A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Towards routine, reusable space launch.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old June 12th 18, 11:34 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,sci.astro,rec.arts.sf.science
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Towards routine, reusable space launch.

In article , droleary@
2017usenet1.subsume.com says...

For your reference, records indicate that
Thomas Koenig wrote:

An older version of a Falcon 9 reportedly had 488 tons of total
fuel, 147 of it RP-1 (a modified kerosene). Liquid oxygen is
quite cheap, and if we give RP-1 a cost of 1 dollar per kg,
we probably are in the right ballpark. So, around 150 000 Dollar
per launch.

This is _very_ low compared to all the other costs. A launch
cost around 50 to 60 million dollars now, if I remember the
figures right.


That?s just the problem: you?re only accounting for the cost of
the fuel, whereas I would consider large parts of ?all the other
costs? as inherently part of the efficiency equation. After all,
if we found a way to eliminate the boosters entirely, the savings
is obviously not just from the decrease in fuel.


Sure, sure, Star Trek style transporters with infinite range. I'll get
right on that.

Meanwhile, in the real world, that's not how to optimize the cost of a
transportation system in order to minimize the $ per kg to orbit.

Jeff

--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #22  
Old June 12th 18, 11:44 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,sci.astro,rec.arts.sf.science
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Towards routine, reusable space launch.

In article , droleary@
2017usenet1.subsume.com says...

For your reference, records indicate that
Jeff Findley wrote:

Balloon launch isn't worth the trades which have to be made, IMHO.


Certainly not today, no, or people would be doing it. But as I keep
saying, new technologies keep popping up all the time that might make
it viable in the future, at least for a few use cases.


I have an engineering degree. When developing new things, engineers
work with what they have today because they've got schedules and
deadlines to meet. You're talking about technologies not yet invented.
That's research, not development. The two are not the same.

By your definition, a passenger carrying aircraft is "waste" because it
flies from one destination to another while carrying passengers.


Yes; that is true by any definition. Just because it?s (arguably) the
least wasteful mode of transportation we currently have says nothing
about how we might travel in the future.


Again, to an engineer the future is what you can do with existing tech.
SpaceX has reduced launch costs beyond what any of the competition can
deliver. They arguably didn't use any new technology at all. DC-X
proved VTVL as a viable take of and landing mode. SpaceX applied that
to Falcon 9's first stage.

They don't give a rat's ass about the "waste" of the
actual aircraft having to fly there and back.


That same logic could have been used regarding ship or train travel
prior to the airplane?s dominance. The point being that they *will*
care as soon as a new technology comes along that allows more
efficient travel. What that might be in reality is unknown, but
clearly something like teleportation or Futurama-style tubes are
sci-fi ways of moving just the bits that need to be moved from one
location to another.


Actually moving freight by rail is the cheapest way to move a ton of
goods from point a to point b, assuming you can connect the two by rail.
Aircraft have the advantage of speed, so your Amazon order gets there
overnight instead of in a week or two, but you're paying for Amazon
Prime, which isn't exactly cheap now is it?

Two different sets of requirements lead to two completely different
vehicles. That's how engineering optimization works.

When your hardware costs more than two
orders of magnitude more than your propellant does, it makes a hell of a
lot of sense to "expend" a bit of propellant to get your expensive
hardware back intact.


Yes. And I?m just wondering why you can?t just take the next step and
admit that eliminating that expensive hardware *completely* would
represent a cost saving of two orders of magnitude! You wrote it, but
it?s like you weren?t really thinking about what your words actually
meant.


As an engineer I quite simply can't do that. There is no *proven*
existing tech that is cheaper than liquid fueled rocket engines for
reaching orbit.

What you are trying to get me to admit is that eventually, some day,
there may be something better. Sure, there might. Also, monkeys might
fly out of my butt. I'm not waiting for sci-fi to become reality. I'm
working with what I've got today. Again, that's what engineers do.

Jeff

--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #23  
Old June 12th 18, 03:36 PM posted to rec.arts.sf.science,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.policy
Doc O'Leary[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default Towards routine, reusable space launch.

