Heard too much and need to vent.

Cardman wrote:
(George William Herbert) wrote:
Optimize *mission cost* for a given capability, not launched mass.
Mass is cheap.

Well how would you have liked to have been able to fully complete the
ISS in just five launches instead of dozens?

One launch, or two.

Anyway, what we are doing here is optimizing launch costs, where to
say this is not important due to the mission costs is just making
excuses.

I am going to say this again, slowly:
If the mission costs 5x what the 'baseline' launch cost does,
and you spend all your effort trying to reduce the 20% fraction
dedicated to launch, you are an engineering economics fool.

Please keep in mind as I say that, that I have been trying to get
a BDB low cost launch company going for a number of years now.
I know exactly how bad the launch cost situation is compared
to where it might or should be.

And I am all for decreasing engineering time... Or more correctly to
refocus and optimize engineering time.

Then focus on the expensive parts, if you're doing a program.

There is a credible argument to be made that if launch costs
drop first, then project costs will follow. But... for optimizing
NASA type programs, generally 'throwing more mass at it' is a
cost optimization.

NASA spacecraft programs typically cost 3-5 times
what their launch cost is.

And what if the ISS had been made from "standard units", where NASA is
so into making everything unique. Just plug the ISS together like a
lego model and if you get bored you can always switch it around.

Sure you need the extras like the solar panels and canada arm, but
again these extras should be made as standard units.

In this way technology gets improved slowly between different units,
where someone has a bright idea and standard unit 3A is produced.

Had this all been done, then sure the initial cost would have been
high, but you would have completed the ISS by now. In fact there would
be many ISSs up there including a real big one (the Hotel!).

How much aerospace systems engineering experience do you have?

What exactly do you propose to put in each 'standard unit'?
Systems wise, I mean. Station control? Water loop life
support stuff? Electrical power storage and distribution?
Air recycling? Equipment racks? Human bunk space, galley
and head space? What?

What sized standard modules? With what docking or berthing
facility between them? What's all this do to your mass budget,
when berthing hatches and extra wiring and piping and all
are all included?

The probes and even craft can just be made the same way, when sure you
got to worry about different environments between different planets,
but at the core they can be the same.

I repeat: how much aerospace systems engineering experience do you have?



-george william herbert

On 23 Jul 2003 10:43:02 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(George William Herbert) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Keep the shuttle running.

Abandoning it before a functional replacement is in place is a
sure way to lose the manned spaceflight program in the US entirely.

Only the government one. It's not at all clear to me that this would
be a bad thing.

For the same reason, ISS should be kept going.

Sunk costs and such are gone. As dumb as some earlier
decisions were, we have to go forwards to improve
things not give up because of all we have wasted.

Sunk costs are irrelevant to the decision. The question is whether or
not continuing is worth future costs.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On 23 Jul 2003 13:36:37 -0400, jeff findley
wrote:

Cardman writes:
And what if the ISS had been made from "standard units", where NASA is
so into making everything unique. Just plug the ISS together like a
lego model and if you get bored you can always switch it around.

I'm glad to see that you think that space stations are as easy to
build as Lego models. You're ignoring the analysis of the system as a
whole

It should be made to survive the more harsh environment of space, with
certainly a small living section to handle solar flares. Apart from
that these things are primary for living in, storage, docking,
construction and repair.

and you're ignoring the cost of the individual modules. These
things aren't cheap.

What I am not ignoring is that NASA likes to make everything unique,
where as a result most of the expense is in the design and testing.

For example NASA spent very many billions even before building any of
the main components of the ISS.

So ignoring these aspects just how much does the raw materials and
assembly cost? With a system planning on moving into mass production,
then even that could be reduced.

Even Russia built themselves a very nice space station out of the top
section of their rockets. There you go standard sections that were not
even largely planned well for a space station thus slotting together
on the cheap.

How do you propose to make your "standard units" cheap?

By not making them unique, thereby spreading the design and testing
costs between the units.

For example now that you know how to make the ISS, then how much does
it cost to make a second or third one?

Having those second and third ones orbiting the Moon and Mars, would
prove quite interesting. Still the ISS is aimed at research, which is
something that I would never do beyond a standard lab and medical
facility.

