Cheap Access to Space

On 26 Dec, 17:37, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Dec 18, 2:37*pm, Ian Parker wrote:

On 18 Dec, 18:55, Eric Chomko wrote:

Space tourism will have its own set of challenges with saftey. Some
idiot is simply bound to see if he can survive in a vacuum with no
equipment, that is one you can count on.- Hide quoted text -

I wasn't talking about deliberate stupidity, I was thinking about the
basic unreliability of launchers and reentry + the radiation received.
Solar flres etc.

We were told the Shuttle was going to be safe and cheap. It was
neither.

Safe and cheap compared to what? Apollo? 17 missions, 1 disaster and a
failed mission with all astronauts surviving. In my book that is 1 in
17. The shuttle has had 2 disasters, period. According to wiki,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle, the shuttle has had 120
launches. So, that is 1 in 60 vs. 1 in 17 with Apollo. The shuttle is
more safe than was Apollo.

Cost? Again, compared to what?

Folks can make all the claims about what the shuttle wasn't but have
no idea what they are talking about given that it is what it is.
Period. Can we do better? Sure, I am certain. Did some folks promise a
better performance? Again sure, but that was before we actually even
flew the thing! To act like the shuttle has been some sort of failure,
you just don;'t have any numbers to back it up. Do you think the
Russians have done better with Soyuz? If so, then please explain
how...

When there is a small number of launces it is difficult to acieve
statistical significance you are right. On the grounds of cost the
Suttle was twice as expensive per Kg as Ariane which in turn is more
expensive than the shuttle.

By safe I was really meaning safe enough for the ordinary Joe to use.
There will have to be several generations before that is the case.

On cost the basic fact is that so far cost reductions have come by
building expendibles cheaper rather than from reusable technolgy. This
may change in the future. The main problem is that the pace of
developments in rockets is glacial compared with the rate of
improvement in payload capability.


- Ian Parker

On Dec 26, 1:17*pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
"Eric Chomko" wrote in message

...
On Dec 18, 2:37 pm, Ian Parker wrote:

On 18 Dec, 18:55, Eric Chomko wrote:

Space tourism will have its own set of challenges with saftey. Some
idiot is simply bound to see if he can survive in a vacuum with no
equipment, that is one you can count on.- Hide quoted text -

I wasn't talking about deliberate stupidity, I was thinking about the
basic unreliability of launchers and reentry + the radiation received.
Solar flres etc.

We were told the Shuttle was going to be safe and cheap. It was
neither.
Cost? Again, compared to what?

Compared to what was promised.

As if that has never happened in governement contracting. Greg, they
give awards to projects that deliever on time and under budget, as
that is not normal.


Folks can make all the claims about what the shuttle wasn't but have
no idea what they are talking about given that it is what it is.
Period. Can we do better? Sure, I am certain. Did some folks promise a
better performance? Again sure, but that was before we actually even
flew the thing! To act like the shuttle has been some sort of failure,
you just don;'t have any numbers to back it up. Do you think the
Russians have done better with Soyuz? If so, then please explain
how...

Hey Eric, give me a million dollars, I'll deliver *car that gets 100 mpg, is
crash proof and costs $10K.

I don't want a car I want a rocket. What can you do?

And don't be upset if I fail to deliver on my promise after you pay me.


Right, but don't expect another contract either.

One day we'll have CATS and Boeing and Lockheed-Martin will comply
acting like they invented it and/or had it all the time.

Eric

On Dec 26, 5:32*pm, Ian Parker wrote:
On 26 Dec, 17:37, Eric Chomko wrote:



On Dec 18, 2:37*pm, Ian Parker wrote:

On 18 Dec, 18:55, Eric Chomko wrote:

Space tourism will have its own set of challenges with saftey. Some
idiot is simply bound to see if he can survive in a vacuum with no
equipment, that is one you can count on.- Hide quoted text -

I wasn't talking about deliberate stupidity, I was thinking about the
basic unreliability of launchers and reentry + the radiation received.
Solar flres etc.

We were told the Shuttle was going to be safe and cheap. It was
neither.

Safe and cheap compared to what? Apollo? 17 missions, 1 disaster and a
failed mission with all astronauts surviving. In my book that is 1 in
17. The shuttle has had 2 disasters, period. According to wiki,http://en..wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle, the shuttle has had 120
launches. So, that is 1 in 60 vs. 1 in 17 with Apollo. The shuttle is
more safe than was Apollo.

