Hillary Clinton Declares War on....I TOLD YOU!

Jeff Findley wrote:
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 09:57:34 -0500, in a place far, far away, "J.
Clarke" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
The Space Shuttle looks like a Hell of a "try" to me.

Not really.

No kidding. It hasn't fundamentally changed since it started
flying.

Neither has the 747. What do you want, for it it metamorphose into
Klingon Bird Of Prey overnight?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Fred J. McCall wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 23:46:36 -0500, in a place far, far away, "J.
Clarke" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


Manned spaceflight will be affordable when the general state of
the
art allows it to be. Right now any focussed effort is likely
to
just
waste money.

That depends on how the money is spent.

NASA has been trying to reduce launch costs by that approach

By what approach?

Attempting to reduce the costs of manned spaceflight.


Who? When? Where? How?

Your two statement above say that "NASA has been trying to reduce
launch costs by attempting to reduce the costs of manned
spaceflight".

When did NASA do that?

They've been looking for ways to do it ever since I can remember. You
really think they _like_ not being able to compete with Soyuz and
Ariane?

for going
on 40 years now and they haven't succeeded.

They've never really tried.

The Space Shuttle looks like a Hell of a "try" to me.


Then you're massively ignorant. They KNEW the operating costs for
the
Shuttle were going to be preposterously high. It was a deliberate
decision made to try to reduce up-front costs. That's definitely
not
how you go about "attempting to reduce the costs of manned
spaceflight".

The Shuttle is pretty much the most expensive launch system in the
world.

So you're saying that NASA lied to Congress in their projected
operating costs?

The fact is that if the Shuttle had worked as intended it would have
been relatively cheap to fly. But since they never flow any subsized
prototypes with all up design features they got blindsided on the cost
of refurbishment after flight and on the cost of recovering and
refurbishing the SRBs and quite a lot of other stuff.

You really think that NASA _planned_ to have a launch system that cost
more to fly than what they already had?

Can you say wingnut conspiracy theory?

And they
haven't come up with anything that is going to be significantly
cheaper.


That's because, contrary to your claim above, they are not trying
to.

So your'e saying that they like being embarrassed by the Russians and
the ESA?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 10:41:03 -0500, in a place far, far away, "J.
Clarke" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

The 'general state of the art' isn't going to go much of anywhere
unless someone is writing checks to develop it.

So you're saying that if Hillary is elected then all aviation R&D
will be discontinued?


Ever notice how whenever someone tries to tell someone else what
"you're saying" that they inevitably are trying to put together some
straw man? It's a pretty weak rhetorical tactic, when it comes
right
down to it.

Aviation isn't space flight. Aviation research doesn't do much to
improve the 'general state of the art' when it comes to space
flight.

But most of the cost is not "space flight", it is getting to space
through the atmosphere, and that is avaiation.

Ummmm...no. A launch vehicle spends very little time in the
atmosphere. It tries to get through it as fast as it can, and it
doesn't use it at all.

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 11:04:51 -0500, in a place far, far away, "J.
Clarke" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 09:57:34 -0500, in a place far, far away, "J.
Clarke" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 23:46:36 -0500, in a place far, far away, "J.
Clarke" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


Manned spaceflight will be affordable when the general state of
the
art allows it to be. Right now any focussed effort is likely
to
just
waste money.

That depends on how the money is spent.

NASA has been trying to reduce launch costs by that approach

By what approach?

Attempting to reduce the costs of manned spaceflight.

That's not an approach. It's a goal. What "approach" are you
objecting to?

You still haven't answered this question.

for going
on 40 years now and they haven't succeeded.

They've never really tried.

The Space Shuttle looks like a Hell of a "try" to me.

Not really.

So what would such a try cost if the billions spent on the Shuttle
weren't enough?

How much money is spent is beside the point. It's *how* it's spent.
In the case of the Shuttle, it was spent poorly. A successful program
to reduce the costs of access could cost much less than Shuttle cost,
because that wasn't really the goal of the Shuttle.

And they
haven't come up with anything that is going to be significantly
cheaper.

They haven't made a serious attempt.

So what would be a "serious attempt"?

Flying lots of experimental vehicles for technology maturation, and
putting out service contracts for massive amounts of payload delivery
at a low price, for multiple contractors.

Time to try something else.

I didn't say NASA should do it, but NASA should be doing basic R&D
as
NACA used to.

Yes, they should, which is what I said.

No, it's not.

Yes, it is. "basic R&D" is not directed toward any specific goal.
You seem to want _directed_ R&D.

Yes, R&D directed toward the problem of reducing the cost of access.
NASA is currently not doing this.

In article ,
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

But most of the cost is not "space flight", it is getting to space
through the atmosphere, and that is avaiation.

Ummmm...no. A launch vehicle spends very little time in the
atmosphere. It tries to get through it as fast as it can, and it
doesn't use it at all.

I was about to post pretty much the same thing, but then thought again.
Though launch vehicles don't use the atmosphere, it certainly is a
factor, imposing aerodynamic (and thermodynamic) stresses early in the
launch. And return vehicles (which, for people at least, is an
important part of the total system) certainly do use it, and face even
higher stresses as they shed all that kinetic energy returning from
orbit.

