On the lasting importance of the SpaceX accomplishment.

On Jun 4, 8:39*am, "G=EMC^2" wrote:
On Jun 4, 9:18*am, Jeff Findley wrote:





In article ,
says...

In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley wrote:
I disagree with that conclusion. *I don't think that "all the large
aerospace companies in the world can afford to privately develop their
own manned launchers and/or spacecraft and expect to make a profit on
it". *You see, they're a big part of the reason that if NASA were to
develop similar capabilities that their costs would be 4 to 10 times
that of SpaceX (also stated in the above). *The big companies are just
that, too big and too expensive. *Why? *It's part of their culture.

On the New Space side of the arena, SpaceX is a shining example of a
company that is only as big as it needs to be to accomplish its goals.

The "big" compnaies were not always big yes? I rather doubt the folks
there sat down one day and said "Hey, let's become big, bloated and
expensive" - it was, I suspect, a steady progression of "Compliance
with this" and "Have to deal with that." I guess the biggest test will
be how big SpaceX becomes say 30 years from now - will it still be
only as big as it needs to be to accomplish its goals.

As you say, we'll have to wait 30 years to find out. *But we know where
the Big Aerospace companies are 30 decades after the Space Race ended,
and it's not terribly impressive compared to where those same people
thought (in the early 70s') we'd be by now.

But the Big Aerospace beginnings were far different. *They came from a
time where they had blank checks to develop ICBM's, Mercury, Gemini,
Saturn I, Saturn IB, Saturn V, the LEM, and the CSM, all in order to
beat those "godless commies" and prove the superiority of our
democratic, capitalistic, society. *The days of blank checks were over
before Armstrong even set foot on the moon. *It's my belief that Big
Aerospace's culture was created by those "blank check" days and that is
a huge part of their problems.

SpaceX doesn't suffer from the Cold War culture problem. *In fact, they
had to do everything "on the cheap" because Musk had limited funds.
Other start-ups have come and gone due to a lack of money. *In order to
succeed, Musk had to forge a company whose culture could succeed with
1/10th of what NASA's cost models would predict.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
* up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
* *- tinker

NASA had the "right stuff" in the days of Kennedy it had the Saturn V
and got us to the moon. Then came Nixon,and Walter Annenberg (Mafia)
and we scraped the Saturn V for the Micky Mouse shuttles with their
25,000,000 toilets.

[/quote]

This is one of those half-myths that haunts the space enthusiast
community to this day. It's true that Nixon was no fan of manned
space flight. But he's not the reason it all went off the rails about
that time, if it had not been him it would have been someone else.

John F. Kennedy was no big fan of manned space flight either. This is
a basic truth that often gets overlooked now. He proposed Apollo
because he was looking for a big, impressive PR project, both for
geopolitical Cold War reasons and personal political reasons, after
the Bay of Pigs disaster. A number of possibilities were considered,
space activity just happened to be the one they opted for (and it had
a _lot_ of opponents in the Kennedy Administration, who wanted that
money for other things).

The key thing to remember is that Apollo was _primarily_ a PR
exercise. Everything else useful that came of it (and there was quite
a bit) was secondary, when NASA put Armstrong and Aldrin on the Moon
and returned them safely, they had completed their purpose.

Having done that, then what? From that time until now, NASA has been
struggling, because there is simply no impetus for anything further.
It was never about exploration, science, or settlement, and only
tangentially about defense. Had the Bay of Pigs been a successful
operation, or never attempted, there's a fairly high chance that
humans would not even yet have been to the Moon.

The Shuttle was a leftover, desperately clung to, from NASA's
ambitious post-Apollo plans in the heady days of the late 60s, when
they were visualizing manned stations, manned Martian expdeditions by
the end sof hte 80s, etc. None of that was in the cards because none
of it served any _political_ purpose. When NASA realized that, they
switched over to self-preservation mode, as any organization in their
place, public or private, could have been expected to do.

Johnny1a wrote:

On Jun 4, 8:39*am, "G=EMC^2" wrote:

NASA had the "right stuff" in the days of Kennedy it had the Saturn V
and got us to the moon. Then came Nixon,and Walter Annenberg (Mafia)
and we scraped the Saturn V for the Micky Mouse shuttles with their
25,000,000 toilets.

This is one of those half-myths that haunts the space enthusiast
community to this day. It's true that Nixon was no fan of manned
space flight. But he's not the reason it all went off the rails about
that time, if it had not been him it would have been someone else.

You missed the big half myth - that of Nixon and the Saturn V. Apollo
was already all but dead by the time Nixon came on the scene. Saturn
V and CSM/LM production had already been capped, and the studies that
would lead to the Shuttle configuration as we know it all but
complete.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Jul 10, 12:14*am, (Derek Lyons) wrote:
Johnny1a wrote:
On Jun 4, 8:39*am, "G=EMC^2" wrote:

NASA had the "right stuff" in the days of Kennedy it had the Saturn V
and got us to the moon. Then came Nixon,and Walter Annenberg (Mafia)
and we scraped the Saturn V for the Micky Mouse shuttles with their
25,000,000 toilets.