What would the development costs be for these units?

Beats me, but if you want space stations around the different planets,
then this is the cheapest way to do it.

Having a space station around each planet would provide a complete
support facility for all activities at that planet.

As you can tell I am a dictator... :-]

And we all know how cost effective dictators can be, especially when
the decisions they dictate aren't based on any sort of cost analysis,
but on the whim of one person.

J.F.K did get us to the Moon. Sure it was not cheap, but this set the
standard bar that NASA has failed to live up to ever since.

So certainly it would not be cheap, even if I am certainly aiming for
efficient use of funds, but if I ever had the chance, then I would
promise you a moon base within 10 years and an ever growing number of
my standard space stations.

And even dictators have to live in the set budget of others...

NASA could even offer to build a space hotel for interested companies
in this situation, using standard components of course, when the
chance of paying guests being delivered is increasing all the time.

And so NASA in the future should certainly think about funding
themselves, where tourism is the obvious first choice.

Cardman.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 20:29:43 +0100, in a place far, far away, Cardman
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


And so NASA in the future should certainly think about funding
themselves, where tourism is the obvious first choice.

Yes, that's what we need, another government agency competing with the
private sector for private services.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On 23 Jul 2003 10:52:55 -0700, (George William
Herbert) wrote:

Cardman wrote:
(George William Herbert) wrote:
Optimize *mission cost* for a given capability, not launched mass.
Mass is cheap.

Well how would you have liked to have been able to fully complete the
ISS in just five launches instead of dozens?

One launch, or two.

So what is the total mass of the completed ISS? When I did read
recently that it would take five launches.

Anyway, what we are doing here is optimizing launch costs, where to
say this is not important due to the mission costs is just making
excuses.

I am going to say this again, slowly:
If the mission costs 5x what the 'baseline' launch cost does,
and you spend all your effort trying to reduce the 20% fraction
dedicated to launch, you are an engineering economics fool.

Yes, but if you try to solve all of NASA's problems at the same time,
then you will really get nowhere.

Also I am not such much into working on these expensive space probes,
but getting humans out there, where heavy launch is a very vital
aspect in doing this.

The space probes only eat into the same budget that is keeping their
astronauts grounded. Sure the probes do nice things, but a few humans
can exceed all probe data in no time.

Please keep in mind as I say that, that I have been trying to get
a BDB low cost launch company going for a number of years now.
I know exactly how bad the launch cost situation is compared
to where it might or should be.

Yes. The key aspect to doing useful things in space is heavy launch on
the cheap.

NASA has been on for a long time in decreasing the cost per lb on
launch, but here they are doing next to nothing about it.

And I am all for decreasing engineering time... Or more correctly to
refocus and optimize engineering time.

Then focus on the expensive parts, if you're doing a program.

Well I was not thinking about a program, just improving NASA's launch
costs and capacity, but I seem to be dragged that way.

And as I am all for human exploration, followed by human colonization,
then that is why I have been saying that we need to make standard
space station components. This would of course be followed by standard
ground based components.

Yes they would not be cheap to begin with, but with a new heavy launch
system you won't have to spend 10 or 15 years just making one station.

As at this rate components of the ISS will be due to retire even
before the construction is complete.

There is a credible argument to be made that if launch costs
drop first, then project costs will follow. But... for optimizing
NASA type programs, generally 'throwing more mass at it' is a
cost optimization.

Maybe one day I will have to look into where NASA spends its budget,
when I can only feel that things beyond launch, construction and vital
research should be keep to a minimum.

Had this all been done, then sure the initial cost would have been
high, but you would have completed the ISS by now. In fact there would
be many ISSs up there including a real big one (the Hotel!).

How much aerospace systems engineering experience do you have?

None, but I do have a good talent in seeing how things should be done.

Where all I am hearing about improving their launch system are
excuses, both valid and invalid, to stop this important thing
happening.

If you try improving NASA all at once you will get nowhere, which is
why just going off and making a 100 ton launcher is a good start.

Consider NASA's budget, then consider it being largely spent on
something not unlike my idea. As very many people would like to see
NASA's astronauts do more than form rings around this planet.