For your reference, records indicate that
Jeff Findley wrote:

Sure, sure, Star Trek style transporters with infinite range. I'll get
right on that.


No, you won’t. But you apparently *will* use it as a straw man to avoid
actually addressing the likelihood that new technologies developed in
the future will change the economies of space launches. Hell, that’s
essentially what SpaceX is demonstrating today.

--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly


  #24  
Old June 12th 18, 04:00 PM posted to rec.arts.sf.science,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.policy
Doc O'Leary[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default Towards routine, reusable space launch.

For your reference, records indicate that
Fred J. McCall wrote:

Doc O'Leary wrote on Mon, 11 Jun
2018 22:35:20 -0000 (UTC):

Chicken and egg. The fact is that we *do* sometimes have to
elaborately engineer spacecraft in order to make them small enough to
fit into a nose cone or payload bay of a rocket.


Head and ass. Cite for such payloads? Be specific. You're posting
into a 'sci' newsgroup. Handwavium is not sufficient.


Then I must say I note a lack of citations for your own claims. Mine
are easy enough to demonstrate. I can literally link to just about
*any* payload that unfolds to deploy as evidence. Let’s start with
the obvious:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope#/media/File:JWST_launch_configuration.png

A different launch
vehicle/process might allow us more flexibility when it comes to
approaching those very real problems.


What 'very real problems' would those be?


Asked and answered. Your willful ignorance is not compelling.

We're constrained by the real world. Magic materials are right out.


Straw man. All I’m saying is that it’s foolish to completely discount
new technologies simply because they’re not the rockets you know so
well from the past.


Go look up what 'straw man' means. It manifestly does NOT mean
pointing out reality.


Then you need to look up the definition yourself, because I did not
suggest anything magical. I simply made note of the fact that new
technologies come along all the time. In light of that, it is
foolish to be so dismissive of anything but rockets as launch
vehicles for all stages of space travel.

Cite some of these 'new technologies' and what
it takes for them to work. Be specific. You're crossposting into a
'sci' newsgroup. Handwavium is not sufficient.


It actually is. My argument is not *for* any one technology. It is
simply that rockets have obvious limits, have inherent inefficiencies,
and it’s worthwhile to keep our options open when it comes to thinking
about different ways to get things into orbit and beyond.

What do you propose to
replace rockets with, other than 'magic'?


You continue to build this same straw man. Don’t be a dick. Please
save your thread****ting for Facebook or Twitter.

--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly


  #25  
Old June 12th 18, 04:20 PM posted to rec.arts.sf.science,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.policy
Doc O'Leary[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default Towards routine, reusable space launch.

For your reference, records indicate that
Jeff Findley wrote:

I have an engineering degree. When developing new things, engineers
work with what they have today because they've got schedules and
deadlines to meet. You're talking about technologies not yet invented.
That's research, not development. The two are not the same.


I never claimed they were. The topic of the thread is *not* “what can
I build today”, it’s “Towards routine, reusable space launch.” That
has nothing to do with today’s technology, and nobody has made the
case that continued use of rockets (even reusable ones) can make it
happen.

Two different sets of requirements lead to two completely different
vehicles. That's how engineering optimization works.


Indeed. Which is why I argue that rockets alone are unlikely to be the
only path to space. And they *definitely* are not the path to deep
space.

What you are trying to get me to admit is that eventually, some day,
there may be something better. Sure, there might. Also, monkeys might
fly out of my butt.


Really? You think new technologies are butt-monkeys unlikely? Then
let’s get you retired, man, because you are *not* allowing your field
to innovate nearly as much as it needs to.

I'm not waiting for sci-fi to become reality. I'm
working with what I've got today. Again, that's what engineers do.


Then you should be looking in engineering newsgroups for that kind of
discussion. Science is about more than just using your current tools.

--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly


  #26  
Old June 12th 18, 08:43 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,sci.astro,rec.arts.sf.science
Thomas Koenig
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 47
Default Towards routine, reusable space launch.

Jeff Findley schrieb:
In article , droleary@
2017usenet1.subsume.com says...