So, I think it's fair to at least say that aviation (or rather,
aeronautics) is a significant factor of any launch & return system,
though I would agree that it's not as important as J. Clarke made it
sound above.

Best,
- Joe

--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 10:31:14 -0700, in a place far, far away, Joe
Strout made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

In article ,
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

But most of the cost is not "space flight", it is getting to space
through the atmosphere, and that is avaiation.

Ummmm...no. A launch vehicle spends very little time in the
atmosphere. It tries to get through it as fast as it can, and it
doesn't use it at all.

I was about to post pretty much the same thing, but then thought again.
Though launch vehicles don't use the atmosphere, it certainly is a
factor, imposing aerodynamic (and thermodynamic) stresses early in the
launch.

That doesn't make it aviation, any more than ballooning, or missile
design is.

And return vehicles (which, for people at least, is an
important part of the total system) certainly do use it, and face even
higher stresses as they shed all that kinetic energy returning from
orbit.

Again, that doesn't make it aviation.

So, I think it's fair to at least say that aviation (or rather,
aeronautics) is a significant factor of any launch & return system,

No, it's not aeronautics. At best, it involves aerodynamics.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Jeff Findley wrote:
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 09:57:34 -0500, in a place far, far away, "J.
Clarke" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
The Space Shuttle looks like a Hell of a "try" to me.

Not really.

No kidding. It hasn't fundamentally changed since it started
flying.

Neither has the 747. What do you want, for it it metamorphose into
Klingon Bird Of Prey overnight?

No, but there were hundreds of designs which preceded the 747. If you count
the shuttle as a manned spacecraft, it's only the fourth US design. If you
count it as an orbital launch vehicle, you may be able to claim a slightly
higher number, but not by much.

The shuttle has outlived its usefulness as a tool to further our knowledge
of how to build more economic orbital launch vehicles. In fact, one could
argue that it was a clear economic failure when the Challenger disaster made
it blatantly obvious to everyone involved that the shuttle would never
achieve a reasonable flight rate for a supposedly reusable launch vehicle.
But we chose to fund a replacement and keep the program going without any
clear vision for what to do next.

Today, NASA has a clear vision, but it has absolutely nothing to do with
reducing the costs of manned spaceflight.

Jeff
--
"When transportation is cheap, frequent, reliable, and flexible,
everything else becomes easier."
- Jon Goff

J. Clarke wrote:

So you're saying that NASA lied to Congress in their projected
operating costs?


In a nutshell, yes. They based their cost estimates per flight on 40-50
flights per year, even though they knew there never were going to be
anywhere near that number, and the turnaround time of a orbiter was so
great that you couldn't do that many anyway with just four orbiters.

The fact is that if the Shuttle had worked as intended it would have
been relatively cheap to fly. But since they never flow any subsized
prototypes with all up design features they got blindsided on the cost
of refurbishment after flight and on the cost of recovering and
refurbishing the SRBs and quite a lot of other stuff.

You really think that NASA _planned_ to have a launch system that cost
more to fly than what they already had?
Can you say wingnut conspiracy theory?

Then you might want to add Robert F. Thompson, manager of the Shuttle
program when it was being defined and brought to its first flight to
that list also: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/shuttle-03p1.html

Pat

"J. Clarke" wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: "J. Clarke" wrote:
:
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
: "J. Clarke" wrote:
:
: Manned spaceflight will be affordable when the general state of
: the
: art allows it to be. Right now any focussed effort is likely to
: just
: waste money.
:
:
: The 'general state of the art' isn't going to go much of anywhere
: unless someone is writing checks to develop it.
:
: So you're saying that if Hillary is elected then all aviation R&D
: will be discontinued?
:
:
: Ever notice how whenever someone tries to tell someone else what
: "you're saying" that they inevitably are trying to put together some
: straw man? It's a pretty weak rhetorical tactic, when it comes
: right
: down to it.
:
: Aviation isn't space flight. Aviation research doesn't do much to
: improve the 'general state of the art' when it comes to space
: flight.
:
:But most of the cost is not "space flight", it is getting to space
:through the atmosphere, and that is avaiation.
:

Not really, no.

:
: When was the last time YOU saw a space vehicle powered by
: high-efficiency turbofans?
:
:We don't have to worry about "space vehicles" until we can get there
:for a reasonable price.
:

Back to that field foraging for berries, son. We don't have to worry
about pick item of progress until we can do it for a reasonable
price. The price is NEVER reasonable until some folks pay the
unreasonable prices to spur development.


--
"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

"Jeff Findley" wrote:
:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: "Jeff Findley" wrote:
: :At least government funded manned space. In the long run, that might not be
: :a bad thing. It would certainly remove the uncertainty of competition from
: :the government when it comes to new launch vehicles (Ares I and V) and new
: :manned vehicles (Orion).
:
: And how many folks currently getting government money dry up and blow
: away? If the government stops manned space flight I wouldn't expect
: private money to spend as much on it, either.
:
:I figure if the next administration stops Ares and Orion development, NASA
:would get serious when it comes to commercial access to ISS.
:

I think you figure wrong. I figure NASA will be out of the ISS
business once the Shuttle is retired.

People will get to ISS riding on old Russian rockets that are 'cheap'
because the development expense was done under a command economy and
is already a sunk cost and they're built with really cheap labor.


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