What exactly do you propose to put in each 'standard unit'?
Systems wise, I mean. Station control? Water loop life
support stuff? Electrical power storage and distribution?
Air recycling? Equipment racks? Human bunk space, galley
and head space? What?

All of those and more, where certainly water recycling would save
large costs in transporting it.

Due to the remote location the aspect of storage would be important
for a large number of life supporting and maintenance goods.

Anyway, better people than myself can figure out what would exactly be
needed, where I am just saying that making space stations around
different planets the same saves on doing that expensive research and
testing for each one of them.

Space stations are needed in order to provide support, where in the
future these same space stations will be used for a lot more.

And of course having a station there can mostly remove the need of
launching all these different satellites, when the latest research
tool can just be sent to the station and plugged in.

What sized standard modules?

Well with 100 ton launch capacity there is certainly the option to
make them bigger than that used on the ISS. Sizes would vary between
module types, but again there are better people than myself to figure
out what the best sizes are.

With what docking or berthing facility between them?

Needed, but if you wished to add more docking and berthing, then you
just send out another standard module to that station.

What's all this do to your mass budget,
when berthing hatches and extra wiring and piping and all
are all included?

Do you really like making my simple good points so complex that it
wastes every ones time with things that cannot be answered?

When someone actually comes to decide to implement my idea, then so
can they certainly figure our all the exact requirements, dimensions
and masses.

The fact remains that implementing my ideas would get more for the
same or lower costs in the long run. One launch of one of the 100 ton
beasties could keep the ISS stocked for well over a year. And of
course it would soon complete that project in no time.

One of NASA's problems could well be paying people to watch completed
components awaiting launch. As to be able to launch more than needed
could well speed up projects and thus lower costs.

In fact I consider launch capacity so important that it is physically
holding back some projects from happening, very large space telescopes
and huge space probes. That extra size is of course used to increase
the end data obtained.

NASA one day plans to launch some large probes using their new
generation of high powered engines, where I doubt they would be able
to launch these large probes even with the Shuttle.

So by doing that one change would benefit hundreds of projects down
the line.

Cardman.

Cardman wrote:
(George William Herbert) wrote:
How much aerospace systems engineering experience do you have?

None, but I do have a good talent in seeing how things should be done.

I have a short textbook recommendation list:
_Spacecraft Systems Engineering_, Fortescue & Stark ($75)
_Rocket and spacecraft propulsion_, Turner ($80)
_Rocket Propulsion Elements_, Sutton (6th or 7th ed) ($110)
_Modern Engineering for Design of Liquid-Propellant Rocket Engines_,
Huzel & Huang ($110)
_Reducing Space Mission Cost_, Wertz & Larson ($45)
_Space Mission Analysis and Design_, Wertz & Larson ($45)
_Human Spaceflight: Mission Analysis and Design_, Larson & Pranke ($45)
_Aerospace Vehicle Design, Vol 2_, Woods (this is long out of print, though)
_LEO on the Cheap_, London (http://www.dunnspace.com/leo_on_the_cheap.htm)

Unfortunately an expensive list, but important.

Where all I am hearing about improving their launch system are
excuses, both valid and invalid, to stop this important thing
happening.

Some of what you are hearing are excuses.

Some of what you are hearing are professionals who simply
want you to understand that what physics, engineering,
and economics actually let you *do* as opposed to talk
about are a lot harder than you seem to suppose.

If you want to figure out ways to do that which we currently
believe to be impossible... go for it. DARPA and NASA
SBIR grants and the Institute for Advanced Propulsion are
out there.

If you want to figure out easier ways to do things which
we currently believe are very hard... understand why they
are hard first, please. It cuts down on everyone's frustration 8-)


[..]
Do you really like making my simple good points so complex that it
wastes every ones time with things that cannot be answered?

These things can be answered.

The question is whether the detailed answers support your origional
idea or make it less attractive.

Knowing what you can and can't do right now, and why, is important
to working to improve the situation.

The devil is in the details. Don't let the Devil get you.
Get him first, *then* propose a way forwards...