Cost? Again, compared to what?

Folks can make all the claims about what the shuttle wasn't but have
no idea what they are talking about given that it is what it is.
Period. Can we do better? Sure, I am certain. Did some folks promise a
better performance? Again sure, but that was before we actually even
flew the thing! To act like the shuttle has been some sort of failure,
you just don;'t have any numbers to back it up. Do you think the
Russians have done better with Soyuz? If so, then please explain
how...

When there is a small number of launces it is difficult to acieve
statistical significance you are right. On the grounds of cost the
Suttle was twice as expensive per Kg as Ariane which in turn is more
expensive than the shuttle.

Ariane is 0 for 0 WRT launches vs. disasters. I think we'll need
several years to see some sort of track record.


By safe I was really meaning safe enough for the ordinary Joe to use.

Please explain the ratio of safety regarding astronauts and ordinary
Joes. You seem to have some number in mind. And tell me how you
arrived at such a number.

Actuaries use statistics to calculate safety, risk and by extension,
insurance premiums. By your own admission you don't have enough
statistics.

There will have to be several generations before that is the case.

Which no one can guess the timetable of at this point.


On cost the basic fact is that so far cost reductions have come by
building expendibles cheaper rather than from reusable technolgy. This
may change in the future. The main problem is that the pace of
developments in rockets is glacial compared with the rate of
improvement in payload capability.

Using an analogy such as "glacial" in these times of Global Warming is
misleading, but I do get your point.

It will be interesting to see what Ariane can do. I wish them well.
Has ESA selected their first group of astronaunts yet?

Eric

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
...
On Dec 26, 1:17 pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

We were told the Shuttle was going to be safe and cheap. It was
neither.
Cost? Again, compared to what?

Compared to what was promised.

As if that has never happened in governement contracting. Greg, they
give awards to projects that deliever on time and under budget, as
that is not normal.


Right and those projects are not called "successful" either.


And in etiher case, this wasn't a contract it was a project.




Folks can make all the claims about what the shuttle wasn't but have
no idea what they are talking about given that it is what it is.
Period. Can we do better? Sure, I am certain. Did some folks promise a
better performance? Again sure, but that was before we actually even
flew the thing! To act like the shuttle has been some sort of failure,
you just don;'t have any numbers to back it up. Do you think the
Russians have done better with Soyuz? If so, then please explain
how...

Hey Eric, give me a million dollars, I'll deliver car that gets 100 mpg,
is
crash proof and costs $10K.

I don't want a car I want a rocket. What can you do?

And don't be upset if I fail to deliver on my promise after you pay me.


Right, but don't expect another contract either.


Sure, but that's just it. NASA wants "another contract"


One day we'll have CATS and Boeing and Lockheed-Martin will comply
acting like they invented it and/or had it all the time.

Eric




--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

On Dec 27, 11:44 am, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

One day we'll have CATS and Boeing and Lockheed-Martin will comply
acting like they invented it and/or had it all the time.

China is already delivering CATS, and it's only going to get better at
CATS unless we nuke the likes of China and then perhaps India. Iran
could also help deliver CATS, but then we're already planning on
nuking Iran or any other Muslim so much as thinking of putting their
stuff in space.

- Brad Guth

On Dec 26, 10:17 am, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

Hey Eric, give me a million dollars, I'll deliver car that gets 100 mpg, is
crash proof and costs $10K.

And don't be upset if I fail to deliver on my promise after you pay me.

Hay you damn fool, I agree and then some, because for $50K I might be
able to deliver a super-deluxe full-blown 100 empg hybrid Hummer at
zero NOx to boot, and a fancy enough hybrid GM Volt of 200 empg at
under $25K (also at zero NOx). A two seat minimal pod of a zero NOx
car should not have any problems with achieving its hybrid 400 empg
from each spendy fossil or synfuel gallon as long as it's getting its
fair share of h2o2 instead of our polluted atmosphere of mostly N2.

I'm talking of a one cycle ICE and also of the h2o2/aluminum battery
or fuel cell as the do-everything form of a mostly fluid derived and/
or solid form of stored energy usage that's fully renewable, and even
if need be without another drop or gram of anything fossil.