For your reference, records indicate that
Jeff Findley wrote:

Balloon launch isn't worth the trades which have to be made, IMHO.


Certainly not today, no, or people would be doing it. But as I keep
saying, new technologies keep popping up all the time that might make
it viable in the future, at least for a few use cases.


I have an engineering degree.


So do I (PhD in chemical engineering).

When developing new things, engineers
work with what they have today because they've got schedules and
deadlines to meet.


The world would be a poorer place if that was the case.

You're talking about technologies not yet invented.
That's research, not development. The two are not the same.


How would you classify chemical process development? Seems that,
according to your defiinition, I am doing more research than I
thought :-)
  #27  
Old June 12th 18, 10:29 PM posted to rec.arts.sf.science,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Towards routine, reusable space launch.

Doc O'Leary wrote on Tue, 12 Jun
2018 14:36:47 -0000 (UTC):

For your reference, records indicate that
Jeff Findley wrote:

Sure, sure, Star Trek style transporters with infinite range. I'll get
right on that.


No, you wont. But you apparently *will* use it as a straw man to avoid
actually addressing the likelihood that new technologies developed in
the future will change the economies of space launches. Hell, thats
essentially what SpaceX is demonstrating today.


Nope. SpaceX is using OLD technologies in slightly new ways. That's
what engineers do. What you're talking about is, well, what loons do.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #28  
Old June 12th 18, 10:36 PM posted to rec.arts.sf.science,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Towards routine, reusable space launch.

Doc O'Leary wrote on Tue, 12 Jun
2018 15:00:13 -0000 (UTC):

For your reference, records indicate that
Fred J. McCall wrote:

Doc O'Leary wrote on Mon, 11 Jun
2018 22:35:20 -0000 (UTC):

Chicken and egg. The fact is that we *do* sometimes have to
elaborately engineer spacecraft in order to make them small enough to
fit into a nose cone or payload bay of a rocket.


Head and ass. Cite for such payloads? Be specific. You're posting
into a 'sci' newsgroup. Handwavium is not sufficient.


Then I must say I note a lack of citations for your own claims.


I haven't made any claims.


Mine
are easy enough to demonstrate. I can literally link to just about
*any* payload that unfolds to deploy as evidence. Lets start with
the obvious:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope#/media/File:JWST_launch_configuration.png


Not a good example. Things like solar arrays are launched folded
because they can't take acceleration without snapping off, not because
they're 'too bulky'. Try again?

A different launch
vehicle/process might allow us more flexibility when it comes to
approaching those very real problems.


What 'very real problems' would those be?


Asked and answered. Your willful ignorance is not compelling.


I only asked it once and you never answered. Claim fails.

We're constrained by the real world. Magic materials are right out.


Straw man. All I?m saying is that it?s foolish to completely discount
new technologies simply because they?re not the rockets you know so
well from the past.


Go look up what 'straw man' means. It manifestly does NOT mean
pointing out reality.


Then you need to look up the definition yourself, because I did not
suggest anything magical. I simply made note of the fact that new
technologies come along all the time. In light of that, it is
foolish to be so dismissive of anything but rockets as launch
vehicles for all stages of space travel.


It is foolish NOT to be dismissive of airy claims for 'magic'
justified by handwavium. You are in the wrong newsgroup.



Cite some of these 'new technologies' and what
it takes for them to work. Be specific. You're crossposting into a
'sci' newsgroup. Handwavium is not sufficient.


It actually is. My argument is not *for* any one technology. It is
simply that rockets have obvious limits, have inherent inefficiencies,
and its worthwhile to keep our options open when it comes to thinking
about different ways to get things into orbit and beyond.


No, it actually isn't. Congratulations on demonstrating that you
don't know **** about either science or engineering.



What do you propose to
replace rockets with, other than 'magic'?


You continue to build this same straw man. Dont be a dick. Please
save your thread****ting for Facebook or Twitter.


You continue to flap your arms and make chicken noises, insisting you
can fly to the Moon that way. Don't be a dip****. You are in the
wrong newsgroup.


--
"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
  #29  
Old June 12th 18, 10:47 PM posted to rec.arts.sf.science,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Towards routine, reusable space launch.