-george william herbert

On 23 Jul 2003 13:30:22 -0400, jeff findley
wrote:

Cardman writes:

Yes, except that we should keep in mind that the Saturn V was not a
very good concept due to the staging. As to just have the lower
engines doing all the work while the other engines sit ideal was not a
very good idea.

Actually, it wasn't so bad. On the two stage Saturn V, your second
stage J-2 engines could be optimized to run in vacuum. This means
that they didn't have to be as "high strung" as the SSME's running at
their significantly higher chamber pressures. Sometimes the "one size
fits all" approach of the SSME isn't so good.

So we come to aerospike engines, which is something that only now are
starting to get off the ground.

Certainly, but I believe the cost factor comes into this, when the
complete Saturn V was not exactly cheap. So I believe that the Shuttle
removed launch system is considerably cheaper.

Where are the facts and figures to back this up? There was no large
scale reduction in the number of buildings or workers at KSC between
Saturn and shuttle operations. In fact, the shuttle uses much of the
same facilities that the Saturn V did. So how is it cheaper?

The problem is that the Saturn V with all its stages was considerably
complex, where again the Shuttle needs a huge amount of handling.

I can certainly see changing the Shuttle system into a cargo lifter
could well result in the closure of a couple of buildings and the loss
of quite a few workers.

That by the way is a good thing...

Where
are the facts to back up your assertion that the shuttle is
"considerably cheaper" than Saturn V?

Not the Shuttle, but the much technically simple and easier to handle
launcher that could be made from it.

Besides, if Saturn kept flying and we never flew the shuttle, the
development cost of the shuttle could have been spent on upgrades on
the Saturn boosters.

I agree, but congress did directly pay for the Shuttle out of extra
funds, which makes that extra Saturn V upgrades questionable.

There is nothing fundamentally impossible about
gradually turning Saturns into reusable boosters. Starting with
recoverable first stages would have been a logical first step (so you
don't throw away five F-1 engines with each Saturn V launch).

And I fully agree that the Saturn V could have been keep working, but
the point is that they got rid of it and used the Shuttle instead.

Also I think we all know by now that the Shuttle is on borrowed time,
when it is just too complex for its own good.

So my idea in just making use of most of the exact same Shuttle
systems in a new Shuttle-less cargo launcher is again improving what
there already is instead of totally scrapping it (at extreme cost) to
making something new.

Anyway, you have just made the same point that I did, when if cheap
standard station components are made, then you could certainly have a
lot of large stations up there in a short amount of time.

At what cost?

Considerable to begin with, but much less for each one produced.

Since this project could well make use of a lot of what was done with
the ISS, then I would say that the first station could be made for
about half the cost. Yikes, I hear you say.

Then making copies could be quite cheap, where these is minimal
research and testing to be done.

How do you launch such things cheaply?

That is the easy part. See my ideas on a Shuttle-less cargo launcher,
which could build the likes of the ISS in just one year.

And as I said the key to all this is the "space tug", which will drag
all this newly launch cargo to where it should be and help slot it
together.

At what cost? Your "space tug" would certainly cost NASA billions to
develop

Certainly, but I also considered the idea that the Shuttle if kept in
orbit would do a perfectly fine job. So if there was no fatal reason
why the Shuttle could not be maintained in orbit, then hey we have
just saved billions.

As I said it is better to improve on what NASA already has instead of
building from new.

The space tug idea is important, when sending up dumb cargo saves the
otherwise complex and very expensive control system from having to
land and be reused.

and it would need constant refueling to keep it going.

Yes, but fuel can be launched into orbit as well you know, where the
fuel used is only a bit more than with their up / down system.

The cargo is launched into orbit on the right ISS heading, where the
Shuttle then leaves the ISS, goes to the collection point and then
sees how well it can move 100 tons of cargo.

Some of that cargo would be the fuel that the Shuttle needs.

A reusable "space tug" was dropped long ago by NASA due to cost.

And as I said NASA's key failing is in launching this heavy Shuttle
each time and have it re-enter the atmosphere, lands and then be
virtually rebuilt before the next launch.

Very costly and time consuming.

Doing this Shuttle launch system instead of moving the cargo about in
orbit is what is taking up 80% of the launch mass.