This is one of those half-myths that haunts the space enthusiast
community to this day. *It's true that Nixon was no fan of manned
space flight. *But he's not the reason it all went off the rails about
that time, if it had not been him it would have been someone else.

You missed the big half myth - that of Nixon and the Saturn V. *Apollo
was already all but dead by the time Nixon came on the scene. *Saturn
V and CSM/LM production had already been capped, and the studies that
would lead to the Shuttle configuration as we know it all but
complete.


My understanding (which I admit might be wrong or incomplete) was that
Shuttle began, more or less, as a component in a large 'on to Mars'
proposal by or within NASA. The idea was a variation on the old von
Brawn approach, i.e. a permanent manned orbiting space station,
followed by learning to assemble large spacecraft in LEO, then sending
those spacecraft to Mars, with the supposedly reusable Shuttle being
the connecting link to the orbital facilities.

Assumming this understanding is correct, I have no idea how seriously
the NASA wheels actually took all this, or whether they thought
Congress might actually fund it or not. From what I've heard/read, as
it became clear that Congress had essentially no interest in
_anything_ beyond Apollo, bit by bit the proposal was pared away until
only the Shuttle itself was left, and that considerably redesigned
from the early concepts...and even then came clsoe to cancellation in
the 70s.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 20:07:09 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1a
wrote:

On Jul 10, 12:14=A0am, (Derek Lyons) wrote:
Johnny1a wrote:
On Jun 4, 8:39=A0am, "G=3DEMC^2" wrote:

NASA had the "right stuff" in the days of Kennedy it had the Saturn V
and got us to the moon. Then came Nixon,and Walter Annenberg (Mafia)
and we scraped the Saturn V for the Micky Mouse shuttles with their
25,000,000 toilets.

This is one of those half-myths that haunts the space enthusiast
community to this day. =A0It's true that Nixon was no fan of manned
space flight. =A0But he's not the reason it all went off the rails about
that time, if it had not been him it would have been someone else.

You missed the big half myth - that of Nixon and the Saturn V. =A0Apollo
was already all but dead by the time Nixon came on the scene. =A0Saturn
V and CSM/LM production had already been capped, and the studies that
would lead to the Shuttle configuration as we know it all but
complete.


My understanding (which I admit might be wrong or incomplete) was that
Shuttle began, more or less, as a component in a large 'on to Mars'
proposal by or within NASA. The idea was a variation on the old von
Brawn approach, i.e. a permanent manned orbiting space station,
followed by learning to assemble large spacecraft in LEO, then sending
those spacecraft to Mars, with the supposedly reusable Shuttle being
the connecting link to the orbital facilities.

Assumming this understanding is correct, I have no idea how seriously
the NASA wheels actually took all this, or whether they thought
Congress might actually fund it or not. From what I've heard/read, as
it became clear that Congress had essentially no interest in
_anything_ beyond Apollo, bit by bit the proposal was pared away until
only the Shuttle itself was left, and that considerably redesigned
from the early concepts...and even then came clsoe to cancellation in
the 70s.

I seem to recall a talk by Jerry Pournelle that went into certain
constraints not normally mentioned. Basically, that all those NASA
employees during Apollo were civil service workers that essentially
COULD NOT be fired - they had to design a new space vehicle which
would require essentially the same number of employees to support and
run as Apollo had. Not sure if he was kidding or not (but he sounded
serious).

In article a3892095-3180-4935-82da-66e80e941ff6
@a16g2000vby.googlegroups.com, says...

My understanding (which I admit might be wrong or incomplete) was that
Shuttle began, more or less, as a component in a large 'on to Mars'
proposal by or within NASA. The idea was a variation on the old von
Brawn approach, i.e. a permanent manned orbiting space station,
followed by learning to assemble large spacecraft in LEO, then sending
those spacecraft to Mars, with the supposedly reusable Shuttle being
the connecting link to the orbital facilities.

Assumming this understanding is correct, I have no idea how seriously
the NASA wheels actually took all this, or whether they thought
Congress might actually fund it or not. From what I've heard/read, as
it became clear that Congress had essentially no interest in
_anything_ beyond Apollo, bit by bit the proposal was pared away until
only the Shuttle itself was left, and that considerably redesigned
from the early concepts...and even then came clsoe to cancellation in
the 70s.

Not exactly. Shuttle was to be the first part of a three pronged
approach to space transportation. The second part was an orbital
transfer vehicle (a big one in order to enable moving and servicing of
satellites). The third part was to be a space station which also
contained an "orbital workshop" for satellite servicing as well as for
assembling larger manned spacecraft which could not be launched in one
piece.

As we know, budget pressures canceled the OTV and the space station was
put on indefinite hold, only to be built decades later. So, there was a
vision, but all we got was a shuttle which flew infrequently and never
quite met its performance goals (payload to LEO) on top of that.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

In article ,
says...

I seem to recall a talk by Jerry Pournelle that went into certain
constraints not normally mentioned. Basically, that all those NASA
employees during Apollo were civil service workers that essentially
COULD NOT be fired - they had to design a new space vehicle which
would require essentially the same number of employees to support and
run as Apollo had. Not sure if he was kidding or not (but he sounded
serious).