Doc O'Leary wrote on Tue, 12 Jun
2018 15:20:22 -0000 (UTC):

For your reference, records indicate that
Jeff Findley wrote:

I have an engineering degree. When developing new things, engineers
work with what they have today because they've got schedules and
deadlines to meet. You're talking about technologies not yet invented.
That's research, not development. The two are not the same.


I never claimed they were.


Actually you are, but you're too thick to recognize the implications
of your position.


The topic of the thread is *not* what can
I build today, its Towards routine, reusable space launch. That
has nothing to do with todays technology, and nobody has made the
case that continued use of rockets (even reusable ones) can make it
happen.


You're not going to move "towards routine, reusable space launch" with
technologies that you CANNOT build today and that you cannot even
describe a scientific theoretical basis for. It has EVERYTHING to do
with today's technology and if you think there's something other than
rockets, either trot it out or STFU.



Two different sets of requirements lead to two completely different
vehicles. That's how engineering optimization works.


Indeed. Which is why I argue that rockets alone are unlikely to be the
only path to space. And they *definitely* are not the path to deep
space.


Right now there IS no path to 'deep space'. It's sad, but get over
it.



What you are trying to get me to admit is that eventually, some day,
there may be something better. Sure, there might. Also, monkeys might
fly out of my butt.


Really? You think new technologies are butt-monkeys unlikely? Then
lets get you retired, man, because you are *not* allowing your field
to innovate nearly as much as it needs to.


He thinks that your 'magic' technology that breaks the laws of physics
is "butt-monkeys unlikely". I agree with him. So does anyone sane
with any knowledge of science and engineering.



I'm not waiting for sci-fi to become reality. I'm
working with what I've got today. Again, that's what engineers do.


Then you should be looking in engineering newsgroups for that kind of
discussion. Science is about more than just using your current tools.


I don't think you know what science is. What it is NOT is airy
speculation about 'new magic' in the sweet by and by.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #30  
Old June 12th 18, 10:52 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,sci.astro,rec.arts.sf.science
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Towards routine, reusable space launch.

Thomas Koenig wrote on Tue, 12 Jun 2018
19:43:04 -0000 (UTC):

Jeff Findley schrieb:
In article , droleary@
2017usenet1.subsume.com says...

For your reference, records indicate that
Jeff Findley wrote:

Balloon launch isn't worth the trades which have to be made, IMHO.

Certainly not today, no, or people would be doing it. But as I keep
saying, new technologies keep popping up all the time that might make
it viable in the future, at least for a few use cases.


I have an engineering degree.


So do I (PhD in chemical engineering).


That's nice. What would be your reaction if I speculated about a
chemical with 'magic' properties that could be used to build a space
tether here on Earth (I say 'magic' because it requires more strength
in tension than is theoretically possible)?



When developing new things, engineers
work with what they have today because they've got schedules and
deadlines to meet.


The world would be a poorer place if that was the case.


That IS the case. You're a chemical engineer. When you need to
design a new industrial process to produce some chemical, do you run
off and try to pull something out of your ass or do you start with
known reaction pathways and mechanisms?



You're talking about technologies not yet invented.
That's research, not development. The two are not the same.


How would you classify chemical process development? Seems that,
according to your defiinition, I am doing more research than I
thought :-)


You're certainly doing SOME research, but I assume what you're doing
is trying to come up with ways to optimize known reaction pathways so
that the one you want 'wins'. In other words, you're starting with
what you know today rather than postulating some undiscovered chemical
reaction.


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




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
Reusable Launch Vehicles - When? [email protected] Policy 4 December 1st 09 12:10 AM
AFRL To Develop Reusable Launch Capabilities [email protected] Policy 1 December 21st 07 05:03 AM
Is anything on this new launch system reusable? Ron Bauer Policy 10 September 22nd 05 08:25 PM
Suborbital Reusable Launch Vehicles and Emerging Markets Neil Halelamien Policy 5 February 24th 05 06:18 AM
Space becomes routine. Ian Stirling Policy 24 July 5th 04 11:21 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:11 PM.


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.