Besides, with the shuttle, they didn't really need a space tug.

And very soon there will be no more Shuttle, unless they launch it
into orbit and keep it there.

Obviously NASA will be needing a new heavy launch system after this,
where my idea is certainly a good one. Start work on it now and the
earlier you can solve this Shuttle danger problem.

After all the problems with the Shuttle is in launching it and
bringing it back, where keeping it in space makes the Shuttle safe.

Cardman.

On 23 Jul 2003 10:43:02 -0700, (George William
Herbert) wrote:

Cardman wrote:
Yes, except that we should keep in mind that the Saturn V was not a
very good concept due to the staging. As to just have the lower
engines doing all the work while the other engines sit ideal was not a
very good idea.

Staging is your friend. Stage early, stage often, or don't stage at all.

And I can just imagine what the mass of all those extra engines can do
for it. Also more engines make it more complex, which in all is a bad
thing.

Ok, now I would really take anyone who says that the Shuttle should be
kept running out back and shoot them. ;-]

Keep the shuttle running.

For now I would agree, where the earlier they roll it out for launch
the better.

Abandoning it before a functional replacement is in place is a
sure way to lose the manned spaceflight program in the US entirely.

Not when China would be laughing at you from their moon base. :-]

For the same reason, ISS should be kept going.

The only real use of the ISS that I see is that it is a place where my
planned orbital workers can live. They could even maintain whatever
form my space tug take.

Hell if NASA kept their Shuttles in orbit, there would be no need for
the OSP.

Sunk costs and such are gone. As dumb as some earlier
decisions were, we have to go forwards to improve
things not give up because of all we have wasted.

True, but a lot of people will be happy to point out the ISS
operational costs. Kill the ISS and you would save money, but that
would indeed be a BAD IDEA.

Cardman.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 23:14:26 +0100, in a place far, far away, Cardman
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Maybe one day I will have to look into where NASA spends its budget,

Maybe you should do that *before* endlessly pontificating on subjects
that you don't know much about...

And yet no one has yet provided any facts to prove my ideas wrong. All
these very experienced people and I wonder why that is, where instead
we get snide comments.

Maybe because we have better things to do with our time than go
through and deal with a huge load of nonsense line by line.

Maybe, because I am close to the truth, where some people just don't
want to hear it.

laughing

Yes, that's what it is. You've broken the conspiracy wide open...

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

Cardman wrote:
(George William Herbert) wrote:
Cardman wrote:
(George William Herbert) wrote:
How much aerospace systems engineering experience do you have?

None, but I do have a good talent in seeing how things should be done.

I have a short textbook recommendation list:
_Spacecraft Systems Engineering_, Fortescue & Stark ($75)
_Rocket and spacecraft propulsion_, Turner ($80)
_Rocket Propulsion Elements_, Sutton (6th or 7th ed) ($110)
_Modern Engineering for Design of Liquid-Propellant Rocket Engines_,
Huzel & Huang ($110)
_Reducing Space Mission Cost_, Wertz & Larson ($45)
_Space Mission Analysis and Design_, Wertz & Larson ($45)
_Human Spaceflight: Mission Analysis and Design_, Larson & Pranke ($45)
_Aerospace Vehicle Design, Vol 2_, Woods (this is long out of print, though)
_LEO on the Cheap_, London (http://www.dunnspace.com/leo_on_the_cheap.htm)

Unfortunately an expensive list, but important.

Sounds like interesting reading, which I may one day soon look into,
but as the subject says I have just heard too much about the Shuttle
and replacements as of late and just want to vent my own view.

You are admitting, then, that your own view is not based on
any experience or familiarity with the details of how space
and space launch engineering work, and that you are not
currently interested in learning those details?

And come on it is not such a bad view...

It's not such a good one either.

The reason that nobody has built a Shuttle-C to date
is not engineering difficulty... even the conventional
aerospace contractors could do it in a couple or three
years and a couple of billion dollars at most, if they
wanted to. It's that nobody has a market for it.

The only thing you can really conveniently launch in 100
ton chunks is a space station. The (singular) space station
is already up in orbit.

Do you have someone who is going to pay to launch something
else that sized?


-george william herbert