And history repeats itself with Ares and Orion (whatever they're calling
them these days). Politics dictated the programs continue, even if
there was no clear cut purpose for them.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

I seem to recall a talk by Jerry Pournelle that went into certain
constraints not normally mentioned. Basically, that all those NASA
employees during Apollo were civil service workers that essentially
COULD NOT be fired - they had to design a new space vehicle which
would require essentially the same number of employees to support and
run as Apollo had. Not sure if he was kidding or not (but he sounded
serious).

And history repeats itself with Ares and Orion (whatever they're calling
them these days). *Politics dictated the programs continue, even if
there was no clear cut purpose for them.

Jeff
--

nasa gambled and lost big time, since the thiokol replacement wasnt
ready in time tons of nasa workers lost their jobs, and many wouldnt
be needed for future private operators.

congress must be in a turmoil pork jobs being lost they want to cut $$
$ for privatazition

In article 3bdd3331-ec85-484e-866a-f61e52f4edb8
@f30g2000vbz.googlegroups.com, says...
And history repeats itself with Ares and Orion (whatever they're
calling
them these days). *Politics dictated the programs continue, even if
there was no clear cut purpose for them.

nasa gambled and lost big time, since the thiokol replacement wasnt
ready in time tons of nasa workers lost their jobs, and many wouldnt
be needed for future private operators.

"Griffin's gamble" has a nice ring to it. In all seriousness, it was
never going to happen "in time" to prevent all the layoffs. With the
shuttle program still underway, there just wasn't enough money to make
things go faster.

And even if something did start flying as shuttle ended, there was never
any reason to think everyone would keep their jobs. The shuttle was
quite labor intensive where a much smaller capsule ought not to be.

congress must be in a turmoil pork jobs being lost they want to cut $$
$ for privatazition

The above is unintelligible.

Congress seems quite content to keep funding SLS and Orion as well as
commercial resupply for ISS. Even ATK seems to be pushing its own
version of Ares I along, calling it "Liberty" to draw our attention away
from the European (Astrium) origins of its upper stage.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On Jul 10, 10:56*pm, (Harold Groot) wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 20:07:09 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1a





wrote:
On Jul 10, 12:14=A0am, (Derek Lyons) wrote:
Johnny1a wrote:
On Jun 4, 8:39=A0am, "G=3DEMC^2" wrote:

NASA had the "right stuff" in the days of Kennedy it had the Saturn V
and got us to the moon. Then came Nixon,and Walter Annenberg (Mafia)
and we scraped the Saturn V for the Micky Mouse shuttles with their
25,000,000 toilets.

This is one of those half-myths that haunts the space enthusiast
community to this day. =A0It's true that Nixon was no fan of manned
space flight. =A0But he's not the reason it all went off the rails about
that time, if it had not been him it would have been someone else.

You missed the big half myth - that of Nixon and the Saturn V. =A0Apollo
was already all but dead by the time Nixon came on the scene. =A0Saturn
V and CSM/LM production had already been capped, and the studies that
would lead to the Shuttle configuration as we know it all but
complete.

My understanding (which I admit might be wrong or incomplete) was that
Shuttle began, more or less, as a component in a large 'on to Mars'
proposal by or within NASA. *The idea was a variation on the old von
Brawn approach, i.e. a permanent manned orbiting space station,
followed by learning to assemble large spacecraft in LEO, then sending
those spacecraft to Mars, with the supposedly reusable Shuttle being
the connecting link to the orbital facilities.

Assumming this understanding is correct, I have no idea how seriously
the NASA wheels actually took all this, or whether they thought
Congress might actually fund it or not. *From what I've heard/read, as
it became clear that Congress had essentially no interest in
_anything_ beyond Apollo, bit by bit the proposal was pared away until
only the Shuttle itself was left, and that considerably redesigned
from the early concepts...and even then came clsoe to cancellation in
the 70s.

I seem to recall a talk by Jerry Pournelle that went into certain
constraints not normally mentioned. Basically, that all those NASA
employees during Apollo were civil service workers that essentially
COULD NOT be fired - they had to design a new space vehicle which
would require essentially the same number of employees to support and
run as Apollo had. Not sure if he was kidding or not (but he sounded
serious).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He may have been serious, but that doesn't mean he was entirely
right. Pournelle has his own fixations, and public employees have
become one of them. He's also been a vector for some rumors that were
untrue, like the 'Saturn V blueprints were destroyed' myth. He's
often right, but he's often wrong, too.

..

congress must be in a turmoil pork jobs being lost they want to cut $$
$ for privatazition

The above is unintelligible.

Congress seems quite content to keep funding SLS and Orion as well as
commercial resupply for ISS. *Even ATK seems to be pushing its own
version of Ares I along, calling it "Liberty" to draw our attention away
from the European (Astrium) origins of its upper stage.

Jeff

if falcon continues to fly safely and gets its manned upgrade theres
no need SLS and Orion. by the time its flying ISS will be deorbited,
theres no big need for SLS and orion, and no $$ for a new program

meanwhile congress has called for de funding much of privatization.
perhaps they dont want to lose pork piggie control? lots of bucks to
be handed out..........