- Brad Guth

On Dec 27, 12:08 pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Dec 26, 10:17 am, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"

wrote:

Hey Eric, give me a million dollars, I'll deliver car that gets 100 mpg, is
crash proof and costs $10K.

And don't be upset if I fail to deliver on my promise after you pay me.

Hay you damn fool, I agree and then some, because for $50K I might be
able to deliver a super-deluxe full-blown 100 empg hybrid Hummer at
zero NOx to boot, and a fancy enough hybrid GM Volt of 200 empg at
under $25K (also at zero NOx). A two seat minimal pod of a zero NOx
car should not have any problems with achieving its hybrid 400 empg
from each spendy fossil or synfuel gallon as long as it's getting its
fair share of h2o2 instead of our polluted atmosphere of mostly N2.

I'm talking of a one cycle ICE and also of the h2o2/aluminum battery
or fuel cell as the do-everything form of a mostly fluid derived and/
or solid form of stored energy usage that's fully renewable, and even
if need be without another drop or gram of anything fossil.

- Brad Guth

BTW, we're supposedly talking about city/gridlock driving and not the
long haul freeway kind of empg. I'd expect to see roughly a forth to
as much as a third less empg while sustaining an average of 65 mph.

On Dec 27, 2:44*pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
"Eric Chomko" wrote in message

...
On Dec 26, 1:17 pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"

wrote:

We were told the Shuttle was going to be safe and cheap. It was
neither.
Cost? Again, compared to what?

Compared to what was promised.

As if that has never happened in governement contracting. Greg, they
give awards to projects that deliever on time and under budget, as
that is not normal.

Right and those projects are not called "successful" either.

Sure they are. Many govt. projects run over budget and late yet are
successful.


And in etiher case, this wasn't a contract it was a project.

Right, a project is just a heavily ammended contract.

Folks can make all the claims about what the shuttle wasn't but have
no idea what they are talking about given that it is what it is.
Period. Can we do better? Sure, I am certain. Did some folks promise a
better performance? Again sure, but that was before we actually even
flew the thing! To act like the shuttle has been some sort of failure,
you just don;'t have any numbers to back it up. Do you think the
Russians have done better with Soyuz? If so, then please explain
how...

Hey Eric, give me a million dollars, I'll deliver car that gets 100 mpg,
is
crash proof and costs $10K.

I don't want a car I want a rocket. What can you do?

And don't be upset if I fail to deliver on my promise after you pay me.

Right, but don't expect another contract either.

Sure, but that's just it. *NASA wants "another contract"

Is that is why KRP and SpaceX got COTS and Boeing and Lock-Mart (USA)
did not?

One day we'll have CATS and Boeing and Lockheed-Martin will comply
acting like they invented it and/or had it all the time.

Eric

--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting * * * * * Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql *(at) *greenms.com * * * * *http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

On Dec 27, 2:50*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Dec 27, 11:44 am, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"

wrote:

One day we'll have CATS and Boeing and Lockheed-Martin will comply
acting like they invented it and/or had it all the time.

China is already delivering CATS,

So THAT is what was in the last food delivery? I have heard of such
things but did not believe it!

and it's only going to get better at
CATS unless we nuke the likes of China and then perhaps India. *Iran
could also help deliver CATS, but then we're already planning on
nuking Iran or any other Muslim so much as thinking of putting their
stuff in space.

You would make a good stooge for the enemy.

I picture you as the John Candy character in the movie "Volunteers".

Eric

On Dec 27, 12:29 pm, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Dec 27, 2:50 pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 27, 11:44 am, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"

wrote:

One day we'll have CATS and Boeing and Lockheed-Martin will comply
acting like they invented it and/or had it all the time.

China is already delivering CATS,

So THAT is what was in the last food delivery? I have heard of such
things but did not believe it!

and it's only going to get better at
CATS unless we nuke the likes of China and then perhaps India. Iran
could also help deliver CATS, but then we're already planning on
nuking Iran or any other Muslim so much as thinking of putting their
stuff in space.

You would make a good stooge for the enemy.

I picture you as the John Candy character in the movie "Volunteers".

Eric

Meanwhile, China kicks our infowar spewing butts on just about
anything related to future space exploration, because they have CATS
and we do not.

What do you think of the LSE-CM/ISS as deployed and operated by
China?

- Brad Guth