatement of the car business. Ford didn't
really make cars be widespread.


If Ford didn't then who?

Certainly none of his contemporaries. They didn't build cars for the masses,
they were building cars for the aristrocracy. Luxury goods for luxury
people.

Ford made cars in numbers that all his compeditors put together could not
match.

Ford made automobiles affordable to the people who actually worked on the
production lines to manufacture them (and by implication to almost everyone
else).

Ford made automobiles maintainable to the common man, by making them simple
enough for the ordinary man to fix. Before Ford cars had been grossly
complex pieces of machinery that need the constant attention of skilled
mechanics.

Ford made automobiles accessible to the common man by making them easy to
operate. He established a simple set of controls and didn't change them with
every new model. Admittedly his Model-T set isn't the same set we use today,
but it was the set that launched the Age of Automobiles.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++


Who are you going to hold up as the inventor of the first practical
motorcar? Certainly no one before Ford produced anything like Ford's volume.
Prior to the Model-T the only complex mechanical items that had been
produced in similar numbers were firearms.

The fact that 90% of the planet didn't get to see or embark upon a motorcar
before 1950 doesn't make the fact any different that 10% of them did in the
decade after the Model T went into production. And the overwhelming majority
of that 10% saw and rode in and would only have recognized a Ford, until at
least the 1940s.

The man had faults (Big ones, San Andres Faults) but he (and his company,
and the several thousand very bright people he employed and routinely
listened to) turned the motorcar from a rich man toys into a workhorse of an
entire civilization. If you wish to claim otherwise you'd better have pretty
astounding facts.

Regards
Frank

  #28  
Old December 23rd 03, 02:19 AM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Space Program Needs The Right Stuff

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 14:51:18 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Right. And innovation would have prevented Fermi 2 how? (Since that
Fermi 2 was a fabrication error.) How would innovation have prevented
Browns Ferry? (Since Browns Ferry was a management and common sense
failure.) How would innovation have prevented TMI? (Since TMI was a
managment and operational error.)


By designing so that meltdown is impossible. Dyson has discussed
this.


And that prevents management, operational, and bonehead errors how?

We've seen the same thing in the aircraft industry, in
which the FAA tells everyone how to design and operate aircraft.


Even before the FAA, we saw airplanes lost to operator, maintenance,
design, and construction problems. After the FAA, we see airplanes
lost to the same cause. The FAA has changed what exactly?


Increased costs, and suppressed innovation.


I see. You sput buzzwords in place of reasoned discussion.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

  #29  
Old December 23rd 03, 02:25 AM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Space Program Needs The Right Stuff

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 14:57:27 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

"Lou Adornato" wrote:
You're ignoring the crucial fact that NASA walked away from this technology
and refused to even reconsider it because it would make subsequent decisions
look bad.


Which technology? Air dropped spaceplanes? Air dropped launchers?
Hybrid engines? Which?


Suborbital reusables.


Problem is, why should NASA have chased this technology? Which of
it's organizational goals does it meet?

It's not all that strange that it took a bunch of bootstrap organizations 40
years to catch up to the state-of-the-art, with NASA effectively blocking
all commercial incentive to do so and thereby driving away any potential
investors.


So what happened to all the rocketry pioneers in the twenties,
thirties, and forties... Years before NASA came along, not a one made
a serious attempt at commercial space, manned or unmanned.


Then it was a technology problem.


A reasonable answer.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
No Red Space Menace Rand Simberg Space Science Misc 11 October 18th 03 06:30 AM
Is a Space Elevator more risky than the shuttle? Henry J. Cobb Space Science Misc 18 October 4th 03 02:06 AM
The Non-Innovator's Dilemma Rand Simberg Space Science Misc 76 September 27th 03 03:09 AM
Asteroid first, Moon, Mars Later Al Jackson Space Science Misc 0 September 3rd 03 03:40 PM
Is space over? Tony Rusi Space Science Misc 0 July 6th 03 12:40 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.